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

[Split Rock]

This period of time, shortly after the Flood, is what scientists refer to as the "Ice Age".

Can you provide us with biblical evidence for an Ice Age occurring after the Flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you provide us with biblical evidence for an Ice Age occurring after the Flood?

No --- not expressly --- but Psalm 147 seems to allude to one:

[bible]Psalm 147:15-18[/bible]

 

[Chalnoth]

Sounds much more like snow in general to me.

 

[shernren]

Au contraire.

The ionosphere refracts radio signals all over the earth at night. As the ionosphere thins out at night, the angle of refraction widens, causing what is known as skip distance. This "phenomenon" is what allows a person living in Los Angeles to clearly pick up an AM radio station from Detroit, while a person just 100 miles west of Detroit can't tune in to the same station.

At least this fallacy is original. The reason the ionosphere's refraction of radio waves can be used to "skip" is because the ionosphere's (optical; but for purposes of this discussion the optical and actual density are close enough) density is less than the normal atmosphere's density, therefore causing the rays to bend away from the normal and back towards earth. Water vapour and light won't work, because water vapour's refractive index so close to that of air that light hitting a vapor canopy would be barely deflected at all. But credit for trying.

The lack of evidence to support something in the Bible, or the existence of evidence against something in the Bible, is not a concern. God operates on faith - not sight.

Evidence can be manipulated, and the Devil can easily do so - as is going to be demonstrated during the Tribulation when he makes a statue appear to come alive.

There we go. This is a science curriculum we're talking about here. Any reason for the evidence to deviate from what was expected has to be quantifiable.

Think of it this way. Let's say I'm doing an experiment on falling weights in my lab, and to my astonishment, my 100g weight falls at an acceleration of 2.9m/s^2, instead of the usual 9.8! I call my teacher to the table and ask him to look at my results. What would I think if the teacher said: "The Devil was manipulating your evidence. The earth's gravitational acceleration is 9.8m/s^2. No buts." That wouldn't be science! Science would be the teacher saying, "Hmmm, that doesn't seem to match what we know. Maybe we could recalibrate the stopwatch? Maybe we should check for significant sources of friction? Maybe we should account for gross reaction time error by having different students time the same weight?"

But there is no analogous checking feature for creation science, it seems. If the evidence doesn't match the theory, it's not because of experimental error, or other factors, or because the theory is simply wrong. It's the Devil, and you'd better say a few more "Hail Mary"s before you look into the microscope again.

If this is how creation science would be taught in schools, is it any surprise that nobody wants it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds much more like snow in general to me.

I agree --- but consider this.

The Ice Age would have been a phenomenon occuring in the upper latitudes as Shem, Ham, and Japheth are dwelling more towards the equator.

They settled approximately 39.45[sup]0[/sup] N latitude.

The Ice Age could have come and gone without anyone noticing.

 

[Chalnoth]

Okay, so the Biblical evidence is tenuous at best. Why not look at real-world evidence that says that not only was there no global flood, but there was also no global ice age ~4400 years ago?

 

[AV1611VET]

At least this fallacy is original. The reason the ionosphere's refraction of radio waves can be used to "skip" is because the ionosphere's (optical; but for purposes of this discussion the optical and actual density are close enough) density is less than the normal atmosphere's density, therefore causing the rays to bend away from the normal and back towards earth.

I had to learn electromagnetic wave propagation while in the Navy. We're talking radio waves, not optical waves.

The radio wave penetrates into the ionosphere from the ground (line of sight), then is refracted back to earth (not reflected as some think).

At night, as the ionosphere loses its energy (obtained from the sun), it thins out (like the radius of a concave mirror increasing), causing the angle of the radio wave to return to earth much farther away.

Waves even go through the ionosphere completely, and are lost into space.

To combat this, line-of-sight towers were built every 30 miles or so, giving rise to short-wave radio.

Water vapour and light won't work, because water vapour's refractive index so close to that of air that light hitting a vapor canopy would be barely deflected at all. But credit for trying.

We're not talking about deflection, we're talking about refraction - a mathematically-precise bending of light, caused by speed of the light slowing down.

If you take a shopping cart and run across the parking lot with it, then on to the grass at an angle, the first wheel on the front of the cart, when it hits the grass, will slow down. The second wheel on the cart, moving faster than the other wheel, will cause the cart to "refract" toward the slower wheel.

Electromagnetic waves work the same way.

There we go. This is a science curriculum we're talking about here. Any reason for the evidence to deviate from what was expected has to be quantifiable.

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

What would I think if the teacher said: "The Devil was manipulating your evidence.

The example you gave did not violate Scripture in any way. Therefore it was a moot example. If he gave an experiment that was clearly a violation of Scripture, then I'd say someone is manipulating the evidence.

In the end-times Satan isn't going to be doing simple free-fall experiments that anyone can replicate in a lab, he's going to be giving animation to an inanimate object.

