Theodoric
Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.3
|
|
Message 64 of 138 (521161)
08-26-2009 9:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by Arphy 08-26-2009 7:11 AM
|
|
Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
Off Topic Material Hidden
An example is the prediction made by Russell Humphreys a creationist using a creation model, He predicted the strength of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. These were then proven correct by Voyager II, unlike any of the secular predictions.
Oh please, please please, give us your source on this. Now can I tell you a little about Dr. Russell Humphreys? From Discover magazine.
quote: This statement is a total mess, but what I think he means is the prediction by creationist Russel Humphries, before Voyager got to Uranus and Neptune, of their magnetic fields. But his guess was that they were intermediate in strength between Earth’s and Saturn’s, which is a pretty safe bet given their masses. Also, while it’s true that the magnetic fields of those two planets are weird, Humphrey’s model (that God made the planets from water which was then transformed into various other substances) doesn’t predict any of the other odd features (like the tilt of the fields and that they are off-center). He claims it does, but his claim on how some of the odd features formed isn’t really any different than a model assuming the planets are old; in other words, his model doesn’t actually predict those features. Even a randomly fired gun will sometimes hit the target by accident. Years ago my science textbook had illustrations suggesting that our sun gave birth to the Earth and other planets, but this was not the apparent case in a section of the Orion nebula known as M22, where orphan planets exist, some orbiting each other without any nearby star. He either misread his textbook, or it was woefully wrong. Planets and stars form together, with the planets forming in a disk around the star. It’s not uncommon to get gravitational interactions between forming planets which can kick them out of the system; "rogue" planets have been predicted for quite some time and are a successful prediction of the disk-formation theory (which has many dozens or hundreds of other successes).
Where is his peer-reviewed research published?
quote: How about Impact (a journal of the Institute for Creation Research which employs Humphreys), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, and Creation Research Society Quarterly.
Source Morequote: Physicist Tim Thompson concisely demonstrates that Dr. Humphreys' aquatic alchemy and its "predictions" amount to nothing. He shows that Dr. Humphreys' equations and variables are so plastic that they could be used to support any planetary magnetic field hypothesis. To be exact, Humphreys (1984) was only willing to "predict" that the current magnetic moments of Uranus and Neptune would be "on the order of 1024 J/T" (joules/tesla). These "predictions" are nothing more than obvious guesses that could have been made by anyone that recognized that the magnetic moment of a planet is often related to its mass. Because the masses of Neptune and Uranus are similar to each other and intermediate between the masses of Saturn and the Earth, we would expect the magnetic moments of Uranus and Neptune also to be similar and somewhere between those of the Earth and Saturn.
All of Humphreys work has been severely criticized by the scientific communuity. Questions that Dr. Humphreys Can't or Won't Answer
Here is how Humphreys responds to criticism.
quote: Because of his flight from Scripture, Henke has to keep reassuring himself that it can’t possibly be true. That is why he has so much spleen to vent when he encounters someone saying, Here’s scientific evidence that the Biblical 6,000-year timescale is correct! Henke cannot abide it; he must expunge it from his mind. His battle is not so much with creationists as with Christ himself. I’m glad that the Spirit of God may be using some of this crystal-clear zircon evidence to convict one who has fallen away from the truth.
You might want to look for a different example . I don't think Humphreys strengthens your case at all. On more minor suggestion. You probably shouldn't just get your info from creationists sites. They lie. All this info took me 5 minutes on "the Google". You might want to try looking for some corroborating evidence before you present these guys. oh and source for this please.
unlike any of the secular predictions.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to: | | Message 61 by Arphy, posted 08-26-2009 7:11 AM | | Arphy has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 69 by Theodoric, posted 08-26-2009 11:42 AM | | Theodoric has not replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.3
|
|
Message 69 of 138 (521186)
08-26-2009 11:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by Theodoric 08-26-2009 9:59 AM
|
|
Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
Original post hidden.
Why is this off topic? Arphy used Russell Humphreys as a source claiming that creationism uses the scientific method. I was responding to him showing that this is not what the scientific method is? The topic is "The Scientific Method for Beginners". My post is showing Arphy that his interpretation of the scientfic method is flawed. ABE OK, ok I get it. I should not have responded in this thread to an off topic part of the post. Sorry Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to: | | Message 64 by Theodoric, posted 08-26-2009 9:59 AM | | Theodoric has not replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.3
|
Re: theories and facts
NO. NO. NO. Please read this. I have posted this before and the link. It explains it in simple laymen's terms. Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.com
quote: Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true. Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse. Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity. Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation. Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology. In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time. The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile. A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back. An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged. A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole. Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced. A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.
Please read very carefully the comparison and contrast between the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Gravity.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to: | | Message 104 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 6:11 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 108 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 6:27 PM | | Theodoric has not replied |
|