Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Ken Behrens]

Those aren't theories. That's math.



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



Please stop being dishonest.

pi=3 was a theory in ancient Israel. Have you ever tried adding a million and a million counters and checking the sum? If you have not, then for you it is only a theory.

The rest I already answered.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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

I called it a question. I did not call it a theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

pi=3 was a theory in ancient Israel.

No, it wasn't.

Have you ever tried adding a million and a million counters and checking the sum? If you have not, then for you it is only a theory.

That's not a theory.

The rest I already answered.

The rest you dishonestly avoided.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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.



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

I have specified the past as prior to the age of eye-witnesses.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have specified the past as prior to the age of eye-witnesses.

Your specification is wrong, as I have already shown. Eye witnesses are looking at light that left the past, just like starlight. If you reject starlight, then you must also reject all eye witness accounts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is not about religious beliefs.

Right, right.... your denial of reality, just happens to align with your religious beliefs.

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

Accepting reality, is not an assumption.
Nothing we find in reality suggests that the laws of nature, were somehow different in the past.

 

[Ken Behrens]

No, it wasn't.



That's not a theory.



The rest you dishonestly avoided.

Sure it was. It is one of atheists favorite proofs that the Bible is not real. They quote the circumference of the temple lavers to prove it was the theory of ancient Israel.

Of course it is.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Right, right.... your denial of reality, just happens to align with your religious beliefs.




Accepting reality, is not an assumption.
Nothing we find in reality suggests that the laws of nature, were somehow different in the past.

No it does not. My belief is that the Bible does not tell when or how God made the world. Five billion years is no problem, if it is correct. The six days refer to God's plan in heaven, and preparing it for earth. The list of years of patriarchs refers to living people.

Nothing the ancients found suggested the sun was at the center of the soalr system.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure it was. It is one of atheists favorite proofs that the Bible is not real. They quote the circumference of the temple lavers to prove it was the theory of ancient Israel.

Pi is a well defined mathematical number. It isn't a theory.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Your specification is wrong, as I have already shown. Eye witnesses are looking at light that left the past, just like starlight. If you reject starlight, then you must also reject all eye witness accounts.

Circular argument. You have no witnesses to the origin of that light.

 

[Loudmouth]

No it does not. My belief is that the Bible does not tell when or how God made the world.

Then why would you think there was a flood? There is certainly no evidence for such a flood.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Pi is a well defined mathematical number. It isn't a theory.

It is well defined today. That's how we know the theory is false. It was previously believed true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Circular argument. You have no witnesses to the origin of that light.

Just as you don't have any witnesses to the origin of any light by your very own criteria. You must reject ALL eye witness accounts by your own criteria.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is well defined today. That's how we know the theory is false. It was previously believed true.

Pi isn't a theory. It is a number.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You gave evidence for the last 5000 years, which I accept.

Actually, the only thing I pointed out to you is that ancient egyptian history goes back more then 10.000 years. And you blatantly said that you only accept the last 5000 and not the previous 5000. Just handwaved it away because it doesn't align with your religious beliefs.

Not for the last million.

Let's extend it beyond the 10.500 I already pointed out to you, then.
How about 600.000? That's the amount of winter/summer cycles we literally count in ice cores.

It is precisely because people ahve not reported sunrises for a million years, that I do not believe that anything is proved about the sun at that time.

Coal. That used to be plants and trees, which lived on photosynthesis. ie, from sunshine. Millions of years ago.

How is coal formed?

 

[Ken Behrens]

Then why would you think there was a flood? There is certainly no evidence for such a flood.

Sure there is. Too much to post here. Go see in the new thread where I am working with other researchers.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Pi isn't a theory. It is a number.

Already answered.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Actually, the only thing I pointed out to you is that ancient egyptian history goes back more then 10.000 years. And you blatantly said that you only accept the last 5000 and not the previous 5000. Just handwaved it away because it doesn't align with your religious beliefs.



Let's extend it beyond the 10.500 I already pointed out to you, then.
How about 600.000? That's the amount of winter/summer cycles we literally count in ice cores.



Coal. That used to be plants and trees, which lived on photosynthesis. ie, from sunshine. Millions of years ago.

How is coal formed?

I have already told you that without human observation recorded, we cannot be sure that the techniques used to determine these ideas are correct.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Anything before human observation is NOT verifiable.

That completely flies in the face of reason.

Events happen and they leave evidence behind. We can study that evidence and from it, understand the event that left said evidence.

It violates a basic principle of research applied consistently in regression analysis. Anything before this time is a theory. I am not saying this because of religious beliefs. I am saying it because it is a principle of science.

Lol! No. It really, really, isn't.

Then I had several atheists posting 10-20 posts per day each to me telling me I am crazy because I do not believe that science cannot make a mistake.

Nobody here has said any such thing.

I don't know the ages of the atheists speaking to me. But statistics show that the percentage of atheists increases as ages go down, so I assume most of you are young. I understand that when someone who has seen things you have not, tries to tell you the truth of life, that it sounds like the parents you left behind just a short time ago. I have more important things to do than to continue answering the same objections over and over.

I don't appreciate such patronizing and arrogant condescension.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it does not. My belief is that the Bible does not tell when or how God made the world. Five billion years is no problem, if it is correct. The six days refer to God's plan in heaven, and preparing it for earth. The list of years of patriarchs refers to living people.

Nothing the ancients found suggested the sun was at the center of the soalr system.

Yet, you deny any and all evidence that makes the world older then 6000 years, and in the exact same fashion you "pave the way" for the noah flood.

It is pretty obvious.