|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is creationism science? | |||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Confidence writes: Seems most of you are misreading the assumptions.He does not say that the bible is talking about spins, but that is his assumption. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi 4Pillars,
I'm having trouble making sense out of your position. You seem to be saying that science agrees with the Biblical account. It doesn't. That's why there's a debate. It is because science disagrees with the Biblical account that evangelical Christians object to the teaching of some scientific theories in public schools, primarily the theory of evolution. Were there no such disagreement, evangelical Christians would not be objecting to the teaching of evolution.
Science agrees that all living creature originated from the waters. The Bible talks of only one origin, that of all life over several of the six days of creation. Science believes there were two origins, one that represents the first life, and another that is actually many origins, the origins of all species, both extinct and extant, over the approximately 3.8 billion years of earth history. While there is much speculation, science hasn't reached any conclusions about the origin of life. Most speculation involves an aqueous environment, but not all. For example, some speculate about mineral or clay origins for life. Concerning the origin of species, land species evolve on land, not water. Because of all this, it would not be correct to state that science agrees that all living creatures originated from the waters, because science does not believe this is the case. Trying to bring discussion back toward the topic, a necessary strategy for promoting creationism in public schools is to hide or disguise its religious foundation. For that reason, when lobbying school boards, legislatures and text book publishers, creationists never mention religion in any way, especially not God and the Bible, for to bring religion into the presentation would lose outright. The constitutional requirement of separation of church and state forbids our government from favoring any particular religious view, and so arguing for creationism using religious arguments can only fail. So what creationists do is the precise opposite of what you're doing: they argue that the scientific evidence actually supports a young earth and a global flood, and that evolution and geology are wrong. To this end they write their own "scientific" papers and stage their own "scientific" conferences. Despite these efforts, courts have consistently ruled that creationism, and more recently ID, is just thinly disguised religion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
4Pillars writes: When Jesus made the creatures...etc... I think you meant when God made the creatures, but that's really beside the point because you're continuing to make the same mistake. This thread asks the question, "Is creationism science?" Every time you make religious arguments in this thread it makes clear that the answer is a resounding "NO!" --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
4Pillars writes: Oh and I'm not attacking the true science, I'm attacking the opposition’ definition of science... Perhaps it would help if we agreed upon a definition of science. This is from something I posted once before over at Message 144.
Percy writes: Until there is agreement about the nature of science there is no common basis for discussion of this thread's topic. In the hope that it will help discussion move forward, here is how scientists view science. These are its qualities:
Science also has a process that is more or less followed. The path taken by original trailblazers is often chaotic, but once the path is blazed then it can be followed in a more or less straightforward fashion. The process has been described many times, but very briefly, here it is again:
The reasons usually offered for why creationism is not science are:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
4Pillars writes: Well I'm glad that you agree with me that science can't explain everything. I do happen to agree with you that science cannot explain everything, but I never remotely said anything like this.
But, obviously your FAITH in science is very deep, you think science can eventually explain everything. I never said anything remotely like this, either.
Sorry, but unless science can create a time machine that will allow us to observe events in the past like the beginning of the universe, all you can ever come up with, no matter scientific sounding, is a best GUESS and SPECULATIONS. If true wouldn't this mean that unless you can create a time machine to observe events in the past like creation and the flood, all you can come up with is a best guess and speculations? Obviously there's a flaw in your thinking somewhere, because otherwise you're arguing that creationism isn't science. Since you believe creationism is science, why do you keep offering arguments against your own position. If you were a boxer you'd be punching yourself, so knock yourself out! The thread asks the question, "Is creationism science?" I listed the qualities of science and provided an outline of the scientific method, then provided an assessment of how creationism measured up against them. Have you any response or rebuttal that is on-topic and that is actually favorable to your position? --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024