If you want kids to learn creation science, show how you'd teach it.

[shernren]

I do believe that this water canopy would exist as ice - not water vapor. In any event, I wasn't there; and even if I was, it wouldn't matter that much to me.

Ice has a higher refractive index than air, and so light would be bent away from the earth into outer space.

In any case, it's clear for all to see what creation "science" really looks like on the inside, at least for AV1611. Anybody else want to try?

BTW, it's the Superconducting Super Collider, a proposed 20 TeV proton-proton collider: http://www.hep.net/ssc/

 

[AV1611VET]

Ice has a higher refractive index than air, and so light would be bent away from the earth into outer space.

I really don't want to debate the physics behind ice refracting sunlight; but it sounds to me like you're saying there's no way that sunlight can be refracted onto the Earth to create a tropical climate. I find this denial to be unscientific.

In any case, it's clear for all to see what creation "science" really looks like on the inside, at least for AV1611. Anybody else want to try?

It looks good from where I'm at.

BTW, it's the Superconducting Super Collider, a proposed 20 TeV proton-proton collider: http://www.hep.net/ssc/

Whatever it is --- it's junk now.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yeah, the shutdown of the SSC is really unfortunate. It was shutdown after vastly overrunning original budgetary and cost estimates. So now the next generation collider, the LHC is being built in Europe:
http://press.web.cern.ch/public/Content/Chapters/AboutCERN/CERNFuture/WhatLHC/WhatLHC-en.html

It will hopefully be switching on sometime next year, and we expect to see a whole lot of very interesting physics to be measured at the collider.

A future proposed project, the ILC, is proposed to take the next step. The LHC should detect new particles like the Higgs boson. The ILC (if it is built) will nail down the physics of these higher energies much more exactly:
http://www.linearcollider.org/cms/

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I don't say "mine" is the one true interpretation --- I say "ours" is the one true interpretation.

There's a big difference.

So who's down with you enough to be on the in? And how do you know?

 

[Chalnoth]

I really don't want to debate the physics behind ice refracting sunlight; but it sounds to me like you're saying there's no way that sunlight can be refracted onto the Earth to create a tropical climate. I find this denial to be unscientific.

That's basically correct, and it's not unscientific. Basically, what you need for sunlight to be kept within the atmosphere is total internal reflection. This requires a medium with a high refractive index in which the light is trapped. Air simply doesn't cut it for visible light. And adding any layer to the atmosphere will only deflect light by some small amount: it can't cause complete internal reflection, because the refractive index of air is just far too low to cause this.

But whatever the case, if you have a firmament made of water vapor, you'll end up with a rather strong greenhouse effect, basically cooking the planet. Ever wonder why Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system, instead of Mercury? That's what a strong greenhouse effect gets you: we wouldn't be as hot as Venus, but it'd be damned toasty.

 

[shernren]

I really don't want to debate the physics behind ice refracting sunlight; but it sounds to me like you're saying there's no way that sunlight can be refracted onto the Earth to create a tropical climate. I find this denial to be unscientific.

It stems from two very basic facts:

1. The Earth is round.
2. The Sun is very far away.

Guess which group of Christian fundamentalists deny these two facts? In any case, this is a complete derailment of the thread. Back to the main question:

If there really was a subject called Creation Science, how would you teach it? What would its syllabus look like?

 

[USincognito]

In line with my thoughts on the philosophy of creation science section, they'd probably have a history of creation science section that I'm guessing will completely gloss over the relationship between George McCready Price and Morris and Whitcomb while they wrote The Genesis Flood or how they basically sent him down the memory hole when they realized the obvious connection between flood geology and Seveth Day Adventist theology would be a liability.

 

[Gottservant]

Why should my brothers and sisters creatively exhaust themselves for something that sinks to the bottom of an electronic database? Where is your funding for a suitable program that a believer has developed?

 

[corvus_corax]

Where's my certificate?!?
Darn it, I passed AV's syllabus way back on page 2 of this thread..
With flying colors I might add.
And it didnt take 2 weeks in a classroom. It took all of 10 minutes typing it out in summary. "Creation Science" would rock in the classroom, because it's such an easy "A".

Where's my certificate?!?

 

[nvxplorer]

I really don't want to debate the physics behind ice refracting sunlight; but it sounds to me like you're saying there's no way that sunlight can be refracted onto the Earth to create a tropical climate. I find this denial to be unscientific.

What's the significance of a tropical climate? In a previous post, you asserted that tropical climates promote longevity. Can you support that statement?

Here's a wiki article on longevity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people

Granted, the article doesn't reference scientific study, but virtually all the longevity record holders are from temperate climates.

