Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Loudmouth]

I don't. That's why science should not try to either.

Why shouldn't science try to determine if what we think about nature is true is actually true? Isn't that the whole point of doing science in the first place?

 

[Loudmouth]

You keep saying that. I say I do, and will present it when I have time. The more posts I have to keep answering, the less time I have.

I can say that I have a million dollars. Strangely, a million dollars does not magically appear in my bank account.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can dig that out for yourself. How many people in the world are permitted to publish a paper in a refereed scientific journal?

Everyone is permitted.

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.)

How many people are doing scientific experiments that test a scientific hypothesis that produces new knowledge about the natural world?

Have you ever read a research paper in a scientific peer reviewed journal?

 

[AV1611VET]

They completely destroy your "created with age" nonsense.

I have a feeling most think anything destroys my "created with age nonsense."

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientists go by the rules everyone is telling me. They would not ask those questions. So they must explain the change in science in some other way.

Scientists go by observations. Scientists have already asked the very questions you are posing, asking if the physical laws were the same in the past. They found that the answer to that question is "YES".

 

[Loudmouth]

I have a feeling most think anything destroys my "created with age nonsense."

Uranium radiohalos most certainly do destroy embedded age claims.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Happy Birthday!

 

[AV1611VET]

Uranium radiohalos most certainly do destroy embedded age claims.

Ya ... you said that already.

Have you seen my radiohalo thread from years ago?

 

[Loudmouth]

1. That is the point we are debating.

You don't think that events in the past are responsible for the evidence we observe in the present?

2. I'd love to write a murder mystery where the bad guy bombarded the lab with radiation on that day, so the laws inside would change.

That wouldn't be a violation of any laws.

3. But it is the observations of tests that are used to build theories.

You don't have any observations of any tests, just made up stories.

4. My beliefs are based on tests of reality I have done.

What tests have you done for physical laws changing in the past?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ya ... you said that already.

Have you seen my radiohalo thread from years ago?

I saw your argument get destroyed in that thread.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have a feeling most think anything destroys my "created with age nonsense."

Not when it is information unrelated to aging of matter or time measurement.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not when it is information unrelated to aging of matter or time measurement.

Aging is a process that didn't occur during the creation week.

Adam, for instance, didn't "age to thirty;" he came into existence thirty.

 

[Loudmouth]

Aging is a process that didn't occur during the creation week.

Then we shouldn't see any uranium radiohalos, but we do.

Adam, for instance, didn't "age to thirty;" he came into existence thirty.

And yet rocks have uranium radiohalos which serve no function and take millions of years to form. These same rocks also overlay and intrude into fossil bearing sediments which means that your embedded age nonsense requires God to create the Earth with fossils already in the ground.

 

[VirOptimus]

Aging is a process that didn't occur during the creation week.

Adam, for instance, didn't "age to thirty;" he came into existence thirty.

That is not possible as the definition of age is "time in existance".

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Faith isnt based on scientific observation, which is why it is faith.

If faith is not based on evidence, what claim does it present to make it valid? And by what logic was that claim, without evidence, allowed?

 

[AV1611VET]

That is not possible as the definition of age is "time in existance".

I'd get a better dictionary then.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No. I am speaking of a cross-section of 10 dimensional space used as models in current string-theory type ideas. Einsteinian is valid int he neighborhood of earth, but w3e do not know how far that extends.

No, I don't think you are. I think you are merely uttering the words "cross section of 10 dimensional space" without any mathematical theory to back it up. I believe you have no clue how to add another dimension into the description of Light beyond Maxwell's formulas, beyond quantum mechanics, to achieve the results you hope for . . . you just postulate, as a hypothesis, that such transformation must exist. Without bothering to state, exactly, what that transformation actually is.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I have already posted that scientists control who is part of them, and exclude 99% of the people doing so. That makes "scientific theory" just another word for "Listen to me. I'm a smart guy."

Except they really can make atomic bombs, rockets fly to the moon, and computer chips working with the laws of quantum mechanics.

 

[quatona]

I'd get a better dictionary then.

Point us to the definition of "age" you are using, and to one of those "better" dictionaries.

 

[AV1611VET]

Point us to the definition of "age" you are using, and to one of those "better" dictionaries.

QV please:

Then don't give it that --- give it definition #4 in answers.com.

I made it clear that I'm using definition #4 from answers.com.