But there is no analogous checking feature for creation science, it seems. If the evidence doesn't match the theory, it's not because of experimental error, or other factors, or because the theory is simply wrong. It's the Devil, and you'd better say a few more "Hail Mary"s before you look into the microscope again.

Please show me what evidence you're alluding to. To interpret the past according to current theories, for one thing, is dangerous. This is called, I believe, uniformitism (or something like that), and it's not scientific.

If this is how creation science would be taught in schools, is it any surprise that nobody wants it?

Science should just worry about the future, and let the past take care of itself. A lot of time (and money) is wasted haggling about science vs. Scripture.

Back in the 80's I believe it was, they were planning to build something called a Supercollider Semiconductor just 20 miles from where I live.

So much money was expended getting that thing ready, then, instead, they built it elsewhere.

It was supposed to be able to recreate the exact moment the Big Bang occurred.

The only bang that occurred, was our tax dollars being wasted.

 

[Abongil]

I had to learn electromagnetic wave propagation while in the Navy. We're talking radio waves, not optical waves.

The radio wave penetrates into the ionosphere from the ground (line of sight), then is refracted back to earth (not reflected as some think).

At night, as the ionosphere loses its energy (obtained from the sun), it thins out (like the radius of a concave mirror increasing), causing the angle of the radio wave to return to earth much farther away.

Waves even go through the ionosphere completely, and are lost into space.

To combat this, line-of-sight towers were built every 30 miles or so, giving rise to short-wave radio.



We're not talking about deflection, we're talking about refraction - a mathematically-precise bending of light, caused by speed of the light slowing down.

If you take a shopping cart and run across the parking lot with it, then on to the grass at an angle, the first wheel on the front of the cart, when it hits the grass, will slow down. The second wheel on the cart, moving faster than the other wheel, will cause the cart to "refract" toward the slower wheel.

Electromagnetic waves work the same way.



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



The example you gave did not violate Scripture in any way. Therefore it was a moot example. If he gave an experiment that was clearly a violation of Scripture, then I'd say someone is manipulating the evidence.

In the end-times Satan isn't going to be doing simple free-fall experiments that anyone can replicate in a lab, he's going to be giving animation to an inanimate object.



Please show me what evidence you're alluding to. To interpret the past according to current theories, for one thing, is dangerous. This is called, I believe, uniformitism (or something like that), and it's not scientific.



Science should just worry about the future, and let the past take care of itself. A lot of time (and money) is wasted haggling about science vs. Scripture.

Back in the 80's I believe it was, they were planning to build something called a Supercollider Semiconductor just 20 miles from where I live.

So much money was expended getting that thing ready, then, instead, they built it elsewhere.

It was supposed to be able to recreate the exact moment the Big Bang occurred.

The only bang that occurred, was our tax dollars being wasted.

Umm... a supercollider is used to fuse elements together and to study atomic structure, so I highly doubt they planned on recreating the big bang... well... since the big bang wasnt a bang.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, so the Biblical evidence is tenuous at best. Why not look at real-world evidence that says that not only was there no global flood, but there was also no global ice age ~4400 years ago?

First of all, what on earth is "Biblical evidence"? The Bible is a book of facts, not evidence.

Second of all, any discipline that says Jesus didn't resurrect, has lost a lot of respect with me.

My motto is: If it disagrees with the Bible - it's wrong.

I don't care what it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Umm... a supercollider is used to fuse elements together and to study atomic structure, so I highly doubt they planned on recreating the big bang... well... since the big bang wasnt a bang.

The idea, if I remember correctly, was to accelerate two electrons to the speed of light, then slam them into each other and observe the results.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The Bible is a book of facts

has anyone looked at the origin of this idea?
afaik it begins with Charles Hodge's _systematic theology_ up until then the Bible was considered a collection of documents which showed God's dealing with humanity. Hodge had the desire to show that theology was as good a science as physics and made this leap to the Bible as a collection of facts and data so it could be "scientifically proven". However i don't know where he got the idea.

does anyone know of this idea before about 1850?
tia


notes:
http://www.reformation21.org/Past_I..._2006/Counterpoints_Aug_2006/234/vobId__3719/
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...e+as+facts&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=13&ie=UTF-8
http://www.theropps.com/papers/Winter1997/CharlesHodge.htm <---start here. excellent

 

[Abongil]

The idea, if I remember correctly, was to accelerate two electrons to the speed of light, then slam them into each other and observe the results.

Which would effectively cause a fusion reaction, however we do not know how the big bang occured, or even IF the big bang occured with all certainty, so I am certain that the facility was not used for such research.

 

[Chalnoth]

Umm... a supercollider is used to fuse elements together and to study atomic structure, so I highly doubt they planned on recreating the big bang... well... since the big bang wasnt a bang.

The idea, if I remember correctly, was to accelerate two electrons to the speed of light, then slam them into each other and observe the results.

