Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Ken Behrens]

Do these stories have evidence to support them?

The observations on the age of the earth fit these stories just as well. I also mentioned the technology a few minutes ago in another post. Like the antikythera device, the archaeological discovery had to wait for us to get smart enough to see what it was.

 

[Ken Behrens]

-_- there are biological limits as to how quickly micro-organisms (or any organism, really) can grow and reproduce, even with the most ideal conditions, and it wouldn't be anywhere near fast enough to make that much chalk in the short time frame demanded by a young Earth.

Also, the conditions you describe sound more like it would kill these creatures than be beneficial to them.

Didn't he say 10000 years old? That's only a factor of 1.6 times the YEC date. Can you check what you know about these limits and see if 1.6 is unreasonable? Or maybe his date is wrong?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You hear testimony of what Jesus has did in someone's life .

A lot of people, claim a lot of (mutually exclusive) things.

You either discount it , you ponder it or see some thing different with change

I submit that, aside from the "christian" claims", you also discount the vast majority of fantastical claims that people make.

Or do you also believe in bigfoot, the lochness monster, the krakken, alien abductions, scientology shenannigans, etc?

In short: do you always believe whatever people tell you? My money is on "no".

What matters is you are presented with a free will choice

Actually, I'm being presented with unverifiable, unfalsifiable claims.

I've seen and experienced 1rst hand supernatural events

And other people claim the same about bigfoot, the loch ness monster, alien abductions,...

Testimonies are easy to find

Yep. Testimonies are a dime a dozen.
Independendly verifiable testimonies though... that's something else.

, they are also easy to ignore, disbelieve and blow off ..

Especially when the only alternative is to simply buy into them at face value.

Why would any Christian care what you believe , what is in it for them ?

Christians are the ones who believe things, concerning this topic.

The only reason a true Christian cares is that once we are passed from dark to the light and then realize the consequences we were saved from we simply want you to have the same chance to come to know

Scaring me into believing things at face value, is not going to work either.

Remember that I sat in the seat of mockers too just like every Christian ,and other person for that matter, has done to some degree or other before their salvation since Jesus began his ministry

Why would I have to remember that?
The fact that you weren't always a christian, adds no credibility to christianity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Americans are a very small percent of the world's population. Much of the third world has yet to embrace logic, let alone science.

And it comes as no surprise that that is also where we see figures of 98% of people who don't accept mainstream biology.

And your statistic is qualified by the fact that "evolution" is of two types, macro and micro.

It's not and it's an extremely cliché misconception that macro and micro evolution are somehow different processes. SO cliché that I almost automatically am tempted to question the honesty of anyone who still makes this argument.

It's like these people don't understand that adding up inches will inevitably result in miles.

Most Christians accept micro but many do not accept macro.

Then most christians don't understand that they are one and the same process.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Scientists don't do that. They look at the evidence we have today and look at how things would be different if (for example) the speed of light were different in the past. Then they design tests to look for evidence of a difference.

3122 BC is a little over 5100 years ago, exactly what I said. The Flood is dated to 4000 years ago, approximately 2000 BC. Yet the Egyptian culture has no gap indicating they were wiped out by the Flood 1100 years after their recorded history began.

Oh my, that's scary. Do you honestly believe that the earth's population has been growing at the same rate as it today for the past 4000 years?

Here's some info for you.

The current population growth percent is about 1.11%

If you start with a population of 8 in 2000BC (Noah, his wife, their sons and their wives) and have a population growth rate of 1.11%, in 6000 years (approximately the time Moses lives) you have a population of about 5,700 people. Nowhere near enough people.

Not to mention that by 2017 (approximately 4,000 years post Flood) you have a worldwide population of more than 8,000,000,000,000,000,000 people. The earth has a total square footage of land area of 5,490,000,000,000,000 sq ft. IOW, if the population had been growing at the same rate it is today for 4,000 years, there would be 1,457 people per square foot of land area on earth.

Where are they?

Sigh. It's a relatively simple matter to click on the "up arrow" next to each quoted post.

Here's a referesher.

