Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Ken Behrens]

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



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.



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

Yet, the article you posted quotes the statistics divided by these "wrong" concepts. So I guess the author doesn't understand it right either.

Evolution is just a theory. A theory can be modified. macro vs. micro is an attempted modification. Do you have any evidence they are indeed the same?

I don't have time to do the research, but I'm sure there are animals who cannot walk fast enough to travel a mile in their lifetime. For them, inches do not add up to miles.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

That the US is currently engaged in raising a generation of scientific illiterate folks, is certainly not news to me.

Plenty of american universities are FILLED with H1B foreigners, quite simply because they can't find any american students with the required expertise to enroll in those courses or programs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

You believe that. You don't know that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Dude.................................. radiometric dating is a practical application of atomic theory.

If you are going to say that it doesn't work, then you are effectively saying that science doesn't understand how atoms work... And how atoms work is explained in/by ...-drumroll-.... atomic theory

 

[Ken Behrens]

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.



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.

The only evidence for 3100 for Narmer is the Narmer stele and the level of writing displayed on it. And 3100 is far too early based on the level of writing on the sheep bowl tokens from Ur. The Sais gate makes Menes around 2900. That could make Narmer as late as 2960. Look instead for the zero-out dates of the two Egyptian (regnal and popular) calendars, and note that it matches the zero out date of the Mayan and Sumerian calendars.

The Hebrew word "all" does not mean "all" as in English. The Greek word does, but "all" and "only" are curiously absent from the Greek flood story quote in Peter. Lots of people survived that flood. You're right, the Biblical story as usually taught, is quite indefensible. The story as garnered from comparative literature is not. A hundred sixty years 3120-2960) is enough to get almost a million people, just from the 8. As far as inbreeding, Noah's sons could easily have had wives of three different cultures. Also, children were conceived on the ark, according to ancient legends. And there was lots of food on the ark.

And I disagree with the earlier dates from Egypt.

 

[Ken Behrens]

You believe that. You don't know that.

No, I know that. Jesus lives in me, and this changes my life. If He did not rise, He did not ascend, and would not be available at the cosmic level to live in me. You do not accept this level of evidence, of course, since it uses techniques that were not developed by science,a nd is part of a reality that you have not experienced, just like I have never experienced the world before 6000BC.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Dude.................................. radiometric dating is a practical application of atomic theory.

If you are going to say that it doesn't work, then you are effectively saying that science doesn't understand how atoms work... And how atoms work is explained in/by ...-drumroll-.... atomic theory

No, I'm saying that atoms may work that way today, but worked differently in the past. And I know several variation on the atomic theory - like particle vs. wave, orbitals vs. shells, quantum wave collapse yes or no...... Just because you can bake a cake does not mean you understand the chemical changes caused by baking soda.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yet, the article you posted quotes the statistics divided by these "wrong" concepts.

*I* didn't post any article.

So I guess the author doesn't understand it right either.

I guess so. Even if I have no clue what article you are talking about, if it distinguishes macro and micro as being seperate processes, then they are wrong about that, yes.

Evolution is just a theory.

Ow goody.... the "just a theory" statement. Awesome.

www.notjustatheory.com

A theory can be modified.

If new data/evidence demands it, yes.

macro vs. micro is an attempted modification.

No, it's not.

Do you have any evidence they are indeed the same?

Any of +200.000 peer reviewed scientific papers on the topic will do.

micro+micro+micro+.....+micro = macro.

It's not rocket science.
Evolution is a gradual process where micro changes accumulate every new generation. You understand what "accumulation" means, yes?

I don't have time to do the research, but I'm sure there are animals who cannot walk fast enough to travel a mile in their lifetime. For them, inches do not add up to miles.

And "do the research"? This is extremely basic stuff. It barely even qualifies as biology 101.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And I disagree with the earlier dates from Egypt.

There you go.

Newsflash: the evidence of reality, trumps stories written in books.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I know that.

No, you believe that.

Knowledge is demonstrable.

