Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[AV1611VET]

So the earth's scars from asteroid impacts, landslides, floods, volcanic eruptions, etc. from thousands/millions of years ago don't exist?

Not on Day Seven, when God rested from all His work.

In fact, He looked on everything and pronounced it ...

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Now when God creates something, it's good!

But when He creates something very good, it's very good.

And not "very good" by our standards: "very good" by His standards.

Our best word ("perfect") doesn't even begin to describe it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most all from a one time event from at the onset of the flood , look at the Carolina bays , they are all elliptical basically in the same direction if they are meteorite strikes some even powerful enough turn Earth on it's axis and create seasons ,first rain and severe atmospheric change to what we see present day ..

[The late] C. I. Scofield, in his Scofield Reference Bible, mentions the cosmic battle that took place when ⅓ of the angels rebelled.

He points out that the universe bears everywhere the marks of such a battle.

Mr. Scofield believed in the Gap theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you know what this is?

Yes.

Residue from the Flood that God swept up into a nice pile and left for our edification.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes.

Residue from the Flood that God swept up into a nice pile and left for our edification.

lol, no

 

[Ken Behrens]

I'm sorry, but that's akin to saying one is a professor of English or Law and therefore one is in a position to know what the "real teaching" of science is.

Evolution is, whether you like it or not, scientific and a fact. That is why is taught in college biology classrooms. Well, most college biology classrooms. I'm in a Facebook group where a student at Liberty University is describing his experience with his Origins 201 class. It's quite disturbing though morbidly fascinating.

Not exactly. English and Law have methodology completely different from science. Math is the language of science. Nonetheless, I already answered that objection by showing the argument from first principles.

I'm in lots of FB groups. Most are not worth my time - I just skim them.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Do we have any reasonable basis to not accept that the physical forces in the universe were different in the past?

Are you advocating that we should not accept that the physical forces have always behaved as they do now because our planet (solar system/galaxy/universe) might be skimming along the event horizon of a massive black hole?

1. We would not do this in any other field. It is specifically taught against in statistics when doing regression studies. We have data to prove physical forces only for under 500 years, yet we assume they are correct for millions of years ago.
2. If the studies of the speed of light since we know they have been done (about 500 years) are correlated with the year they were made, the probability that the speed is decreasing is greater than the probability that earlier studies are in error. Most modern unified field theories believe that a significant change in one such constant reflects a significant change in all.
3. I doubt we on the event horizon of a black hole, although I cannot rule it out. I simply quoted this as a well-known exception to the rule that fundamental physical quantities remain constant.

 

[AV1611VET]

lol, no

Then how did it get there?

 

[4x4toy]

Then how did it get there?

McGrrrrrrregorrrrrrr carved them out

 

[keith99]

So the earth's scars from asteroid impacts, landslides, floods, volcanic eruptions, etc. from thousands/millions of years ago don't exist?

Well the ones from less than 6000 years ago are fine. But it does seem there is a problem with the older ones!

 

[Loudmouth]

My point is that we cannot know (as a scientist). We cannot be certain that the laws we use to make scientific inference were the same then as they are now.

Why not?

When we look at distant stars we are directly observing the past. Why can't we use these observations to determine what the laws were in the past.

Also, past events leave evidence that we can observe in the present. If the laws of nature were different in the past then they would leave evidence in the present that they were different. For example, the uranium decay chain has multiple daughter products that each have their own energy of decay. If a small chunk of uranium is captured in a rock when it forms it will produce a series of halos around the little chunk of uranium due to the particles that the decay emits. The more energetic the decay the further the particle travels out from the uranium chunk.

By measuring the radii of the halos we can determine if decay energies, and hence decay rates, were the same in the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution is a theory

So are germs. I'm betting you still take antibiotics anyway.

 

[Loudmouth]

A minute old existentially.

About 30 years old physically.

Uranium radiohalos are the same as Adam having a belly button. These radiohalos require millions of years of uranium decay, and we find them in rocks everywhere. No function on Earth requires that rocks have uranium radiohalos.

 

[Loudmouth]

We have data to prove physical forces only for under 500 years,

No, we don't. On Earth we have a geologic record spanning 4.5 billion years. In the sky, we have an astronomical record that spans the last ~14 billion years. We have data for almost all of the Universe's history.

2. If the studies of the speed of light since we know they have been done (about 500 years) are correlated with the year they were made, the probability that the speed is decreasing is greater than the probability that earlier studies are in error.

