Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.




A bill to allow Christian beliefs to be taught in Arkansas classrooms easily passed the state House Wednesday. House Bill 1701 now heads to the Senate side for a vote.

The bill will allow kindergarten through 12th grade teachers to teach students about the Christian theory of creationism, which claims that a divine being conjured the universe and all things in it in six days. The bill specifies that creationism can be taught not only in religion and philosophy classes, but “as a theory of how the Earth came to exist.”

As with so many pieces of legislation churning out of the Arkansas Capitol this session, if HB 1701 passes, a quick court challenge on this blatant mixing of church and state is all but inevitable. The United States Supreme Court already considered this issue in 1987 and ruled in no uncertain terms that teaching creationism in public school classrooms is unconstitutional. But blatant unconstitutionality hasn’t dissuaded Arkansas lawmakers so far this session. One Senate bill that passed recently, for example, declared all federal gun laws null and void within our state’s borders, in clear opposition to the Supremacy Clause that says federal laws take precedence over state laws.

Rep. Mary Bentley (R-Perryville), sponsor of House Bill 1701 “TO ALLOW CREATIONISM AS A THEORY OF HOW THE EARTH CAME TO EXIST TO BE TAUGHT IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE TWELVE CLASSES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OPEN–ENROLLMENT PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS,” said she put forth the bill at the request of science teachers in her district.

“There are phenomena in our nature that evolution cannot explain,” Bentley said. She emphasized that science teachers may teach creationism under this bill, but they don’t have to.
source



Stupid beyond belief, but what's your opinion?

.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #101

Post by Athetotheist »

Kenisaw wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 10:59 pm
Mathematically speaking, the universe adds up to zero. All the positive energy (mass, light, kinetic, etc) minus the negative energy (gravity) equals zero. All the positive and negative charges cancel each other out. All the spins when brought together equal zero. To put it in equation form, 1+1+1-1-1-1=0. Both sides of that equation are zero, they are just two different forms of zero. So is the universe. This universe adds up to a big fat zero. Technically the universe is nothing, from nothing
I believe this started as a misapplication of the theory that the universe as a whole has no electrical charge, but wherever it's from, taking this version of the idea to its logical conclusion shows it to be devoid of logic.

If you have an old-fashioned balance scale with a pointer in the center, the pointer will indicate zero when the scale is empty. If you place two objects of exactly the same weight on the scale opposite each other at exactly the same time, the pointer will still rest on zero. Does this mean that you haven't added any weight to the scale? No. So why hasn't the pointer moved? Because the weights balance each other out; they don't "cancel" each other out. Because the levels are opposite and equal, "zero" isn't the sum of them; it's the difference between them, meaning there's no surplus and no deficit on either side. It doesn't mean that they don't exist. "Zero" energy isn't "no" energy. For there to be no energy there would have to be no matter, no gravity, no light etc., which would mean no universe. The only reason the opposing levels of energy can be measured in the first place is because they're there. If they weren't, the equation wouldn't be 1+1+1-1-1-1=0; it would be 0+0+0-0-0-0=0.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #102

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Kenisaw in post #101]
Conservation of Momentum. Law of Conservation of Charge. Conservation of Angular Momentum. Conservation of Energy. Conservation of Mass. Theory of nothing rejected? Every one of these verified laws (and more) of the universe agree that everything IN the universe cancels out. You can't create or destroy anything in our universe. Which means that when you add the universe up, you get nothing. This isn't controversial. Scientists have done the mathematical calculations on top of that. You don't have to assume anything. It's simple and straightforward.
Are you sure you know this theory? Here is David Albert's critique of Lawerence Kaurss's theory.
The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.

What on earth, then, can Krauss have been thinking? Well, there is, as it happens, an interesting difference between relativistic quantum field theories and every previous serious candidate for a fundamental physical theory of the world. Every previous such theory counted material particles among the concrete, fundamental, eternally persisting elementary physical stuff of the world — and relativistic quantum field theories, interestingly and emphatically and unprecedentedly, do not. According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields. Certain ­arrangements of the fields, for instance, correspond to there being 14 particles in the universe, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being 276 particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being an infinite number of particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being no particles at all. And those last arrangements are referred to, in the jargon of quantum field theories, for obvious reasons, as “vacuum” states. Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-­quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.

But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.

