Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

I'm not speaking of quantum computing. I'm speaking of ordinary chips that depend on quantum effects in order to work.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Do you?

Do I have an alternate theory for reality? Of course not, I accept the reality we know about. You want to justify your alternate view of reality, YOU come up with the consistent description of that alternate reality.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

The light from the nearest stars, whose distances are obtained from measurements of their parallax, is not really ancient. The light from the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, has taken 4.2 years to reach us; the light from Sirius has taken 8.6 years to reach us. The light from the Pleiades star cluster has taken about 444 years to reach us; in other words, it started when Galileo and Shakespeare were children. This is hardly ancient. Do you reject the parallax measurements for these stars, or is it only parallax measurements for more distant stars that you think are invalid?

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.

As far as I understand it, the bending of space-time is the result of the existence of a gravitational field. Einstein predicted this, and Eddington measured the bending of light by the Sun at the solar eclipse of 1919. However, there are only very weak gravitational fields in interstellar space, so there is no reason to expect enough bending of space-time to invalidate parallax measurements.

Also, if stellar parallax measurements are wrong, then the whole of stellar astronomy is wrong. Is that what you are going to teach in schools, and what are you going to replace it with?

Speed of light, and/or time, could be different farther out as well, and all such measurements could be wrong.

If so, how does it happen that the spectral lines of the various elements are at the same wavelengths (and frequencies) in the spectra of stars as they are in laboratory spectra and in the spectrum of the Sun. Also, this is merely an ad hoc supposition, without evidence.

[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.

Don't you mean the geographical poles? And if you think that you can prove the flat earth theorists wrong, you ought to get in touch with some of them and try to convince them. You might find it more difficult than you imagine.

We cannot reach the end of the galaxy.]

No, but astronomers can measure the distance to remote objects within the Galaxy, such as globular clusters, by measuring the brightness of stars of known luminosity, such as RR Lyrae stars.

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.

Perhaps you ought to read some books about radioactive decay, or you could consult physicists about your idea that 'decay could affect the bending of time'. When you consider how many short-lived radioactive isotopes are used in nuclear power stations, in medicine, in smoke alarms, etc., there should be plenty of experimental evidence.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

Thank-you for this detailed reply. I haven't got time to read it thoroughly or to reply now, but will make a proper study of it later.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

You can't convince people who value religious dogma over facts.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

These adjustments are never mentioned in the bible, and you presume reason for them without evidence that changing the speed of light would have any benefit to life or the formation of life. You have no basis for your ideas to stand on other than your personal imagination.

 

[Loudmouth]

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,

What facts aren't they showing us? What facts are they not telling us?

It seems to me that what bothers you is that scientists don't treat your faith based beliefs as facts.

and so I advocate teaching science as a search for truth of reality that anyone can undertake, and making it available to all.

That would be philosophy, not science.

In science, there is this thing called the scientific method. If you aren't using the the scientific method then you aren't doing science. From my experience, creationists don't use the scientific method. They use the "keep repeating Bible verses" method while ignoring any inconvenient facts.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

What people consider to be a "scientist" or even a "career scientist" personally is irrelevant, since there is a standard of determining those that is pretty simple. Everyone uses science to some extent on a daily basis, without even thinking about it (hence, flaws and people often not considering this "true science"). Furthermore, in most countries where becoming a career scientist is a viable option, people have the choice of what to pursue as their career, so I am unsure why you care about the number. Especially when you don't have to be a career scientist to submit a scientific article or even get it published in a peer reviewed journal.

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.

By definition, anyone that believes that Jesus Christ is the savior, and accept him as such, is a Christian. You should note that calling someone "not a true Christian" is not allowed on this forum.

 

[Ken Behrens]

1. Oh, so I misspoke here... I meant to say "It isn't any more supposition that the physical constants have'nt 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." - Even this is a little too loose because it allows you to suggest your idea is comparable, when it just isn't. The thing is, we have no reason to believe that there was some different state past. A singularity that causes some undetectable rift in time/space, wouldn't be a singularity, it'd be our universe, and paradoxically, we'd be able to detect that. Again, Black Holes are detectable.

