• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Hytegia peer reviews Creationist paper

Y

YesYouNeedJesus

New Member
arg-fallbackName="YesYouNeedJesus"/>
Hytegia laid out this challenge for me in another thread.
Hytegia said:
I'm looking for something I can actually execute the testing outlined in the paper and replicate the results to suggest anything regarding a less-than 6000 year old Earth, man living with dinosaurs, or anything else outlined with Young Earth Creationist claims.
I don't care where it's from - this is what Peer Review is. If I can perform the tests and they have comparable results, along with similar conclusions that can be drawn from such evidence, then it's passed Peer Review. If not, then oh dear, that's just wrong!
Click to expand...
Since you seem to like the topic of magnetic fields, I found a paper on the earth's magnetic field:

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Decaying Steadily,with a Little Rhythm

You could do 2 things to try to falsify the paper.

You could:
1. make a simple electric circuit to test the paper's claim, and probably, you could also.
2. take a scientific measurement to help confirm or disprove the paper's data.

As a bonus, the official "International Association of Geomagnetism" publishes online the worldwide data (a tiny spreadsheet of numbers) that your measurement and circuit could be used to either help to confirm or disprove the paper's claim.

You can find the article at the Creation Research Society's Selected Articles page from their CRSQ journal. It's the fourth article listed there:

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Decaying Steadily,with a Little Rhythm, by D. Russell Humphreys, Winter 2011, CRSQ Vol 47 No 3 pp 193-201

It demonstrates that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially, with a sine-wave variation that further helps to confirm the creationists young-earth account of the field.
 
arg-fallbackName="Master_Ghost_Knight"/>
YesYouNeedJesus said:
You could:
1. make a simple electric circuit to test the paper's claim, and probably, you could also.
2. take a scientific measurement to help confirm or disprove the paper's data.
Click to expand...

Or I can just quote this gem:
Accounting for Fluid Motion
The science of magnetohydrodynamics (Jackson, 1975, pp.
469-502) says that motions of the conducting fluid in the core
should slowly twist the dipole magnetic lines of force into more
complex shapes, subtracting from the dipole field and adding to
the non-dipole field. Resistive losses then make the non-dipole
field decay more rapidly (Humphreys 1986), so eventually the
latter type of losses should prevail (Humphreys, 2001). We can
combine the two types of loss by regarding R in the circuit as
an effective resistance, including both the purely resistive loss
and also the fluid-motion loss.
Flipping the switch in the circuit back to position 1 and
making the applied voltage V vary appropriately with time, we
can simulate other effects of fluid motion, such as the electromotive
force due to the velocity of the fluid perpendicular
to the magnetic field. Fluid motions in the core today appear
to be very slow (Merrill and McElhinny, 1983, p. 44), so the
voltage should be relatively small.
Summarizing the last three sections, we should expect the
dipole field to be decaying exponentially, with only a small
variation due to fluid motions. The data in the next section
and the curve fit I describe (in the section following that one)
show those two features distinctly.
Click to expand...

So in other words, he just threw in the bin what actually drives the earth's magnetic field for some amusingly absurd primed circuitry that doesn't even do what he says it does.
 
arg-fallbackName="YesYouNeedJesus"/>
Hytegia either missed my post in the previous thread, or he never had any intention at all of doing real science. (What a surprise.) I guess creationist Dr. Humphreys wins this one Hytegia. Thanks! :p

P.S. And I guess i win too because you didn't think I could present any creationist peer-reviewed papers. Well, you were wrong. BIG time. Click the link below for 50 papers from creationists in secular refereed journals. All I ask is that you never again waste my time and lie about wanting to do real science. That wasn't very nice of you.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
 
arg-fallbackName="brettpalmer"/>
YesYouNeedJesus said:
...any intention at all of doing real science.

...wanting to do real science.
Click to expand...

There he goes, saying it TWICE in one post.

