Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

You can test the techniques.

But whatever keeps you safe from the scary facts of reality, I guess.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Does your work require the same laws of sedimentation as we have today?

 

[Loudmouth]

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

The only reason you say that is because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Already answered.

Already refuted.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I have. And evidence...

Evidence that cannot be seen by others is not evidence. It is testimony.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

This is dreadful. Do you not know how small the parallaxes of stars are? Even the nearest star (Proxima Centauri) has a parallax of only 0.77", or only 1/2400 of the angular diameter of the Moon. One needs a fair-sized telescope even to see two stars that close together as
separate stars. It is certainly not a matter of pointing a telescope at a star and seeing it move across the sky.

By the way, in contradiction to Charles Fort, the stars have their own proper motions across the sky; these proper motions are very small, mostly only thousands or hundredths of a second of arc a year, but they do exist. During the 17th century, Edmund Halley discovered that Arcturus, Aldebaran and Sirius had moved from the positions given by Ptolemy in the 2nd century. Also, there are visual binary stars, in which the components move around their common centre of gravity in elliptical orbits. Finally, stars have radial velocities towards or away from the Earth; for most stars these velocities are around 10 or 20 km/sec, or about 2000-4000 astronomical units per 1000 years. These facts should prove that the stars are not 'painted on some kind of canopy' but are moving through space at different distances from the Sun.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

We have time machines for historical events; they are called books. Some of the books that were written in the first few centuries AD say that Jesus was a real person; others don't mention him.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You gave evidence for the last 5000 years, which I accept. Not for the last million. 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.

Million year old leaves prove light was promoting photosynthesis a million years ago.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

we are not discussing what men assumed then. We are discussing whether or not they actually were different then.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

A small clean up was done. Folks, initials for profanity are as bad as the profanity written out

 

[Ken Behrens]

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



Nobody here has said any such thing.




I don't appreciate such patronizing and arrogant condescension.

ASQ: The Hazards of Extrapolation in Regression Analysis

You are acting like it.

Nor do I. I, like the scientists you are defending, am the one with the training.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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.

You are seeing what you want to see.

 

[Ken Behrens]

You can test the techniques.

They work really well today. I cannot test them 6000 years ago.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Does your work require the same laws of sedimentation as we have today?

Yes, do you know what paramagnetism is? Or the Biefield-Brown effect? Can you find them in the ancient writings?

 

[Ken Behrens]

The only reason you say that is because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

Already answered.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Already refuted.

Refutation already answered.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Evidence that cannot be seen by others is not evidence. It is testimony.

Already answered.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

For somebody who claims to like math, you make the weirdest statements. If light was travelling faster, then a full second shining of a laser would result in a beam as long as light travels in a second. You cannot get around such trivially obvious statements. In the thought experiment, the angels didn't tell anybody how long the beam was. We figured it out based on the alleged speed of light at the time.

Don't bother to call special relativity ideas of contraction with speed into account. We are talking about length as measured by us stay at homes shining the light, not moving.

But here's an interesting bit of scientific lore for you to notice.

I'd like to call your attention to the following paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0007028v1.pdf

Here we have a most interesting method of determining the distance to a globular cluster. One discovers the amount of motion over time visible in photographs. This is a direct measure of angular shifting of the stars with relation to each other, in terms of how much angular space they travel sideways against each other. Then one measures their radial velocities towards us via spectroscopy . . . and the differences in those speeds for various stars of the cluster. Because the clusters are symmetrical, if we make the assumption the stars are moving relative to each other in the same amounts in both cases, we can now see how fast they are moving and compare it to how much motion that we see sideways to our telescopes . . . directly giving us the distance of the cluster.

Here's the quote at the end of the article speaking of this method:

The most important application of internal proper motions in globular clusters will be the derivation of fundamental distances, from a comparison of the dispersion of the proper motions with that of the radial velocities."

 

[Ken Behrens]

During the 17th century, Edmund Halley discovered that Arcturus, Aldebaran and Sirius had moved from the positions given by Ptolemy in the 2nd century.

Halley wasn't just improving on Ptolemy's error?

What you are saying is that stars close enough to cross and too close to distinguish as two? I will accept one star passing under another. It is the same thing geometrically.

 

[Loudmouth]

Refutation already answered.

Where?