Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Ken Behrens]

Can you give me a reference for this? It isn't in my copy of Natural History, nor have I been able to find it on the Internet.

I meant to post this yesterday, but got too involved answering too many responses. I have at least determined why it is so hard to find:

Pliny Natural History (vol.1) : H. Rackham : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive this is one version I used (I had Loeb Classical, same translator) but it is the same date of publication. It was posted Jan. 24, this year, and hence was not available on internet prior to this. I assume this is due to the 75 year international copyright law. It is still under copyright in America (which has a 90 year turnover), and this was posted by the University of India. The versions I consulted in my study are :

Pliny Natural History, tr. Ackha. Harvard, 1958 Pliny Natural History. tr. Rockham. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard 1938 seq. Pliny the Elder Natural History. tr. Healy. Penguin, 1991

Now, open the pdf file to page 240 of the file, marked p. 231 in the scanned document. Note at 2-87 line 15, the phrase "the sun is at its centre". Verify the Latin on the preceding page: #87 line 5 "quoniam sit medius sol". Next go to the "authoritative" (and only modern English text online before this was posted) Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, BOOK II. AN ACCOUNT OF THE WORLD AND THE ELEMENTS., CHAP. 21. (23.)—OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE WORLD. and note four lines above the end of the first paragraph that "sun" is translated "he", thereby blurring the nature of the passage, and making internet search for the correct translation impossible.

Next, ask yourself why: Aristarchus of Samos - Wikipedia see paragraph 4 under the subtopic "heliocentrism", where we read: "It is a common misconception that the heliocentric view was held as sacrilegious by the contemporaries of Aristarchus." Read the entire paragraph, and check the footnotes. What was (for quite a while) believed to be a quote that upheld the heliocentic model (and thus Pliny's quote was relevant to modern science since it suggested the new model was impious), was determined in 1996 and 2004, to actually support the earth-centric model, making Pliny's quote irrelevant. I hate to say it, but it looks like the top Persues data base is trying to change history by subtly changing translations. If it did this at this point (which two hours of work was needed to find), I'm sure it has been done at the point which I have not found as yet also.

Due to copyright, this is apparently the only other text online: The Second Booke of Plinies Naturall History where "sun" is sometime sunne, sonne, etc., as was common in the 1500's. The new text I provided at the top, is unsearchable pdf.

So now we know why it is so difficult to find the quote. I feel so bad that I did not anticipate this change in thinking in 2001 when I did my work, and so did not write reference fir each quote made.

I also want to draw people's attention to this in this thread. My entire argument is based on the belief that scientists see what they want to see, and tell us what they want us to hear, and so I advocate teaching science as a search for truth of reality that anyone can undertake, and making it available to all. I believe I have proven this to be the case for a possibly relevant ancient passage among literary scholars considered tops in their field. Thus, my belief about top scientists doing the same thing is strengthened.

For whatever it’s worth, I was timed out by the CF website while trying to compose this.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I am not understanding how you draw that from the information in your sources. Even if only 1% of the work submitted gets published in scientific journals, you'd be presupposing the reasons behind it, and that's not even what your sources talk about. It's thanks to the rigorous screening process for errors in the methods and other aspects of experiments and their conclusions that most don't pass. People are prone to mistakes. It doesn't help that there are groups dedicated to trying to get their pseudoscience published by submitting garbage.

I agree with all of what you are saying. I have found sources that estimate the number of scientists in the world who are considered by their peers to be part of the group we call "scientists" (a group that you are preparing to join, if I understand you correctly). My only claim is that the total membership of this group is less than 1% of the earth's population of something over 6 billion, which is about 60 million people. Since the people I quoted are professional scientists themselves, I'm certain they have considered all of these statements.

We have a similar notion among Christians BTW, and you will see it frequently used in these threads, when we speak of "real" Christians or "sincere" Christians, etc. I have spoken to people who variously hold this number to be between 2% and 10% of all the Christians, thus between 2% and 10% of just under half the world's people, or about 60 to 300 million. In making such an estimate, those who do so apply a rigorous set of "standards" which are defined and agreed on by all members of the "club" and most Christians. The nature of the tests is not relevant to the count, since the same group is setting up both.

 

[Ken Behrens]

-_- seeing as, in the bible, it is stated that god created life AND IT WAS GOOD, that implies that light started out suitable for life. In fact, why would this supposedly all powerful, all knowing deity start off making life unsuitable for life to begin with, when, by its nature, it would know what the speed of light should be and be capable of making it correctly on the first try?

When you pass another car on a two lane highway, what speed do you get up to? And then what speed do you drive after completing the pass? There may have been many reasons for God to adjust things several times during the process. Maybe light is a catalyst in the first phases, and requires a different speed to do that.

 

[Ken Behrens]

People allowed and people that submit legit scientific papers, are two completely different things. You have provided zero evidence, legit scientific papers from scientists, are rejected.

This is true of only one estimate. Please note I provided several, all well under the 60 million mark. If you believe my count is wrong, find me a competing one.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Why shouldn't science try to determine if what we think about nature is true is actually true? Isn't that the whole point of doing science in the first place?