 

[Chalnoth]

Which likely has more to do with economics than anything. It is a good point, though: if a worldwide tropical climate supported lifetimes 10x those of today, you would think that today's tropical climates would provide significant improvements in lifespan.

Instead, they're more likely to degrade lifespan, as many diseases are more common in tropic areas, such as malaria.

 

[Jase]

Me too.

I guess you didn't get the point..

I don't know --- I imagine since the sun's rays were less direct now, and the upper latitudes started experiencing 6 months of night and 6 months of daylight, the temperature spiked downward.

This is due to the Earth's tilt, not some ice canopy.

The ice at first came as far south as the Terminal Moraine (due possibly to the ground being saturated with water from the Flood), then receded as the Earth settled in to its new multi-climate existence.

What "terminal moraine"? Do you even know what an end moraine is?

Again I'm not sure, but my guess is by simple adaptation, and living during a time when the gene pool was much "purer" was a big boost also.

Simple adaptation, as oppose to the non-existant not so simple adaptation? We call what you are claiming here evolution. Congrats, you're an evolutionist!

Yes, I know; but these were mini-ice ages; and nothing like THE Ice Age. The History Channel just did an excellent special on this subject.

Mini ice age? What is the difference between a mini ice age and a non mini ice age, and which of the ice ages throughout Earth's 4.5 billion year history were of which type? But wait, you believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, and the most recent ice ages were during the Pleistocene some 10+ thousand years ago, so in other words you don't believe there ever was any ice ages... Sorry AV, I just can't keep up.

 

[Jase]

Unfortunately, it is impossible for any species to have survived a global flood as described in Genesis. A population of two can be considered extinct, because there is not enough genetic diversity to propagate the species. Pretty much only water-dwelling species and the bacteria on the ark would have survived (and potentially other small organisms, like insects).

Edit:
Well, there's always the off-chance that one or two of the species on the ark would have been able to survive, but it's still unlikely.

Actually nothing would have survived when you factor in the heat problem of catastrophic plate tectonics always associated with the flood according to creationists. Kinda hard to have living sea life when the oceans would have vaporized.

 

[nvxplorer]

If there really was a subject called Creation Science, how would you teach it? What would its syllabus look like?

As we've seen, the entire course would revolve around this: If it disagrees with the King James Bible - it's wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where's my certificate?!?
Darn it, I passed AV's syllabus way back on page 2 of this thread..
With flying colors I might add.
And it didnt take 2 weeks in a classroom. It took all of 10 minutes typing it out in summary. "Creation Science" would rock in the classroom, because it's such an easy "A".

Where's my certificate?!?

Whoa --- not so fast there, Corvus --- time for the Finals:

1. Give the formula for the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
2. Give the formula for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
3. Name the Four Physical Forces, in order of their magnitude and influence, beginning at the shortest, and ending at the longest.
4. Show how at least two planets in our solar system (besides the Earth) that demonstrate the Anthropic Principle.
5. Which of the four Physical Forces will God use to terminate His creation, and support it with chapter and verse.
6. Give at least two benefits of the Water Canopy, and support them with drawings.
7. Explain what "kinds" are in Genesis 1.
8. How did Nachmonides demonstrate a 10-dimensional universe, using only Genesis 1?
9. Give at least three ways Adam and Eve were superior to today's race.
10. From an astronomical perspective, why did God cause the Sun to go dark from 12:00 - 15:00?
11. EXTRA CREDIT: Draw one constellation in the Zodiac and show what part it pictographically played in conveying the Plan of Salvation.

You may begin.

 

[Jase]

Fine --- quantify it all you want --- but where science disagrees with Scripture --- science is wrong.

Science disagrees with scripture when it comes to the Earth's revolution around the Sun, so clearly you must believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.

How about the Earth sitting on pillars or having corners?

How about a giant star crashing into the Earth?

How about Pi? The Bible says it's 3 - it isn't.

How about bats being birds?

 

[Jase]

I don't say "mine" is the one true interpretation --- I say "ours" is the one true interpretation.

There's a big difference.

Except almost no one on this planet agrees with your interpretation. Most creationists aren't as out there as you are. So who is the "our' you're referring to?

 

[AV1611VET]

As we've seen, the entire course would revolve around this: If it disagrees with the King James Bible - it's wrong.

You bet'cha!

That would be our main textbook.

 

[Jase]

You bet'cha!

That would be our main textbook.

/takes bets as to how many parents would forcefully remove their children from this class and then sue the school for stupidity and a violation of their constitutional rights...

 

[nvxplorer]

Why did God cause the Sun to go dark from 12:00 - 15:00, from an astronomical perspective?

Is this a freudian slip?

How would you use science, astronomy in this case, to show God's purpose?

Remember: Science, not theology.