Ken Behrens: I sure don't trust anything I see in real life.
Queller: Don't you read the Bible in real life?
Ken Behrenns: I do not need it in heaven.
Queller: We're not talking about heaven. We're talking about right here on Earth, in the present time. You know, real life.

Your response?

Which ones have spent a career developing and refining the evidence and which ones haven't?

I don't know about you, but if I'm going to build a home, I'm going to go with the plan developed by architects and engineers who have spent their lives learning to build homes. I'm not going to go with Mike the radiologist's ideas on how to build a home.

What makes you think that scientists believe that an unknown entity is influencing their results?

The vast majority of them do, in fact, agree on the basics.

They thing is, scientist don't trust that.

Why shouldn't we trust scientists when it comes to their area of expertise?

Do you not trust the doctor that diagnoses cancer after looking at the biopsy results?

1. They use procedures developed today to look at evidence seen today, and draw conclusions about the past from that.
2. No, the flood is 3122BC. There is in fact a gap of history there, and flood waters in the layered archaeological evidence that produces the history of handwriting from Ur. That gap is mentioned in their history books several times. Egyptian culture starts after that date. There was no second massive flood in 2000BC.
3. Of course not. When no one was in the way, it was faster. Most humans couples can easily produce 8 kids. That's 4 to1 every 20 years. Doubling every 10 years, gives 2 makes 1000 in 100 years, a million in 200 years, Less when they start killing each other. Just the size of the pyramids proves you are wrong to use today's figure for yesterday's population growth.
4. There's a lot of up. Actually, I am now oepning my response pane in a separate window. That helps.
I think that was two conversations. But it is true, I do not need the Bible in heaven, I will be with Jesus personally. And I don't trust anything I see because of perceptual filters, which I have already documented for you.
5. Most of the people in the third world build their own homes.
6. Nothing, I am the one who believes that.
7. Circular argument. In Christianity, the basics are defined by what everyone agrees on. Pick any concept you like, and I will find you someone who disagrees. Even such so-called basics as the trinity, necessity of baptism, truth of the Bible. I even know some who do not believe Jesus worked any miracles, or that He rose from the dead. It's hard to get more basic than that.
8. I have seen a steady stream of wrong biopsy diagnoses for the last 20 years.

 

[Ken Behrens]

The current knowledge about climate change.

You've been given many more examples from the fields of medicine, geology and the like and you have dismissed them without explaining why they aren't good examples.

The current knowledge about climate change is about global warming. I just posted last night in another thread details of statistical anomalies that prove the data is being manipulated. In any event, it does not matter if you can prove that something happened a million years ago (like extinction of the dinosaurs), that this is anything like what is anything like what is happening now.

1806 was the "year without a summer" in New York State. Crops froze repeatedly all summer resulting in extreme poverty. The cause is presumed to be the Krakatoa explosion. But if you want to study the weather now,t hat is just as good an example as studying the dinosaur extinction. At least we have some idea what might have caused it that is based on some evidence it really happened.

I have dismissed geology examples because none of them can be proven, or can be proven to be applicable, even if they are proven. I have also shown that medicine is getting a lot of things wrong.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I'm sorry, this is probably the stupidest thing I have ever read. The idea that all the stars are the same distance away from us is ridiculous in the extreme.

To answer your scenario though, the closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It's about 4.4 light years away. HIP 72131 is a star that is in close visual proximity to Alpha Centauri (close as in a few micrometers) and is about 158 ly away. For Alpha Centauri to appear to cross in front of HIP 72131 the earth would have to have an orbit in at least in the trillions of miles, if not more.

That's like standing in New Jersey and expectin g the tip of the torch on the Statue of Liberty to cross in front of the Empire State Building by moving five feet to your left.

You claim to trust experts about science, and you will not trust me about my fields of expertise. It took less than a minute to google these two pictures. The guy had to move the boat more than 5 feet, obviously, but there was some point in the journey, when the torch appeared just to the left of the spire, and then five feet later was on the right. Find me two stars that cross in this manner, if you wish to prove me (and Charles Fort) incorrect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

2. No, the flood is 3122BC. There is in fact a gap of history there, and flood waters in the layered archaeological evidence that produces the history of handwriting from Ur. That gap is mentioned in their history books several times. Egyptian culture starts after that date. There was no second massive flood in 2000BC.

