Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Loudmouth]

Your evidence is based on laws today used to measure that evidence.

No, they are not. They are based on laws that have been demonstrated to be the same for billions of years.

These laws may have changed as well.

The evidence says otherwise.

It seems that you are the one ignoring the evidence.

 

[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.

One could do that, but it would be risky for the teacher and risky for the honest and courageous students.

 

[4x4toy]

No, they are not. They are based on laws that have been demonstrated to be the same for billions of years.



The evidence says otherwise.

It seems that you are the one ignoring the evidence.

No, you have too much invested in your bread and butter to open your eyes ..You are afraid of the truth or either you don't understand science ..

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you have too much invested in your bread and butter to open your eyes ..You are afraid of the truth or either you don't understand science ..

And yet you can't present a single piece of evidence to support the claim that laws were different in the past.

 

[4x4toy]

Theory of Relativity

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Theory of Relativity

Do you expect extra points for being cryptic?

 

[Loudmouth]

Theory of Relativity

Lord of the Rings

 

[Ken Behrens]

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.

A couple hours ago I posted a referenced to the book "Science is a Sacred Cow" which demonstrates that it is a critique of science by a real scientist, and recognized so at its time. The book used an argument regarding the idea that scientists can never prove the existence of ghosts, if in fact, ghosts exist, and part of their nature is to avoid scientists. In fact, an early theory from this following branch of science (which I read their journal for many years) implies that this is so. That there are things in the world which cannot be seen by scientists, due to the way in which the scientific mind must work. The Association for Transpersonal Psychology promoting a vision of the universe as sacred. I do not know if the theory has been accepted, but I have found it to be true in many years of pastoral work.

2. That is true of some languages. In other cases, the language was absorbed by a later language, which prepared educational materials, and we have learned the first language from the second. Your argument does not apply to calendrical dating, where mathematics comes into play to aid translation. I accept that DNA determines paternity, but not that it can date accurately. I do not believe DNA is viable for more than a few dozen years.

4. It is not a given this has not happen. The Mayan Bible speaks of a time during the flood, when such a thing occurred.

5. I thought of your idea, that the theft was reported later. The police said the victim rode the bike hours before he reported it stolen. My belief is that I did not see the marks on the ground, thinking they were caused by compactification of the snow when the barometer went up (this is common in Upstate New York with "lake effect" snow.)

6. Einstein's theory has been recently challenged, with some experimental evidence. 5 things Albert Einstein got totally wrong Experiment Proves Einstein Wrong I once read in a responsible medical book of a lecturer who began his classes each semester by injecting himself with a quantity of deadly bacteria. His point was to prove the germ theory is not the complete answer, as disease requires a compromised host. Bacterial Pathogenesis - Medical Microbiology - NCBI Bookshelf I don't want to get into theory of evolution, since I'm trying to keep away from creationists theories, and anyone who writes against it is immediately labeled creationist, as you folks seem to be doing to me. Atomic theory can mean lots of things; there is a viable alternative that everything is a wave, and another that there are orbitals.

7. Unless there were lot of them.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I posted this earlier, but it was after you asked. Can Prayer Heal? There are too many people talking to me. I do not have time to answer everyone.

 

[bhsmte]

I posted this earlier, but it was after you asked. Can Prayer Heal? There are too many people talking to me. I do not have time to answer everyone.

this indicates, any type meditation, paraying to whatever god, could impact your mind and possible help physical health, but they dont have much science. So, this means, you can pray to non christian gods, and even meditate and get the same impact.

 

[Ken Behrens]

What evidence have you produced to prove science is wrong? Post number please.

I ahve started to post a number of articles from scientists themselves. You post went up last night before I posted today. Please check through the forum since last night. I have way too many posts to keep answering individually.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Please present the evidence in regards to prayer and healing.

I still have this webpage open. Third time today:Can Prayer Heal?