E=mc^2

If the speed of light were different in distant parts of the universe then we would observe very different stars and very different supernovae. We don't. All of the stars and supernovae put out the same amount of energy no matter how far back we look. This means that the speed of light has been nearly the same for the entire 14 billion year history of the universe.

3. I doubt we on the event horizon of a black hole, although I cannot rule it out. I simply quoted this as a well-known exception to the rule that fundamental physical quantities remain constant.

We know that universal constants haven't changed from such things as uranium radiohalos and naturally occurring nuclear reactors:

" Making similar allowances for the uncertainties in the modeling of the operation of the Oklo reactors, we conclude that the relative change in

since the Oklo reactors were last active (redshift

) is less than

parts per billion."
[1510.00856] Bound on the variation in the fine structure constant implied by Oklo data

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Uranium radiohalos are the same as Adam having a belly button. These radiohalos require millions of years of uranium decay, and we find them in rocks everywhere. No function on Earth requires that rocks have uranium radiohalos.

Congratulations!! You Won the Internet Today!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

f the speed of light were different in distant parts of the universe then we would observe very different stars and very different supernovae. We don't. All of the stars and supernovae put out the same amount of energy no matter how far back we look. This means that the speed of light has been nearly the same for the entire 14 billion year history of the universe.

We also get to see the light radiate the stellar gas clouds around them at the speed of light where we see supernova in these clouds - sometimes thousands of light years across themselves...

 

[AV1611VET]

Uranium radiohalos are the same as Adam having a belly button. These radiohalos require millions of years of uranium decay, and we find them in rocks everywhere. No function on Earth requires that rocks have uranium radiohalos.

I've already addressed radiohalos.

 

[VirOptimus]

Can God create a dress tomorrow so old it falls apart with age?

I dont belive in god(s).

 

[Ken Behrens]

Why not?

When we look at distant stars we are directly observing the past. Why can't we use these observations to determine what the laws were in the past.

Also, past events leave evidence that we can observe in the present. If the laws of nature were different in the past then they would leave evidence in the present that they were different. For example, the uranium decay chain has multiple daughter products that each have their own energy of decay. If a small chunk of uranium is captured in a rock when it forms it will produce a series of halos around the little chunk of uranium due to the particles that the decay emits. The more energetic the decay the further the particle travels out from the uranium chunk.

By measuring the radii of the halos we can determine if decay energies, and hence decay rates, were the same in the past.

In order to compute the distance to a star, we begin with the distance across the earth's orbit, take two measurements and triangulate. Then, using this number, we calibrate ancient light. But just suppose both are wrong. If space bends outside our solar system, we could be fooled in the triangulation, as we are when observing something under water. Speed of light, and/or time, could be different farther out as well, and all such measurements could be wrong. [I know flat earth theorists argue the same way about the location of the magnetic poles. but we can reach the poles and prove them wrong. We cannot reach the end of the galaxy.]

I do not completely understand the mechanics of decay, but I would assume that decay could affect the bending of time, and give us false information in the same way.

My point is another theory can be raised.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Adam came on the scene fully mature.

I say he came on the scene mature without history.

What history do you say he experienced?

Your view is he appeared as if he had grown. Growing would be the history one could evaluate, scientifically.

The details of that growth would have an impact on his final state. His final state implies a particular growth history. That is what could be investigated, both for him and the whole earth. Well, since he's not available, it more applies to the earth rather than him.

 

[Ken Behrens]

No, we don't. On Earth we have a geologic record spanning 4.5 billion years. In the sky, we have an astronomical record that spans the last ~14 billion years. We have data for almost all of the Universe's history.



E=mc^2

If the speed of light were different in distant parts of the universe then we would observe very different stars and very different supernovae. We don't. All of the stars and supernovae put out the same amount of energy no matter how far back we look. This means that the speed of light has been nearly the same for the entire 14 billion year history of the universe.



We know that universal constants haven't changed from such things as uranium radiohalos and naturally occurring nuclear reactors:

" Making similar allowances for the uncertainties in the modeling of the operation of the Oklo reactors, we conclude that the relative change in

since the Oklo reactors were last active (redshift

) is less than

parts per billion."
[1510.00856] Bound on the variation in the fine structure constant implied by Oklo data

The geologic record assume the same rate of geological change as now. The sky record assumes constant space-time curvature of the sky.

Unless energy and time control each other.

But the paper depends on current theories of dark energy. That is so new, mor components could easily be discovered.