LOL!!

The first Egyptian dynasty started at around 3100 BC. By uniting upper and lower Egypt.

You're not really suggesting that some 20 years after 8 people stepped on this boat, they managed to produce a collection of at least thousands of people (all of which would be the result of 1st degree incest), are you?

You can not be serious...

PS: here's a brief summary of the overal timetable of ancient egypt:

Prehistoric Egypt

• (10,500 BC) wild grain harvesting began along the Nile River Delta
• (8000 BC) humans began migrating to the Nile, developing a more centralized and settled society
• (6000 BC) single-sailed row boats were depicted in Egyptian rock art
• (4th millennium BC) Gerzean tomb-building began

3rd millennium BC

• (3900 BC) increasingly dry conditions in the Sahara caused migration to the Nile Valley
• (3100 BC) Upper and Lower Egypt unified by Pharaoh Narmer
• (3100 BC) the early Dynastic Period began; hieroglyphics developed as a formal writing system
• (3000 BC) Egyptians began to measure time based on a calendar of three natural cycles: the solar day, the lunar month, and the solar year

Funny also, how they apparantly forgot ALL about Noah and that Abrahamic religion, within 10 years of it happening. Because the religion of that time was a polytheistic system with gods like Ra, Apophis, Baal, etc etc.

Abrahamic religion will not even show up anywhere for many centuries, after that.

And let's not even get started on how many ancient Chinese settlements flourished quite happily from 8000 BC onwards.

3. Of course not. When no one was in the way, it was faster. Most humans couples can easily produce 8 kids. That's 4 to1 every 20 years. Doubling every 10 years, gives 2 makes 1000 in 100 years, a million in 200 years, Less when they start killing each other.

Newsflash: while there are no real biological limits in doubling populationsize every 15 years or so... it does pose some logistics problems. All those mouths need to eat, you know.

And let's not forget the context here... You are talking about 8 people for the original population size, only 3 of which are women (if I remember correctly) and the men all being brothers with their dad. To get from 8 to thousands DOES pose many genetic problems due to the massive inbreed required.

Generally, once populations drop under 100-200, they are no longer considered viable populations, because the required scale of inbreeding is bound to create many problems.

And then we're not even discussing the complete lack of bible flood evidence in the geological record as well as the genetic record. Cause if the story is true, ALL life should have a universal genetic bottleneck due to the MASSIVE reduction in population sizes.

From whatever angle you wish to approach this, the biblical flood story is completely indefensible and extremely removed from reality.

Extremely. So much so, that I find it baffling that there are people in the west with easy access to education, libraries and the internet, who actually believe it. Mindblowing.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I asked you who is paying scientists to say that there is no real benefit to non-homogenized milk.

It can't be the milk companies. After all, they would just sell non-homogenized milk at the same price and increase their profits since they aren't having to pay to have the milk homogenized. So who is paying scientists to say that there is no real benefit to non-homogenized milk?

Whoopee. Carrying a palm-sized computer and communications device around in your pocket involved a retraining of the population. It didn't take very long.

Not to mention that we already shake up other liquids before drinking them (orange juice comes to mind).

The arguments I read in favor of non-homogenized milk (that offered absolutely nothing in the way of evidence for their claims) is that milk has an enzyme that when digested through intake of homogenized milk gets deposited in your arteries and when digested through intake of non-homogenized milk does not. Not the other way around.

Show me what you read so I can see it. I have read the original reports, and the in situ analysis of that enzyme seems to contradict what you have quoted.

The reeducation is far more serious in the case of the milk, though. Health food store owners I have spoken to about this do not understand the difference between homogenization and pasteurization, and they are afraid of selling milk that will make someone sick. That's a lot more reeducation than the cell phones, after everyone saw the star trek communicators and before that Dick Tracy's two-way wrist radio.

And yogurt companies are doing this as you suggest. Organic yogurt homogenized is about $3.20 a quart. Non-homogenized is $5.60 at Walmart. Organic yogurt purchasers are likely more savvy about all aspects of nutrition.

