Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[4x4toy]

I'm sorry, but that's akin to saying one is a professor of English or Law and therefore one is in a position to know what the "real teaching" of science is.

Evolution is, whether you like it or not, scientific and a fact. That is why is taught in college biology classrooms. Well, most college biology classrooms. I'm in a Facebook group where a student at Liberty University is describing his experience with his Origins 201 class. It's quite disturbing though morbidly fascinating.

Theory is not fact .. Or didn't they teach you that ..

 

[USincognito]

I'd start here and work out , maybe start at the 13:00 mark for 5 or 6 minutes if your attention span is too short

13:00 starts attacking "unbelievers". Not seeing any science yet.
13:19 Big Bang Straw man. Not seeing any science yet.
13:30 Abiogenesis straw man. Not seeing any science yet.
13:40 Mutation straw man. Not seeing any science yet.
14:00 False dichotomy between religion and science. Not seeing any science yet.
14:10 Bogus story from WingNut Daily about atheism being declared a religion. Not seeing any science yet.
14:40 Quote mine from philosopher and contrarian Michael Ruse. Not seeing any science yet.
15:15 Lie that evolution is the established religion in the U.S. Not seeing any science yet.
15:35 Lie that "naturalism" is defined by the courts as a religion. Not seeing any science yet.
16:00 A quote mine of Field Museum director John McCarter who, ironically, is being quoted in a Chicago Tribune story about how evolution is under attack.

That's three minutes so far and I have see zero science.

 

[USincognito]

Theory is not fact .. Or didn't they teach you that ..

Tell us in your own words what you think a scientific theory is. (And no, copy and pasting a dictionary definition is not your own words.)

 

[USincognito]

Nothing substantive about ID theory in it--it's just the usual ignorant slanderous rant about how evolution is atheistic.
If you are going to teach ID, you have to actually teach ID.

And Patton's not even an IDer, he's a YEC. I think 4x4 doesn't understand what is being asked of him.

 

[Queller]

Mathematically, the issue is that in order to do any science before about 10k years ago, we must make assumptions about the physical forces int he universe. If the measurements then were different from the measurements now, then any computations could be wrong.

Do we have any reasonable basis to not accept that the physical forces in the universe were different in the past?

And we have no way to check those measurement. Now, scientists argue that change of measurements would show in geology or various other ways, but this is wrong and they know it, as everyone agrees that time dilates as you go over the radius of a black hole, and that there is no way those on the space ship could know they are doing this.

Are you advocating that we should not accept that the physical forces have always behaved as they do now because our planet (solar system/galaxy/universe) might be skimming along the event horizon of a massive black hole?

 

[AV1611VET]

The world is 6,000 years old but looks older because God made it look that way.

Hey, Queller!

Long time no see!

For example, you see a tractor that has bald, cracked tires, leaks oil, is covered in rust, and won't start because the battery is dead.

Using my example from CARM, are you?

I didn't know (or forgot) you posted there.

 

[Strathos]

Chemistry classes don't spend the entire time teaching students why alchemy is wrong. They actually teach chemistry. It seems that many creationists don't know how to do anything other than attack the ToE, and have no idea how they would teach creationism in a public school course.

It's like those cartoons where the dog is chasing a car, but when he actually catches it, he doesn't know what to do next.

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems that many creationists don't know how to do anything other than attack the ToE, and have no idea how they would teach creationism in a public school course.

No argument there.

I wish creationists would drop the science malarkey and defend creationism the way God intended it to be defended.

 

[CLAVDIVS]

Hi AV1611VET

Perhaps you missed my earlier post.

You must mean something different than I understand by the word "old" when you say the world is millions of years old.

If you don't mean old = how long since it first existed ...
then old = how long since ........ what?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi AV1611VET

Perhaps you missed my earlier post.

You must mean something different than I understand by the word "old" when you say the world is millions of years old.

If you don't mean old = how long since it first existed ...
then old = how long since ........ what?

Have a good day, sir.

 

[CLAVDIVS]

Hi AV1611VET

Well ok then, you too.

Still wondering what exactly embedded age creationism actually is ...

 

[CLAVDIVS]

The world is 6,000 years old but looks older because God made it look that way.

