Is creationism science?

Well, now I'm a little confused. If Humphreys conclusions follow from his assumptions rather than from anything the Bible says, then how is his proposal based upon Biblical evidence? I mean, wasn't that the whole point of the exercise, to show how Biblical evidence leads to scientific predictions that can and have been validated?--Percy

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.

Hi Confidence. I haven't read the thread to see if this has been addressed but in Genesis 2:7 I read "And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground......." Then in verse 19 it says "And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field." (ASV)How do you translate dust and ground into water?? I'm concerned that you're doing a disservice to the creationism cause/debate here.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

I think it comes from Genesis 1:1-7.There was a thread on this topic a while back. All I can find is this

However, you wrote: (My emphasis.)

Ah, bad English on my part. Sorry about the confusion. 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.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

That is what assumptions are. Humphrey uses the assumption that the Bible is correct. Now is it proven anywhere? nope.Edited by Confidence, : Missed a point

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

No. There IS no direct evidence of the water claim. It's a fact, not an assumption.

The Genesis account says no such thing. God began the work on the watery surface of the planet by his powerful multipresent Holy Spirit. The first thing was for the HS to move upon the face of the waters. The first thing that resulted after energy (light) was applied to the face of the waters was evaporation in which the water began to evaporate up to create the atmosphere (firmament) above the earth waters. He made nothing out of that water except the atmosphere so far as the literal reading of the account goes.There was no sun at the time of the light being applied first to the waters so the heat/energy could have been what ever temp it took to do what God wanted to do with the separation of the waters below from those above.By the time life was created there was dry ground separated from the waters creating oceans, lakes, et al. Then when God works to create life, it always says he worked with dust/earth/ground and not water. Edited by Buzsaw, : change title.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

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?

I basically agree with Confidence.The 1st Firmament or Heaven (the world of Adam thru Noah) was made on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:6-8 It was formed in the midst or middle of the Water, and Water was above and below it.IOW, the 1st Heaven (universe), was surrounded by water. It was later destroyed, totally and completely, by that same Water, when the "windows of heaven were opened. Gen. 7:11Our Heaven or Universe was made of dust on the 3rd Day, Gen 2:4-5 The Big Bang happened on the 3rd Day, the same Day Jesus made our Heaven or Kosmos, and also the 3rd Heaven. ll Corinthians 12:2 tells us of the Apostle Paul being taken to the 3rd Heaven -- where Jesus is -- preparing a place for us to live.John 14
1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. v2 IN MY FATHER'S HOUSE ARE MANY MANSIONS: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for youGod Bless

Here's how I see it....In the beginning God Created the heaven (Air) and the Earth (Ground). And the Earth (Ground) was without form, (Dust) and void; (Empty) and darkness (Death) was upon the face of the deep, (Water) and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.The 3 basic elements necessary for all physical form are shown... AIR, DUST AND WATER. Everything which is physical is composed of these 3 elements.The text is correct in showing that the water was not directly created, or spoken into being, because it consists of elements of the Air or Atmosphere. Water is Hydrogen and Oxygen and came from the Atmosphere and is not shown as a separate creation.This is correct in today's scientific knowledge, but IF the Bible were written by Ancient men, Moses would not have known this. He would have written that in the beginning God created the Air, Dust, and Water, but since God Himself is the Author, He correctly shows that the Atmosphere and Ground were created, and the Water was not a separate creation but instead, came from the Atmosphere.God Bless

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

Even 3rd century BC Greek philosophers had more insight and were more sophisticated than this. No offense, but this is statement of ignorance but you are in good company with Genesis. To refer to air, dust and water as elements demonstrated muddled thinking. In the case of Genesis they have a good excuse before the advent of science. Huh? The only thing correct in that statement is that Water is Hydrogen and Oxygen. The atmosphere is predominately Nitrogen with about 20 percent of Oxygen. Hydrogen does not exist in a free form in the atmosphere (except in maybe very tiny traces) Specifically what is correct? God is clearly not the author of Genesis. If God wrote Genesis he would refer to 112 elements or the number of naturally occurring elements - that might get some attention.Genesis is a myth, there are dozens or hundreds of similar creation myths nothing about Genesis makes it any more remarkable or insightful than other creation myths. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

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?Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.