Only a biblical version of physics is confirmed in galactic history. We observe that (1) the creation is enslaved to change, that this degeneration is (2) orderly and that it acts (3) together, as the Apostle Paul explained in the Greek for Romans 8:19-22. Things that change together, change relationally. (4) That the stars formed after the naked galaxies. The stars continue to come out and the galaxies (shamayim) continue to spread out, according to the Bible.
Every atom in billions of galaxies is observed to clock a different frequency than local, modern atoms. Not only do the atoms keep on changing relationally, but the orbits also accelerate as billions of galaxies grew from tiny naked globs to huge, spread out growth spirals. Evidently the inertial properties of matter, the space matter takes up and their atomic clock frequencies are all changing together, relationally. No wonder the continents only fit together on a tiny globe and the sea floors are forming continually along a global undersea expansion seam. The Bible states three times that the Earth spreads out in unbroken continuity.
It is not the laws of physics that change, it is matter itself that keeps changing. The modern laws of physics are all false because they were contrived with a visibly false notion that the properties of matter are fixed, not emerging. It is because anyone with eyes can observe that the properties of all matter keep on changing that scientists obfuscate galactic history by filling the universe up with magical things like invisible matter and vacuums that stretch themselves as they tightly grip passing light and stretch it too.
Well, the stuff that godsriddle has written is merely fatuous. He maintains that we see things (which we do not see) which confirms things the bible says (which it doesn't say) thus controverting the opinions of physicists (which they do not hold). Rarely have we seen a creationist so utterly dependent on making stuff up --- and that's really saying something.
Foreveryoung is more interesting. Yes, we can imagine that physical laws have changed. But we have no evidence for it. In doing science, we have to suppose that what, according to all the evidence, is a law of nature, is a law of nature, until we find out differently. If we stop doing that, we can believe anything we please.
There are other problems with f.e.y.'s approach. One is its absence of content. He has to suppose that various apparent constants all changed together in some synchronized way such that they wouldn't make the sun blow up or the earth to fall into the sun, and without disturbing at all the complex biochemistry on which life depends --- all that these changes must do is deceive astronomers about the age of the universe. Well, he has presented no such schedule of changes to the not-really-constants of nature, he just says: suppose it was true. Well, that might be like saying: suppose there was a four-sided triangle. We don't know if there is a self-consistent scenario that achieves what he wants it to achieve, and he hasn't tried to put one forward.
A final problem is theological. There seems on the face of it to be no reason why a being who is by hypothesis omnipotent shouldn't have made the Earth however many years ago f.e.y. thinks he made it, with completely stable laws of nature. By his hypothesis, it seems that the only effect that doing it his way rather than that way would have is that scientists trying to figure out the age of the universe would get it wrong. It would be, as Kingsley said, an enormous and gratuitous lie.
It is true that if all the physical laws and constants have been the same as they are today then the claims of creationism are impossible without invoking "poof" type magic. Of course, changing all the laws and constants would be "magic" because there is no physical mechanism that could make such a thing happen.
This is the problem that is torturing Foreveryoung. He knows that if today's reality is also yesterday's reality, his beliefs are forfeit.
My belief is that he knows that today's realities are true and that his creationist beliefs are false. Once he comes to terms with that he will stop hurting himself.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
This had the potential to be a good discussion, though it failed to meet that potential.
It is, of course, possible that the physical nature of the universe has changed since older time. And foreveryoung is wanting to rely on that, so that he can protect his religion from the clear evidence of science.
The big problem for foreveryoung is this: How can the physics have changed so much as to allow the possibility that the Bible stories are literally true, yet have changed so little that homo sapiens could have continued to thrive in spite of the change. That was the issue that I attempted to raise in Message 8, but foreveryoung has not successfully answered it.
If foreveryoung wants his religion to be consistent with science, then he is going to need to make some modifications to his religious commitments. The attempt to keep his religion fixed, and make the changes only in science, is not going to work.
Creationists may want to read the history behind the book "Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot" by Phillipe Gosse, written in 1857. Yes, 1857. Keep that in mind. Omphalos is Greek for navel, and it is a reference to Adam having a navel.
In the book, Phillipe Gosse tried to deal with the mountains of geologic evidence that had been gathered over the previous 100 years which clearly indicated an ancient Earth. Mind you, this was in 1857, well before radiometric dating and well before astronomical evidence demonstrated a much more ancient Universe. The evidence was so overwhelmingingly in favor of an Old Earth in 1857 that Gosse didn't even attempt to argue against it. Instead, Gosse argued that the Earth was created with the appearance of age.
On its face, the argument does have some pull. For example, plants need mature soil that has a history of organic decay and bioturbation. Adam needed to be a mature adult in order to function in the Garden of Eden. However, this doesn't explain all of geology. What function do specific geologic layers, which show extreme age, play in the support of life? Well . . . none. Life would get along just fine without the Great Unconformity found in the Grand Canyon. Life would get along just fine without a correlation between fossil species and the ratio of isotopes in rocks.