2. So detectives can't solve murders? We can't learn ancient languages that haven't been spoken in over a millennia? We can't observe ERV's in our genome that shows our heritage with all living things on this planet using the exact same technology that proves paternity between humans? You stand on your own when you declare that. Written accounts aren't any more reliable than an eyewitness testimony. When people stand up in court and swear on the bible to tell the truth, whole truth, etc. we don't assume they're accurate in this testimony, because we know for a fact that people remember things incorrectly, if they're even honest to start with! You'd be hard pressed to find any court case that doesn't have conflicting testimony from witnesses - they're just plain unreliable as a source of information! This is a Fact (the Dover trial immediately comes to mind...)! Since you say this though, tell me who the authors are that wrote the bible? Where witnesses are mentioned, who were these witnesses? where are their signed declarations under oath for each of these witnesses?

3. Correct, Theories must incorporate all of these facts, laws and observations though. If it doesn't (i.e. an observation or evidence is discordant to the theory), then the theory would be discarded, not the observations & evidence. A Theory in science is the highest graduation that an idea can have. It is the best explanation of all of the evidence available, and contradicted by none. Out of curiosity, why do you want to hold onto ideas that have no evidence in their favour and have demonstrable evidence against them?

4. We can date these layers though. We can (and of course have) researched many methods for dating, and all of them are concordant, leading to the same reliable results. Some involve radiometric dating & some not. We know of the K/T boundary, and the other four major extinction events prior to that during this planet's lifetime, where we can see these extinction events for most of life, and a rapid expansion of new life forms in their wake. We can see for example, dried saltwater lakes that have been preserved and buried, something that is literally impossible in a global flood model (salt is 100% water soluble), and volcanic rock that permeates the geologic column all over the world is another piece of evidence disproving a young earth & global flood model. the type of rock that forms from a volcanic eruption in water is identifiably different to the rock that forms in its absence. We can see the differences between a solidifying magma cooling into rock underground, and above ground too.

5. and there's no reason to think anything different given all the evidence we have.

6. Scientists, eh? They want to know Everything! Why can't they just play dumb & stop digging up all this evidence that invalidates YEC assertions, right?

7. What you're proposing though is a singularity that is literally universe permeating. We would notice this if we could live through it in the first place.

1. The ideas are comparable if you have a different set of evidence to work with. Scientists choose what evidence is admissible, so that the weight of evidence considered supports what they wish to believe.
2. We can learn ancient languages inly if the written records exist. We cannot prove that ERV's are correct before the age of recorded data. I do not pretend written accounts represent any more than that someone said whatever is written there (plus that if a lot of people saved copies, then some people liked what they said). What does who wrote the Bible have to do with this?
3. See #1
4. You assume you can date these layers, becuase you assume consistency of scientific laws back millions of years.
5. I should tell everyone a story. Some years ago, I was walking in the woods three days after a snowfall of about 3 inches (and temperatures stayed below freezing until just before I went walking), and I discovered what I thought was a motorcycle that had been stolen and then abandoned. Being a good citizen, I called the police. Thinking myself an amateur detective, I looked for footprints and there were none. Also the motorcycle had left no tire tracks in the snow. Since motorcycles don't fly, I assumed the motorcycle had been stolen prior to the snowfall. The police came, we recovered the motorcycle, and they looked at their records and determined it had been stolen barely one day earlier. No tracks in snow that had to have had tracks. Explain it if you care to try. It is a fact. I do not trust my own deductions based on science, why should I trust scientists?
6. No not right. Why can't they stay true to their own calling and stop calling theories proven facts. That is, and has been, my only objection.
7. No, I'm not, I am proposing singularities of large fourth dimensional size, but tiny 3 dimensional radius.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. The ideas are comparable if you have a different set of evidence to work with. Scientists choose what evidence is admissible, so that the weight of evidence considered supports what they wish to believe.

Can you give examples of evidence that they are ignoring?

2. We can learn ancient languages inly if the written records exist. We cannot prove that ERV's are correct before the age of recorded data.

That's like saying that we can't prove a fingerprint came from a finger unless someone was there to watch it happen. It would seem that you are the one who refuses to accept evidence.

4. You assume you can date these layers, becuase you assume consistency of scientific laws back millions of years.

No such assumption is made. We have evidence that scientific laws were the same in the past. You just refuse to look at the evidence.