 

[Ken Behrens]

And did they find any evidence?

Here's a hint, I already know the answer.

Schrodinger's decay? Or should that be Heisenberg's decay?

Yes they did. I know because I was a member of the appropriate organizations for many years, and did research of my own, and taught in the field, as well as did counseling involving latent abilities.

Quantum observer effect. I posted in yesterday.
Observer effect, do this mean literally someone or just any interaction with other matter?

 

[Ken Behrens]

Yes, I have heard of those experiments. I have also not heard of a single one that got positive empirical results.

Pain is subjective. Ever heard of the placebo effect?

Yes. And? Do you think that presents some kind of problem?

I've never found any reference to that other than creationists websites. I'm more than a touch skeptical.

And here's one of the premier creationist websites on the matter
Woolly mammoths snap frozen?

I posted a responsible scientific review article four times yesterday. It completely disagrees with you. The results are so impressive that money is being funneled for more research and doctors are taking serious note.

Can you give me another theory how the salt got there?

Be skeptical. Can you prove that it is not so? It's proof of geographical relocation. The article you posted does not mention that part of it. I liked reading through that link though.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I read through it. Not a single bit of evidence that prayer can heal.

The medical community is taking serious notice of it anyway.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I guess that makes lawyers elitist? Doctors? Architects? Engineers?

As I said earlier, I wouldn't listed to Mike the radiologist's opinion on how to build a home nor would I listen to Pat the architect's opinion on how my x-ray shows cancer.

Yes, yes, no, no. I know a few of each, and how they act.

 

[Ken Behrens]

As I believe you have been told before, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

That animals change (evolve) over time is a fact.

The Theory of Evolution is the best evidenced, most well researched, explanation of why animals change over time.

I agree. You and I know this is so, but I hear many others saying something different.

 

[Ken Behrens]

By that logic, if there are no witnesses, we can't be sure someone is guilty of murder except by inference. And yet murderers are convicted without eyewitnesses every single day.

BTW;

Inference; : something that is inferred; especially : a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence

Yes, and when DNA evidence became available, a lot of them were set free with apologies and money to pay for what they had to go through. I taught classes in a prison for just over a year. It seemed pretty obvious to me that a lot of men were there just because they did not have the communication skills to convince the judge they were not guilty.

 

[Ken Behrens]

That's interesting because it appears that you reject any evidence that disagrees with a young earth and global flood.

You know a a lot of them, you just don't accept them.

And I disagree with almost every statement made by creationists as well. But no one has yet attacked me on those, so I have not had to answer them. I did my own study on the flood, and consider it extremely probable. Since it happened after my 6000 year cutoff, my arguments for it are different from those we have been discussing. I am absolutely certain the earth is at least 5800 years old. It's beyond that I do not know.

 

[Ken Behrens]

The original evidence we have of say, a stegosaurus comes from 80 million years ago. So...

You got that date by using techniques developed int he world of today. It's the techniques I don't trust.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I'ld say it makes science a profession just like any other profession....
I have trouble seeing what it is exactly that you are complaining about...

What you and I know is not what other people are saying.

I have posted what I am complaining about. 70% of applicants to college int eh USA need 3-4 remedial math courses just to get them ready for the lowest level of college math. This means 80% of my career has been teaching high school math in college to people who have already failed to learn it several times. My gut and experience says it's because they think scientists are elitist and a little crazy to believe in evolution and things in space they cannot prove. They reject science, and math with it. Since you love science so much, that should worry you too.

 

[Ken Behrens]

You don't need to be present in past events to know that those past events occured.

That should be rather obvious.

That's right. I know Jesus rose from the dead. Since you self-identify as an atheist, I assume you do not know this.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Science is very results -based.

We know that relativity theory is pretty accurate, because GPS correctly locates our receivers anywhere on the planet.

We know that atomic theory is pretty accurate, because nuclear power stations deliver electricity and nukes explode.

If a scientific idea is wrong, it will not work.

But we don't use the theory of how old the earth and sky are for anything, except to tell how old the earth and sky are.