Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Ken Behrens]

What is wrong with that?

If you were on a jury, would you refuse to consider any forensic evidence? Afterall, that evidence is in the present, so how in the world can it be used to indicate what happened in the past, right?

If a defense attorney got up and stated that the laws of nature were different at the crime scene during the commission of the crime, would you accept that as valid reason for rejecting all of the forensic evidence?

Do you understand how irrational your position is?

As a matter of fact, the Greek tragedy of Oedipus states that the murders involved were forced by fate. Perfectly acceptable then, not today. So the laws of nature were assumed different then.

 

[Ken Behrens]

How can you even use photographs? By the time the light reaches the camera the event has already taken place in the past. It is no different than using starlight.

Way different. We can check the air to see it is not bent. We cannot check space the same way.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Germs are just a theory. I would hazard a guess that you still take antibiotics anyway.



Can you point to a single DNA difference between the human and chimp genomes that isn't a microevolutionary change? If not, they are the same.



So you can walk a single step, but you can't figure out how repeating that process can cover longer distances?

No, not normally. My body throws off diseases anyway.

I was just talking with someone who posted evidence of speciation. If the two are the same, why is there a separate term for macro?

I was talking about an animal that cannot in his lifetime walk a mile. The point is that I can think about it because it is relevant to me, but it is not relevant to the animal in question.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Let us imagine a universe in which, during the days of Adam, the speed of light was a million times faster than it is today. Now let us conduct a fantastic thought experiment. We get a couple of angels . . . Gabriel and Michael . . . to take us back in time to the days of Adam, along with a pocket mirror and a laser pointer. Now we shine the laser pointer for exactly one second, blinking it with our thumb twice in the one second, up into the night sky. This creates a long bar of light with two gaps in it. How long is the bar? one million times 186,282 miles. (Since the speed of light is, today, 186,282 miles per second). Gabriel flies alongside the light and keeps it squeezed together without changing its speed. Now Michael takes us miraculously to the exact time and space in the universe where he can place the mirror and reflect the beam back to the earth. He holds it there long enough to reflect the whole beam back, however long that is.
Now Michael takes us back again to our own time and we simply look up into the sky to see the beam coming back. We look up and see it. How long will the beam shine in our eye? Well, it is still the same length . . . one million times 186,282 miles . . . but now the light is crawling along at only 186,282 miles per second, so it shines for a million seconds. Those two gaps we set into a single second? It now looks as if our thumb had to take a million seconds to press the button those two times for those gaps.

The point is to make it clear that if light slows on its way to us, the events taking place we see by that light will be slowed. Things like the timing of cepheid variables, the decay of radioactive isotopes from supernova explosions, the rotation rates of the galaxies . . . these will all be slowed, in appearance, by slowed light.

Such slowing is not observed. The idea that light once traveled faster is ruled out by such observations.

Suppose we make the same thought experiment, but this time, it is not me who determined how long the beam shined or the gap was. It was some angel who I cannot ask. The problem with the scientists is they assume they know the length of the beam. There is no reason to assume that those things were not faster as well, and the variations cancel each other out.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is not about religious beliefs. It is about the simple fact that you cannot assume that things have always been the way they are.

You do it all of the time.

 

[Loudmouth]

The flood doesn't make them, it just helps them grow faster, and gives them a nice place to do it.

Based on what evidence?

My studies took more than 20 years. They will not fit here.

You don't have the evidence. That much is clear.

 

[Ken Behrens]

LOL

You never heard of Fermat's last theorem and all the progress that came from his similar marginal note?

 

[Ken Behrens]

You do it all of the time.

I knew it. You guys are not even reading what I write.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Based on what evidence?



You don't have the evidence. That much is clear.

I am giving another possible explanation to show that this theory for the cliffs is not the only possible one.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, not normally. My body throws off diseases anyway.

Do you accept that diseases can be caused by germs, even though it is "just a theory"?

Do you accept that atoms exist, even though it is "just a theory"?

I was just talking with someone who posted evidence of speciation. If the two are the same, why is there a separate term for macro?