5. I should tell everyone a story. Some years ago, I was walking in the woods three days after a snowfall of about 3 inches (and temperatures stayed below freezing until just before I went walking), and I discovered what I thought was a motorcycle that had been stolen and then abandoned. Being a good citizen, I called the police. Thinking myself an amateur detective, I looked for footprints and there were none. Also the motorcycle had left no tire tracks in the snow. Since motorcycles don't fly, I assumed the motorcycle had been stolen prior to the snowfall. The police came, we recovered the motorcycle, and they looked at their records and determined it had been stolen barely one day earlier. No tracks in snow that had to have had tracks. Explain it if you care to try. It is a fact. I do not trust my own deductions based on science, why should I trust scientists?

Now you are trying to rationalize your excuses for ignoring evidence. It isn't the scientists that are not admitting evidence. It's you.

6. No not right. Why can't they stay true to their own calling and stop calling theories proven facts.

They don't.

 

[Ken Behrens]

1. Tests to determine if physical forces were different in the past are designed based on the evidence today? How is it possible to design a test based on the evidence of today when you are looking for evidence of something different in the past?

2. Exactly. And the Flood is claimed to have happened around 2000 BC. There's no gap in, for example, Egyptian history in 2000 BC.

Not to mention that if the Egyptians were wiped out by the Flood around 4000BC, why do we have ANY Egyptian culture that dates after the Flood? Why would one of Noah's descendants come along and restart Egyptian culture exactly the way it was prior to the Flood?

3. And don't even get me started on how there could be a population of millions of Egyptians and millions of Jews only 500-600 years after the Flood.

4. We're not talking about heaven. We're talking about right here on Earth, in the present time. You know, real life.

5. Well yes, there is a consensus as to what constitutes scientific evidence. Why would you expect otherwise?

6. Anyone who follows the science rules. You can't claim to be doing science but claim that an unknown entity is influencing all your results. That's not science.

7. Just like pastors don't let just anyone lead theological discussions, you have to follow the rules.

8. Didn't you just claim above that we only see a percentage of what is there, and our brain fills in the details from its past experience?

Why should anyone trust that when it comes to science?

1. I agree, and I am objecting to scientists doing that.
2. I gave the date 3122. This is based on the calendars zeroing out Dec. 21, 3121, and various ancient writings. Pre-Egyptian culture starts around 3100. The book of Jubilees calls Kainan the culprit, and says he "Sinned by doing that".
3. The same way the world has added 2 billion people just in my lifetime.
4. Sorry, there are too many posts. I forgot what this one was about.
5. I do not expect otherwise. The problem is that there is one consensus among scientists and another among those who hear them talk.
6. Right, they do not claim it. I am doing it for them.
7. Agree completely. But pastors do not agree what the rules are. (separate topic)
8. They should not, any more than we should trust them.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Because it can give us insight into how and why things may be changing today and how and why it might change in the future.

Knowledge about the past can give information about today and insight into the future.

Can you find any place it ever has?

 

[Ken Behrens]

In case you missed my second attempt to get a response to this question, I'm bumping it as I am still anxiously awaiting a response;

Shouldn't we have a reasonable basis to suppose both are wrong?

A simple yes or no response (with support) is requested.

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 Behrens]

I asked for evidence, not claims.

BTW, I googled "benefits of non-homogenized milk". There's apparently A LOT of scientists being paid to say that there is no real benefit to non-homogenized milk. Who's paying them to say that and why?

I'm guessing, but it's a question of sales. Milk that must be shaken involves a retraining of the population. The benefits BTW have to do with an enzyme that is broken down in the homogenization process, that helps remove plaque from the arteries. In the 1980's I read reports that this was verified both in England and int he US, from reputable medical journals. BTW also, non-homogenized is sold right along with the homogenized in Australia, but not in America. We must drive to selected farms to get it, unless we live in a highly urbanized area, where a few health food stores have it.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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

The evidence of psychokinesis that could affect it. (There have been such experiments). Also, whether it is affected by the quantum observer effect, as is photons.

 

[Ken Behrens]

OK, I'll bite. how would we test that? How would we scientifically test the hypothesis that humans can change the world by the use of faith alone?

How would we test whether human faith can alter the speed of light in a vacuum?

Have you heard of the experiments testing prayer in the effects of healing? I have heard unreplicated evidence of healing time shortened by two-thirds and pain as reported by victims reduced by 1/2. That's one way. There are also old experiments testing whether plants that are prayed over grow better than others. I have heard several resutls th

That's not even remotely true. Some of the first evidence against a global flood 4,000 years ago was discovered by men seeking to PROVE that a global flood happened 4,000 years ago.

