Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is creationism science?
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 12 of 114 (367822)
12-05-2006 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Confidence
12-01-2006 5:14 PM


Cosmosological Evolutionists?
quote:
The important thing to take away from this, is that the assumptions he used were all based on the reality and straightforwardness of the Bible. Where as evolutionists have non-biblical assumptions, which caused them to get the wrong values in this case.
I have heard some startling information recently concerning the number of academics in non-biological fields who don't accept evolution. Your assumption that all cosmologists are evolutionists is completely unfounded and unsupported. Physics makes no prediction about evolution, and it is imaginable to have a physicist who rejects current biology. You are asssuming a cohesion among scientists of all types which simply is not present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Confidence, posted 12-01-2006 5:14 PM Confidence has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 13 of 114 (367824)
12-05-2006 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Confidence
12-01-2006 5:14 PM


Creationism bull
Besides the obvious fact that the Bible makes no prediction about the spins of water molecules or what direction they should be pointing in, there is absolutely no reason to believe that all of the hydrogen molecules would be pointed in the same direction at some point in time. Give me a "straightforward" passage in the Bible which says this should be so. In fact, there is no reason to believe that the spin of hydrogen nuclei should be pointing in any particular direction. By quantum mechanics, any particle has a certain probability of pointing in any certain direction in any moment in time. Now Humphrey's theory in no longer straightforward. Is he claiming that there was a larger probability of all the spins pointing in a certain direction? Also, spin isn't conventionally referred to as pointing in a three-dimensional direction, rather a particle can point in a number of discrete quantum direction that refer more to different states of the particle than to any 3-D direction. I'd have to refer to my old textbooks, but from what I remember, the direction actually refers to the azimuthal angle, meaning that a particle with spin at 15 degrees spins at an azimuthal angle of 15 degrees but with a polar angle of anywhere between 0 and 360 degrees. So in fact nothing about this theory seems "straightforward."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Confidence, posted 12-01-2006 5:14 PM Confidence has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Confidence, posted 12-06-2006 8:31 PM platypus has replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 17 of 114 (368201)
12-07-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Confidence
12-06-2006 8:31 PM


Re: Creationism bull
But there is no direct evidence for this water claim of the Bible being true. And additionally, there is no reason to believe that his other assumptions are true, thus there is no indirect evidence available to show that the water claims of the Bible are true. His predicting the magnetic moments of the planets rest more on the physics than on the fact that the original matter of the universe is water. Any polar molecule with a magnetic moment (or spin) would work in his calculations. So in other words, even if his calculations are confirmed by empirical data, that does not mean that the Bible's prediction of water is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Confidence, posted 12-06-2006 8:31 PM Confidence has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Confidence, posted 12-08-2006 12:25 PM platypus has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 25 of 114 (368555)
12-08-2006 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Confidence
12-08-2006 12:22 PM


Re: Creationism bull
quote:
Maybe to clarify a bit more, the assumption was that everything was made out of water in the beginning. Humphreys used this to then go on to make other assumptions, for instance, spins were all lined up.
Once again, the assumptions that all the spins were lined up has nothing to do with his assumption of water. It is a separate, independant assumption. If the earth was made of water, there is no reason to believe that all of the spins of the water molecules were initially aligned. Conversely, if all the spins were aligned at the beginning moment of time, there is no reason to believe that the particles with spin needed to be water molecules, they could have been any sort of polar molecule. Thus, they are separate assumptions.
Humphrey's physics all have to do with the fact that the spins were aligned. If his predictions are true, that would only indicate that his prediction about the alignment of spins was correct. It would say nothing about water. Humphrey's is aware of this fact when he says:
quote:
Not all creationists agree with my hypothesis that the original material was water, but all agree that once a magnetic field existed, it would decay over time.
In other words- the fact that the original element was water is inconsequential to his physics and the predictions that result from them.
On a side note, his statement that
quote:
as God rapidly transformed the water into other materials
is quite ambiguous. When God transformed water into other particles, were they simultaneously pointing in a different direction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Confidence, posted 12-08-2006 12:22 PM Confidence has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 28 of 114 (371153)
12-20-2006 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by 4Pillars
12-20-2006 12:52 PM


Re: Genesis & Science
You are
a) disagreeing with Confidence, who does claim that God directly created water
b) and not generating any testable scientific prediction.
Since this thread is about whether creationism is or is not science, your post is irrelevant, since your post is quite clearly not science (it makes no testable predictions).

You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by 4Pillars, posted 12-20-2006 12:52 PM 4Pillars has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by 4Pillars, posted 12-20-2006 1:53 PM platypus has replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 50 of 114 (371322)
12-21-2006 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by 4Pillars
12-20-2006 1:53 PM


Re: Genesis & Science
Wow, a lot has happened in the last 24 hours.
quote:
Actually, I was disagreeing with your nonesense which you seem not to notice?
Here's why....
1) Science agrees that the 3 basic elements are necessary (Air, Dust & Water) for a physical form. And you disagree with science?
2) The Bible makes a lot of testable scientific citings & predictions - contrary to your unfounded OPINION.
Do you want me to cite you one?
Let's bring this back to topic.
In response to 1), tell me what realm of science says anything remotely like this.
In response to 2), put your money where your mouth is. Cite at least one of these "testable predictions" if you can, cite several if you think you are smart.
Also, use [quote ] [ /quote] to cite other people, it makes things easier to read.

You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by 4Pillars, posted 12-20-2006 1:53 PM 4Pillars has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 55 of 114 (371539)
12-22-2006 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by 4Pillars
12-21-2006 9:52 AM


Re: Science by Definition is Phylisophical
Let me rephrase my question. Since you seem to to have a problem with the definition of science, let me be extremely clear. Please provide an example of a creationist viewpoint which
a) makes a testable prediction
b) is falsifiable
I don't even care if the prediction is true or not. Stop criticizing evolutionists about a field of science that you obviously do not know about, and put your money where your mouth is: give us an example. If you can't even do this simple task, then creationism is not anything remotely like science, which is what this thread is about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 9:52 AM 4Pillars has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024