Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Astrophile]

Deleted.

 

[Ken Behrens]

No, your emissions aren't "gone" by tomorrow. Haven't you ever heard of pollution? Not to mention that we aren't talking about minute levels in the evidence we have. We have literal mountains of evidence.

Do you not understand that if say, the hydrogen-helium fusion reaction occurring in the sun were to run at different rates at different times, we would be able to tell that?

We can tell it now, but I am no certain about if the methods apply to the past.

 

[Ken Behrens]

No, they do not. 62% of Americans accept that humans evolved over time. A little more than half of those say evolution was guided solely by natural forces and another 25% say evolution was guided by a Supreme Being.

Not to mention that nowhere in the article do the words "micro" or "macro" appear nor are these concepts discussed anywhere in the article I listed.

Not the words maybe but the concepts.

 

[VirOptimus]

We can tell it now, but I am no certain about if the methods apply to the past.

There is no reason to think that universalism isnt true, to think otherwise is as rational as last tuesdayism.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Sorry but that isn't even remotely the same as your hypothetical that someone could say "I have a million dollars" and have it appear in their account. Try again.

But that is how it works.

 

[Ken Behrens]

On what do you base you claim that the Flood occurred 5139 years ago?

Population growth basics

Umm what? That's the point I was trying to make. You're the one trying to use today's population growth rate to justify millions of people only 600 years after the Flood.

If you don't trust anything you see because of perceptual filters, then how can you possibly trust the Bible?

Completely and totally irrelevant. Are they houses like this;

Do they also diagnose their own x-rays? Seems like your response was nothing more than an excuse to avoid the question.

Why would God interfere anyway? Wouldn't that make Him deceptive? Something He is claimed not to be able to do?

You start by saying that the basics of Christianity are defined by what everyone agrees on, then go on to list multiple examples of what would be considered by most to be some of the most basics of Christianity that not everyone agrees on. How do you justify that?

Sure you have. So are you suggesting that someone should trust Jan the Hairstylist's diagnosis on whether they have cancer as opposed to their oncologist?

Go read my research.
The equations are only valid for a small view of time. After that the exponent changes because of damping factors.
They are still houses like the second. The first they hire us to build for them. And they still think like they did back then.
They don't know what x-rays are.
God gives us the power to determine the nature of the world. We interfere with ourselves.
That's why there are very few basics of Christianity.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Sure, sure. 97% of scientists on the planet are in cahoots to manipulate data.

According to you, a volcanic explosion millions of years ago wouldn't have a similar effect on the planet because physics worked differently back then.

Just because something doesn't have an "immediately obvious to you" use, doesn't mean it is wrong.

BTW, what standard do you set for something to have been "proven"?

No, you have claimed that medicine gets a lot of things wrong. you haven't given any evidence of any such thing.

Not knowingly, ofc. It's just like you probably think most Christians are in cahoots to try to make you think God is real.
Might have worked differently.
But without the use now, it cannot be checked to be right.
No other theory possible.
All the cancer "cures" I see.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Thanks for proving my point. The boat had to move, according to you, more than five feet. To see some stars cross in this manner, the earth would have to have an orbital diameter in the trillions of miles (probably a lot more not more) rather than 186,000,000.

BTW, those two pictures show the Statue of Liberty at two different distances from the boat (at least twice as far away in the right image as in the left). Show me a star that does that.

In moving however far he moved, there was a point at which he only had to move 5 feet. Distance has nothing to do with angles.

 

[bhsmte]

Not knowingly, ofc. It's just like you probably think most Christians are in cahoots to try to make you think God is real.
Might have worked differently.
But without the use now, it cannot be checked to be right.
No other theory possible.
All the cancer "cures" I see.

Ken, you keep digging yourself a deeper hole and then pretend the hole isnt there.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Right here

Wow. You mean producers can sell non-homogenized dairy products at higher prices and make more money? Then why would they be paying scientists to say that there's no benefit to non-homogenized milk?

Don't think I didn't notice that you failed to answer this question:

"I asked you who is paying scientists to say that there is no real benefit to non-homogenized milk.

It can't be the milk companies. After all, they would just sell non-homogenized milk at the same price and increase their profits since they aren't having to pay to have the milk homogenized. So who is paying scientists to say that there is no real benefit to non-homogenized milk?"

This shows indeed that the original study has not been duplicated. However, it also suggests at the end that homogenization may be bad for another reason.

I told you I was guessing.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Great. Link to the results.

Also, if you got empirically verifiable results, why didn't you apply for JREF $1,000,000 Challenge and walk away with some serious money?

I know what the quantum observer effect is. And the link you gave seems to say it's both.

Long before the internet age. And I was busy doing other things.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Right here

Wow. You mean producers can sell non-homogenized dairy products at higher prices and make more money? Then why would they be paying scientists to say that there's no benefit to non-homogenized milk?

Don't think I didn't notice that you failed to answer this question:

"I asked you who is paying scientists to say that there is no real benefit to non-homogenized milk.