As the saying goes: "you don't know it, if you can't show it"

You do not accept this level of evidence, of course

Idd, I don't. Just like you don't accept the exact same kind of evidence from people who claim to have been abducted by aliens or who had experiences with any other gods that isn't yours. Or whatever other crazy things people have claimed over the years.

Have you spoken with a scientologist recently? Maybe you should.

, since it uses techniques that were not developed by science,a nd is part of a reality that you have not experienced, just like I have never experienced the world before 6000BC.

While you complain about how the "new generation" of students that you need to "teach math" is scientifically illiterate... it seems as if you aren't that much better.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I'm saying that atoms may work that way today, but worked differently in the past.

And perhaps the world was created 5 minutes ago, with all our memories implanted in our brains.

Do you have any valid reasons for suggesting that "atoms worked differently in the past"? Because it rather sounds as if the only reason for you to suggest this, is so you can "explain away" the facts of reality in favor of your religious beliefs.

Again it comes down to when your beliefs are at odds with reality, you assume there must be something wrong with reality.

It's a pretty bizar trail of thought.

And I know several variation on the atomic theory - like particle vs. wave, orbitals vs. shells, quantum wave collapse yes or no...... Just because you can bake a cake does not mean you understand the chemical changes caused by baking soda.

lol, yeah, okay, sure

 

[Ken Behrens]

*I* didn't post any article.




I guess so. Even if I have no clue what article you are talking about, if it distinguishes macro and micro as being seperate processes, then they are wrong about that, yes.



Ow goody.... the "just a theory" statement. Awesome.

www.notjustatheory.com




If new data/evidence demands it, yes.




No, it's not.



Any of +200.000 peer reviewed scientific papers on the topic will do.

micro+micro+micro+.....+micro = macro.

It's not rocket science.
Evolution is a gradual process where micro changes accumulate every new generation. You understand what "accumulation" means, yes?



View attachment 189573

And "do the research"? This is extremely basic stuff. It barely even qualifies as biology 101.

40 new alerts a day. I'm sorry I'll never find it. I responded to it this morning though.
I used theory in the same sense as your article does.
Can you get me one? Everything I have read says they are different. I would need laboratory proof of species change.

 

[Ken Behrens]

There you go.

Newsflash: the evidence of reality, trumps stories written in books.

The procedures used to assign those dates were invented today, and may not apply that far back.

 

[Ken Behrens]

No, you believe that.

Knowledge is demonstrable.

As the saying goes: "you don't know it, if you can't show it"



Idd, I don't. Just like you don't accept the exact same kind of evidence from people who claim to have been abducted by aliens or who had experiences with any other gods that isn't yours. Or whatever other crazy things people have claimed over the years.

Have you spoken with a scientologist recently? Maybe you should.



While you complain about how the "new generation" of students that you need to "teach math" is scientifically illiterate... it seems as if you aren't that much better.

It is not the exact same evidence. And I do in fact accept that they believe it.
I have read a lot of scientologists.
My employers, references, students, and degrees would disagree with you.

 

[4x4toy]

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



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".



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




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



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



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



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


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



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

You lack discernment, you can pray for wisdom ..

 

[essentialsaltes]

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

I've seen no evidence of it. Unlike science, which relies on evidence stemming from the past.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You lack discernment, you can pray for wisdom ..

Wisdom is gained by study and solid research.
Not by clasping hands together.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

40 new alerts a day. I'm sorry I'll never find it. I responded to it this morning though.
I used theory in the same sense as your article does.
Can you get me one? Everything I have read says they are different. I would need laboratory proof of species change.

Google "observed instances of speciation".

 

[essentialsaltes]

And I know several variation on the atomic theory - like particle vs. wave, orbitals vs. shells, quantum wave collapse yes or no.

All of those are elements of quantum theory. Only the last is an actual 'variation'. None of them have any importance for radiometric dating, based on nuclear theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The procedures used to assign those dates were invented today, and may not apply that far back.

That makes exactly zero sense.

We can actually know that atoms worked in those days in the same was as they do today, by even the only the trivial fact that people in ancient times reported sunshine.

See, the workings of the sun are entirely dependend on how atoms work.
It's been doing what it does for 4.6 billion years now.