Absolutely. I am opposed only to their concluding the job is done in some field when they have yet to be able to convince even a small segment of the world's population that their results imply this.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I can say that I have a million dollars. Strangely, a million dollars does not magically appear in my bank account.

You are an agnostic, so you cannot know how the rules of the Kingdom of God work. Many Christians have done exactly this, and had it happen (and please don't think I'm talking about the "prosperity gospel" con-artists). And lunch for 5000 people would cost $15,000 or more today; yet Jesus made it appear quite "magically". But there are rules how it operates.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Everyone is permitted.



How many people are doing scientific experiments that test a scientific hypothesis that produces new knowledge about the natural world?

Have you ever read a research paper in a scientific peer reviewed journal?

Davidowitz - top concrete contractor - not allowed to present his proof that the pyramids are made of concrete, because his answers do not agree with the mainline platform. Pops into my head. He had duplicated the entire mixture, and could explain unexplained details about their construction.

How many people doing experiments of interest with something to publish? That is exactly what I am trying to count.

I have read thousands.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Scientists go by observations. Scientists have already asked the very questions you are posing, asking if the physical laws were the same in the past. They found that the answer to that question is "YES".

And you have read the papers? I have read many of them, and find the reasoning quite unconvincing. But I have also been taught to think not only by them, but by the mathematicians who design their language, and the great thinkers of older cultures.

 

[Ken Behrens]

What tests have you done for physical laws changing in the past?

No such tests can be done without a time machine.

 

[Ken Behrens]

No, I don't think you are. I think you are merely uttering the words "cross section of 10 dimensional space" without any mathematical theory to back it up. I believe you have no clue how to add another dimension into the description of Light beyond Maxwell's formulas, beyond quantum mechanics, to achieve the results you hope for . . . you just postulate, as a hypothesis, that such transformation must exist. Without bothering to state, exactly, what that transformation actually is.

Do you?

 

[Ken Behrens]

Except they really can make atomic bombs, rockets fly to the moon, and computer chips working with the laws of quantum mechanics.

But not a time machine. For that reason, I doubt whatever they say about the past. Actually are those computer chips really working yet? The last I read a couple weeks ago, it's still pretty much a theory.

 

[Speedwell]

We have a similar notion among Christians BTW, and you will see it frequently used in these threads, when we speak of "real" Christians or "sincere" Christians, etc. I have spoken to people who variously hold this number to be between 2% and 10% of all the Christians, thus between 2% and 10% of just under half the world's people, or about 60 to 300 million. In making such an estimate, those who do so apply a rigorous set of "standards" which are defined and agreed on by all members of the "club" and most Christians. The nature of the tests is not relevant to the count, since the same group is setting up both.

But the nature of the test is well known: belief in the literal historical inerrancy of Genesis. I did the calculation myself recently, from a variety of sources, and came up with about 4% of professed Christians.

Absolutely. I am opposed only to their concluding the job is done in some field when they have yet to be able to convince even a small segment of the world's population that their results imply this.

What small segment is that? It's basically only the "real" Christians identified above who struggle against the findings of science.

 

[bhsmte]

This is true of only one estimate. Please note I provided several, all well under the 60 million mark. If you believe my count is wrong, find me a competing one.

Please show scientists are not allowed to submit legit science papers. You have yet to do so.

 

[bhsmte]

And you have read the papers? I have read many of them, and find the reasoning quite unconvincing. But I have also been taught to think not only by them, but by the mathematicians who design their language, and the great thinkers of older cultures.

Then you should be able to demonstrate where the science is wrong, with evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree with all of what you are saying. I have found sources that estimate the number of scientists in the world who are considered by their peers to be part of the group we call "scientists" (a group that you are preparing to join, if I understand you correctly). My only claim is that the total membership of this group is less than 1% of the earth's population of something over 6 billion, which is about 60 million people. Since the people I quoted are professional scientists themselves, I'm certain they have considered all of these statements.

You become a peer by doing research and submitting it for publication.

The key here is "doing research". A scientist is defined as someone who DOES science. The reason that only 1% of the Earth's population publishes in science journals is that only 1% of the Earth's population is doing original scientific research.

It's kind of like a club of people who have climbed Mt. Everest. Anyone can join the club, but not everyone is a member. The same for the scientific community. When you do some science, then you can join.

 

[Loudmouth]

But not a time machine. For that reason, I doubt whatever they say about the past.

We do have time machines. They are called rocks.

 

[Loudmouth]

No such tests can be done without a time machine.

The facts demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Loudmouth]

And you have read the papers?

Yes. For example, I read a paper that measured the decay of isotopes in Supernovae 1987a. It's been a while since I read it, but perhaps I could find it again if you are interested.

I have read many of them, and find the reasoning quite unconvincing.

Examples?

But I have also been taught to think not only by them, but by the mathematicians who design their language, and the great thinkers of older cultures.

Too bad you refuse to follow the evidence.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If you are examining radioactive decay, what other thing would you choose to measure other than decay rates and why?

Things like annual layers of winter snow in icelandic and antarctic ice cores, with age determined by counting them. Counting annual layers of silt laid down in lakes. Counting annual growth layers in sea corals.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Why would being bombarded with radiation change the laws of physics?

It would be a work of fiction, of course.