Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Ken Behrens]

The rocks come from the past. They can tell you what happened in the past.

Unless they have been changed by some external force in the meantime. Like the famous The London Hammer: An Alleged Out of Place Artifact It's lucky we have a way to prove that this is not what it originally seemed to be.

 

[Ken Behrens]

A scientific theory is not falsified simply because people refuse to accept evidence that runs contrary to the religious beliefs.

It's still a theory, I agree. My objection since the beginning has been that many are saying it is a fact.

 

[Ken Behrens]

If we were to observe the decay of an isotope in a supernova 180,000 light years away, and that decay was the same as it is here on Earth, would you accept that as evidence for constant decay rates 180,000 years ago?



You seem incapable of presenting any, so I doubt it.

Are you sure that changes in the decay patterns are not being compensated for in some way by changes int he speed of light? Well, of course you are, but I mean generically.

 

[Speedwell]

It's still a theory, I agree. My objection since the beginning has been that many are saying it is a fact.

Not anyone who knows anything about science--and who else would you listen to on the subject?

 

[bhsmte]

It's still a theory, I agree. My objection since the beginning has been that many are saying it is a fact.

well, scientic theories work. Every hour of evsry day, you enjoy the benefits of the many scientific theories that deliver.

 

[Ken Behrens]

LIKE WHAT?????

If you are going to accuse millions of scientists across the globe and back through 200 years of accumulated research of fudging their data, at least have the temerity to present some of it.

What you are talking about is a worldwide conspiracy among millions of scientists from all faiths and through 200 years working together to hide evidence that an amateur with a simple telescope could discover. You can't be serious.

I have too many posts to keep up with everyone.. Earlier today I posted the argument that part of certain phenomena might be that scientists cannot see them. The I posted a theory from when I was young, that this is in fact true. If the second theory is correct (and it has worked well for me for 45 years), then telling you the facts won't help, since the theory say you cannot accept the information.

It is called cognitive level change, and is documented as part of spiritual growth in every culture. By definition, scientific inquiry demands a certain level of thought relative to spiritual (not Godly) reality. People who attain the different perception simply stop being scientists. But then they can see more forces operating in the universe.

 

[Speedwell]

Scientific theories are provisional until falsified. They are not facts. I think the "fact" that bothers Creationists is the fact that YECism has already been falsified.

 

[bhsmte]

I have too many posts to keep up with everyone.. Earlier today I posted the argument that part of certain phenomena might be that scientists cannot see them. The I posted a theory from when I was young, that this is in fact true. If the second theory is correct (and it has worked well for me for 45 years), then telling you the facts won't help, since the theory say you cannot accept the information.

It is called cognitive level change, and is documented as part of spiritual growth in every culture. By definition, scientific inquiry demands a certain level of thought relative to spiritual (not Godly) reality. People who attain the different perception simply stop being scientists. But then they can see more forces operating in the universe.

More opinion.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I found six other opinions of people who have counted scientists. I simply quoted them.

I know the forum rules, and I invite you to report my post, if you think I have violated them. In every such case that uses a term, such as "real Christians", the poster was speaking of their experiences in churches, and no one in the forum was included in the count, either implicitly or explicitly). I have seen such phrases here, but I have seen them far more in brick-and-mortar life. They reflect the division between those who use science every day/ and those who pursue science sufficiently to be part of the elite club that publishes papers, and gets paid for it.

I care about the number because I am concerned, more than any of you I think, about the loss of respect for science that I see every day. I teach in America Universities, and what you hear of American loss of care for science is far worse than the statistics suggest. In talking to people, I find that a lot of it is they do not trust scientists, and much of that is due to the early earth/universe arguments. There is serious communication and respect gap, and I would like to see that solved. I think my first response that science can be taught with any starting theory, so long as students are involved and taught science correctly, is a step in that direction. Apparently, a lot of you don't agree.

You failed to mention loss of respect there. No, actually, there have always been sizable communities which had little to no respect for science. It's just that it happens to be easier for them to communicate their distaste to more people than before, and more such people are capable of reading and writing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yet most atheists believe God is in the imagination also. And belief in God is one of the most common beliefs in the world.

