Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Bugeyedcreepy]

And while ear wiggling muscles may not serve an "important" function, those muscles do still reposition one's ears, which happens naturally when you're focusing on selecting a specific sound out of a group of sounds. They're also play a role in moving the rest of your face muscles around

Okay, even if that were the case (and I'm far from convinced), how about the vibrissal capsular muscles that some of us are still born with? It's not like we still have wiskers to feel around with. For that matter, how about the palamaris longus muscle that we have no use for - this is a throwback to our ancestors getting around in trees, but we have no use for it and most of us (about 85%) are born without it. I, however have passed the Palamaris Longus Test & have the muscle! Is an Intelligent Designer hedging his/her/its bets on us going back to trees sometime soon? or is it just a vestigial muscle that only 15% of us are born with? How about the Levator Claviculae muscle that only about 3% of the human population is born with these days? Every other great ape has it to help their chugging around the tree tops because it's a staple in arboreal locomotion - but we don't tree-swing, so why do we still have it (...or have it in the first place) if we never had that common ancestor? Last one for an Intelligent Designer, why, with a fused coccyx and all, would we even need to have an extensor caudae medialis in humans, are these fused bones in need of tail lifting anytime soon? Or would it make more sense if we evolved away from having a tail, and this is a left-over remnant?

 

[The Gregorian]

I'm not an expert in anatomy, but from what I know, when you cut a person open, the various bits don't have labels on them. What makes you so sure the muscles found in the lip are "useless vestiges from a purpose we no longer use" as opposed to something used to move the bits they're connected to?

For the one in your wrist... if you can flex it... it's doing work on something. That kind of proves it's not vestigial.

Yes, people can be born with tails... without their parents being born with a tail and without passing the trait on to any of their children... showing an example of a mutation/deformity being naturally corrected (on a genetic level anyway) before thise genes are passed on.

Even so, finding similarities between species CAN be interpreted as a genetic relation between those species... but the evidence is spurious and, unless directly observed as repeatable and variable, is not "fact" to the exclusion of other theories.

While evolution answers some potential questions, there are some major holes in the theory that make it self-contradictory... but these tend to be dismissed because "goddidit"... or in science terms "random mutations over billions of years makes it unfalsifiable. We don't need evidence and no problem can refute it because we can just chalk it up to random action over time."

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

For the one in your wrist... if you can flex it... it's doing work on something. That kind of proves it's not vestigial.

This makes no sense at all.

Yes, people can be born with tails... without their parents being born with a tail and without passing the trait on to any of their children... showing an example of a mutation/deformity being naturally corrected (on a genetic level anyway) before thise genes are passed on.

Gobbledeegook.

Even so, finding similarities between species CAN be interpreted as a genetic relation between those species... but the evidence is spurious and, unless directly observed as repeatable and variable, is not "fact" to the exclusion of other theories.

You just confessed that you will never accept the evidence.

While evolution answers some potential questions, there are some major holes in the theory that make it self-contradictory...

You wish.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I'm not an expert in anatomy, but from what I know, when you cut a person open, the various bits don't have labels on them. What makes you so sure the muscles found in the lip are "useless vestiges from a purpose we no longer use" as opposed to something used to move the bits they're connected to?

What do you think Doctors, Nurses and other medical professionals do at Medical school for 4 to 8 years? Next time you see your doctor, ask him/her if they cut people open randomly & rummage around in there aimlessly hoping to see something obviously wrong, or if they practice appropriate scientific based medicine at all times & update their knowledge periodically to stay current with the latest scientific breakthroughs. Google a guide to human anatomy and check it out for yourself.

For the one in your wrist... if you can flex it... it's doing work on something. That kind of proves it's not vestigial.

Nope! For those who have it, it doesn't provide any advantage over those born without it It has literally evolved to the point of complete uselessness/disappearing. If we swung in tree branches for a few hundred thousand years or so however, it might be a different story.

Yes, people can be born with tails... without their parents being born with a tail and without passing the trait on to any of their children... showing an example of a mutation/deformity being naturally corrected (on a genetic level anyway) before thise genes are passed on.

