Scientific evidence for creation and predictive value

[npetreley]

Both evidence for creation, and predictions based on that evidence, with some confirmations.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/crs/crsq/21_3.html

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Humphreys says:

To calculate the magnetic moment of a planet at creation, we must know the original material. In the previous article I presented Scriptural evidence that God originally created the Earth as a sphere of pure water.

ROTFLMAO!

Talk about your unproven assumptions!

Since the rest of the paper derives from this bit of nonsense, it too is nonsense. (the GIGO effect)

C'mon Nick. You're smart enough to see that.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Bump.

(Since you seem to have quite a bit of free time)

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Bump.

(Since you seem to have quite a bit of free time)

I must have missed that forum rule that says I am obligated to respond.

 

[npetreley]

Here's a nice quote from the physicist in an interview...

RH: Getting back to the origins of the field, I thought if the earth's field had this neat explanation, it fit the data pretty nicely. Well, maybe God made the fields of all the other planets and parts of our solar system the same way. So I just said, well, I'll apply the same theory to the Sun, Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. And what would the fields be there? At that time space probes had measured some of those fields but not all of them, so for the ones the space probes had measured it fit the theory very nicely. So when I published that in December, 1984, for the Creation Research Society Quarterly, for the two planets that had not been measured, Uranus and Neptune, I made a prediction that if the theory's any good then the strength of the [magnetic] field for those two planets should be such and such. My prediction for the planet Uranus was about 100,000 times larger than what evolutionary predictions were. This is a good test. Lets see where the chips fall. Then Voyager 2, I think it was, went by the planet Uranus in 1986 and it was right smack in the middle of the range of my predictions.

http://www.rae.org/raerhtrn.html

 

[Annabel Lee]

Originally posted by npetreley
I must have missed that forum rule that says I am obligated to respond.

I wish there was a forum rule about starting threads on the exact same subject.
Let me ask you a question Nick. Why are you so angry? How does someone elses belief in the theory of evolution effect you?
Why are you hell bent on insulting Christians who are not YECs?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
I must have missed that forum rule that says I am obligated to respond.

Oh. I didn't realize you were just arglinkling again.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by npetreley
I must have missed that forum rule that says I am obligated to respond.

No rule about it, but it is considered good net-iquette to keep up with threads that you yourself have started.  Hit and run posting with no intention of discussion is rather lame.

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

Since the rest of the paper derives from this bit of nonsense, it too is nonsense. (the GIGO effect)

Since when has the critieria of "nonsense" kept certain people from publishing this stuff?

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Besides, it says in 2 Genesis 51:11 that God changed the earth from pure water to a solid core because of the fall. O.K., Got it now.

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by Annabel Lee
I wish there was a forum rule about starting threads on the exact same subject.

Agreed

Chris

 

[chickenman]

well npeterly, thats nice

i'd really like to see creationists make some predictions about biology

example:

the genome of creature X is just about to be published, what predictions can creationists make about the sequences?

 

[Taffsadar]

Originally by some badly educated guy
My prediction for the planet Uranus was about 100,000 times larger than what evolutionary predictions were. This is a good test. Lets see where the chips fall. Then Voyager 2, I think it was, went by the planet Uranus in 1986 and it was right smack in the middle of the range of my predictions. 

Oddly enough a person studying astronomy isn't called an evolutionist. The guy can't really be that reliable if he doesn't even know what an Astronom is...