Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It's called "Last Thursdayism." The entire universe and its contents including fake evidence of age, fake history and our own fake memories complete was created last Thursday (or whatever date you like, even 4004 BC). And you can never prove otherwise because it's unfalsifiable.

As all properly composed theological propositions ought to be.

My point is, the "fake" history can be evaluated exactly as if it were real.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In order to compute the distance to a star, we begin with the distance across the earth's orbit, take two measurements and triangulate. Then, using this number, we calibrate ancient light. But just suppose both are wrong. If space bends outside our solar system, we could be fooled in the triangulation, as we are when observing something under water. Speed of light, and/or time, could be different farther out as well, and all such measurements could be wrong. [I know flat earth theorists argue the same way about the location of the magnetic poles. but we can reach the poles and prove them wrong. We cannot reach the end of the galaxy.]

I do not completely understand the mechanics of decay, but I would assume that decay could affect the bending of time, and give us false information in the same way.

My point is another theory can be raised.

One can suppose all kinds of things but that is just an exercise of the imagination. There are too many consistencies in the measurements to grant such wholesale departures from reality as we know it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No.

OK in your view he had no belly button. Did Adam have hair . . . yet? After all, when he was first created, it had no time to grow. Was he sporting a crew cut the first few weeks?

After that, tell us about the fingernails, toenails, and did he have any callouses?

 

[Ken Behrens]

One can suppose all kinds of things but that is just an exercise of the imagination. There are too many consistencies in the measurements to grant such wholesale departures from reality as we know it.

The ancients were just as sure the sun went around the earth.

 

[SkyWriting]

But if you want to teach it in public schools, you're going to have to. And how can you be so sure that your particular flavor of creationism will end up being the one chosen?

My wife is a teacher. Each district chooses their own curriculum for their teachers.
There are a myriad of ways to teach subjects.

 

[Astrophile]

Evolution is a theory

Yes, like thermodynamics, kinetic theory, electromagnetism, stellar dynamics, quantum theory, general relativity, atomic theory, nuclear theory, and elementary particle theory.

Theory is only one part of science; theories explain observations. The theory of evolution explains the observed facts of biology, such as anatomy, embryology, genetics, taxonomy, biogeography and palaeontology.

To get back to the topic, how are creationists going to explain these observed facts in science classes?

 

[Astrophile]

1. We would not do this in any other field. It is specifically taught against in statistics when doing regression studies. We have data to prove physical forces only for under 500 years, yet we assume they are correct for millions of years ago.

We have known for more than 2000 years that there are 365 days in a year and 29½ days in a month; this indicates that the force of gravity has been constant for at least 2000 years.

2. If the studies of the speed of light since we know they have been done (about 500 years) are correlated with the year they were made, the probability that the speed is decreasing is greater than the probability that earlier studies are in error. Most modern unified field theories believe that a significant change in one such constant reflects a significant change in all.
3. I doubt we on the event horizon of a black hole, although I cannot rule it out. I simply quoted this as a well-known exception to the rule that fundamental physical quantities remain constant.

Is this what you would have taught in science classes?

 

[USincognito]

1. We would not do this in any other field. It is specifically taught against in statistics when doing regression studies. We have data to prove physical forces only for under 500 years, yet we assume they are correct for millions of years ago.
2. If the studies of the speed of light since we know they have been done (about 500 years) are correlated with the year they were made, the probability that the speed is decreasing is greater than the probability that earlier studies are in error. Most modern unified field theories believe that a significant change in one such constant reflects a significant change in all.
3. I doubt we on the event horizon of a black hole, although I cannot rule it out. I simply quoted this as a well-known exception to the rule that fundamental physical quantities remain constant.

Direct observation is not the only method of observation and measurement. We have numerous examples of observations today that show that the constants we observe now were the same in the past. Two examples I can think of are the Oklo natural nuclear reactor in Gabon and Supernova 1987A.
The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor
SN1987A and the Age of the Universe

 

[Astrophile]

The ancients were just as sure the sun went around the earth.

Aristarchus of Samos (ca. 310-230 BC) and Seleucus of Seleucia (floruit ca. 150 BC) both thought that the earth went around the sun. Would you mention them in creation science classes?

 

[USincognito]

Oklo

Dagnabbit! You beat me to it.

 

[USincognito]

The geologic record assume the same rate of geological change as now.

It's quite ironic that you mention this because the RATE group came to the conclusion that there was at least 500,000,000 years worth of radioactive decay in the geological record and their efforts to explain it away are a perfect example of why Creationism is where science goes to die.
-----------------------------
RATE The Heat Problem

The RATE group estimates that the heating would have been equal to that produced by about a half billion years of decay at today’s rates. But, it would have been generated over the period of only one year of the Genesis Flood. The heat would have melted the crustal rocks many times over unless there was some mechanism for simultaneously removing it quickly. How did the earth survive such a massive dose of heat without vaporizing the oceans and melting the rocks? How did Noah and his family survive such an environment on the Ark?