Not what I'm talking about - but yes, a tail is another vestigial throwback to our ancestry. The extensor caudae medialis muscle is a smooth muscle that attaches across a set of fused vertibrae that make up the coccyx and sacrum in humans which in many other mammals would normally be inclusive of a tail, which is where it has its one and only use, to raise it (like domestic cats for example). But on both this muscle and the tail itself - if we were created, then how did this information get into our perfectly created DNA, or why do we have it if it was there in the beginning? Individually created 'kinds' sounds like a ruse in light of these facts.

Even so, finding similarities between species CAN be interpreted as a genetic relation between those species... but the evidence is spurious and, unless directly observed as repeatable and variable, is not "fact" to the exclusion of other theories.

lol! What other theories? Unless you mean non-scientific & unfounded wishlists conjured up by folk with a vested interest in not accepting the evidence we already have? It isn't just the similarities that we look for btw, We look for the differences too. Specifically, the identical coding of proteins when the dna could be coded differently, or more efficiently using other codons, yet it's the same in similar species, and different for species further away from us, or that evolved the trait independently. We also look for the same broken genes in descended species too, this is another equally important factor in determining lineages... so not just similarities, all of which are observable and repeatable whenever you're ready to take a look at it yourself.

While evolution answers some potential questions, there are some major holes in the theory that make it self-contradictory... but these tend to be dismissed because "goddidit"... or in science terms "random mutations over billions of years makes it unfalsifiable. We don't need evidence and no problem can refute it because we can just chalk it up to random action over time."

I'd be interested to see these alleged 'major holes' because the scientists from all forms of world views who work in this field seem to not have a problem with it at all. All the evidence (keeping in mind it's the most well-evidenced theory in all of science), points to the Theory of Evolution and no other hypothesis has any traction in the scientific community at all.

 

[The Gregorian]

You just confessed that you will never accept the evidence.

Depends on the strength of the evidence. Do you accept that I can observe similarities in the DNA and morphology of much of the life on earth and therefore, it's obvious they have a common intelligent designer?

What do you think Doctors, Nurses and other medical professionals do at Medical school for 4 to 8 years? Next time you see your doctor, ask him/her if they cut people open randomly & rummage around in there aimlessly hoping to see something obviously wrong, or if they practice appropriate scientific based medicine at all times & update their knowledge periodically to stay current with the latest scientific breakthroughs. Google a guide to human anatomy and check it out for yourself.

Indeed... people train for quite a while and know more about anatomy than I do... but I DO know that inside your skin, there's muscles and organs. They don't have labels and property tabs with objective descriptions of what it came from. They're just muscles. When people see a muscle connected to certain points that remind them of a muscle in another animal, connected to comparable points, we call the muscle by the same name. That does not mean the muscles are in any way related.

I can cut pieces of wood and see all sorts of patterns in them that may remind me of human faces or other shapes... that does not mean the wood is shaped that way because it's related to humans. Humans simply have a tendency to make connections to relate things together.

So yea... we have some minor muscles that can be compared to muscles other animals have that are more developed than ours. That no more means that our version is a vestige of theirs than it means that their version is a more evolved version of our own. It's just meat.

 

[Jimmy D]

What makes you so sure the muscles found in the lip are "useless vestiges from a purpose we no longer use" as opposed to something used to move the bits they're connected to?

Hi Gregorian

Vestigal features aren't necessarily "useless" nor are they defined as such.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Indeed... people train for quite a while and know more about anatomy than I do... but I DO know that inside your skin, there's muscles and organs. They don't have labels and property tabs with objective descriptions of what it came from. They're just muscles. When people see a muscle connected to certain points that remind them of a muscle in another animal, connected to comparable points, we call the muscle by the same name. That does not mean the muscles are in any way related.

Well, the experts in these fields all say otherwise.

I can cut pieces of wood and see all sorts of patterns in them that may remind me of human faces or other shapes... that does not mean the wood is shaped that way because it's related to humans. Humans simply have a tendency to make connections to relate things together.

