Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

TagliatelliMonster · Feb 9, 2017

Ken Behrens said:
It is not the exact same evidence.

It's the exact same species of "evidence": dreams, visions, feelings, 'personal experience', etc.

In short: unverifiable, unfalsifiable claims and fantastical anecdotes that fly in the face of our knowledge of physics etc.

And I do in fact accept that they believe it.

It is not the fact that people believe things that is questioned here.
What is being questioned is if the things they believe are actually true.

I have read a lot of scientologists.
My employers, references, students, and degrees would disagree with you.

Considering the nonsense you have been writing here, honestly, I couldn't really care less about your supposed degrees etc.

Whenever people start talking about a 6000 year old earth and starts to argue against basic physics, biology, geology, etc... They plant themselves firmly in the thin-foil-hat category.

Loudmouth · Feb 9, 2017

Ken Behrens said:
You can read my books at my website. Ancient documents with technology described that has been patented in our age, but we do not use. The flood is a product of technological mishap.

You can present the evidence here.

How in the world does a flood produce hundreds of feet of chalk made up of tiny microorganisms called coccolithophores?

Also, your previous claim seems to assume that natural laws were the same in the past. Is this not the case?

Loudmouth · Feb 9, 2017

Ken Behrens said:
And those emissions are gone in a matter of a few minutes.

The rocks are not gone, nor are the decay products that have accumulated within them over millions of years.

You might as well argue that the horse manure on the roads proved that a wagon passed down this road 100 years ago, as to argue that we can use evidence from today to argue what happened a million years ago int he sky. The horse manure is gone, just like my emissions will be gone by tomorrow.

According to you own premises, you wouldn't accept the direct observation of a horse walking down the street as evidence because the event took place in the past. By the time the light reaches your eye the event that produced that light has already happened.

Loudmouth · Feb 9, 2017

Ken Behrens said:
1. They use procedures developed today to look at evidence seen today, and draw conclusions about the past from that.

What is wrong with that?

If you were on a jury, would you refuse to consider any forensic evidence? Afterall, that evidence is in the present, so how in the world can it be used to indicate what happened in the past, right?

If a defense attorney got up and stated that the laws of nature were different at the crime scene during the commission of the crime, would you accept that as valid reason for rejecting all of the forensic evidence?

Do you understand how irrational your position is?

Loudmouth · Feb 9, 2017

Ken Behrens said:
You claim to trust experts about science, and you will not trust me about my fields of expertise. It took less than a minute to google these two pictures. The guy had to move the boat more than 5 feet, obviously, but there was some point in the journey, when the torch appeared just to the left of the spire, and then five feet later was on the right. Find me two stars that cross in this manner, if you wish to prove me (and Charles Fort) incorrect.

View attachment 189570

How can you even use photographs? By the time the light reaches the camera the event has already taken place in the past. It is no different than using starlight.

Loudmouth · Feb 9, 2017

Ken Behrens said:
Evolution is just a theory.

Germs are just a theory. I would hazard a guess that you still take antibiotics anyway.

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

Can you point to a single DNA difference between the human and chimp genomes that isn't a microevolutionary change? If not, they are 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.

So you can walk a single step, but you can't figure out how repeating that process can cover longer distances?

Paul of Eugene OR · Feb 9, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Yes, indeed.

And what does the Good Book say?

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Now you know why some people defend science like someone is breaking into their house to steal their treasures.

Yes, many of us value truth. Some of us are even willing to bend our thoughts about our religion in the direction of truth.

Paul of Eugene OR · Feb 9, 2017

Ken Behrens said:
And those emissions are gone in a matter of a few minutes. You might as well argue that the horse manure on the roads proved that a wagon passed down this road 100 years ago, as to argue that we can use evidence from today to argue what happened a million years ago int he sky. The horse manure is gone, just like my emissions will be gone by tomorrow.

Let us imagine a universe in which, during the days of Adam, the speed of light was a million times faster than it is today. Now let us conduct a fantastic thought experiment. We get a couple of angels . . . Gabriel and Michael . . . to take us back in time to the days of Adam, along with a pocket mirror and a laser pointer. Now we shine the laser pointer for exactly one second, blinking it with our thumb twice in the one second, up into the night sky. This creates a long bar of light with two gaps in it. How long is the bar? one million times 186,282 miles. (Since the speed of light is, today, 186,282 miles per second). Gabriel flies alongside the light and keeps it squeezed together without changing its speed. Now Michael takes us miraculously to the exact time and space in the universe where he can place the mirror and reflect the beam back to the earth. He holds it there long enough to reflect the whole beam back, however long that is.
Now Michael takes us back again to our own time and we simply look up into the sky to see the beam coming back. We look up and see it. How long will the beam shine in our eye? Well, it is still the same length . . . one million times 186,282 miles . . . but now the light is crawling along at only 186,282 miles per second, so it shines for a million seconds. Those two gaps we set into a single second? It now looks as if our thumb had to take a million seconds to press the button those two times for those gaps.

The point is to make it clear that if light slows on its way to us, the events taking place we see by that light will be slowed. Things like the timing of cepheid variables, the decay of radioactive isotopes from supernova explosions, the rotation rates of the galaxies . . . these will all be slowed, in appearance, by slowed light.

