Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8852 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-15-2018 2:48 AM
181 online now:
GDR, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 178 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 836,903 Year: 11,726/29,783 Month: 748/1,642 Week: 162/460 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345678Next
Author Topic:   Is creationism science?
Confidence
Member (Idle past 4175 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 1 of 114 (367341)
12-01-2006 5:14 PM


Many people question the science in the Bible, in fact, many conclude that when the Bible talks about science, anthropology, biology it is nothing but a metaphor or some story that doesn't contain anything useful for science. These people believe that science and the Bible should be seperated, for the Bible talks about spiritual matters and science deals with naturalistic approaches.

But Creationism demands we take the Bible as it is written, that is, if it talks about the origin of the universe in a non-metaphoric way, we must use it in our science. Etc, including using the lineages used in the Bible to get an estimate for the age of the earth. As well as using lineages as evidence that points to the reality of the stories in Genesis.

In the next paper Dr. Humphreys predicts the strengths of magnetic fields for the planets. (before actual measurements were taken.

quote:
NOTE: In this paper, Dr. Humphreys makes predictions for the strengths of the magnetic fields for Uranus and Neptune, well before these magnetic fields were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. His predictions were "right on," whereas the predictions of evolutionists were not.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html

The reason behind all this is because;

quote:
I made the predictions on the basis of my hypotheses that (A) the raw material of creation was water (based on II Peter 3:5, "the earth was formed out of water and by water"), and (B) at the instant God created the water molecules, the spins of the hydrogen nuclei were all pointing in a particular direction.3 The tiny magnetic fields of so many nuclei would all add up to a large magnetic field. By the ordinary laws of physics, the spins of the nuclei would lose their alignment within seconds, but the large magnetic field would preserve itself by causing an electric current to circulate in the interior of each planet. By the same laws, the currents and fields would preserve themselves with only minor losses, as God rapidly transformed the water into other materials. After that, the currents and fields would decay due to electrical resistance over thousands of years.4 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.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=329

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.


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 12-03-2006 9:37 AM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 12-03-2006 10:24 AM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2006 11:58 AM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 12-03-2006 12:18 PM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-03-2006 8:03 PM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 10 by RickJB, posted 12-04-2006 6:59 AM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 12 by platypus, posted 12-05-2006 5:18 PM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 13 by platypus, posted 12-05-2006 5:40 PM Confidence has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12556
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 114 (367535)
12-03-2006 8:59 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14225
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 3 of 114 (367538)
12-03-2006 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Confidence
12-01-2006 5:14 PM


I think that we have to be very careful wih this example.

Firstly Humphrey's scenario is just plain weird and not based directly on the Bible whcih certainly doesn't talk about the planets forming out of water. Now if it had turned out that the planets were just lights in the sky, he might have had a point. The Bible doesn't show any knowledge of what planets are.

Secondly it's just plain nuts to describe the other scientists working on the issue as "evolutionists". Evolution has nothing to do with planetary formation.

Secondly I'd like a good idea from a neutral source of just how bad the other predictions were - it would be odd if the scientific community were unaminous on it. For all I know there could be other estimates, better than Humphreys'.

Finally it would be worth asking if Humphreys made any other predictions and how they turned out. We already know that Humphreys is willing to use completely unscientific arguments. So he could have a whole load of failures which just don't get mentioned.


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

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17560
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 114 (367543)
12-03-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Confidence
12-01-2006 5:14 PM


Here's a prediction from http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html that will be verified within a couple years or so:

2. Mercury's decay rate is so rapid that some future probe could detect it fairly soon. In 1990 the planet's magnetic moment should be 1.8 percent smaller than its 1975 value.

The 1975 value for Mercury's magnetic field was obtained by Mariner 10, the last spacecraft to make a close approach. The Messenger spacecraft is expected to approach Mercy in 2008 and 2009. Projecting Humphreys' figures forward, in 2008 Humphreys' figures say that Mercury's magnetic moment should be 4.0% smaller than its 1975 value.

