Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 1:36 PM
148 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,429 Year: 3,466/19,786 Month: 461/1,087 Week: 51/212 Day: 12/39 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   Is creationism science?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 16 of 114 (368146)
12-07-2006 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Confidence
12-06-2006 8:31 PM


Re: Creationism bull
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


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

    
platypus
Member (Idle past 3826 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 17 of 114 (368201)
12-07-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Confidence
12-06-2006 8:31 PM


Re: Creationism bull
But there is no direct evidence for this water claim of the Bible being true. And additionally, there is no reason to believe that his other assumptions are true, thus there is no indirect evidence available to show that the water claims of the Bible are true. His predicting the magnetic moments of the planets rest more on the physics than on the fact that the original matter of the universe is water. Any polar molecule with a magnetic moment (or spin) would work in his calculations. So in other words, even if his calculations are confirmed by empirical data, that does not mean that the Bible's prediction of water is true.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Confidence, posted 12-06-2006 8:31 PM Confidence has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Confidence, posted 12-08-2006 12:25 PM platypus has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 114 (368297)
12-07-2006 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Confidence
12-06-2006 8:31 PM


Re: Creationism bull
Confidence writes:

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

Hi Confidence. I haven't read the thread to see if this has been addressed but in Genesis 2:7 I read "And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground......." Then in verse 19 it says "And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field." (ASV)

How do you translate dust and ground into water?? I'm concerned that you're doing a disservice to the creationism cause/debate here.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Confidence, posted 12-06-2006 8:31 PM Confidence has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2006 7:44 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 114 (368302)
12-07-2006 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
12-07-2006 7:27 PM


Re: Creationism bull
How do you translate dust and ground into water?? I'm concerned that you're doing a disservice to the creationism cause/debate here.

I think it comes from Genesis 1:1-7.

There was a thread on this topic a while back. All I can find is this


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2006 7:27 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 20 of 114 (368315)
12-07-2006 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Confidence
12-06-2006 8:31 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

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.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Confidence, posted 12-06-2006 8:31 PM Confidence has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Confidence, posted 12-08-2006 12:22 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Confidence
Member (Idle past 4390 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 yet responded

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

    
Confidence
Member (Idle past 4390 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 yet responded

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

    
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3063 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 23 of 114 (368458)
12-08-2006 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Confidence
12-08-2006 12:25 PM


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

That is what assumptions are.....

No. There IS no direct evidence of the water claim. It's a fact, not an assumption.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Confidence, posted 12-08-2006 12:25 PM Confidence has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 114 (368548)
12-08-2006 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Confidence
12-06-2006 8:31 PM


Re: Water bull not Biblical
Confidence writes:

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

The Genesis account says no such thing. God began the work on the watery surface of the planet by his powerful multipresent Holy Spirit. The first thing was for the HS to move upon the face of the waters. The first thing that resulted after energy (light) was applied to the face of the waters was evaporation in which the water began to evaporate up to create the atmosphere (firmament) above the earth waters. He made nothing out of that water except the atmosphere so far as the literal reading of the account goes.

There was no sun at the time of the light being applied first to the waters so the heat/energy could have been what ever temp it took to do what God wanted to do with the separation of the waters below from those above.

By the time life was created there was dry ground separated from the waters creating oceans, lakes, et al. Then when God works to create life, it always says he worked with dust/earth/ground and not water.

Edited by Buzsaw, : change title.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Confidence, posted 12-06-2006 8:31 PM Confidence has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by 4Pillars, posted 12-20-2006 5:13 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 3826 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 25 of 114 (368555)
12-08-2006 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Confidence
12-08-2006 12:22 PM


Re: Creationism bull
quote:
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.

Once again, the assumptions that all the spins were lined up has nothing to do with his assumption of water. It is a separate, independant assumption. If the earth was made of water, there is no reason to believe that all of the spins of the water molecules were initially aligned. Conversely, if all the spins were aligned at the beginning moment of time, there is no reason to believe that the particles with spin needed to be water molecules, they could have been any sort of polar molecule. Thus, they are separate assumptions.

Humphrey's physics all have to do with the fact that the spins were aligned. If his predictions are true, that would only indicate that his prediction about the alignment of spins was correct. It would say nothing about water. Humphrey's is aware of this fact when he says:

quote:
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.

In other words- the fact that the original element was water is inconsequential to his physics and the predictions that result from them.

On a side note, his statement that

quote:
as God rapidly transformed the water into other materials
is quite ambiguous. When God transformed water into other particles, were they simultaneously pointing in a different direction?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Confidence, posted 12-08-2006 12:22 PM Confidence has not yet responded

    
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 114 (371149)
12-20-2006 12:47 PM


I basically agree with Confidence.

The 1st Firmament or Heaven (the world of Adam thru Noah) was made on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:6-8 It was formed in the midst or middle of the Water, and Water was above and below it.