Paradolia. Like how people of faith recognise their respective holy icons in their crackers and toasted sandwiches

So yea... we have some minor muscles that can be compared to muscles other animals have that are more developed than ours. That no more means that our version is a vestige of theirs than it means that their version is a more evolved version of our own. It's just meat.

so, still not answering the question... Why do we have them in the first place if we don't need them at all?
This is explained by the Theory of Evolution, no Intelligent Designer required.

 

[Astrophile]

We observe the universe expanding, I agree. This does not prove "how/why" this expansion started. Whether the original expansion was an effect with a cause (creationism), or that this effect was equally inexplicable, but further complicated by it being self-generating (the big bang)... either way, the laws of physics we can observe can not explain a situation where it could be possible. Talk to any astrophysicist, physics (except gravity) could cope with anything AFTER the big bang, but a universal singularity is definitively a black hole, the escape velocity would therefore be greater than the speed of light, requiring greater than an infinite amount of force for a single atom with mass to escape. ... unless we throw out Einstein's work (which I'm in favor of).

I think that you have misunderstood the expansion of the universe. The expansion isn't like the explosion of a bomb; material hasn't been ejected from a singularity with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. Instead the universe is expanding, like a balloon expanding as air is blown into it. Obviously nothing can escape from the universe; the initial mathematical singularity contained the whole of the observable universe. I doubt whether there was a real physical singularity; the mathematical singularity is merely where the equations break down because scientists' knowledge of the laws of physics is incomplete, so I think that you are extrapolating the mathematical equations beyond the range of their validity. When you say, 'talk to any astrophysicist', how many astrophysicists have you actually talked to?

More to the point, you appear to accept that the universe is expanding. If one extrapolates back in time, this expansion implies that the universe was in a very hot, very dense state 13.8 billion years ago. This is conveniently close to the age of the oldest stars, a useful confirmation of the age of the universe derived from the expansion. How else can you interpret the observed expansion without starting from an initial hot dense state?

... or universal expansion could be an illusion. Take any piece of paper and make a bunch of dots. Enlarge any section of it, and line up any of the dots and it will appear that all other dots are moving outward from a central point. But any point would consider itself that central point. If the universe is infinite, its expansion doesn't necessitate a central origin point in space or time. An infinite universe can still emit radiation in any direction allowing for the radiation we observe "at the edge of the universe" commonly interpreted to be background radiation... to just be radiation from an area of space beyond our current capacity to observe from our perspective.

This is not the correct explanation of the cosmic microwave background. The background is the redshifted radiation from the cooling fireball of the Big Bang when the universe became cool enough for protons and electrons to recombine so that the universe became transparent. In your model of the universe, what is the source of the microwave background? Also, the fact that there is no 'centre of the universe' doesn't mean that there was no initial state of high temperature and high density. By the way, you haven't explained the cosmic He/H, D/H and Li/H ratios; these light elements were also created during the initial high-temperature state.

Point is, anything beyond our ability to perceive is definitively beyond our ability to test. We can have ideas, but can not call any of them science. Science is what we can observe here and now. The inobservable is a matter if faith whether it involves a God or not.

Again, you are simply trying to evade the point. I presented the main evidence for the Big Bang cosmology. Any cosmological theory has to explain the observed facts of the expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background and the abundances of the light elements. These are facts; they are not something 'beyond our ability to perceive', and the Big Bang cosmology explains them. You, on the contrary, have not tried to explain any of them. That is why Big Bang cosmology is science and creationism is not.

 

[Astrophile]

We observe the evidence HERE of radiation coming from a certain direction... we are not observing radiation that actually exists elsewhere in space. And even if we detect which direction it came from, there's no way to prove it has an origin point of some "universal edge." It could be from any given object simply outside of our range of detection, or from an object within our range that was deflected at some point during its potentially billion year journey.

No. The cosmic microwave background is uniformly distributed through space; it does not come from discrete sources and it is not limited to a certain direction. Either we are inside a uniform radiating sphere of material at a temperature of 2.7 K, or the microwave background is the redshifted radiation from the Big Bang fireball at the recombination epoch.