It should be noted that Humphreys' theory that all planetary magnetic fields are gradually declining is strongly contradicted by the record of oscillating magnetic fields in the earth's crust, both on continents and in sea floor striping.

--Percy


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 12-03-2006 10:36 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14225
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 5 of 114 (367544)
12-03-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
12-03-2006 10:24 AM


Yes, I was just thinking that Barnes' claims had been thoroughly discredited. Since Humpheys' prediction rests on assuming that Barnes was correct, the success appears to be a coincidence at best.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 12-03-2006 10:24 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4161
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 6 of 114 (367545)
12-03-2006 11:03 AM


There's some discussion of Humphreys' prediction at On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field, about 2/3 of the way down the page under "Current Creationist Status".
  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16030
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 7 of 114 (367551)
12-03-2006 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Confidence
12-01-2006 5:14 PM


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.

Please show me where "the straightforwardness of the Bible" states that "at the instant God created the water molecules, the spins of the hydrogen nuclei were all pointing in a particular direction".

I love the way he can choose k to be whatever he likes for any planet he chooses, it's such a relief to have a variable constant. Goddidit! He moves in mysterious ways, and provideth his loyal servants with a fudge factor.

---

If, as they claim, his "predictions" (which are no more than upper limits) for Uranus and Neptune are "right on", as they say, then why don't they include the actual data from Voyager 2? I can't find it in the article.


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

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1149 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 8 of 114 (367554)
12-03-2006 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Confidence
12-01-2006 5:14 PM


Simply put, the reason creationism isn't science is because in order for something to be science you have to be willing to admit that it might be a load of bullcrap. This is directly contradicting to your faith, so it can't be science no matter how you look at it.


Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

The thread about this map can be found here.


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

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1455 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 9 of 114 (367595)
12-03-2006 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Confidence
12-01-2006 5:14 PM


Since you asked
No, it isn't.


Archer

All species are transitional.


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

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 2847 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 10 of 114 (367626)
12-04-2006 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Confidence
12-01-2006 5:14 PM


Confidence writes:

Many people question the science in the Bible.

There isn't any science in the Bible to question.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 12-04-2006 12:33 PM RickJB has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1149 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 11 of 114 (367655)
12-04-2006 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RickJB
12-04-2006 6:59 AM


RickJB writes:

There isn't any science in the Bible to question.


I'd say that there are plenty of scientific concepts in the bible. They are somewhat outdated, though.


Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

The thread about this map can be found here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RickJB, posted 12-04-2006 6:59 AM RickJB has not yet responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 3611 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 yet responded

    
platypus
Member (Idle past 3611 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 responded

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

    
Confidence
Member (Idle past 4175 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 14 of 114 (368068)
12-06-2006 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by platypus
12-05-2006 5:40 PM


Re: Creationism bull
Seems most of you are misreading the assumptions.
He does not say that the bible is talking about spins, but that is his assumption.

The biblical basis was that everything was made out of water. That is it. Maybe read it again


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by platypus, posted 12-05-2006 5:40 PM platypus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 12-06-2006 8:51 PM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 12-07-2006 8:08 AM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 17 by platypus, posted 12-07-2006 11:49 AM Confidence has responded
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2006 7:27 PM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-07-2006 8:46 PM Confidence has responded
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2006 6:53 PM Confidence has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5335
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 15 of 114 (368075)
12-06-2006 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Confidence
12-06-2006 8:31 PM


Re: Creationism bull
The biblical basis was that everything was made out of water.

Contrary to observation, though. The first baryonic matter was hydrogen, helium, and a speck of lithium. No oxygen. No water. No molecules at all, for that matter. Genesis is a collection of prescientific stories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Confidence, posted 12-06-2006 8:31 PM Confidence has not yet responded

    
1
2345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018