Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Ken Behrens]

support this with evidence.

Just answered that one too.

 

[bhsmte]

You can dig that out for yourself. How many people in the world are permitted to publish a paper in a refereed scientific journal? For hat matter, hi ow many journals are there, multiply by how many articles each has printed in the last 20 years. I bet it's less than 60 million (1% of the population of earth.)

Your claim, you provide the evidence.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I can understand why creationists would choose to ignore the relevant facts.

And I can understand why scientists do the same.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know if I will remember. You are welcome to remind me.

If you actually had your own theory, i wouldnt think you would forget.

 

[Ken Behrens]

That's because human desires do not affect the decay rate of isotopes.



What historical trends are those? Following facts? Improving medicine?

Changing dietary recommendations. Helping pharmaceutical companies get rich. Helping suggest we are created by aliens. Just a few.

 

[Ken Behrens]

No, that is not how science works.

That is not how it is supposed to work.

 

[PsychoSarah]

1. Lest wee forget Is this really Post #361!), I started with we can teach physics with any theory in place, if we instead focus on observations and force students to their own theories. I was challenged on that, and I have simply been facilitating here, just as I do a math class (although there i really do know the answers). Looks like it's working.

XD You are using the term "theory" as it applies to science incorrectly, however. Theory is the highest point in science, a proposed explanation that has been rigorously tested time and again without being disproven. It's not the starting point. One might consider what you are doing a hypothesis minus the bits about testing it, which are critical. This is more like a thought experiment at this point, hence the rudeness of some of my fellow posters in their reactions to you calling anything you have said a theory.

2. Possibly. look at 10 dim string theory models and take R3 as a localized cross section around our planet and possibly out solar system. That's where I am coming from.

Maybe later, this is beyond my knowledge of physics, so I'll have to look it up and comprehend it on my own... would probably take a while.

3. I believe everything in the Bible literally happened (except of course those things specifically describes as stories), but perhaps the people watching did not understand it correctly. Try bouncing some errors off me (but not in this thread, please) and see what i do with them. Gen. 1 deals with the plans God made for earth; that's what took 6 days. You are right, there is no statement of historical earth time. BUT, if God put us here to guide the earth, and we study science to do it better, and science only teaches us that earth has gotten along quite well without us for millions of years, we have an implied contradiction there.

Why not put the errors in this thread? It wouldn't be off topic, in my opinion. How about a basic mathematical one? 1 Kings 7:23 "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
The term "sea" as used in this verse refers to a large, circular tank (so the overall shape is a cylinder). This is from the King James version of the bible, I don't know your preferred version. As we both know, you can't have a circular side of a cylinder with a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits, because the ratio of circumference to diameter of this shape would be 3 instead of 3.14. It's also redundant to mention both the diameter and circumference of a circular side if one is aware of the consistent ratio.

4. Okay, but think about how that question might help me get a handle on the mechanics of the fourth dimension.

It won't, because you'd have to be able to study the deity directly to make any useful observations as to how it does anything. Without being able to do that, it's just conjecture.

5. Suppose life began say 4200 BC, human life 4000 BC, writing 3500BC (that's one we can prove). Slowing light down in 4100BC might be just the thing to cause intelligent life, if it weer part of something bigger needed to do the trick.

As a person working towards a biology major, I can safely say that if any life could exist in a universe with the speed of light more than 1 million times as fast as what we currently measure, slowing down the speed of light would not promote the rise of intelligent life any faster. Honestly, the people that wrote the bible were not that great with numbers, and the version of Genesis in the modern Bible is a mix and mash of different versions of the same story (hence why there are two different orders of creation and so much redundancy), so I don't see any reason to assume the 6 day creation would be literal. Heck, Adam and Eve have name puns, with Adam roughly translating as dirt (what he was made of) and Eve translating as side, or rib (what she was made of).

 

[Ken Behrens]

Your claim, you provide the evidence.

90% of All the Scientists That Ever Lived Are Alive Today - Future of Life Institute
https://www.quora.com/How-many-acad...f-scientists-worldwide-who-publish-their-work

Well under 1% as claimed.

 

[Ken Behrens]

XD 1. You are using the term "theory" as it applies to science incorrectly, however. Theory is the highest point in science, a proposed explanation that has been rigorously tested time and again without being disproven. It's not the starting point. One might consider what you are doing a hypothesis minus the bits about testing it, which are critical. This is more like a thought experiment at this point, hence the rudeness of some of my posters in their reactions to you calling anything you have said a theory.



Maybe later, this is beyond my knowledge of physics, so I'll have to look it up and comprehend it on my own... would probably take a while.


2. Why not put the errors in this thread? It wouldn't be off topic, in my opinion. How about a basic mathematical one? 1 Kings 7:23 "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
The term "sea" as used in this verse refers to a large, circular tank (so the overall shape is a cylinder). This is from the King James version of the bible, I don't know your preferred version. As we both know, you can't have a circular side of a cylinder with a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits, because the ratio of circumference to diameter of this shape would be 3 instead of 3.14. It's also redundant to mention both the diameter and circumference of a circular side if one is aware of the consistent ratio.