Also, your third sentence does not convey any meaning to me. Could you explain it in more detail; in particular, what sort of object do you think could be 'outside of our range of detection', and how could such an object produce an observable uniform background of radiation with a black-body temperature of 2.7 K?

Also, the current version of the big bang requires one to believe that time and space are mutable, material that can be created and destroyed... which is balogna.

Prove that it's balogna. If you can't you are simply using the argument from personal incredulity.

 

[bhsmte]

What happened to Kenny?

 

[Queller]

Sure. But instead of giving you something that is beyond many in this thread, I will give you the following argument from Charles Fort: After spending many years searching newspapers, he was unable to find a single report of stars crossing in front of each other as seen by astronomers. The distance to stars and speed of light does not matter. If the earth is going around the sun, and get 186 million miles from whether it was 6 months ago, and if stars are at various distances from the earth, stars must be seen to cross, it is a question of geometric parallax arguments (Try walking from one side of the front of a room to the other, and keep your eye on two chairs at different lengths from you). His conclusion was that stars are not "hanging" in space at various distances, they must be painted on some kind of canopy and thus all the same distance from earth. So if you can find a case of stars appearing to cross that will settle my doubt. (I just tried a google, and could not find anything). If you cannot, this constitutes presumptive evidence that the whole measurement of star distance differences is in error, and consequently, anything derived from it (including the speed of light in space) is wrong.

Ken, I realize you have apparently abandoned this thread but I just came across some information that should, as you put it, "settle your doubt" about whether stars are different distances from earth.

This link is to a NASA web page about parallax. On that page is the following GIF:

The moving dot is Barnard's Star. It is the fourth-closest star to earth. As indicated, these are photos of Barnard's Star taken five years apart over a period of 20 years. While it may not appear to "cross" in front of other stars (I guarantee there are stars behind it as moves that are simply too faint to see), it change of position relative to the nearby stars should settle your doubt about the varying distances to the stars.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Ken, I realize you have apparently abandoned this thread but I just came across some information that should, as you put it, "settle your doubt" about whether stars are different distances from earth.

This link is to a NASA web page about parallax. On that page is the following GIF:

The moving dot is Barnard's Star. It is the fourth-closest star to earth. As indicated, these are photos of Barnard's Star taken five years apart over a period of 20 years. While it may not appear to "cross" in front of other stars (I guarantee there are stars behind it as moves that are simply too faint to see), it change of position relative to the nearby stars should settle your doubt about the varying distances to the stars.

Someone already posted it. I do accept this as evidence that stars have now been seen to cross. Thanks.

 

[Queller]

Someone already posted it. I do accept this as evidence that stars have now been seen to cross. Thanks.

A mind changed by evidence is a rare thing nowadays. Glad to hear it.

 

[Ken Behrens]

A mind changed by evidence is a rare thing nowadays. Glad to hear it.

I will state my point of view once more, since this thread has never gone the way it should have.

The OP was what would those in favor of scientific theories as they now stand, were forced to teach creationism as the scientific theory. My response is it does not matter, since if science is taught correctly, any wrong theory ultimately corrects itself. That should have been considered a wise response, since history shows that is exactly what happened over the last 500 years.

Suddenly, a bunch of people started accusing me of not believing current theories because of my faith. I played devil's advocate and showed people that if observations are correctly documented, they will in time change the theory back to the truth. I do not come to this site to argue. I am here (and very little because of the arguments), hoping to find kindred spirits to make friends with. It's fine if none of you are that, but I am quite busy with three simultaneous careers and a lot of extra volunteer ministries.

No one was able to document a single observation of the speed of light or gravity etc., before the age of writing, only indirect observations. When I switched to Fort's observation about stars not having been seen to cross YET (80 years ago), an example was found from today, as I hoped it would be.

That is called doing science, and not quoting science for purposes of argument. That's why I responded to your post.

 

[Queller]

I will state my point of view once more, since this thread has never gone the way it should have.

The OP was what would those in favor of scientific theories as they now stand, were forced to teach creationism as the scientific theory. My response is it does not matter, since if science is taught correctly, any wrong theory ultimately corrects itself.

