Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, I would teach that different people see different things, and question why this is so, and how we can determine the truth for ourselves.
Unless you're into last Thursdayism, Science doesn't indulge in suppositions, aside necessary axioms of existence.
....Okay, I call Furphy on you being a professor. Surely, even a Mathematics professor would know that science is never proven fact.
Aside life, the following: Oil prospecting (and for that matter, growing the immense amount of biological matter required to cause its existence in the first place). Mining, particularly of uranium. Atmospheric deposits in Ice cores.
All of which requires systematic interference on a cosmic scale of space between us and the lightsource, which incidentally would also require that interference to be particular to specific branches of light being lensed to us, and none other. Sure, if you're doing that in an electrical engineering lab, but this principle simply wouldn't apply itself in the depths of space without leaving dirty great skidmarks of evidential observations all over space. I'd love to see your reasoning why anyone would accept such an absurd idea with lensed light across the cosmos?
It is a supposition that the physical constants have not changed. For that matter, it is a supposition that logic can analyze things correctly. It certainly doesn't work to analyze God, who we are told is love, since love is not logical.
Should be a prerequisite for research scientists. (Most of the math teaching I do is to adults but at the high school level. Most adults have no math skills. I often wonder if it their hatred for science that causes this. But remember, I am speaking of the USA, where all the freedom of religion started.)
I was there when science discovered fats are bad to eat. Now I am there that they have discovered they are not. Same for sugar being good for you. Same for the "truth" I was taught that the Great Pyramid does not contain the constant pi.
Not really. Since objects in space, such as stars, can be billions of light years away, it means that what we are actually looking at is what was there billions of years ago. Still follows the same physical rules as we observe today. "but Sarah, that's assuming the speed of light is constant".
Illogical, singularities have form, and light gets sucked into them. Heck, space itself has form.
Do you not realize that black holes contain gravitational singularities, and that they are easily observed via the effects they have on surrounding matter? Also, you are combining multiple theologies here that contradict each other.
I am responding to an OP that asks what can we teach if creationism is mandated instead of evolution. I am simply starting with the old order of science (from ancient Greece/Rome, etc.) and reanalyzing the observations of modern scientists in their terms.
Think of light as escape velocity to the fourth dimension. Anything faster isn't here anymore. If we started elsewhere, we would have seen it there. The speed of light could have originally been infinite, and as we pushed ourselves away form the presence of God, we also pushed ourselves away from the faster parts of it.
That would be ignoring its particle like properties.
Incorrect, you are treating the physical constants as if they have no influence on each other at all. You change the speed of light, even a little, and you change the whole makeup of the universe. Also, if all those light particles that experienced the faster speed of light were gone, and the Earth was young, we still wouldn't see a galaxy 13.3 billion light years away, because the existing light particles would be moving too slowly by a factor of over a billion.
The universe isn't in equilibrium, which is part of the reason life can exist. Also, this does not help your case, the more the constants change, the less likely it represents our universe at any time.
Counter intuitive: apes that walked upright existed before apes with enlarged brains. Evidence: fossil record. Intuitive conclusion made prior to the fossil discoveries: apes with enlarged brains came first, then developed bipedal movement over time. Intuition is largely condemned in science due to the fact it often leads people to make incorrect conclusions.
Not entirely, but not knowing something doesn't mean we won't know in the future.
-_- black holes tend to already be around vast amounts of matter, given that they are gravitational singularities that only form with sufficient matter present, and that they draw matter to them. Singularities themselves are small, but they need large amounts of matter to form, in the case of black holes. There certainly could be black holes that have drawn in all outside matter near them that we can't see, but their number isn't relevant to our discussion. I never took issue with your proposal of there being tons of singularities "in the beginning", I took issue with your suggestion that they don't have form.
Particles only appeared in a third dimension, not in the fourth. They are part of the intersection of light with 3-space.
Working with the 4th dimension doesn't help you, since if you want to say that light escapes the 3rd dimension completely (btw, does a sphere lose it's second dimension in obtaining a third?), that wreaks processes in the universe necessary for life even worse if they have none of the properties of the 3rd dimension retained.
You assert without evidence, or even a bible verse.
The range is exceedingly narrow, and we live in a dynamic universe.
Mathematical models do well for that, which is why I know life as we know it requires pretty specific physics. Usually, just changing gravity a little wreaks stuff in a major way. And you want these constants to change a lot more than by a small fraction. Not only that, but you want them to fluctuate, which has never been observed.
People are often wrong, removing the human element as much as possible of course is the logical solution, but that just makes relying on science logical, not the process itself logic based.
You are assuming that those words imply singularities, something you would never get from anything described as formless and void. That sounds more like "outside" the universe to me, if I were to modernize it. Since the universe started as one singularity that expanded out, expanding "form" in the place of "void".
Personally, I´m wondering how they could spend more than two minutes teaching science, without actually turning it into a religion (or at best: philosophy) class.
It isn't any more supposition that the physical constants have changed than it is that our sun is doing exactly the same thing here and now as they were doing there and then billions of light years ago that far away from us.
Well, as much as they don't say it, it might as well be proven fact. also, I agree with Astrophile here, and he explains this perfectly...
Newton's Theory of Gravity is another theory that wasn't entirely accurate. As Gould said, "Einstein's Theory of Gravity replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome, and man descended from ape-like creatures whether we did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism, or some other way yet to be discovered." - Even if the current scientific views on the age of Earth, Universe, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Einstein's Theory of Relativity or the Theory of Evolution aren't entirely accurate, the corrections will be minor and the broad underlying principles they eschew wouldn't be fundamentally altered, let alone discarded for an entirely nonsensical view of a 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth and universe, with 'kinds' created in their original forms, etc.
Okay. A few things here, Much of the world's uranium reserves are in paleozoic unconformity type deposits, that is to say, in layers of earth between 2.6Gya and 0.5Gya. Most of these uranium deposits are further narrowed down to either 2.6Gya or between 1.6Gya and 1.2Gya timeframes. Prospecting for pretty much anything in the ground is now observant of a community database that records the layers of exposed rock, their age and where they are all over the world. Oil deposits in particular are dependent on buried biomass accumulation over millions of years, an accurate knowledge of the age and location of a prehistoric swampland, marshland or oceanic microbial flourish is a huge advantage in today's highly competitive oil and liquid petroleum industry. If you think mining and oil companies just wander out of their cities and just start looking around randomly, then you're about 150 years out of date. Through this science, these companies have been able to supply our civilizations ever insatiable thirst for fossil fuels and mineral resources with ever increasing efficiency in refining and accuracy in identifying the next crude oil or resource deposit.
So you're ignorant on the value of studying ice cores? Colour me surprised. The scientific community hasn't any requirement to "prove that the earth is old", so that nonsense can be set to one side. We can map out the climate from these ice cores for the last 680,000 years and we've found ice cores that go back to 1.5Mya. The most accurate and researched ice core is of course the Vostok ice cores, these date back to 150,000 years and have been dated using at least 5 independent methods, all correlating to the same result. From this, we've been able to map out, as you say, global climate over that time. If you dispute that these ice cores are accurate, I'd be interested to know why past the standard YEC's "Scientists might be wrong" dismissal.
According to Genesis 1:1, God's first act was to create the heaven and the earth, light came after that. Apart from that, everything else you've said here seems creative & ad-hoc. As I mentioned earlier, singularities would leave tell-tale signs - in the same way we know where black holes are even though we can't see them. A singularity that warps light & distance to the extent you are trying to suppose would be about as obvious as an intergalactic boot to the head.
We don't? We know that fundamental changes in the physical forces would leave evidence behind. We don't see that evidence. Therefore we have a reasonable basis to suppose that the fundamental physical forces haven't changed.
That still doesn't determine whether the speed of light is actually slowing down or our measurements are getting more precise.
How convenient.
If the Flood occurred after human history, why do we have so many records from civilizations whose history starts before the Flood and continues right through it with no mention of a worldwide flood?
So we shouldn't trust any observation we make on the basis that there might be something we don't know about that is affecting that observation?
Theories and facts are two different things. The fact of evolution is that populations of organisms change over time. The Theory of Evolution is the best supported theory for why the fact of evolution happens.
Let me rephrase it then.