It can't be the milk companies. After all, they would just sell non-homogenized milk at the same price and increase their profits since they aren't having to pay to have the milk homogenized. So who is paying scientists to say that there is no real benefit to non-homogenized milk?"

Just to keep it straight. The articles I read were of new research in 1983 and 1987. They discussed breakdown of an enzyme, not the creation of one. So the lack of evidence of the oster theory cannot be what I read.

 

[Ken Behrens]

"scientific" experiments ha?

But for some reason, the "article" is posted on some new-age-type mumbo-jumbo website.

The trouble with this entire argument, is that there are different ways to view reality. At any given time in history, one or another may dominate. "Mumbo-jumbo" is simply a word for what odes not fit hte vocabulary used by the culture of the epoch we are now in.

 

[Ken Behrens]

In fact it was 1816, and the cause was the great eruption of Mt. Tambora (Indonesia) in 1815. The climatic anomalies were not restricted to New York State or even to the United States; they affected Asia and Europe as well. For details, see Year Without a Summer - Wikipedia .

There may have been 2. I don't l know. I am certain of the year because it stopped the building of First Presbyterian Church of Rome NY, which was built by 1812 or so.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The trouble with this entire argument, is that there are different ways to view reality. At any given time in history, one or another may dominate. "Mumbo-jumbo" is simply a word for what odes not fit hte vocabulary used by the culture of the epoch we are now in.

So many bits of the site you referred us to are . . . in need of being replicated before being accepted, because they seem to be nonsense.

Here's the site you suggested as formative for your ideas:

Scientific Experiments Show That DNA Begins as a Quantum Wave and Not as a Molecule

Here's some of what I consider to be nonsense I pulled out of it:

Leikin believes some sort of electromagnetic charge allowed the same colored molecules to cluster. However, other experiments show that this is not the case. That it is most likely to be gravity. Let us explain.

Gravity is not going to be an influence on chemical reactions in a test tube.

In 2011, Nobel Prize winner Dr. Luc Montagnier demonstrated that DNA can be spontaneously formed out of merely hydrogen and oxygen.

DNA requires carbon and nitrogen atoms or it cannot form.

In 1984, Russian scientist Dr. Peter Gariaev discovered that when a DNA molecule was placed inside a small quartz container, it naturally absorbed every photon in the room

What? The room became dark? Or was it that the DNA was black? Pictures of DNA I've seen show it to be white.

Thus, DNA is creating an energetic force that absorbs photons and pulls them right into the molecule, but the DNA itself isn’t even needed. It is some invisible force, or some wave, that attracts and holds the light (photons) there all by itself.

Ghosts of molecules formerly present?

All this stuff is, to me, woo. As credible as n-rays, which were briefly fashionable in the early 1900's but were, alas, figments of overactive imaginations, and did not stand up to the test of being replicable.

 

[Queller]

We can tell it now, but I am no certain about if the methods apply to the past.

I know you're not. The problem is that you have no logical or rational basis to believe that, only that it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

 

[Queller]

Not the words maybe but the concepts.

As I already pointed out to you, the concepts of micro and macro evolution are not discussed anywhere in the article. If you feel otherwise, feel free to post a relevant quote from the article.

 

[Queller]

But that is how it works.

But it isn't what you claimed about how it works, is it?

 

[Queller]

Go read my research.

Am I supposed to just pull your research out of thin air or would you care to give me a link or two?

The equations are only valid for a small view of time. After that the exponent changes because of damping factors.

On what do you base these claims?

They are still houses like the second. The first they hire us to build for them. And they still think like they did back then.
They don't know what x-rays are.

Exactly. I could build a house like the second. However if I wanted one with running water, gas, and electricity, I would contract with someone with the expertise to build them for me. The same goes for doctors, lawyers, or <gasp> scientists.

God gives us the power to determine the nature of the world.

You're absolutely right, He does. Yet you are claiming that the vast majority of scientists, who are using their God-given abilities, are wrong solely because their findings disagree with your particular interpretation of Scripture.

We interfere with ourselves.

Yes we do. Quite often by clinging to outdated ideas that have been proven wrong or by raising objections to things but giving no reasonable, logical, or rational reason to do so.

That's why there are very few basics of Christianity.

Just because a tiny minority loudly disagree doesn't mean there aren't many basics to Christianity.

 

[Queller]

Not knowingly, ofc.

So a person can unknowingly manipulate data and just happen to manipulate it so it comes to the same conclusion as 97% of the other people working on the same idea?

Pull the other one.

It's just like you probably think most Christians are in cahoots to try to make you think God is real.

Why would I think that? I do believe God is real. I just don't think He is deceptive with the fingerprints He left behind in the real world.

Might have worked differently.

You keep saying that without a shred of evidence.

HOW would it have worked differently.

But without the use now, it cannot be checked to be right.

Of course it can.

No other theory possible.

"No other theory possible" is your standard of proof? Then you cannot claim to be a real scientist or science teacher because that is not the way science works.

All the cancer "cures" I see.

To which cancer "cures" are you referring. Radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery work very well if not 100% and not without side effects.

Eating a lot of red chili peppers won't cure cancer at all.