Or is discarded. You left out that one.

Creationism as a scientific theory has been discarded by the mainstream scientific community because it doesn't explain the evidence as well as evolution, geology, paleontology, cosmology and other theories that it competes with.

That should have been considered a wise response, since history shows that is exactly what happened over the last 500 years.

Suddenly, a bunch of people started accusing me of not believing current theories because of my faith. I played devil's advocate and showed people that if observations are correctly documented, they will in time change the theory back to the truth. I do not come to this site to argue. I am here (and very little because of the arguments), hoping to find kindred spirits to make friends with. It's fine if none of you are that, but I am quite busy with three simultaneous careers and a lot of extra volunteer ministries.

You came to a debate/discussion board about one of the most controversial theories in all of science (controversial mostly to believers in a literal Bible, not to scientists). You then made many claims (Distance has nothing to do with angles, Uniformatarianism can't be proven, "someone" is paying scientists to say there are no benefits to non-homogenized milk) with providing any support for those claims. As I said, this is a debate/discussion forum. You should expect to be challenged on ideas that go against the current scientific consensus.

No one was able to document a single observation of the speed of light or gravity etc., before the age of writing, only indirect observations.

And yet you made wild claims about what the speed of light could have been in the distant past without a shred of evidence to back up those claims.

When I switched to Fort's observation about stars not having been seen to cross YET (80 years ago), an example was found from today, as I hoped it would be.

The proper motion of Barnard's Star was first documented by E. E. Barnard [for whom the star is named) in 1916, over 100 years ago. Just because Fort couldn't find information 20 years after it was discovered doesn't mean it hadn't happened.

That is called doing science, and not quoting science for purposes of argument. That's why I responded to your post.

If you're going to make controversial claims about science, it helps if you can back up your claims with some kind of evidence.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

I played devil's advocate and showed people that if observations are correctly documented, they will in time change the theory back to the truth.

-snip-

Thats not devils advocate, thats trolling.

 

[bhsmte]

I will state my point of view once more, since this thread has never gone the way it should have.

The OP was what would those in favor of scientific theories as they now stand, were forced to teach creationism as the scientific theory. My response is it does not matter, since if science is taught correctly, any wrong theory ultimately corrects itself. That should have been considered a wise response, since history shows that is exactly what happened over the last 500 years.

Suddenly, a bunch of people started accusing me of not believing current theories because of my faith. I played devil's advocate and showed people that if observations are correctly documented, they will in time change the theory back to the truth. I do not come to this site to argue. I am here (and very little because of the arguments), hoping to find kindred spirits to make friends with. It's fine if none of you are that, but I am quite busy with three simultaneous careers and a lot of extra volunteer ministries.

No one was able to document a single observation of the speed of light or gravity etc., before the age of writing, only indirect observations. When I switched to Fort's observation about stars not having been seen to cross YET (80 years ago), an example was found from today, as I hoped it would be.

That is called doing science, and not quoting science for purposes of argument. That's why I responded to your post.

Which direction should the thread have gone?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Which direction should the thread have gone?

He already shared that; it should go along the line that science, if properly taught, will come up with the correct answers eventually even if it starts from the wrong place.

Of course, that is the history of science. We are living it out today, as evolution and the great age of the earth and the universe overtake the previous ideas of separate creation of species and the relatively young age - a mere 6000 to 10000 years - of the earth and the universe.

Some ideas are so ingrained into people's minds that only as they die off from old age do those ideas lose their place in the public ideasphere. We are going through that transition now with the YEC ideas.

 

[Ajflyguy7]

Why would anyone believe anything in the Bible? That tired, old book that was written decades to centuries after "Jesus" death? It's a book created by man, edited by man, put together by man, translated by man, and now interpreted by man. We don't even have any original copies. Why do people think this is the word of god?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would anyone believe anything in the Bible? That tired, old book that was written decades to centuries after "Jesus" death? It's a book created by man, edited by man, put together by man, translated by man, and now interpreted by man. We don't even have any original copies. Why do people think this is the word of god?

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

And why did you put JESUS in quotes?