Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[PsychoSarah]

Agnostics are atheists since they don't have a positive believe in deities.

You forgot about agnostic theists, which are a thing.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Its a scientific theory.

In your own words, what is a scientific theory? What does it entail?

The best explanation of reality relative to a specific question. It entails having no contradicory evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

You forgot about agnostic theists, which are a thing.

I am unfamiliar with the position. What does that entail?

 

[Ken Behrens]

The problem is that they are observations, not assumptions. You refuse to acknowledge this fact.

Observations made today. Assuming they mean something specific about a long time ago. It's like if you visit my house, and see pictures on display of some old people from the 1910's. They may or may not be my grandparents. Even if you ask me, and I tell you they are, I could be lying.

 

[Ken Behrens]

If science is as limited as you claim, they would not have accomplished near as much as they have.

And all within the last 400 years.

 

[Ken Behrens]

It is those changes that allow us to know what external forces have been applied to the rocks.



It's a hammer covered in a concretion. I don't understand why you think this is a big deal.

Becasue until the research in the article was done, this was regarded by some as proof of holes in time.

 

[bhsmte]

Observations made today. Assuming they mean something specific about a long time ago. It's like if you visit my house, and see pictures on display of some old people from the 1910's. They may or may not be my grandparents. Even if you ask me, and I tell you they are, I could be lying.

And you think the observations science makes about the past are equivalent to your example? Hilarious!

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am unfamiliar with the position. What does that entail?

It's somewhat more common among Jewish people than most other religions, if I recall correctly. People treat it in a few different ways:
1. Don't know god is real or not, but will follow the rules anyway. Lead by tradition.
2. Do believe in god, and openly acknowledge that it is a matter of faith alone, and that reality doesn't reflect religious texts on purpose as a test of faith. Belief without knowledge.

Those are the two most common I have encountered among people that self-identify as agnostic theists.

 

[Ken Behrens]

You mean the same type of inference that all of science uses? The same type of inference that allows us to use forensic evidence to convict criminals? The same type of inference that allows us to use DNA to determine paternity?

In trying to deny the evidence you have to deny the most basic use of logic and reason.

No I do not mean the same. I have already stated that it is considered wrong to use regression equations beyond the area of the initial evidence. The scientific evidence for what you mention is all gathered and used today. None of this evidence was gathered a million years ago. It is against the rules to use if for a million years ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's somewhat more common among Jewish people than most other religions, if I recall correctly. People treat it in a few different ways:
1. Don't know god is real or not, but will follow the rules anyway. Lead by tradition.
2. Do believe in god, and openly acknowledge that it is a matter of faith alone, and that reality doesn't reflect religious texts on purpose as a test of faith. Belief without knowledge.

Those are the two most common I have encountered among people that self-identify as agnostic theists.

You are certainly within your rights to label your position however you want, but most people would consider not knowing if there is a God (agnosticism) and believing that God exists (theism) as contradictory.

 

[Loudmouth]

No I do not mean the same. I have already stated that it is considered wrong to use regression equations beyond the area of the initial evidence.

The evidence stretches back 13 billion years. We can DIRECTLY observe events from 13 billion years ago in the night sky. We can hold onto rocks that formed billions of years ago. We have evidence from those time periods.

The scientific evidence for what you mention is all gathered and used today.

And that evidence was produced in the past.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You are certainly within your rights to label your position however you want, but most people would consider not knowing if there is a God (agnosticism) and believing that God exists (theism) as contradictory.

They aren't inherently, as belief is somewhat separate from knowledge. Which is how people can believe things entirely contradictory to some of what they know, or things they don't really understand all that well.

 

[Ken Behrens]

What evidence would you present to students to back this claim?

The response was given to a baptist, who considers the Bible evidence. It was not meant to convince students. I would define the oscillation of light particles multidimensionally, and show the 4d intersection is equivalent to light. You can see the equivalent method described scaling 3 down to 2 in Flatland if you like. (Since these are students, the mathematical argument might be beyond them, so I would use the fictional story instead to orient their thinking.)Flatland - Wikipedia

 

[Ken Behrens]

If science could not effectively analyze the past, then forensics would pretty much be destroyed. It'd be like saying that finding an individual's sperm in a rape victim didn't make them a suspect. It's like saying the fact that I recently turned 22 isn't evidence that I was born in 1995.

Also, if you can't scientifically analyze the past, you can't claim any evidence for biblical stuff either, since it all happened in the past.

You can analyze the past as far back as your original evidence goes, plus a little bit. It is the distant past you cannot analyze.

 

[Loudmouth]

The response was given to a baptist, who considers the Bible evidence.

Beliefs aren't evidence.

Are you going to teach your students if they believe really, really hard that the Moon is made of green cheese that their belief is evidence that the Moon is made of green cheese?

 

[Loudmouth]

You can analyze the past as far back as your original evidence goes,

That would be 13 billion years, the distance we can see through telescopes.

plus a little bit. It is the distant past you cannot analyze.

The original evidence goes back to the distant past.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You can analyze the past as far back as your original evidence goes, plus a little bit. It is the distant past you cannot analyze.

You wouldn't consider fossils the original evidence for dinosaurs?

 

[Ken Behrens]

Agnostics are atheists since they don't have a positive believe in deities.

I will let you define your own terms. A lot of us in my online fellowship talk to atheist online, and what most claim is that there are very few atheists, since most are not absolutely certain there is no God, and that is supposedly the definition. An agnostic is anyone who still thinks there could be a god of some kind, but just hasn't found It/Him/Her yet.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is actually a statement of knowledge, not belief.
At the basics, a person can be:
1. An agnostic atheist, which is a person that doesn't believe in deities, but also doesn't claim that deities can't possibly exist.
2. A gnostic atheist, which are pretty uncommon, which is a person that doesn't believe in deities, and claims some knowledge basis as to why they think they don't.
3. An agnostic theist, a person that does believe in a deity/deities, but claims no knowledge basis for it.
4. A gnostic theist, which is a person that believes in a deity/deities, and claims some knowledge basis as to why they do.

People in layman's terms often refer to themselves as agnostic to avoid confrontation, and over time it has been associated with a lack of belief due to the fact that while it is very common for an atheist to be agnostic, it is far less common for a theist to be agnostic or claim to be such.

Carl Sagan, and he was referring to the fact that technology could be so advanced compared to our own as to appear like magic to us, not that it would be one and the same with magic. Like how, perhaps, a person from the Middle ages would view smart phones.

Thank you. I learned something.

I used the word "indistinguishable". Isn't that the same thing as "appear like"

 

[bhsmte]

It's somewhat more common among Jewish people than most other religions, if I recall correctly. People treat it in a few different ways:
1. Don't know god is real or not, but will follow the rules anyway. Lead by tradition.
2. Do believe in god, and openly acknowledge that it is a matter of faith alone, and that reality doesn't reflect religious texts on purpose as a test of faith. Belief without knowledge.

Those are the two most common I have encountered among people that self-identify as agnostic theists.

I believe many theists, acknowledge they believe on faith alone.