"REAL" science. :lol:

What IS it with creationists and apologists? They preface so much of what they say with the words "real" or "truth," or something to that effect, as if just saying those words makes what they're about to tell you "real" or "true." I see it all the time. YYNJ's post is just one example. Of course, he's pulling that term from his Master's farcical Christian apologetic radio show, "'Real' Science Friday" with church pastor Bob Enyart and software engineer Fred Williams where they do anything but science. You see, they think putting "real" in front of "science" will somehow help convince you that what they're about to tell you isn't fake. I see the word "truth" thrown about by these same people all the time, too. Just look at a sample listing of Christian television programs I pulled off my DishNetwork TV schedule just now:

The Gospel Truth with Andrew Wommack
Truth in History
Truth that Transforms
The Way, the Truth and the Life

It's like they have to preface what they're going to say with words like "real" and "truth" because they know if they didn't the reaction they'd get is one of disbelief. When they comment on science it sounds like pseudo-science so they have to preface their work with the word "real" so as to head off that conclusion. Before they can start telling stories of people healed of cancer, of iron axe heads floating to the surface of a river, of dead men coming back to life, they have to title what they're about to say as "truth" because it sounds like such utter nonsense.

When my children go to school, the science teacher does not begin her class by saying, "Is everyone ready to learn REAL science today?" as if to distinguish what she's going to teach apart from some other type of science. There is no such thing as "real" science. There is only science. It stands on its own and doesn't require someone to remind you that it's "real" because otherwise you'll think they're lying to you with fake science.

When someone prefaces what they're about to tell you with something to the effect of, "To be honest," or "Truthfully," you better understand that either they're pathological liars and have to separate what they usually say from what they're about to say (in which case you'd be wise not to take what they're about to tell you as the truth, either!), or they're about to spin one helluva yarn and want to prejudice you into believing in what they're about to say because they know if they didn't pre-load you, you'd walk away.
 
arg-fallbackName="scalyblue"/>
YesYouNeedJesus said:
Hytegia either missed my post in the previous thread, or he never had any intention at all of doing real science. (What a surprise.) I guess creationist Dr. Humphreys wins this one Hytegia. Thanks! :p

P.S. And I guess i win too because you didn't think I could present any creationist peer-reviewed papers. Well, you were wrong. BIG time. Click the link below for 50 papers from creationists in secular refereed journals. All I ask is that you never again waste my time and lie about wanting to do real science. That wasn't very nice of you.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Click to expand...

There are three replies in this thread which you have ignored to make this post. That is 100% of the replies ignored.

There are two replies specifically refuting Dr. Humphreys views. To make this post you have ignored 66% of all replies in this thread. 100% if you consider that the one post refuting Dr Humphreys was replied to.

How do you expect discourse when you ignore 100% of the people answering you, until you can latch on and cherry pick something to attack.

As far as your link, it is a gish gallop of abstracts with no cohesive theme or purpose, and though some of the more valid ones can be tangentially interpreted to cause question to certain factors of evolution in certain, specific circumstances, the vast majority of them are long refuted or completely irrelevant. (Philosophy journals? really?)

I skimmed the list, I saw long refuted arguments. The entropic argument. Irreducable complexity. I'm sure that if anybody actually had time to read the papers they would either be bunk, quote mined, or irrelevant. Of course, you have guaranteed that nobody will have time to read every single paper you just posted, therefore you win?

Doesn't work like that.
 
arg-fallbackName="Frenger"/>
YesYouNeedJesus said:
Hytegia either missed my post in the previous thread, or he never had any intention at all of doing real science. (What a surprise.) I guess creationist Dr. Humphreys wins this one Hytegia. Thanks! :p

P.S. And I guess i win too because you didn't think I could present any creationist peer-reviewed papers. Well, you were wrong. BIG time. Click the link below for 50 papers from creationists in secular refereed journals. All I ask is that you never again waste my time and lie about wanting to do real science. That wasn't very nice of you.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Click to expand...

