Posted on 08/27/2009 10:11:05 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
A NASA spacecraft is again testing a creationist theory about the magnetic fields of planets. On 14 January 2008, the Messenger spacecraft, made by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory for NASA, flew by Mercury, the innermost planet of the solar system, in the first of several close encounters before it finally settles into a steady orbit around Mercury in 2011.[1] As it passed, its ‘magnetometer’ made quick measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field and transmitted them successfully back to Earth. Probably it will take the Messenger team several months to process the magnetic data accurately.
I’m looking forward to the early results because in 1984 I made creation-based predictions regarding the magnetic fields of a number of planets, including that of Mercury.[2] Spacecraft measurements[3,4] have validated three of the predictions, highlighted in red in the web version of the 1984 article. A fourth prediction, in the conclusion, is this...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Sorry, read any book on the philosophy of science, and you will find that realism—the idea that there is a real world that is independent of our minds and senses—is a major ASSUMPTION of science.
The philosophy of science? Are you purposefully missing your irony? Are you saying my mind and senses are not real? Is the brain an actual physical organ, or is it an assumption? Is DNA a lie as well? You have to be joking around now.
==History is not a science. You are mislabeling science. How would you repeat an experiment with Alexander the Great? It would be impossible. There is no such thing as “historical science”
When I say historical science, I am refering to the various branches of science that attempt to reconstruct the past. And since you mention Alexander the Great, one of the historical sciences that would be utilized to study the history of Alexander would be archeology.
The historical sciences also include historical linguistics, evolutionary biology, phylogenetics, geology, cosmology, etc, etc.
For someone who claims to know something about science, I’m more than a little surprised that you are ignorant of the basic ASSUMPTIONS that the scientific method is based on. Don’t you realize that you have to ASSUME that reality exists outside of yourself for the scientific method to work?
No, you are referring to the literal Biblical account of creation. Archeology will never reproduce Alexandar the Great. Nor is it concerned with him. That would be history books. The “historical” sciences you refer to explain in provable/disprovable/repeatable/testable ways how things operate/exist/etc now and through provable/disprovable/repeatable/testable ways how they operate/exist/etc in the past.
The words History is simply an account in words of a past happening. You are mixing the two words in a contradictory manner
what you refer to as “reality” outside of onesself in a philosophical/religious argument. Explain exactly what you mean. The world exists. I exist. My brain is a physical organ. A rock has certain properties.
You may want to look up the words assumption and science to help you understand better
Yeah. “Evolution could have” is scientific. So there.
Evolution is a theory. It is not perfect. Just like relativity. Do you deny the “reality” of the theory of relativity as well? Evolution is refinable. It doesnt claim to be perfect, as this GGG poster claims creationism is.
Excellent reply, AC! Just out of curiosity, do you find Humphrey’s conclusion reasonable, given his prediction?:
“Note added January 31, 2008: A news conference by the Messenger team yesterday reported that ‘ … the mean dipole has the same intensity to within a few percent and has the same slight tilt …’ This is consistent with my prediction. The two more flybys, more extensive analysis, and finally the year-long orbit of Mercury in 2011 may reduce the statistical measurement errors enough to resolve whether my prediction is correct.”
no it can not. There is no such thing as a historical science. There is history describing science. Archeology can never be used to understand Alexandar the Great in a historical sense, and the same argument for the other sciences you have listed. Paleontology can never reconstruct the physical past as dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. You are purposefully defining history with science. If your argument was correct, paleontology would be able to reconstruct a physical dinosaur with the same conditions that it existed millions of years ago. History describes the past. Science explains it. You continue post after post to equate the two words.
Then evolutionary biology is not science. Paleontology is not science. Cosmology is not science. Etc, etc, etc.
Needless to say, there are a ton of historical scientists who would vehemently disagree with you:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~cleland/articles/Cleland.Geology.pdf
I will tell you what. Google the definition of History. History is a description of past events. Oral, written, electronic. Lets repeat again. History is a description of past events. It is not science.
I also saw the original article of the scientists who believed that Jesus rode dinosaurs. There are a couple hundred in a field of tens of millions.
To be quite frank, you are giving Christians, and religion in general, a bad name here with your non-arguments. Thats why I still feel you must be joking around in a sick sort of way.
What made me laugh regarding the exchange was the idea that inserting the words "God could have" are any different than "evolution could have". It is amusing to me that inserting the word "God" automatically means the methods being used MUST be unscientific.
I recognise I have a bias and I work to mitigate it. But I have given up trying to persuade those who are not even genuine enough to admite their bias exists.
Paleontology utilizes the scientific method to study current remains in order to make inferences about the past. Thus, it is a historical science. Phylogenitics compares the phylogenetic makeup of the organisms of today to infer common ancestors of the past. Thus, it is an historial science. Cosmologists investigate the Universe on its very largest scales today in order to infer the origins of the same re: the distant past. Thus, it is an historical science.
By rejecting the scientific status of the historical sciences you are in disagreement with the vast majority of scientists on both sides of the origins debate. Congratulations. Let me know how that works out for ya.
All the best—GGG
You are giving yourself a bad name because you try to pass yourself off as an authority on subjects you know next to nothing about. Have a nice night, Mr. Socialist.
Or ignorant of the own biases, as the case may be. Great reply. Hope to see you turn up on these threads from time to time. All the best—GGG
His assumption is faith based. He has no values nor data which he then extrapolates his data from.
“Over a period of years it steadily decreases to zero, reverses direction, and begins to increase again.”
That is incorrect. Its is variable and the rate and function to which is goes to zero and reverses direction is not well understood. That is called an assumption and thta is not science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.