Such slowing is not observed. The idea that light once traveled faster is ruled out by such observations.

Loudmouth · Feb 9, 2017

Paul of Eugene OR said:
The point is to make it clear that if light slows on its way to us, the events taking place we see by that light will be slowed. Things like the timing of cepheid variables, the decay of radioactive isotopes from supernova explosions, the rotation rates of the galaxies . . . these will all be slowed, in appearance, by slowed light.

That doesn't even get into other consequences of a change in the speed of light. Since E=mc^2, a speed of light millions of times faster would result in our Sun pumping out the square of millions in energy. This would blow apart the Sun.

Paul of Eugene OR · Feb 9, 2017

Loudmouth said:
That doesn't even get into other consequences of a change in the speed of light. Since E=mc^2, a speed of light millions of times faster would result in our Sun pumping out the square of millions in energy. This would blow apart the Sun.

And it would also require a violation of conservation of energy as it changed. For since e = mc^2, any isolated rock, any mass, that doesn't have any of its internal energy go in or out from the time its created until now would loose energy as a function of the change in the speed of light.

It is astonishing what counter factual assumptions some people will make to retain their religious beliefs, how much known truth they are willing to deny.

Loudmouth · Feb 9, 2017

Paul of Eugene OR said:
And it would also require a violation of conservation of energy as it changed. For since e = mc^2, any isolated rock, any mass, that doesn't have any of its internal energy go in or out from the time its created until now would loose energy as a function of the change in the speed of light.

It is astonishing what counter factual assumptions some people will make to retain their religious beliefs, how much known truth they are willing to deny.

Part of the problem is that they just don't understand physics, or much of science. They think that you can turn the dials of natural laws for radioactive decay in rocks, and it won't affect anything else. They don't understand just how fundamental those laws are to everything in the universe, even to things as vital as our cellular metabolism.

Ken Behrens · Feb 9, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
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.

This is not about religious beliefs. It is about the simple fact that you cannot assume that things have always been the way they are.

Ken Behrens · Feb 9, 2017

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

I have. And evidence stemming from the past analyzed according tot he present leads to ideas about the present.

Ken Behrens · Feb 9, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
Google "observed instances of speciation".

Now I have something to show the people who say that this has never happened. Thanks.

Ken Behrens · Feb 9, 2017

essentialsaltes said:
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.

That does not mean that more are not now being developed, which do apply.

Ken Behrens · Feb 9, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
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.

You gave evidence for the last 5000 years, which I accept. Not for the last million. It is precisely because people ahve not reported sunrises for a million years, that I do not believe that anything is proved about the sun at that time.

Ken Behrens · Feb 9, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
It's the exact same species of "evidence": dreams, visions, feelings, 'personal experience', etc.

In short: unverifiable, unfalsifiable claims and fantastical anecdotes that fly in the face of our knowledge of physics etc.

It is not the fact that people believe things that is questioned here.
What is being questioned is if the things they believe are actually true.

Considering the nonsense you have been writing here, honestly, I couldn't really care less about your supposed degrees etc.

Whenever people start talking about a 6000 year old earth and starts to argue against basic physics, biology, geology, etc... They plant themselves firmly in the thin-foil-hat category.

Anything before human observation is NOT verifiable. It violates a basic principle of research applied consistently in regression analysis. Anything before this time is a theory. I am not saying this because of religious beliefs. I am saying it because it is a principle of science.

Many things are being questioned here. That people do not trust scientists and do not believe these theories is important, because people act on what they believe. Science itself is in jeopardy.

I answered the OP by saying science can be taught, no matter what theory is forced upon scientists. Then I had several atheists posting 10-20 posts per day each to me telling me I am crazy because I do not believe that science cannot make a mistake. What is at issue here is what is science. And I have put aside other responsibilities to use my teaching skill to try to answer what I believed were honest questions.

I don't know the ages of the atheists speaking to me. But statistics show that the percentage of atheists increases as ages go down, so I assume most of you are young. I understand that when someone who has seen things you have not, tries to tell you the truth of life, that it sounds like the parents you left behind just a short time ago. I have more important things to do than to continue answering the same objections over and over.

Ken Behrens · Feb 9, 2017

Loudmouth said:
You can present the evidence here.

How in the world does a flood produce hundreds of feet of chalk made up of tiny microorganisms called coccolithophores?

Also, your previous claim seems to assume that natural laws were the same in the past. Is this not the case?

The flood doesn't make them, it just helps them grow faster, and gives them a nice place to do it.

My studies took more than 20 years. They will not fit here.

Ken Behrens · Feb 9, 2017

Loudmouth said:
The rocks are not gone, nor are the decay products that have accumulated within them over millions of years.

According to you own premises, you wouldn't accept the direct observation of a horse walking down the street as evidence because the event took place in the past. By the time the light reaches your eye the event that produced that light has already happened.

Whatever made those rocks is gone. That's my problem.

bhsmte · Feb 9, 2017

Ken Behrens said:
The flood doesn't make them, it just helps them grow faster, and gives them a nice place to do it.

My studies took more than 20 years. They will not fit here.

LOL

Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Finally Old Enough

Finally Old Enough

Contributor

Finally Old Enough

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency