Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[bhsmte]

I have already posted that scientists control who is part of them, and exclude 99% of the people doing so. That makes "scientific theory" just another word for "Listen to me. I'm a smart guy."

support this with evidence.

 

[Ken Behrens]

If you took a sample of a radioactive isotope onto an airplane and measured its decay from inside the plane during multiple flights, at no time would you ever see the decay change.



No, it isn't. They use data and observations, not made up stories.

They choose what is relevant to observe. Perhaps the rest of us wish a different choice.

 

[Ken Behrens]

The problem is that you are trying to discount things people have seen with stuff you have made that no one has ever seen. Do you see the problem?

No. I have seen things you cannot imagine.

 

[Ken Behrens]

That's like trying to create a workable model to include the last 50 years an animal behavioral science without leaving behind the literary understanding in the book "Animal Farm".

As Galileo is credited for saying, the Bible is a book on how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Your first mistake would be treating the Bible as a science book.

I treat it also as a history book, and a book that has influenced, and been part of, a great revolution in human thought.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. Lest wee forget Is this really Post #361!), I started with we can teach physics with any theory in place, if we instead focus on observations and force students to their own theories.

Except that you don't have any theories. You have suppositions and beliefs.

5. Suppose life began say 4200 BC, human life 4000 BC, writing 3500BC (that's one we can prove). Slowing light down in 4100BC might be just the thing to cause intelligent life, if it weer part of something bigger needed to do the trick.

If light slowed down then we would see the effects of this slowing down in the night sky. It isn't there.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Just because you use whatever pleases you does not mean that other people do as well.

And you know this because you have talked to a great many of them?

 

[Loudmouth]

No. I have seen things you cannot imagine.

You have seen decay rates change due to a change in the physical laws?

 

[Loudmouth]

They choose what is relevant to observe. Perhaps the rest of us wish a different choice.

I can understand why creationists would choose to ignore the relevant facts.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I'm sorry, but the above makes no sense for me? Please explain.

Scientists choose what to observe. And in my experience, it never includes the desire of humans to be part of forming hthe world by their use of faith. Thus, science winds up becoming a pawn of certain groups they are closest to in developing historical trends.

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientists choose what to observe. And in my experience, it never includes the desire of humans to be part of forming hthe world by their use of faith.

That's because human desires do not affect the decay rate of isotopes.

Thus, science winds up becoming a pawn of certain groups they are closest to in developing historical trends.

What historical trends are those? Following facts? Improving medicine?

 

[Ken Behrens]

Faith isnt based on scientific observation, which is why it is faith.

But science can only observe what has already been selected by faith.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Science indicates billions, not millions.

ALright, billions. It does not matter to my point.

 

[Ken Behrens]

How do you determine the source of ones personal psychological reality and whether is aligns with well evidenced reality?

I don't. That's why science should not try to either.

 

[VirOptimus]

Scientists choose what to observe. And in my experience, it never includes the desire of humans to be part of forming hthe world by their use of faith. Thus, science winds up becoming a pawn of certain groups they are closest to in developing historical trends.

No, that is not how science works.

 

[Ken Behrens]

1. Events in the past are responsible for the evidence in the present. If the laws of physics were different in the past, then the evidence in the present would show it.

The very fact that you have to invent a completely unwarranted and unsupported history of changing physical laws only demonstrates that the evidence does not support creationism. If the evidence supported creationism then you would be adamantly arguing for physical laws that have never changed.

2. If you were on a jury, would you be convinced by a defense attorney who claimed that all of the DNA evidence should be thrown out because the laws of physics in the DNA lab were different on the day that the evidence was tested?



3. Tests are not observations.

What makes a good scientist a good scientist is coming up with ingenious ways of testing a hypothesis. Observation is not science. Testing hypotheses is science.



4. You take issue with them not because they lack evidence to support them, but because they conflict with your beliefs.

1. That is the point we are debating. You cannot claim it as part of the argument.
2. I'd love to write a murder mystery where the bad guy bombarded the lab with radiation on that day, so the laws inside would change.
3. But it is the observations of tests that are used to build theories.
4. My beliefs are based on tests of reality I have done.

 

[Ken Behrens]

How do you know that those benefits are the same everywhere in time and space? How do you know that the laws of physics are the same everywhere milk is consumed? What if the laws of physics are different in the US v. UK?

Scientists go by the rules everyone is telling me. They would not ask those questions. So they must explain the change in science in some other way.

 

[Ken Behrens]

When you can, explain this theory in a scientific way, with the evidence that supports it.

I don't know if I will remember. You are welcome to remind me.

 

[Ken Behrens]

support this with evidence.

You can dig that out for yourself. How many people in the world are permitted to publish a paper in a refereed scientific journal? For hat matter, hi ow many journals are there, multiply by how many articles each has printed in the last 20 years. I bet it's less than 60 million (1% of the population of earth.)

 

[bhsmte]

They choose what is relevant to observe. Perhaps the rest of us wish a different choice.

???

 

[Ken Behrens]

Except that you don't have any theories. You have suppositions and beliefs.

If light slowed down then we would see the effects of this slowing down in the night sky. It isn't there.

You keep saying that. I say I do, and will present it when I have time. The more posts I have to keep answering, the less time I have.