Function was Gosse's one and only basis for making this argument, and it fails spectacularly. Instead, Gosse makes God out to be a deceiver, a deity who puts a false history in the rocks for no other reason than to fake a history. As the Reverend Charles Kingsley put it:
quote:Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this — that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes Deus quidam deceptor [‘God who is sometimes a deceiver’]. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in the one single case of your newly created scars on the pandanus trunk, your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here... I cannot... believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(book)
We can now add astronomy to the list of things God is trying to deceive us with. Creationists are now resurrecting Gosse's argument. They want to claim that God tweeked the laws of physics for no other reason than to make it look like there is a 13.7 billion year history for the universe. There is simply no functional reason that a deity would tweek the laws of physics in such a way.
To answer the accusations of bias, there is none. If the laws of physics were different in the past then we would be able to see those changes in distant stars. Those changes are NOT observed. The creationist response? The laws of physics were tweeked in such a way that all of the evidence is consistent with constant physical laws, even though it wasn't. It is a repeat of Omphalos. It is a repeat of creationists portraying God as a deceiver, a Loki of Universal proportions.
It is interesting to me that we have two creationist that have participated in some depth on this thread:
foreveryoung, who is looking for a way to resolve science with his beliefs, this is a struggle when he recognizes some evidence, but can't bring himself to accept all of the overwhelming evidence of an old age earth. This is the root issue for this this thread.
godsriddle, who has developed a fantasy about a "first principle" underlying science that -- purportedly -- makes all modern science conclusions false in one way or another.
When it comes to the psychology of these issues it becomes clear that issues of confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and delusion are involved to various degrees.
Confirmation bias means only accepting\seeing evidence that supports existing beliefs.
Cognitive dissonance is the effect of not accepting evidence that contradicts existing beliefs on the ways that such evidence is treated. There are several ways that this is done, one of which is to conclude that there is a conspiracy trying to fool you, or lie to you. Another is to invent a reason for the evidence appearing the way it does.
Delusion is the condition of refusal to accept objective evidence contradicting existing beliefs.
When it comes to physical constants, and the possibility of them being different in the past, there are two basic problems:
(1) There is no mechanism to cause significant change/s, and
(2) There is no evidence of any significant changes having occurred.
That makes such speculation a series of "what if" proposals, concepts that don't even really qualify as scientific hypothesis, it's more just making wild guesses in the dark.
One of these that keeps coming up is changing the speed of light.
In SN1987A part 1 we see that simple geometry can be used to calculate the actual distance to the star regardless of any changes in the speed of light (as long as any change occurs consistently across the universe and the speed of light is consistent for the time delay between arrival of light from the star and light from the ring), and this distance is ~168,000 light years. This necessarily means that the universe is a big place, and not something painted on the ceiling.
It is interesting -- and telling -- that godsriddle cannot bring himself to agree with this distance calculation.
When we look at the changes in radioactive decay rates we can also look at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, where linear counting methods of ice layers in the arctic and the antarctic are also matched to radioactive decay rates in the Devil's Hole calcite deposits by climate markers in trapped samples of atmosphere (δ18O and δ13C ) ... and we can note that one of these systems is linear and the other is exponential, so that different causes would be needed and they would need to be orchestrated just right to give the results seen.
Then there is the evidence of the Oklo natural reactors in Gabon (Africa), where 235U spontaneously began to fission due to the concentration of uranium in this area. When we look at the byproducts we see the same formations that we see today from man-made reactors. This means there has been no change in the way radioactive elements break down in the last 2 billion years.
We can also note that just a very small increase in neutron energy would allow 238U to undergo similar spontaneous fission, and that deposits existing today would be sufficient in concentration to allow this to happen. As these concentrations have decreased with the decay that has already occurred, it is evident that no such increase in neutron energy ever occurred in the past.
Changes need a cause.
Changes have an effect.
The conceptual system that best ties all these together in a way that fits the observed evidence, with known cause and effect, is the current scientific system, with constant constants.
The alternative is a conceptual system that everything is illusion.
I'm really glad to bought this charger£¡ (although it didn't help me do spam right)
That was the topic started by somebody who just appeared right after I got banned. It was mistaken for me because I did happen to reregister under the name fearandlowlife mocking the poster fearand loathing who originally reported me. However, I did not register again under this alphabetical name ab32 or something akin to that. All I know is that jar called that poster lower than whalesnot. I tend to agree. He was trying to pose as me. It certainly fooled the moderators. That still believe that name is me. Attention Administration: Please remove my name from that topic started by him posted above and another posts he may have made. I take full responsibility for the name fearandlowlife however.