Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Loudmouth]

Already answered.

That answered demonstrated that you reject facts when they contradict your religious beliefs.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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.

We just had over 800 posts without mentioning Halley and Ptolemy. Then suddenly someone did. I accept the testimonies of books, subject to the standard interpretation rules for eliminating errors of transmission, translation and bias.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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

If you accept it, yes it does. I have said I do not accept it.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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

You accept rocks as evidence, but not humans?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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

Mistakes in eye witnesses are a known problem, are they not?
Seems to me you have your confidence level estimations backwards. Its as if two witnesses said the perp was wearing blue, and only one said the perp was wearing green, and the camera clearly showed a he was wearing green . . . you would say he was probably wearing blue.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Where?

He thinks if he types "it wasn't so" he has managed a refutation.

 

[Ken Behrens]

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:

I don't see an efficient way to check the spectroscopy of the proper motions relative to the center of mass of the solar system. Without that, we cannot verify if the spectroscopy is changed in ancient times or not. And without that, we cannot be sure of the movement of the star toward us.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Mistakes in eye witnesses are a known problem, are they not?
Seems to me you have your confidence level estimations backwards. Its as if two witnesses said the perp was wearing blue, and only one said the perp was wearing green, and the camera clearly showed a he was wearing green . . . you would say he was probably wearing blue.

No, I would ask who had charge of the photographs in the camera.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, I would ask who had charge of the photographs in the camera.

And I would judge the accuracy of the colors in the photographs by seeing how other objects in the same photo are colored.

Here's an answer for your challenge to show one star passing behind another.

Binary star - Wikipedia

The article in Wikepedia has an interesting MOTION PICTURE - based on images, not an interpretive drawing - of an eclipsing binary, in which the stars that orbit each other happen to line up in such a way as to have one go behind the other on a periodic, regular basis. The article has a discussion as to how this helps astronomers determine stellar distances more accurately.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I don't see an efficient way to check the spectroscopy of the proper motions relative to the center of mass of the solar system. Without that, we cannot verify if the spectroscopy is changed in ancient times or not. And without that, we cannot be sure of the movement of the star toward us.

Spectroscopic analysis is among the most "efficient" of stellar observations. What did you think of those nice pictures of stars passing in front of each other?

 

[Loudmouth]

You accept rocks as evidence, but not humans?

There have been many cases where DNA evidence has contradicted eye witness testimony, and the DNA evidence has won out. The thing about DNA is that it can't lie. Humans can lie, and they can be seriously mistaken.

 

[bhsmte]

You are seeing what you want to see.

Projection.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There have been many cases where DNA evidence has contradicted eye witness testimony, and the DNA evidence has won out. The thing about DNA is that it can't lie. Humans can lie, and they can be seriously mistaken.

Oh yes. If the mother says the father was wealthy John Smith and DNA evidence says the father was dirt poor John Doe, what should the judge and jury determine about paternity expenses for John Smith?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Me, earlier:

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

If you accept it, yes it does. I have said I do not accept it.

Well, I think we're beginning to see the nature of your problem here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I, like the scientists you are defending, am the one with the training.

You should ask for a refund.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are seeing what you want to see.

No, that's pretty much what you literally showed: a general willingness to agree with any and all evidence that you can align with your religious beliefs, coupled with a general willingness to reject any and all evidence that does not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

lol

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You accept rocks as evidence, but not humans?

When the facts of rocks disagree with the statements of humans, then the humans are wrong. Not the facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

When the facts of rocks disagree with the statements of humans, then the humans are wrong. Not the facts.

Luke 19:37 And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen;
Luke 19:38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
Luke 19:39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Unless geologist don't see the [rocks and] stones crying out the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, geologists aren't doing their job very well.

And it is probably because their adherence to science and evolution that is giving them myopia.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Luke 19:37 And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen;
Luke 19:38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
Luke 19:39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Unless geologist don't see the [rocks and] stones crying out the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, geologists aren't doing their job very well.

And it is probably because their adherence to science and evolution that is giving them myopia.

No.

I repeat... in a more generalised fashion this time.

If the facts of reality disagree with the statements of humans, then the statements of humans are wrong - not the facts of reality.

This is why a person who gets convicted based on multiple "eye witness accounts", will be set free based on DNA evidence.

Because empirical data trumps human testimony. Always.