|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is creationism science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6343 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
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: The reason behind all this is because;
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13032 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Here's a prediction from The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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 (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3623 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
No, it isn't.
Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
RickJB writes:
I'd say that there are plenty of scientific concepts in the bible. They are somewhat outdated, though. There isn't any science in the Bible to question. Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc The thread about this map can be found here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
platypus Member (Idle past 5779 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
platypus Member (Idle past 5779 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6343 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024