Pick ONE of those 50 papers and I'm sure someone (maybe even me) will be happy to show you the flaws in it, or more likely, the flaws in your interpretation. That is, if you have actually read any of them........
 
arg-fallbackName=")O( Hytegia )O("/>
Actually, dude, I was talking to my Geologist friend Womble in regards to testing this, and some others. They laughed at your bullshit.

In review - they said the best thing to do to show you that you were an idiot was to take a video of me performing the same detection in a single spot using the same methods they used back when Gauss detected these beauties in 1833, and to do the exact same tests using modern screening methods. I've been working on contacting a local college within my area to further discuss these differences and to have a sit-down and discuss the nonsense where people claim that a lessening = decay.

tl;dr Pole Shifts, a shifting measurement of "Magnetic North" and poor testing and recording methods in 1833 in comparison to improved and modern methods should show you something quite fascinating. I'll even put a pretty picture in it so there's no reason that someone even as dishonest as you could deny it (though you will - no harm, no foul friend. I forgive you).

Unlike some people, I don't post a conclusion on anything until I've gathered all the relevant facts and methods.

Stay tuned.
 
arg-fallbackName="devilsadvocate"/>
Just because I'm anal like that, I have to correct you, YYNJ, here if you don't mind.
You could do 2 things to try to falsify the paper.

You could:
1. make a simple electric circuit to test the paper's claim, and probably, you could also.
2. take a scientific measurement to help confirm or disprove the paper's data.
Click to expand...

You can't actually make the circuit in real-life since 5 Henry inductor would take a lots of windings and the resistance of that wire would be far more than the 0.1 nOhm. Now, I don't know about the super-conductive stuff, but I would be very pleasantly surprised if Hytegia could pull it off with a couple of thousand bucks and a week to spare. You can't scale the RL-circuit either, because the smaller you make the inductor, the smaller you need to make the resistance as well. You can simulate it for 0 bucks though (with the added benefit of not having to measure the circuit, possibly for years, for meaningful data), and from skimming through the paper, it looks to me the maths do hold up.

Anyways, no reason to treat the RL-circuit as evidence, should one fancy that, since successfully simulating claimed real-world state of affairs with equivalent circuit does little to nothing to prove one's hypothesis. The good doctor, Humphreys, doesn't make any such claim, but treats it strictly as a comprehension tool, as one should.
 
arg-fallbackName="DukeTwicep"/>
)O( Hytegia )O( said:
Re: Hytegia peer reviews Creationist paper

Please don't deviate this thread off-topic.
Click to expand...
The thread is on topic, is it not? "Hytegia peer reviews Creationist paper"
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
DukeTwicep, I agree with )O( Hytegia )O(. This thread is best left to people actually addressing the paper YesYouNeedJesus presented. However, if you liked, I think your comment can best go here since the other thread was locked and YesYouNeedJesus is not adult enough to start a new thread about it.
 
arg-fallbackName="TheOnlyThing2Fear"/>
What exactly was all this locking a thread discussion about?

Also, what are Hytegia's credentials to peer review? I am simply asking a question. So much is foisted upon anyone challenging evolution theory here that I am just curious if Hytegia is an academic that regularly peer reviews. I don't want to go down the typical ugly path of condemnation and insults so don't bother. It's just a question. The title states Hytegia peer reviews Creationist paper.

Also, is the paper written from an admitted Creationist, or is this a misnomer? Again, just a question. I have yet to read the paper, and plan on doing so this weekend, time permitting. I have not read the entire thread yet either so if my comprehension is called into question yet again, then that's not in play.
 
arg-fallbackName="australopithecus"/>
Perhaps reading the threads would furnish you with an understanding, rather than not reading it then expecting others to tell you?
 
arg-fallbackName="TheOnlyThing2Fear"/>
australopithecus said:
Perhaps reading the threads would furnish you with an understanding, rather than not reading it then expecting others to tell you?
Click to expand...

Hi Austra, just fishing since I did read your martyr comment in another thread and possibly missed your admonishing Hytegia for admitting the thread was actually locked. I hardly believe the claim that this was censorship, hence the reason I went fishing for comments from others on their take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top