And yet there are salt water lakes on the tops of mountains. ANd that mammoth with tropical grass in its stomach found in Siberia.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

1. The ideas are comparable if you have a different set of evidence to work with. Scientists choose what evidence is admissible, so that the weight of evidence considered supports what they wish to believe.
2. We can learn ancient languages inly if the written records exist. We cannot prove that ERV's are correct before the age of recorded data. I do not pretend written accounts represent any more than that someone said whatever is written there (plus that if a lot of people saved copies, then some people liked what they said). What does who wrote the Bible have to do with this?
3. See #1
4. You assume you can date these layers, becuase you assume consistency of scientific laws back millions of years.
5. I should tell everyone a story. Some years ago, I was walking in the woods three days after a snowfall of about 3 inches (and temperatures stayed below freezing until just before I went walking), and I discovered what I thought was a motorcycle that had been stolen and then abandoned. Being a good citizen, I called the police. Thinking myself an amateur detective, I looked for footprints and there were none. Also the motorcycle had left no tire tracks in the snow. Since motorcycles don't fly, I assumed the motorcycle had been stolen prior to the snowfall. The police came, we recovered the motorcycle, and they looked at their records and determined it had been stolen barely one day earlier. No tracks in snow that had to have had tracks. Explain it if you care to try. It is a fact. I do not trust my own deductions based on science, why should I trust scientists?
6. No not right. Why can't they stay true to their own calling and stop calling theories proven facts. That is, and has been, my only objection.
7. No, I'm not, I am proposing singularities of large fourth dimensional size, but tiny 3 dimensional radius.

1. No, they just aren't. Unless you're qualifying statistical data outliers, or identifying observations that are known to be incorrect/of no value to the results, all of the observations have to be considered. In fact, you can find studies that have set aside results but they're still included in the datasets, along with their reasons/findings for being excluded. Please cite an example so we can examine it together.

2. Of course. These languages are from an age ago and by your reasoning, we don't have a time machine and therefore can't verify what it means. We have a record of ERV's right now in each and everyone of our genomes, this is literally a record of all life, and even how it has evolved. Do you accept we can determine paternity through DNA? Do you accept we can compare DNA found at a crime scene and match it to a suspect's DNA? It doesn't matter how long ago the crime was committed...

4. No. Unless by assume, you mean that radioactive decay wasn't so fast in the past as to literally melt the crust of the earth killing all life? This is what would happen if it were markedly different in the past to support a young earth. Given this hasn't happened and that we can see stars all throughout time fusing and emitting the same radiation we would expect if the decay rate were the same, we literally have verification that these rates are unchanged! It's up to you then to actually demonstrate they could be different, then on top of that, demonstrate they actually were!

5. I don't have the facts, I have your story. Do you have a link to a news article? Did you say the bike was reported/found stolen a day earlier? Could it be possible it went missing before then & only discovered missing the day prior? I'll explain it (or not) as soon as I have access to the police records & all relevant facts pertaining to it. That it was stolen prior to the snowfall & discovered missing after the fact is far more plausible than it got there by magic, but I'm open to the facts. Out of curiosity since you seem to have an explanation, do you know why it would be put there by magic for you to find? I'm curious.

6. We can keep going over this, but after a while, we're going around in circles. No Theory is ever a proven fact in science. That said, there are Theories that simply have too much evidence in their favour to ever be disproven, only refined. Einsteins Theory of Relativity, Germ theory of disease, Theory of Evolution, Atomic Theory, etc. Do you have a scientific paper on any of these topics you'd like to discuss?

7. Then it wouldn't have the effect on the light we see to cause the observation of everything we see at distance in every direction in space at every distance between us and our cosmic horizon to look exactly like we live in a 13.7Gy universe on a 4.5Gy old earth.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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

No, that's not it.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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

I never said that. I believe the opposite. That is why I can count the scientists by counting those who are allowed to submit the papers.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Have you heard of the experiments testing prayer in the effects of healing? I have heard unreplicated evidence of healing time shortened by two-thirds and pain as reported by victims reduced by 1/2. That's one way. There are also old experiments testing whether plants that are prayed over grow better than others. I have heard several resutls th

And yet there are salt water lakes on the tops of mountains. ANd that mammoth with tropical grass in its stomach found in Siberia.

Citations please, so we can look into it a little further with you.