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?

.

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 #91

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #84]

The problem with that is proof of where the energy for this universe came from just leads to a hypothesis that has yet to be confirmed.
Star formation: there is no consensus of how stars form.
There is a general consensus of how stars form, and any gaps in our understanding are just open problems to be worked on. If we don't understand something 100%, that does not mean that we don't understand it at all and have to take the easy way out and resort to a magic god being as the explanation.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... and-evolve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
I actually do not have a problem with there being a mechanism of star formation. There is no evidence of stellar evolution taking place in this universe. There are no type III stars and galaxies show no sign of evolving. And even though I do not have a problem with there being a mechanism for star formation observations made of exosolar systems leaves the idea of there actually being a mechanism much in doubt.
Every chemistry major learns about Bose-Einstein (BE) condensates. A group of identical particles with integer spin are bosons, and unlike Fermions (particles that aren't bosons, like electrons) bosons can all occupy the same quantum state (including spatially). If you can get a bunch of bosons (not any atoms ... only bosons) together at very low density, and cool them to very near absolute zero, they can condense into the unusual state of matter called a BE condensate. Although predicted by Einstein based on a paper by Bose around 1925, it wasn't until 1995 that someone actually created one in the lab (Cornell, Wieman, and Ketterle received the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics for this).

Quantum computers do not need a BE condensate to work, nor their properties (a bunch of cold bosons all in the same quantum state). They need stable qubits which can be created many different ways without any connection to a BE condensate, or using bosons at all. However, BE condensates have been proposed as a possible method to communicate between quantum computers.

https://physics.gatech.edu/news/bose-ei ... -computers
I guess the study of string theory and relating it to BE condensate observations has really made me reassess what an atom actually is. Not that the laws that we all have studied are incorrect because they do describe reality. But how everything we look at could be nothing more than vibrating energy.
Again, water exists in three phases like most things (solid, liquid and gas). If comets bombarded the Earth and contained large quantities of water ice, what would happen when that ice impacted the Earth and warmed up? It would not remain ice but most likely initially be converted to vapor during the impact and associated energy dissipation, than condense into liquid when the vapor hit that part of the phase diagram for H2O. There is no need to have water in the liquid phase out in the solar system to accumulate liquid water on Earth.
To become a liquid the earth would also have to have an atmosphere otherwise it would change to a gas.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

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

Post #92

Post by brunumb »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 9:46 am These are not assumptions these are the observations that need to be explained in any cosmology.
God is not an explanation. God is just an invented answer. If God is introduced into the picture, then God itself requires an explanation.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

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

Post #93

Post by brunumb »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 12:14 pm The problem with that is proof of where the energy for this universe came from just leads to a hypothesis that has yet to be confirmed.
The same applies to God. Also, we are familiar with a number of different forms that energy may take within our universe. For all we know there are others that we have not been able to detect or scrutinise. It's too easy to jump to incorrect conclusions when they are based on limited knowledge. "We don't know yet" is still a more appropriate response than "God did it".
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

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 #94

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #92]
But how everything we look at could be nothing more than vibrating energy.
That is the entire basis of string theory, but it is still very much a work in progress. So use of the word "could" is appropriate.
To become a liquid the earth would also have to have an atmosphere otherwise it would change to a gas.
No. To become a liquid, pressure and temperature would both have to be in the range on a phase diagram where H2O can exist is a liquid. Then the equilibrium vapor pressure of H2O gas above this liquid phase would depend on temperature. H2O would then exist in both a liquid phase and a gas phase, in equilibrium, as it does now on Earth.

You could argue that the gaseous H2O produced this way was technically an atmosphere (ie. the establishment of a liquid/gas equilibrium would produce an H2O atmosphere), but it is not necessary that all of the H2O would be in the gas phase in the absence of any other atmospheric gases. That would only be true if there was so little liquid water available that the amount in the gas phase was below the equilibrium vapor pressure amount. If there is enough H2O to reach the equilibrium vapor pressure amount, then any extra H2O would exist as a liquid on the surface.

Basic chemistry that any "earthscienceguy" should know. The Earth didn't need an existing atmosphere to have liquid H2O accumulate on its surface.
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

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 #95

Post by Athetotheist »

brunumb wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 8:14 pm
EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 9:46 am These are not assumptions these are the observations that need to be explained in any cosmology.
God is not an explanation. God is just an invented answer. If God is introduced into the picture, then God itself requires an explanation.
If we argue that God requires an explanation, we can't argue that the universe doesn't. And in seeking an explanation for the universe, we are forced to look beyond the universe because trying to explain the universe with any part of what makes it up (such as physical law) is just invoking an explanation which is part of what we're trying to explain, which traps us in circular reasoning. So when it comes to accounting for material existence, materialism isn't a viable default setting; it's not something we can just assume.