Which would effectively cause a fusion reaction, however we do not know how the big bang occured, or even IF the big bang occured with all certainty, so I am certain that the facility was not used for such research.

Okay, there's been a lot of misinformation on particle accelerators in this thread, so I think I'll try to clear some of it up a little bit.

There are three types of materials that colliders make use of:
1. Proton/anti-proton colliders.
2. Electron/positron colliders.
3. Atomic nucleus colliders.

And there are two types of colliders:
1. Circular
2. Linear

The collider of which I am aware that attempted to "reproduce the big bang" was a collider that made use of atomic nuclei. The idea of this experiment is that in colliding, for example, a pair of gold nuclei at near light speed, one can generate a quark-gluon plasma, a form of matter that has not existed naturally since early in the big bang. This obviously isn't reproducing the early big bang, but can possibly give us some greater understanding of the physics prior to the synthesis of baryons.

Proton/anti-proton colliders' primary purpose is to discover new massive particles, in order to place limits upon the next level of physical laws.

Electron/positron colliders do the same thing, but are more difficult to get up to the same energy. They do, however, produce cleaner results.

Edit:
Oh, yes, and on circular vs. linear.

Circular colliders provide more time for acceleration, but since charged particles, when accelerated, emit electromagnetic radiation, just keeping the charged particles moving in a circle expends energy. As it turns out, the amount of energy expended is vastly more for lighter particles. Thus, circular colliders are typically used for proton/anti-proton and atomic nucleus colliders.

Linear colliders don't have as much of an issue: all of the energy expended goes into accelerating the charge, but there isn't as much time to accelerate. This turns out to be a better configuration for electron/positron colliders.

 

[shernren]

We're not talking about deflection, we're talking about refraction - a mathematically-precise bending of light, caused by speed of the light slowing down.

If you take a shopping cart and run across the parking lot with it, then on to the grass at an angle, the first wheel on the front of the cart, when it hits the grass, will slow down. The second wheel on the cart, moving faster than the other wheel, will cause the cart to "refract" toward the slower wheel.

Electromagnetic waves work the same way.

I know. A light beam which is "refracted" by passing through an interface of two media with different optical indices ... would be "deflected" from its original course, no? In any case, you completely missed my point that since the optical density of water vapor is extremely close to that of air, virtually no refraction would take place, and the optical or electromagnetic waves would continue their straight paths back to space. (If you ignore the enhanced greenhouse effect, which would, like I mentioned, make things a little uncomfortable for Noah.)

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

And this is what our first candidate "creation science" curriculum degenerates into - a blanket statement that science is never really trustworthy under most circumstances the syllabus covers.

Oh well. Do let me know if you ever feel limited by your conviction that all evolutionists are closet Bible-burners.

 

[AV1611VET]

And there are two types of colliders:
1. Circular
2. Linear

All I can remember about it, is that it was supposed to consistst of a 40-mile circular path. This made this thing so big, it covered two counties. This, of course, tied the thing up in red tape, and it was never built here. Instead it went to Texas - (I think).

 

[AV1611VET]

In any case, you completely missed my point that since the optical density of water vapor is extremely close to that of air, virtually no refraction would take place...

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.

If a person gets shot, he's not going to care if it was by a lead bullet or a copper bullet, or if the bullet was round, square, or triangular.

I can assure you that whatever form the water was in, by the time it reached the ground, it was liquid.

And this is what our first candidate "creation science" curriculum degenerates into - a blanket statement that science is never really trustworthy under most circumstances the syllabus covers.

Only if it disagrees with Scripture. Since God is the Author of science, then science has no choice but to agree with Him.

Oh well. Do let me know if you ever feel limited by your conviction that all evolutionists are closet Bible-burners.

It is not possible for an evolutionist to interpret Genesis 1 literally.

 

[Chalnoth]

Only if it disagrees with Scripture. Since God is the Author of science, then science has no choice but to agree with Him.

With you, you mean. There are many interpretations of the Bible. How can you possibly claim that yours is the one true interpretation?

 

[USincognito]

One thing they would definately have to include in the course is a section on the "philosophy of creation science." It would include instructing students that there's no such thing as objective reality only interpretational frameworks where one side "interprets" mountains to be 100 million years old and lain by millions of years of sedimentation and tectonic activity while Creationists interpret them to be 4000 years old and created during Noah's Flood.

They could also be told that "were you there" is as good an argument as "here, look at this data."

 

[AV1611VET]

With you, you mean. There are many interpretations of the Bible. How can you possibly claim that yours is the one true interpretation?

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

There's a big difference.

 

[Mincus]

All I can remember about it, is that it was supposed to consistst of a 40-mile circular path. This made this thing so big, it covered two counties. This, of course, tied the thing up in red tape, and it was never built here. Instead it went to Texas - (I think).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Supercollider

That, I believe?

There's links to a few others around the world that already exist (box on the right under the photo) shame they stopped building it.