Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,337 Year: 3,594/9,624 Month: 465/974 Week: 78/276 Day: 6/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is creationism science?
Confidence
Member (Idle past 6336 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.
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
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.
The Institute for Creation Research
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 replied
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 12-03-2006 10:24 AM Confidence has not replied
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2006 11:58 AM Confidence has not replied
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 12-03-2006 12:18 PM Confidence has not replied
 Message 9 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-03-2006 8:03 PM Confidence has not replied
 Message 10 by RickJB, posted 12-04-2006 6:59 AM Confidence has not replied
 Message 12 by platypus, posted 12-05-2006 5:18 PM Confidence has not replied
 Message 13 by platypus, posted 12-05-2006 5:40 PM Confidence has replied

  
Confidence
Member (Idle past 6336 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 replied

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

  
Confidence
Member (Idle past 6336 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 21 of 114 (368453)
12-08-2006 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
12-07-2006 8:46 PM


Re: Creationism bull
However, you wrote:
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.
(My emphasis.)
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
However, you wrote:
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.
(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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-07-2006 8:46 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by platypus, posted 12-08-2006 7:25 PM Confidence has not replied

  
Confidence
Member (Idle past 6336 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 22 of 114 (368455)
12-08-2006 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by platypus
12-07-2006 11:49 AM


But there is no direct evidence for this water claim of the Bible being true
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by platypus, posted 12-07-2006 11:49 AM platypus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RickJB, posted 12-08-2006 12:33 PM Confidence has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024