Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Ken Behrens]

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.

I agree completely. And that is what I was saying. I was pointing up that the interest in science is fairly low. Most people feel they have done some experiments like science in their lives simply by trying to learn lessons from life and changing their ideas as they went. Yet they have no interest in official science as you define it.

I find it understandable that few people have climbed Mt. Everest, although many have walked up a hill for fun. I find it a question that I think should be addressed as to why the interest in official science is as low as it is.

 

[Ken Behrens]

We do have time machines. They are called rocks.

I'd love to have a rock that could take me back to see Jesus (or if you do not believe in Him, to prove He is not there where He is supposed to be). That would be my test if a rock is actually a time machine.

 

[Ken Behrens]

The facts demonstrate otherwise.

We have been over these "facts" several times. I do not accept them as facts, and many others int he world do not either.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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.

Examples?

Too bad you refuse to follow the evidence.

I probably saw it. I seem to remember something about it. But you can find it if you like and I will look at it.

I was a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for I think 2 years, and read that journal they put out back then. Mathematics research applying to science counts, of course. For over 20 years, I read each edition of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, and all of the English language parapsychology journals. This, plus random articles in medical science, musical science, psychology, and anthropology. In fact, 2 weeks ago the university I work for insisted i complete a short workshop in updated science paper citation (to include internet techniques) for use in the classroom).

Maybe I have just seen different evidence.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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.

No, do you have the training and knowledge to construct such transforms to get light to be four dimensional? you know, Banach algebras, topological covering spaces, matrices and eigenvectors, recent seminar attendance in string theory? At least I think that's what I responded to; there are too many posts now for me to be certain.

This is not about my justifying what I believe; it is about defending my point of view that you can still teach science under a repressive regime that forces creationist theory to be the only one taught.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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?



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?




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.



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.



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.



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.

I have some reservations about the sue of parallax. It's still a self-referent system being used. I posted Charles Fort's objection last night. I would teach everyone's opinions,a nd help students learn to sort it out for themselves.

Bending could be other ways also, just as the earth is really "bent" (curved) and the flat earth theorists reject that.

We use the spectra to decide what chemicals are int he stars, then we use the chemicals to prove the spectra. Same for luminosity. It's still a circular argument. If the chemicals are different, light can be a different speed.

I know those flat earth theorists are as hard to deal with as I am. Maybe harder. They always ignore my questions about the 180 degree sum of a triangle measured at sea.

Perhaps I should read lots of things. I'm a little busy answering 30 alerts a day at the moment.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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

Science has yet to convince most people on earth of the accuracy of their long ago observations either.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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

Current review article form responsible scientists. Enjoy: Can Prayer Heal?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'd love to have a rock that could take me back to see Jesus (or if you do not believe in Him, to prove He is not there where He is supposed to be). That would be my test if a rock is actually a time machine.

The rocks come from the past. They can tell you what happened in the past.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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.

Yet most atheists believe God is in the imagination also. And belief in God is one of the most common beliefs in the world.

Many things are not in the Bible. The language did not exist to explain them. Any more than the roundness of the earth or the heliocentric system. Those reading it are free to believe either theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science has yet to convince most people on earth of the accuracy of their long ago observations either.

A scientific theory is not falsified simply because people refuse to accept evidence that runs contrary to the religious beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

I probably saw it. I seem to remember something about it. But you can find it if you like and I will look at it.

If we were to observe the decay of an isotope in a supernova 180,000 light years away, and that decay was the same as it is here on Earth, would you accept that as evidence for constant decay rates 180,000 years ago?

Maybe I have just seen different evidence.

You seem incapable of presenting any, so I doubt it.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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.



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.

Everyone has facts they do not wish to see. Scientists also. Ever heard of this book: Science is a Sacred Cow - Wikipedia It was required reading when I was in school. He makes the point that there may be things that a scientist, by the very nature of reality, can never see. (He uses ghosts as an example, although this has since been disproved). These are the facts I refer to.

It is only philosophy if the search for knowledge is not done by the scientific method. I have never said it should not be so, and in fact, that is how I would teach it. Everyone has believed, because of how I worded my first post, that I am a creationist. I never said that. Like many of you are agnostics, I am simply a creation scenario agnostic. I have never found conclusive evidence, feel both have errors, and think we are many centuries from a provable solution, if that is even possible.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have some reservations about the sue of parallax. It's still a self-referent system being used.