For example, you see a tractor that has bald, cracked tires, leaks oil, is covered in rust, and won't start because the battery is dead. All of these things would appear to the reasonable person to indicate that the tractor is very old, but Embedded Age claims that the tractor was in fact created in that state yesterday by God.

That just sounds like young earth creationism which I have read a lot about e.g. they say God created starlight in flight so we can see distant stars etc.

AV1611VET said embedded age means the world is millions of years "old" but God created it 6000 years "ago". I asked whats the difference between how old something is, and how long ago it came into existence (same thing to me) --- he said "have a good day"

The physical forces and laws that we have today were different or non-existent in the past meaning that trying to measure the past using the physics of today is futile. This is dad's favorite. For example fossils from at different rates in the different state past.

Well that kind of makes logical sense, but its very hard to think of ways that laws/forces might change to give us the world we see today. Thats very much like YEC with speed of light etc.

Thanks

 

[USincognito]

AV1611VET said embedded age means the world is millions of years "old" but God created it 6000 years "ago". I asked whats the difference between how old something is, and how long ago it came into existence (same thing to me) --- he said "have a good day"

As someone who has been here since 2003 a.AV, don't waste your time with him. If you want to engage in endless semantics, red herrings, made up stuff, non sequiturs and attempts to derail the subject, go ahead. But don't say you weren't warned.

 

[CLAVDIVS]

Hi USincognito

I was trying to find out what 'embedded age' creationism actually is.

The only answers I got made it sound exactly like young-earth creationism. AV1611VET tried to help, but still left me completely in the dark. Is it his/her idea?

 

[USincognito]

Hi USincognito

I was trying to find out what 'embedded age' creationism actually is.

The only answers I got made it sound exactly like young-earth creationism. AV1611VET tried to help, but still left me completely in the dark. Is it his/her idea?

It's his inane attempt to explain, in his words, "maturity without history" and succinctly, he says the Universe is 13.5 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old and they were created that old 6,000 years ago.

Again, you want to try and wrap your head around that and get him to explain how it's not a bizarro world twist on YEC/Omphalos, knock yourself out. I'm just letting you know as someone who has been here for long time, not to expect any satisfactory, scientific or sense making responses.

 

[4x4toy]

Tell us in your own words what you think a scientific theory is. (And no, copy and pasting a dictionary definition is not your own words.)

Evolution is a theory

 

[4x4toy]

13:00 starts attacking "unbelievers". Not seeing any science yet.
13:19 Big Bang Straw man. Not seeing any science yet.
13:30 Abiogenesis straw man. Not seeing any science yet.
13:40 Mutation straw man. Not seeing any science yet.
14:00 False dichotomy between religion and science. Not seeing any science yet.
14:10 Bogus story from WingNut Daily about atheism being declared a religion. Not seeing any science yet.
14:40 Quote mine from philosopher and contrarian Michael Ruse. Not seeing any science yet.
15:15 Lie that evolution is the established religion in the U.S. Not seeing any science yet.
15:35 Lie that "naturalism" is defined by the courts as a religion. Not seeing any science yet.
16:00 A quote mine of Field Museum director John McCarter who, ironically, is being quoted in a Chicago Tribune story about how evolution is under attack.

That's three minutes so far and I have see zero science.

A judge declared evolution is your religion and god , don't be a lawbreaker dude, and btw , my God can beat your god

 

[4x4toy]

It's his inane attempt to explain, in his words, "maturity without history" and succinctly, he says the Universe is 13.5 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old and they were created that old 6,000 years ago.

Again, you want to try and wrap your head around that and get him to explain how it's not a bizarro world twist on YEC/Omphalos, knock yourself out. I'm just letting you know as someone who has been here for long time, not to expect any satisfactory, scientific or sense making responses.

It's OK, you just don't understand science and proper application

 

[USincognito]

A judge declared evolution is your religion and god...

Wow, you are really bad at this. It's almost as if you didn't watch your own video. The cited WingNut Daily story had nothing do with the evolution. I know the actual story and what it was actually about. Do you?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Embedded Age Creationism is the belief that God created the universe having maturity, but without a history.

But the "maturity" would imply a history, and the implied history could be studied. And how would one determine that the implied history was not an actual history . . . scientifically?