IOW, the 1st Heaven (universe), was surrounded by water. It was later destroyed, totally and completely, by that same Water, when the "windows of heaven were opened. Gen. 7:11

Our Heaven or Universe was made of dust on the 3rd Day, Gen 2:4-5 The Big Bang happened on the 3rd Day, the same Day Jesus made our Heaven or Kosmos, and also the 3rd Heaven. ll Corinthians 12:2 tells us of the Apostle Paul being taken to the 3rd Heaven -- where Jesus is -- preparing a place for us to live.

John 14
1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. v2 IN MY FATHER'S HOUSE ARE MANY MANSIONS: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you

God Bless


  
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 114 (371150)
12-20-2006 12:52 PM


Genesis & Science
Here's how I see it....

In the beginning God Created the heaven (Air) and the Earth (Ground). And the Earth (Ground) was without form, (Dust) and void; (Empty) and darkness (Death) was upon the face of the deep, (Water) and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The 3 basic elements necessary for all physical form are shown... AIR, DUST AND WATER. Everything which is physical is composed of these 3 elements.

The text is correct in showing that the water was not directly created, or spoken into being, because it consists of elements of the Air or Atmosphere. Water is Hydrogen and Oxygen and came from the Atmosphere and is not shown as a separate creation.

This is correct in today's scientific knowledge, but IF the Bible were written by Ancient men, Moses would not have known this. He would have written that in the beginning God created the Air, Dust, and Water, but since God Himself is the Author, He correctly shows that the Atmosphere and Ground were created, and the Water was not a separate creation but instead, came from the Atmosphere.

God Bless


Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by platypus, posted 12-20-2006 1:05 PM 4Pillars has responded
 Message 29 by iceage, posted 12-20-2006 1:52 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 3826 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 28 of 114 (371153)
12-20-2006 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by 4Pillars
12-20-2006 12:52 PM


Re: Genesis & Science
You are
a) disagreeing with Confidence, who does claim that God directly created water
b) and not generating any testable scientific prediction.

Since this thread is about whether creationism is or is not science, your post is irrelevant, since your post is quite clearly not science (it makes no testable predictions).


You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by 4Pillars, posted 12-20-2006 12:52 PM 4Pillars has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by 4Pillars, posted 12-20-2006 1:53 PM platypus has responded

    
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3987 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 29 of 114 (371165)
12-20-2006 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by 4Pillars
12-20-2006 12:52 PM


Re: Genesis & Science
4Pillars writes:

The 3 basic elements necessary for all physical form are shown... AIR, DUST AND WATER. Everything which is physical is composed of these 3 elements.

Even 3rd century BC Greek philosophers had more insight and were more sophisticated than this. No offense, but this is statement of ignorance but you are in good company with Genesis. To refer to air, dust and water as elements demonstrated muddled thinking. In the case of Genesis they have a good excuse before the advent of science.

4Pillars writes:

The text is correct in showing that the water was not directly created, or spoken into being, because it consists of elements of the Air or Atmosphere. Water is Hydrogen and Oxygen and came from the Atmosphere and is not shown as a separate creation.

Huh? The only thing correct in that statement is that Water is Hydrogen and Oxygen. The atmosphere is predominately Nitrogen with about 20 percent of Oxygen. Hydrogen does not exist in a free form in the atmosphere (except in maybe very tiny traces)

4pillars writes:

This is correct in today's scientific knowledge

Specifically what is correct?

4pillars writes:

IF the Bible were written by Ancient men, Moses would not have known this. He would have written that in the beginning God created the Air, Dust, and Water, but since God Himself is the Author, He correctly shows that the Atmosphere and Ground were created, and the Water was not a separate creation but instead, came from the Atmosphere.

God is clearly not the author of Genesis. If God wrote Genesis he would refer to 112 elements or the number of naturally occurring elements - that might get some attention.

Genesis is a myth, there are dozens or hundreds of similar creation myths nothing about Genesis makes it any more remarkable or insightful than other creation myths.

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by 4Pillars, posted 12-20-2006 12:52 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

  
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 114 (371167)
12-20-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by platypus
12-20-2006 1:05 PM


Re: Genesis & Science
Actually, I was disagreeing with your nonesense which you seem not to notice?

Here's why....

1) Science agrees that the 3 basic elements are necessary (Air, Dust & Water) for a physical form. And you disagree with science?

2) The Bible makes a lot of testable scientific citings & predictions - contrary to your unfounded OPINION.

Do you want me to cite you one?

Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by platypus, posted 12-20-2006 1:05 PM platypus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by iceage, posted 12-20-2006 2:01 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded
 Message 35 by anglagard, posted 12-20-2006 4:20 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded
 Message 50 by platypus, posted 12-21-2006 12:57 AM 4Pillars has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019