Krauss, mind you, has heard this kind of talk before, and it makes him crazy. A century ago, it seems to him, nobody would have made so much as a peep about referring to a stretch of space without any material particles in it as “nothing.” And now that he and his colleagues think they have a way of showing how everything there is could imaginably have emerged from a stretch of space like that, the nut cases are moving the goal posts. He complains that “some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’ ” and he does a good deal of railing about “the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy.” But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right. Who cares what we would or would not have made a peep about a hundred years ago? We were wrong a hundred years ago. We know more now. And if what we formerly took for nothing turns out, on closer examination, to have the makings of protons and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and galaxies and universes in it, then it wasn’t nothing, and it couldn’t have been nothing, in the first place. And the history of science — if we understand it correctly — gives us no hint of how it might be possible to imagine otherwise. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/book ... rauss.html
The theory explains nothing that is why it is a nothing theory.

We do know. Because a "low-level" quantum field needs space and time to exist.
We don't know that. QFs exist in our universe, and there is spacetime in our universe. I was talking about outside the universe. Beyond it. Before our universe was here. We don't know if there were QFs or not before the universe came to be. We don't know anything about the pre-universe reality.
For your "Theory of nothing" to be an accurate description of reality, QF must exist outside this universe. The "Theory of Nothing" describes this universe as a runaway quantum vacuum bubble. These quantum vacuum bubbles are created by the quantum field. Therefore also the laws of the universe have to be the same or very similar to the physical laws before the universe was created for your Universe from Nothing to exist.
Which is why the assertion that there "has to be" anything is utter nonsense. No one has the first clue what does or doesn't need to be in order for this universe to exist. You are applying the rules of this universe to what is before or outside this universe, without a shred of data telling you that is the proper thing to do.
I do not see how I am. It really is quite simple. Either there was space before the universe existed or there was no space before the universe existed. The laws of this universe in which your Universe from nothing has to follow in order to exist makes the assumption that space did exist before the universe existed. Creation Cosmology makes the assumption that space did not exist before the universe.

I keep talking about before the universe, and you keep responding with "in this universe". You aren't talking about the same subject that I am. Our universe is a closed system, and observations in this closed system do not have anything to do with outside the universe, or before the universe. We were talking about where the universe came from, remember?
We are talking about the forces that created this universe. And the forces that produced this reality have to be able to describe the reality in which we live. So the only observations that we can make are "in this universe" we cannot make any observations outside of this universe or this reality.
Because you can't know what you don't know. No matter how much a being knows, it can never be sure it knows everything. In fact it can't know how much it doesn't know. If it can't be sure if it knows everything than there is something it doesn't know, ergo it isn't omniscient.



A being that can exist outside of this universe would have to be able to exist without space.
How do you know there is no space outside this universe. Please present your empirical evidence for this.

Since space and time in our universe are expanding, therefore the universe did have a beginning in which space and time did not exist. At least that is what the Universe from Nothing is trying to sell. Therefore empirical evidence needs to be given for the theory that space did exist before this universe existed. The theoretical consensus is that space did not exist before this universe did.


Things exist in space because of disruptions in the quantum field.
How do you know the existence of things in this universe came from a disruption in a quantum field BEFORE the universe existed? Please present your empirical evidence for this.
Again it is your theory of nothing that states that a quantum field had to exist before the universe began. Creation theory states that there was nothing but God before the creation of this universe. No space, no time,



If something can exist outside of space and time then it does not have to be bound to a single point in space.
Please present your empirical evidence that something can exist outside of space and time, and please present (if you prove that something can exist outside of space and time) your evidence that it is not bound to a single point.

Because it is space that binds man to a single point in space.
You should read the theory of relativity about frame of reference, and then back to me on the "single point in space" claim...
Are you trying to say that you are conscious in more than one place at a time? Can you provide your empirical evidence for that!!! I want to be able to do that too!!!!

So if God is not bounded by space and time He can be at any place and at anytime all at the same time. So being all-knowing would be a natural consequence of being omnipresent.
Being everywhere is not the same as knowing everything. False logic on your part.
Being everywhere and at every time is knowing all that is knowable. Are you saying that some time in the future something new might be learned? God is already that to see it. In fact, he was there at the beginning.