It's freaking trigonometry. Are you saying trigonometry is wrong?

Bending could be other ways also, just as the earth is really "bent" (curved) and the flat earth theorists reject that.

Could be? Don't you think you need some evidence before you decide to reject well supported and observed science?

We use the spectra to decide what chemicals are int he stars, then we use the chemicals to prove the spectra.

No, we don't. We use the spectra to determine the chemical make up of the star. Period.

Same for luminosity. It's still a circular argument. If the chemicals are different, light can be a different speed.

If all those things were different then so too would the spectra. The spectra isn't different. We see the same spectral lines from distant stars that we see on Earth. If the laws of nature were different then atoms would absorb and emit light at different wavelengths.

If the speed of light were different, then the energy output of each star per mass would be different. We would see different luminosities for different masses. If the speed of light were faster then less massive stars would produce more light. Remember E=mc^2? That c is the speed of light. Increase the speed of light and you increase the amount of energy produced by the same amount of mass.

This would also change the luminosity of type Ia supernovae. They would produce different amounts of light since the mass of each type Ia supernovae is the same. They don't. All type Ia supernovae have the same luminosity, have the same fading rate, and behave the same throughout the universe. This is dead lock evidence that the laws of nature have not changed for billions of years.

I know those flat earth theorists are as hard to deal with as I am. Maybe harder. They always ignore my questions about the 180 degree sum of a triangle measured at sea.

Then why don't more distant stars also change location in the night sky?

 

[Loudmouth]

Everyone has facts they do not wish to see.

LIKE WHAT?????

If you are going to accuse millions of scientists across the globe and back through 200 years of accumulated research of fudging their data, at least have the temerity to present some of it.

What you are talking about is a worldwide conspiracy among millions of scientists from all faiths and through 200 years working together to hide evidence that an amateur with a simple telescope could discover. You can't be serious.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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.


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.

I found six other opinions of people who have counted scientists. I simply quoted them.

I know the forum rules, and I invite you to report my post, if you think I have violated them. In every such case that uses a term, such as "real Christians", the poster was speaking of their experiences in churches, and no one in the forum was included in the count, either implicitly or explicitly). I have seen such phrases here, but I have seen them far more in brick-and-mortar life. They reflect the division between those who use science every day/ and those who pursue science sufficiently to be part of the elite club that publishes papers, and gets paid for it.

I care about the number because I am concerned, more than any of you I think, about the loss of respect for science that I see every day. I teach in America Universities, and what you hear of American loss of care for science is far worse than the statistics suggest. In talking to people, I find that a lot of it is they do not trust scientists, and much of that is due to the early earth/universe arguments. There is serious communication and respect gap, and I would like to see that solved. I think my first response that science can be taught with any starting theory, so long as students are involved and taught science correctly, is a step in that direction. Apparently, a lot of you don't agree.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Can you give examples of evidence that they are ignoring?



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.



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.



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



They don't.

I posted a response to that a few minutes ago.
I have seen more than two dozen movies where the spy got into the safe by using a fingerprint that did not come from a finger, but from a picture of some kind of that finger.
Your evidence is based on laws today used to measure that evidence. These laws may have changed as well.
No, I'm telling you we all misinterpret evidence.
I sure have heard a lot of it.

 

[bhsmte]

I posted a response to that a few minutes ago.
I have seen more than two dozen movies where the spy got into the safe by using a fingerprint that did not come from a finger, but from a picture of some kind of that finger.
Your evidence is based on laws today used to measure that evidence. These laws may have changed as well.
No, I'm telling you we all misinterpret evidence.
I sure have heard a lot of it.

LOL. You saw movies?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

We have been over these "facts" several times. I do not accept them as facts, and many others int he world do not either.

Well, there's your problem. That doesn't change what the facts actually are.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, do you have the training and knowledge to construct such transforms to get light to be four dimensional? you know, Banach algebras, topological covering spaces, matrices and eigenvectors, recent seminar attendance in string theory? At least I think that's what I responded to; there are too many posts now for me to be certain.

This is not about my justifying what I believe; it is about defending my point of view that you can still teach science under a repressive regime that forces creationist theory to be the only one taught.

Please explain to me the phenomenon light presents that is best explained using more than our three dimensions of space and one of time, rather than the rules of quantum mechanics and the Maxwell equations.