It won't, because you'd have to be able to study the deity directly to make any useful observations as to how it does anything. Without being able to do that, it's just conjecture.


3. As a person working towards a biology major, I can safely say that if any life could exist in a universe with the speed of light more than 1 million times as fast as what we currently measure, slowing down the speed of light would not promote the rise of intelligent life any faster. Honestly, the people that wrote the bible were not that great with numbers, and the version of Genesis in the modern Bible is a mix and mash of different versions of the same story (hence why there are two different orders of creation and so much redundancy), so I don't see any reason to assume the 6 day creation would be literal. Heck, Adam and Eve have name puns, with Adam roughly translating as dirt (what he was made of) and Eve translating as side, or rib (what she was made of).

1. I don't mind the rudeness. i do mind how much time this is taking.
2. I don't have time to answer them. Otherwise, it would be fine.
3. Well, I am going by the Hebrew words for what Gen. 1 means. And speed of light here is more about astronomy and non-living radiation than life.

 

[bhsmte]

90% of All the Scientists That Ever Lived Are Alive Today - Future of Life Institute
https://www.quora.com/How-many-acad...f-scientists-worldwide-who-publish-their-work

Well under 1% as claimed.

This doesnt support your claim.

 

[PsychoSarah]

90% of All the Scientists That Ever Lived Are Alive Today - Future of Life Institute
https://www.quora.com/How-many-acad...f-scientists-worldwide-who-publish-their-work

Well under 1% as claimed.

-_- not exactly a reliable source, and if you actually look at the question this is the answer to, it refers to scientists that publish their work. Considering how many ancient scientists that lived alongside Aristotle that did publish work but was lost to time, attempting to quantify the number of scientists that have ever lived and published work would be impossible, so the 90% is null.

 

[Ken Behrens]

This doesnt support your claim.

My claim is that people allowed to submit research to the journals approved by scientists is less than 1%. I got you several reputable counts (by scientists) all under 1%. What do you want?

 

[PsychoSarah]

1. I don't mind the rudeness. i do mind how much time this is taking.
2. I don't have time to answer them. Otherwise, it would be fine.
3. Well, I am going by the Hebrew words for what Gen. 1 means. And speed of light here is more about astronomy and non-living radiation than life.

Light is absolutely critical for life. Did you not know light is the source of energy for life on Earth? So yes, light having a higher speed (and thus likely higher energy) could cook a chloroplast before it could generate usable energy for plant cells.

 

[Ken Behrens]

-_- not exactly a reliable source, and if you actually look at the question this is the answer to, it refers to scientists that publish their work. Considering how many ancient scientists that lived alongside Aristotle that did publish work but was lost to time, attempting to quantify the number of scientists that have ever lived and published work would be impossible, so the 90% is null.

My claim was about scientists today. All I think I need to show is that scientists themselves feel that this number is less than 1% of the six billion people in the world.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Light is absolutely critical for life. Did you not know light is the source of energy for life on Earth? So yes, light having a higher speed (and thus likely higher energy) could cook a chloroplast before it could generate usable energy for plant cells.

One of the things I posted a few minutes ago is that light might have slowed down as part of the creation of life.

Last one for today. Whatever yo all think of me, I have classes to teach and ministry to do tonight, besides responding here.

 

[Cearbhall]

The big question then, of course, will be what version of creationism? If it's going to be taught as a scientific subject, the course material has to be standardized. So what should schools teach?

I vote World Turtle.

 

[PsychoSarah]

My claim was about scientists today. All I think I need to show is that scientists themselves feel that this number is less than 1% of the six billion people in the world.

I am not understanding how you draw that from the information in your sources. Even if only 1% of the work submitted gets published in scientific journals, you'd be presupposing the reasons behind it, and that's not even what your sources talk about. It's thanks to the rigorous screening process for errors in the methods and other aspects of experiments and their conclusions that most don't pass. People are prone to mistakes. It doesn't help that there are groups dedicated to trying to get their pseudoscience published by submitting garbage.

 

[PsychoSarah]

One of the things I posted a few minutes ago is that light might have slowed down as part of the creation of life.

Last one for today. Whatever yo all think of me, I have classes to teach and ministry to do tonight, besides responding here.

-_- seeing as, in the bible, it is stated that god created life AND IT WAS GOOD, that implies that light started out suitable for life. In fact, why would this supposedly all powerful, all knowing deity start off making life unsuitable for life to begin with, when, by its nature, it would know what the speed of light should be and be capable of making it correctly on the first try?

 

[Cearbhall]

Can't Creationism be taught in history class?

Of course. An overview of Jewish and Christian beliefs and doctrine is included in any quality history curriculum. It's hard to learn about Western civilization without knowing such things.

 

[bhsmte]

My claim is that people allowed to submit research to the journals approved by scientists is less than 1%. I got you several reputable counts (by scientists) all under 1%. What do you want?

People allowed and people that submit legit scientific papers, are two completely different things. You have provided zero evidence, legit scientific papers from scientists, are rejected.