Einstein's theory of relativity states that the past, present, and future all exist. For this to be true the entire timeline of the universe would have been created when the universe was created.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #103

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #98]
Right ... that vapor pressure being the equilibrium vapor pressure of H2O over its liquid at the relevant P and T (assuming a position on the H2O phase diagram where liquid can exist). Imagine so called "hyperactive" comets (isotopic H2O composition similar to that on Earth) made mostly of water ice bombarding early Earth over millions of years. Maybe one per century. That would be 10,000 comets in a measly 1 million years. A typical comet is about 10 km in diameter, oddly shaped, but assume for argument that the comet is 100% water ice with a density of 1 g/cm3 and is a sphere. Then the mass of the comet is 5e14 kg which is how much H2O it would deposit if it hit the early Earth and was vaporized. The estimated total mass of H2O currently in the Earth's atmosphere is 1.26e16 kg:

https://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert ... RA40JC.pdf
If your above scenario is true then why is earth the only inner planet with this much water on it? All the inner planets should have had this much water on them. And here is the problem with a lack of atmosphere evaporating all of the water.
When Mars lost its atmosphere, all that original water had to go somewhere. The evaporation-to-space route was always the easiest explanation—but it’s a flawed one, too. The problem, as the Caltech researchers knew, involves hydrogen. As Martian water molecules rise into and then escape from the atmosphere, they disassociate into free hydrogen and oxygen atoms. An oxygen atom in water is just an oxygen atom, but hydrogen comes in two forms: ordinary hydrogen (with a single proton in its nucleus) and deuterium (with a proton and a neutron). Water molecules made of heavier deuterium instead of ordinary hydrogen are known, straightforwardly enough, as heavy water.

“The vast majority of hydrogen in the universe is just hydrogen,” says Bethany Ehlmann, professor of planetary science at Caltech and a co-author of the paper. “But there’s that tiny fraction that is deuterium. In the Earth’s ocean it’s almost one [heavy water molecule] in a million.”

The greater weight of deuterium causes it to behave differently in the Martian atmosphere. While free hydrogen atoms that were once part of a water molecule escape into space, free deuterium weighs enough to hang around in the air. Over time, as more and more hydrogen drifts away from the planet and more and more deuterium stays behind, the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen (D/H) slowly grows.

“The loss of hydrogen is a sort of constant removal,” says Eva Lingh Scheller, Caltech PhD candidate and the lead author of the paper. “Removing it from the total volume is going to give you a larger D/H ratio.”

But there’s a problem with common measures of Mars’s D/H ratio, Scheller and her colleagues found. Using atmospheric observations by NASA’s MAVEN Mars satellite and the European Space Agency’s Mars Express craft, they concluded that the current ratio is simply too low. If all of Mars’s water had escaped to space, taking its free hydrogen atoms with it, there would be much more deuterium in the modern-day Martian sky relative to the remaining free hydrogen—by some measures, more than twice as much. That means that much of the planet’s water never escaped, and the only other place it could have gone was into the soil and rocks—especially into clay, the most abundant mineral on Mars. https://time.com/5947142/water-on-mars/ ... ll%20there.
Now in the article it says that because of the above 30-99% of the water that was on mars is still there, not because it was observed there but because it has been there for this whole water from comet's malarkey to be true. We should also see this heavy hydrogen around Venus and Mercury also comet nonsense was true.

Besides what observational evidence is there that 10,000 comets existed in the solar system ever. When at last report I think that only 2000 objects have been observed in Kuipers belt and 0 in the "Oort cloud". Walt Brown's theory does predict this many objects in the Kuiper belt.
This is only 25 average-sized comets worth of H2O. So after only a few hundred comets, their impacts could create (for this simple example) an atmosphere of H2O with sufficient vapor pressure to have water then condense onto the surface. The atmosphere would not have to have been there previously.
The atmosphere on the Earth is not the problem it is creating an atmosphere in space that is the problem. These asteroids would have and to have created enough of an atmosphere for water to exist. Not enough heat from the sun is the problem with liquid water on the surface of the earth.


I have been watching Walt Brown's predictions being proven for 20 years now.
This Walter Brown?
yes, that is the one.

How long did it take to confirm the theory that atoms even existed? Not until Einstein's paper on Brownian motion in 1905 was it confirmed. I do not believe that he was necessarily correct in all of his theories. Light is still a problem for both atheistic and Christian cosmology, especially with inflation cosmology falling on hard times. I do believe that there is something fundamental we do not understand about the nature of light. But time will tell if I am correct.

There are many similar articles about Brown and his hydroplate nonsense (and personal problems). But again, as with Humphreys', you seem to believe that any hypothesis which can accidently make a dumb luck prediction is confirmed as valid for that reason alone. It doesn't work that way in real science (but evidently does in the distinctly different world of creation "science").
Wow you have much more faith than I do. I do not believe in "dumb luck."