A primary piece of Biblical evidence that heat was not a problem is the fact that Noah and his family made it through the year of the Genesis Flood without being cooked! Sometimes we forget the obvious. Or, we choose to ignore the statements of Scripture which can guide our technical considerations. From the simple fact that Noah, his family, and the animals survived and left the Ark at the end of the Genesis Flood we can infer at least one of several possibilities:

• no accelerated decay occurred;
• no large amount of heat was generated by the accelerated decay; and
• God supernaturally protected Noah and his entourage by rapidly removing the large amount of heat that was produced by some unknown mechanism

 

[USincognito]

I know that truth is truth whether or not it is believed

That's hilarious! You claim to know that truth is truth in response to you spouting a lie.

Since you seem to have trouble grasping the truth, here it is.
1. The judge didn't rule anything about evolution. You were lying or mistaken when you asserted what you did.
2. The actual case was about religious accommodation in prisons and the prison was claiming that since atheists don't have a religion, they did not get any religious accommodation rights. The judge determined that for the purpose of religious accommodation atheism was a religion.

 

[USincognito]

I just did tell you what a scientific theory is , maybe you can do better ?

I can do much better since I actually can express what a scientific theory is in my own words. You clearly cannot. If you could have, you would have done so instead of just giving an example of a scientific theory.

You really aren't very good at this dude.

 

[USincognito]

Most all from a one time event from at the onset of the flood...

Bahahah! How does the Flood explain the differences between Chicxulub, which is now buried beneath 10 miles of limestone in the Yucatan, Sudbury which now is basically a series of small hills and Berringer which at a mere 75,000 years looks relatively fresh?

 

[Speedwell]

My point is, the "fake" history can be evaluated exactly as if it were real.

And that is what science is about--investigating the apparent natural world. If creationists want to teach their kiddies that the apparent natural world is a fake before they toddle off to science class, so be it. At least, it is marginally better than telling them that science is a demonic lie.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your view is he appeared as if he had grown.

No, it is not.

My view is that he appeared:

1. instantly
2. mature
3. some 20-30 years old

Had he came on the scene "as if he had grown," he would have had:

1. tooth decay
2. scrapes and bruises
3. dead skin cells on him

 

[Ken Behrens]

We have known for more than 2000 years that there are 365 days in a year and 29½ days in a month; this indicates that the force of gravity has been constant for at least 2000 years.


Is this what you would have taught in science classes?

1. As I hear it, years are getting a little longer. But the Romans thought that gravity was heaven pushing us away.

2. What level? And do you mean in the current worldview, or the view suggested by the OP?

 

[Ken Behrens]

It's quite ironic that you mention this because the RATE group came to the conclusion that there was at least 500,000,000 years worth of radioactive decay in the geological record and their efforts to explain it away are a perfect example of why Creationism is where science goes to die.
-----------------------------
RATE The Heat Problem

The RATE group estimates that the heating would have been equal to that produced by about a half billion years of decay at today’s rates. But, it would have been generated over the period of only one year of the Genesis Flood. The heat would have melted the crustal rocks many times over unless there was some mechanism for simultaneously removing it quickly. How did the earth survive such a massive dose of heat without vaporizing the oceans and melting the rocks? How did Noah and his family survive such an environment on the Ark?

A primary piece of Biblical evidence that heat was not a problem is the fact that Noah and his family made it through the year of the Genesis Flood without being cooked! Sometimes we forget the obvious. Or, we choose to ignore the statements of Scripture which can guide our technical considerations. From the simple fact that Noah, his family, and the animals survived and left the Ark at the end of the Genesis Flood we can infer at least one of several possibilities:

• no accelerated decay occurred;
• no large amount of heat was generated by the accelerated decay; and
• God supernaturally protected Noah and his entourage by rapidly removing the large amount of heat that was produced by some unknown mechanism

Theories are never ending. The Mayan Bible talks about tremendous amounts of hot rock falling from the sky during the flood. I have a suggestion that gopher is a technological term (from Fasold and consistent with the story of Enmerkar and the Lords of Arattu) for concrete impregnated with metal filings, thus creating shielding from the magnetism, but not, of course the heat. So let's suggest that 1. the heat was part of a magnetic storm, and the ark was lucky enough to be in the eye of said storm (as opposed to a thousand other arks with guys in them with other names that did in fact die in the flood). 2. The large amount of water cooled things off.

Ultimately, the choice of creationism or science is a cultural choice of what data is more important. I really think that our brains are smart enough to explain anything, if we want to do it badly enough. So I provide this response in the spirit of the thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

My point is, the "fake" history can be evaluated exactly as if it were real.

Not too fake then, is it?

 

[Ken Behrens]

Direct observation is not the only method of observation and measurement. We have numerous examples of observations today that show that the constants we observe now were the same in the past. Two examples I can think of are the Oklo natural nuclear reactor in Gabon and Supernova 1987A.
The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor
SN1987A and the Age of the Universe

There are many suppositions required in the first for the theory to work. Any supposition might be changed, and then other options might occur.

Unless time is also bent.