 

[Loudmouth]

A couple hours ago I posted a referenced to the book "Science is a Sacred Cow" which demonstrates that it is a critique of science by a real scientist, and recognized so at its time. The book used an argument regarding the idea that scientists can never prove the existence of ghosts, if in fact, ghosts exist, and part of their nature is to avoid scientists. In fact, an early theory from this following branch of science (which I read their journal for many years) implies that this is so. That there are things in the world which cannot be seen by scientists, due to the way in which the scientific mind must work. The Association for Transpersonal Psychology promoting a vision of the universe as sacred. I do not know if the theory has been accepted, but I have found it to be true in many years of pastoral work.

2. That is true of some languages. In other cases, the language was absorbed by a later language, which prepared educational materials, and we have learned the first language from the second. Your argument does not apply to calendrical dating, where mathematics comes into play to aid translation. I accept that DNA determines paternity, but not that it can date accurately. I do not believe DNA is viable for more than a few dozen years.

4. It is not a given this has not happen. The Mayan Bible speaks of a time during the flood, when such a thing occurred.

5. I thought of your idea, that the theft was reported later. The police said the victim rode the bike hours before he reported it stolen. My belief is that I did not see the marks on the ground, thinking they were caused by compactification of the snow when the barometer went up (this is common in Upstate New York with "lake effect" snow.)

6. Einstein's theory has been recently challenged, with some experimental evidence. 5 things Albert Einstein got totally wrong Experiment Proves Einstein Wrong I once read in a responsible medical book of a lecturer who began his classes each semester by injecting himself with a quantity of deadly bacteria. His point was to prove the germ theory is not the complete answer, as disease requires a compromised host. Bacterial Pathogenesis - Medical Microbiology - NCBI Bookshelf I don't want to get into theory of evolution, since I'm trying to keep away from creationists theories, and anyone who writes against it is immediately labeled creationist, as you folks seem to be doing to me. Atomic theory can mean lots of things; there is a viable alternative that everything is a wave, and another that there are orbitals.

7. Unless there were lot of them.

What evidence are scientists ignoring that points to a 6,000 year old Earth?

 

[Ken Behrens]

You are not making any sense.

I'm sorry. It's gotten to where I can't remember what this response was to, so I don't know how to clarify. I am doing about 10 times my normal post rate here. I'm trying to answer everyone, but it's getting harder.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Have you never heard of eclipsing binaries?

I am referring only to stars at different distances from earth, but on approximately the same directional coordinates. A binary could be a single star analogous to an orbital on an atom.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Anyone can submit papers for publication. Wheter or not it well be published will be entirely based on the quality and merrit of the paper, not on who's name is written on top of it.



So, science is biased/untrustworthy because not every human on earth is publishing papers?
Really?

And everyone knows this, so few have the money and time to do it in a way they believe will be satisfactory. And they feel this makes scientists elitist.

No, science is biased because they do not listen to large numbers of people who are not publishing papers and have different ideas what constitute relevant facts, which ideas would not be considered "quality and merit"..

 

[Ken Behrens]

Once more...
People don't need approval to get published.
Papers need approval to get published.

Anyone can submit a paper for publication.
If it passes peer review (the process where the quality and merrit of the paper is reviewed, in order to pro-filter nonsense from ending up in scientific journals), it will get published. No matter who the author is.

That's not how a lot of people see it.

 

[bhsmte]

And everyone knows this, so few have the money and time to do it in a way they believe will be satisfactory. And they feel this makes scientists elitist.

No, science is biased because they do not listen to large numbers of people who are not publishing papers and have different ideas what constitute relevant facts, which ideas would not be considered "quality and merit"..

Opinion.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, science is biased because they do not listen to large numbers of people who are not publishing papers and have different ideas what constitute relevant facts, which ideas would not be considered "quality and merit"..

Not all ideas are equal. It is just a fact of life that some people are wrong. Those wrong ideas don't become good ideas simply by believing in them harder.

 

[bhsmte]

That's not how a lot of people see it.

With some, reality takes a back seat to what they psychologicaly need to see. To them, well evidenced reality is to painful to acknowledge. So, they manufacture their own reality.