Young Earth Creationism is Improbable

I agree with Pro's assertions concerning this debate; I did not address the age of the universe but instead opted to support the young Earth model. While I do believe my evidence supports the model of a young Earth, obviously there is much more to it than simply evidence for the relative youth of our planet and our universe. I would not be able to adequately make a case addressing every necessary facet of support for the model (e.g. speciation within a limited time frame, feasibility of a global deluge, etc. ). I recognize that I should have rebutted Pro's arguments in the previous round. I assumed since I missed a round that I was to simply present my case. I will simply provide some support for my case concerning planetary magnetic field decay. Defense of Planetary Magnetic Field Decay Pro has stated that Humphreys has rejected the model which I posited as support for a young Earth, this is simply not the case. In fact, Pro's own reference for this ."claim states, "There can be little doubt that Humphreys still holds to this idea quite firmly." Indeed, the key difference in Humphreys model as compared to the secular dynamo hypothesis is that the many magnetic reversals in Earth's history are shown to be relatively very close in sequence and actually deplete the Earth's magnetic field as opposed to "restarting the battery" so-to-speak. What determines which model is more likely is the actual mechanism by which the Earth's field is created. Humphrey's model provides a framework in which we can understand the magnetohydrodynamics of the Earth's core and its motions which effect the magnetic field. When Humphrey's model is applied, an exponential decay makes sense. But regardless of his model, the data itself is consistent with an exponential decay curve. ". . .both exponential and linear decay curves have two fitted parameters: Exponential decay (i = Ie-t/τ) requires the parameters I and τ. Linear decay of the general form y = mx + c requires the gradient m and y-intercept c. If the fit were similar, there is no statistical reason to choose one over the other. The fit is very similar for the limited range of data available, with no significant difference between the two. However, it is a well-accepted procedure in modelling of regression analysis to use meaningful equations to describe physical phenomena, where there is a sound theoretical basis for doing so. This is the case here. Currents in resistance/inductance circuits always decay exponentially, not linearly, after the power source is switched off. For example, in a simple electric circuit at time t with initial current I, resistance R and inductance L, the current is given by i = Ie-t/τ, where τ is the time constant L/R—the time for the current to decay to 1/e (~37%) of its initial value. For a sphere of radius a, conductivity σ and permeability μ,τ is given by μσR²/π². A linear decay might look good on paper, but it’s physically absurd when dealing with the real world of electric circuits. In fact, linear decays are rare in nature in general. Conversely, exponential decay is firmly rooted in electromagnetic theory" (http://creation.com...). Also in consideration of whether or not Humphrey's model should be accepted on an evidential basis: "Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction. Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it. And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal. This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model. . . in 1984, Dr Humphreys made some predictions of the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, two giant gas planets beyond Saturn. His predictions were about 100,000 times the evolutionary dynamo predictions. The two rival models were inadvertently put to the test when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew past these planets in 1986 and 1989. The fields for Uranus and Neptune were just as Humphrey's had predicted" (http://creation.com...).