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #104

Post by JoeyKnothead »

EarthScienceguy wrote: If your above scenario is true then why is earth the only inner planet with this much water on it?
It's perfectly shaped to fit the puddle.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Atheos68
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 07, 2021 2:39 pm

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #105

Post by Atheos68 »

I find this Disgusting that so called intelligent humans would allow the teaching of this in public schools. If you want your kids to learn about fairy tales then send them to church on sundays. I wouldn't want my kids to take part in the classroom where this BS is taught. Its just a wedge to get religion back into public schools. Pathetic. I think the school board in Arkansas needs to be fired for even bringing this up as a legitimate topic for discussion.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #106

Post by Miles »

Atheos68 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 2:44 pm I find this Disgusting that so called intelligent humans would allow the teaching of this in public schools. If you want your kids to learn about fairy tales then send them to church on sundays. I wouldn't want my kids to take part in the classroom where this BS is taught. Its just a wedge to get religion back into public schools. Pathetic. I think the school board in Arkansas needs to be fired for even bringing this up as a legitimate topic for discussion.
From another article:

"The body of the bill is mercifully short, consisting of two sentence-long amendments to the existing Arkansas code:

A teacher of a kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) science class * at a public school or open-enrollment public charter school may teach creationism as a theory of how the earth came to exist.

This section is permissive and does not require a teacher to teach creationism as a theory of the earth came to exist.
*

But those two sentences are enough to land teachers and their local school system in a world of trouble, in that the permission given runs afoul of a lot of legal precedent. In a key case that involved Arkansas itself, McLean V. Arkansas Board of Education, a group of plaintiffs banded together to challenge a state law that mandated the teaching of "creation science" in public schools. The judge in that case correctly recognized that creation science was actually religious in nature, and it therefore violated the constitution's prohibition against the establishment of state religion.

That ruling wasn't appealed, meaning the legal precedent only applied to Arkansas. But later in that same decade, a similar case from Louisiana made it to the Supreme Court, and it reached the same conclusion. The prohibition against creation science has applied nationally since.

These precedents only apply to the teaching of creationism as science; there are other contexts, like a comparative religion class, where it might be appropriate to teach this idea. But the bill's use of "theory" clearly indicates that it's intended to insert the concept into science classes.

While the state might end up being sued if this law passes, it's just as likely that a teacher in Arkansas will exercise this permission and the suit will end up targeting the teacher and the school board they work for. If the local school board loses (which it would), there is a good probability that it would end up liable for the legal fees of whoever sues. Thus, the legislation serves as an invitation for local school districts throughout the state to rack up enormous legal bills.

It's not clear whether these legislators are simply unaware of the legal precedents or if they are simply using this bill as an opportunity to signal their cultural affiliations. We've contacted its two sponsors to find out. As of publication time, [4/16/2021, 12:40 PM] neither had responded."
source


* Underlined to note the Arkansas grammar, or lack thereof.


.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #107

Post by William »

Image

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #108

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #104]
If your above scenario is true then why is earth the only inner planet with this much water on it? All the inner planets should have had this much water on them. And here is the problem with a lack of atmosphere evaporating all of the water.
I didn't claim the scenario was true ... it was a simple example of how liquid water could develop on Earth's surface without an atmosphere there to begin with (to counter your claim that it could not). Replace comets with asteroids containing water, or other bodies containing H2O in the early solar system, and you can get the same result. If enough H2O in the vapor phase is created through such impacts you'll eventually create an atmosphere (of H2O), and continued impacts bringing more H2O would lead to liquid H2O on the surface (again, with no atmosphere there to begin with).

Mercury is too close to the sun and too hot for liquid water (have a look at a phase diagram for H2O again), and its small size and resulting lower gravity would have had a hard time holding an atmosphere, not to mention solar wind effects for a planet that close. Maybe check with Humphreys' on Mercury's weak magnetic field and why it doesn't shield the planet from the solar wind like Earth's magnetic field does. Ditto for Venus and Mars which both have very weak magnetic fields. Earth happens to be in the goldilocks zone for liquid water to exist and stay here and not be boiled off, blown off by the solar wind, or stay frozen. As for the early solar system we don't really know how much water the inner planets had, but the third rock from the sun is in the best position to hold on to it for several reasons that don't apply to Mercury, Venus or Mars. Here is a little blurb on how Venus may have lost its water, and it does have the very high D/H ratio that Mars doesn't:

https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/ ... venus.html
Now in the article it says that because of the above 30-99% of the water that was on mars is still there, not because it was observed there but because it has been there for this whole water from comet's malarkey to be true. We should also see this heavy hydrogen around Venus and Mercury also comet nonsense was true.
The article talked about why the D/H ratio on Mars is higher than on Earth, but not as high as would be expected if ALL of the original H2O was lost through H2O -->H + H + O and subsequent loss of the H to space. They surmise that a lot of the original water is still there tied up in clays or underground, and this has nothing to do with how the H2O got there in the first place, but how it was lost and how much of it was lost. The article says absolutely nothing about whether Mars' water got there via comet or asteroid bombardment, or some other mechanism.
Besides what observational evidence is there that 10,000 comets existed in the solar system ever. When at last report I think that only 2000 objects have been observed in Kuipers belt and 0 in the "Oort cloud". Walt Brown's theory does predict this many objects in the Kuiper belt.
The Oort Cloud and the (much closer) Kuiper Belt both contain comets, and I'll take NASA's estimate of how many there may be in the Kuiper Belt over a creation "scientist" like Walt Brown:

"There may be hundreds of thousands of icy bodies larger than 100 km (62 miles) and an estimated trillion or more comets within the Kuiper Belt."

(from: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-syst ... uiper_belt)

And these are 10x larger in diameter than my little example. We don't know yet whether comets or asteroids were responsible for the H2O on Earth, or some other mechanism, but there are certainly plenty of both for either to be a possibility. If Walt Brown predicted only 2000 comets in the Kuiper Belt, you can be sure that is wrong!
The atmosphere on the Earth is not the problem it is creating an atmosphere in space that is the problem. These asteroids would have and to have created enough of an atmosphere for water to exist. Not enough heat from the sun is the problem with liquid water on the surface of the earth.
What? Why would you need to create an atmosphere "in space." What space? Do you mean an atmosphere around an asteroid or comet? Or some crazy idea like flat earthers who don't understand that gravity is what holds our atmosphere to the surface and they can't understand pressure gradients. As in the earlier example, if enough comets or asteroids hit Earth prior to it having any atmosphere at all, enough of them could deposit enough H2O to create an H2O atmosphere (along with other stuff that got vaporized), and ultimately liquid H2O would form on the surface. Not enough heat from the sun is part of the goldilocks scenario for Earth ... one part of being in the "habitable zone" of a star.
How long did it take to confirm the theory that atoms even existed? Not until Einstein's paper on Brownian motion in 1905 was it confirmed. I do not believe that he was necessarily correct in all of his theories. Light is still a problem for both atheistic and Christian cosmology, especially with inflation cosmology falling on hard times. I do believe that there is something fundamental we do not understand about the nature of light. But time will tell if I am correct.
And what does any of that have to do with Walt Brown? His problem is that as time goes by his "theories" become more and more discredited ... the opposite of genuinely correct hypotheses that graduate to theories via mountains of supporting evidence.
Wow you have much more faith than I do. I do not believe in "dumb luck."
But that is exactly how people like Humphreys and Brown have their "theories" match observations. Assumptions without any basis, along with fudge factors, can always coincidently agree with some measurement, somewhere. That is the kind of dumb luck (or intentional chicanery to support a creation narrative) I an referring to.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #109

Post by Purple Knight »

Atheos68 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 2:44 pmI find this Disgusting that so called intelligent humans would allow the teaching of this in public schools.
I don't. If I raised my child to believe the first thing it hears, and the only defence it has against ending up believing in creationism is never being told about creationism, then I've failed as a parent.

Even if my child is born stone-stupid and unable to develop any discernment of ideas whatsoever... if the child trusts the school over me, then I've failed as a parent.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #110

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Atheos68 in post #106]
I find this Disgusting that so called intelligent humans would allow the teaching of this in public schools. If you want your kids to learn about fairy tales then send them to church on sundays. I wouldn't want my kids to take part in the classroom where this BS is taught. Its just a wedge to get religion back into public schools. Pathetic. I think the school board in Arkansas needs to be fired for even bringing this up as a legitimate topic for discussion.
In 2019, Christians represent 65% of the total adult population, 43% identifying as Protestants, 20% as Catholics, and 2% as Mormons. People with no formal religious identity at 26% of the total population.
Public school would mean what the public wants. So if the public is mostly Christian votes for this then those that are not Christian can go to some other type of schooling system like homeschooling. Why should the majority have to bend to the demands of the minority if we are a democracy?

Post Reply