It's irrelevant how common any belief is, as that doesn't contribute to credibility. Also, atheism is, by definition, a lack of belief in deities. If I were exposed to sufficient evidence, I'd believe in them, I just haven't been exposed to such evidence, so I don't. So, until further notice, I consider deities a concept, yes, but few atheists would astutely claim that they absolutely don't exist.

Many things are not in the Bible. The language did not exist to explain them. Any more than the roundness of the earth or the heliocentric system. Those reading it are free to believe either theory.

Then magic is just as viable an explanation as your 4th dimensional light is. Actually, it's more viable, because I can't demonstrate that magic would tear the universe apart like increasing the speed of light to the point that it transcends the 3rd dimension would.

 

[Ken Behrens]

It's freaking trigonometry. Are you saying trigonometry is wrong?



Could be? Don't you think you need some evidence before you decide to reject well supported and observed science?



No, we don't. We use the spectra to determine the chemical make up of the star. Period.



If all those things were different then so too would the spectra. The spectra isn't different. We see the same spectral lines from distant stars that we see on Earth. If the laws of nature were different then atoms would absorb and emit light at different wavelengths.

If the speed of light were different, then the energy output of each star per mass would be different. We would see different luminosities for different masses. If the speed of light were faster then less massive stars would produce more light. Remember E=mc^2? That c is the speed of light. Increase the speed of light and you increase the amount of energy produced by the same amount of mass.

This would also change the luminosity of type Ia supernovae. They would produce different amounts of light since the mass of each type Ia supernovae is the same. They don't. All type Ia supernovae have the same luminosity, have the same fading rate, and behave the same throughout the universe. This is dead lock evidence that the laws of nature have not changed for billions of years.



Then why don't more distant stars also change location in the night sky?

Trigonometry only works on flat space.

Anything far away is only supported by guesswork.

But if space is bent, or speed of light changes, you will get a spectra of some other chemical than is there. Then you will use that spectra to infer the wrong chemical makeup.

But you determine star mass by how it bends light around it. If space already bends, your bend observations are wrong.

That's why they are called type Ia. But, some may be misclassified due to bending of space or speed of light.

Distances are computed by trigonometry. Trigonometry does not work in bent space.

 

[Ken Behrens]

LOL. You saw movies?

The point is they had a fingerprint that did not come from a finger. Even if the presentation was fictional, the movie makers made them the fingerprint to use in the movie. That proves it can exist.

 

[bhsmte]

The point is they had a fingerprint that did not come from a finger. Even if the presentation was fictional, the movie makers made them the fingerprint to use in the movie. That proves it can exist.

You believe everything that comes out of hollywood?

 

[Ken Behrens]

Well, there's your problem. That doesn't change what the facts actually are.

Or is it their problem, if they believe them to be true, and I am right? Funny thing is, as I have pointed out, when you talk about long ago and far away, it doesn't really matter.

 

[VirOptimus]

It's still a theory, I agree. My objection since the beginning has been that many are saying it is a fact.

Its a scientific theory.

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

 

[Ken Behrens]

Please explain to me the phenomenon light presents that is best explained using more than our three dimensions of space and one of time, rather than the rules of quantum mechanics and the Maxwell equations.

What God created on the first day is bigger than three dimensions, and does not need sun or moon to exist. The light we see coming from the sun is thus something less than that.

 

[Ken Behrens]

No, they are not. They are based on laws that have been demonstrated to be the same for billions of years.



The evidence says otherwise.

It seems that you are the one ignoring the evidence.

That is exactly the point at issue. You were not there, you cannot be sure except by inference.

 

[Ken Behrens]

One could do that, but it would be risky for the teacher and risky for the honest and courageous students.

Depends on the level of the class.

 

[Ken Behrens]

this indicates, any type meditation, paraying to whatever god, could impact your mind and possible help physical health, but they dont have much science. So, this means, you can pray to non christian gods, and even meditate and get the same impact.

I think that is probably correct, but I have not seen the experimental evidence. I am also in another thread where that evidence is important to establish a Christian question of whether soul and spirit are the same thing.

 

[Ken Behrens]

What evidence are scientists ignoring that points to a 6,000 year old Earth?

I have previously stated I do not know how old the earth is. If I had such evidence, I would know.