To use an analogy, it is like two people walking together, step by step. Each step is microevolution, and the two people are evolving together. This is what a species is, a population evolving in lock step with each other.

Now imagine that they hit a fork in the road. One person walks one way while the other person walks down the other fork. They keep repeating steps as before, but now they are going in different directions. Over time, they will get farther and farther apart. This is speciation. They are no longer evolving in lock step with each other. Instead, each population is starting to accumulate different microevolutionary changes.

Both processes are the accumulation of microevolution.

I was talking about an animal that cannot in his lifetime walk a mile. The point is that I can think about it because it is relevant to me, but it is not relevant to the animal in question.

It is just an analogy.

 

[Loudmouth]

I knew it. You guys are not even reading what I write.

You are using photographs which record light from the past. You think that can be used as evidence.

You think floods can lay down sediments. That requires the assumption that sediments were denser than water in the past. It requires the assumption that the laws in the past were the same as in the present.

I bet you even assume people used to breath in oxygen, and metabolize hydrocarbons. Am I right?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am giving another possible explanation to show that this theory for the cliffs is not the only possible one.

Your explanation needs to have supporting evidence in order to be a valid explanation.

 

[bhsmte]

I am giving another possible explanation to show that this theory for the cliffs is not the only possible one.

I am giving another possible explanation to show that this theory for the cliffs is not the only possible one.

You make a lot of claims. You dont present any evidence.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Do you accept that diseases can be caused by germs, even though it is "just a theory"?

Do you accept that atoms exist, even though it is "just a theory"?



To use an analogy, it is like two people walking together, step by step. Each step is microevolution, and the two people are evolving together. This is what a species is, a population evolving in lock step with each other.

Now imagine that they hit a fork in the road. One person walks one way while the other person walks down the other fork. They keep repeating steps as before, but now they are going in different directions. Over time, they will get farther and farther apart. This is speciation. They are no longer evolving in lock step with each other. Instead, each population is starting to accumulate different microevolutionary changes.

Both processes are the accumulation of microevolution.



It is just an analogy.

Theory: pi=3 Theory 1 million and 1million adds to 2 million. Theory: addition if performed correctly always leads to the correct answer. The first theory is false (but last I heard was still the law in Indiana). The second is true. The third has been proven unprovable, and this fact of unprovability is extremely important in some levels of computer research.

I believe the ones I can prove. I distrust any others.

Two people are not one, as are the two species that started out in one body.

I agree, not all analogies are good, just like theories.

 

[Ken Behrens]

You are using photographs which record light from the past. You think that can be used as evidence.

You think floods can lay down sediments. That requires the assumption that sediments were denser than water in the past. It requires the assumption that the laws in the past were the same as in the present.

I bet you even assume people used to breath in oxygen, and metabolize hydrocarbons. Am I right?

Photoshop has taught me not to trust photographs. Courts don't either, without eyewitness testimony. I know those other things are true now. It is before there were people to check on them and write about them I am not so sure.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Your explanation needs to have supporting evidence in order to be a valid explanation.

Maybe if I say it, someone will go and look to prove there is none. That's part of science, questioning theories.

 

[Loudmouth]

Theory: pi=3 Theory 1 million and 1million adds to 2 million.

Those aren't theories. That's math.

I believe the ones I can prove.

That's clearly false. You believe in things that are made up from whole cloth and have no evidence to back them.

Two people are not one, as are the two species that started out in one body.

Please stop being dishonest.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe if I say it, someone will go and look to prove there is none. That's part of science, questioning theories.

You don't have a theory. You have something you have made up from whole cloth.

 

[Ken Behrens]

You make a lot of claims. You dont present any evidence.

From now on I will leave unanswered any post I believe I have answered previously for someone else.

 

[Loudmouth]

Photoshop has taught me not to trust photographs. Courts don't either, without eyewitness testimony.

Your own criteria would disallow eye witnesses. By the time light leaves one object and strikes the retina of the witness, the event is actually in the past.

You refuse to accept starlight for the very same reason.

I know those other things are true now.

You accept evidence from the past all of the time. The only reason you reject evidence is because it contradicts your religious beliefs.