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 #96

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #95]
Basic chemistry that any "earthscienceguy" should know. The Earth didn't need an existing atmosphere to have liquid H2O accumulate on its surface.
It would have to have some sort of vapor pressure to keep the water in liquid form.

This article that I found was from this year:
Scientists have even found water as hydroxyls and molecules in meteorites in the context of hydrous minerals, which are basically solids with some ionic or molecular water incorporated within them. Dr. Akira Tsuchiyama, Visiting Research Professor at Ritsumeikan University, says, "Scientists further expect that liquid water should remain as fluid inclusions in minerals that precipitated in aqueous fluid" (or, to put it simply, formed from drops of water that contained various other things dissolved inside them). Scientists have found such liquid water inclusions inside salt crystals located within a class of meteorites known as ordinary chondrites, which represent the vast majority of all meteorites found on Earth though the salt actually originated from other, more primitive parent objects.
I totally searched for this article because Walt Brown's theory would predict that water should be found in meteorite samples. Liquid water in space was not thought to be possible.

I have been watching Walt Brown's predictions being proven for 20 years now.

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 #97

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #97]
It would have to have some sort of vapor pressure to keep the water in liquid form.
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

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.
I have been watching Walt Brown's predictions being proven for 20 years now.
This Walter Brown?

https://ncse.ngo/final-response-walter-brown

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wbrown2.html

https://joycearthur.com/evolutioncreati ... te-theory/

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").
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
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

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

Post #98

Post by Difflugia »

DrNoGods wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 4:07 pmBut 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.
Walt also has a habit of making later changes to his earlier predictions when it's clear that he's gotten it wrong.

It turns out that hindsight is much more reliable than dumb luck.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

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

Post #99

Post by brunumb »

Athetotheist wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 8:59 pm If we argue that God requires an explanation, we can't argue that the universe doesn't.
All I'm saying is that you can't demand explanations for the universe while at the same time give God a free ride.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

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

Post #100

Post by Kenisaw »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 9:46 am [Replying to Kenisaw in post #87]
Venom and I are talkin about this in another thread right now. What is the point of origin of the universe? Don't know. The forces that created it (if it was indeed created)? Don't know. That's the problem. You can't assume anything regarding these questions.
There are several things that do not need to be assumed.

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Space had a beginning
3. Time had a beginning
4. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefore the energy in this universe 1.35 E70 joules (according to mass) had to come from somewhere

These are not assumptions these are the observations that need to be explained in any cosmology.


1. I agree
2 I agree
3. I agree
4. It came from itself. All the positive energy in the universe (mass, light, kinetic, thermal, etc) minus the negative energy in the universe (gravity) equals zero. The universe doesn't have anything in it that came from outside itself. It is zero, broken up into a bunch of +1s and -1s. 1+1+1-1-1-1=0
You are making assertions you can't prove. How do you know that the universe had to be created from something outside the universe?
Because space had to have a beginning and everything in this universe needs space to exists.
That doesn't mean it had to be created from something outside. Existence does not prove how it came to exist. Your statement is an assumption without logical support.
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
.

Now whether the expansion rate positive energy and gravity negative energy can be subtracted in this manner to come up with zero is an assumption. Especially since we do not even know what the essence of dark energy is or what could have caused inflation at the origin of the universe.

This theory of nothing was rejected when it was first proposed in the '70s and then reintroduced in the 80's and then re reintroduced by Lawerence Krauss in a book, not a peer-reviewed paper. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... r=7b178bae
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.
What are the rules outside of the universe? Don't know? Don't even know if there are rules. Was there time, or space, or cause and effect before the Big Bang? No idea. Can a true "nothing" even exist for that matter? No idea. It could be that a low-level quantum field is as "nothing" as it gets. Again, we don't know.
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.
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.
We can observe what is in this universe and events that are taking place in this universe. Then any true cosmology has to able to explain those observations.
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?
On a side note, you do realize that it is utterly impossible for any being to be all-knowing, correct?
Why is that?
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.
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.
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...
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.

Post Reply