Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The wonder of science vs. the banality of creation
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 20 of 64 (503840)
03-22-2009 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Sky-Writing
03-22-2009 6:19 PM


no law of nature evolves
No law of nature evolves.
Thanks. Now we can dispose of the creationist argument of non constant radioactive decay rates?
If evolution is supposed to be a primary power or source of life, where are the indicators?
The reactions of physical chemistry. The complex folding of proteins due to physical forces resulting in high specificity to act as enzymes that catalyze specific reactions. Chemistry removes the assertion that random processes cannot account for the organization that life presents. Natural selection superimposed upon the cycle of self replication removes the rest.
Please watch "Evolution is a blind watchmaker".
Glycolysis, which is a very non-efficient (a factor of 18 less efficient than respiration) method to acquire stored energy for the cell. It indicates an ancient development, being utilized by all forms of life, and indicates it developed prior to oxygen becoming available in the atmosphere.
What law of nature even hints at that?
Where is the Foundation of Evolution?
On what Law of Science does it stand?
It is a law of nature in itself. It has been demonstrated to work by computer simulations, eliminating the creationist argument that it can't be observed because of the necessity of the passage of eons of time that forbid direct observation.
As a counter consideration, consider the creationist argument which relies upon acceptance of the bible or 'sola scriptura' for its foundation.
You are relying upon scripture as the ultimate arbiter of 'truth'.
An observation about a 'sola scriptura' approach to 'truth';
As I hope you are aware there are a multitude of interpretations of the bible.
So to postulate that God communicates to man via the bible one has to additionally postulate that there is a single correct interpretation of the bible. Now the problem is how to distinguish that correct interpretation from all other interpretations. If the bible is only allowed to make that determination we are stuck. So now there must exist something external to the bible by which the determination can be accomplished. So sola scriptura is invalidated as a correct approach to 'truth', even for people who accept faith as the basis for determining ultimate reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-22-2009 6:19 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-22-2009 8:39 PM shalamabobbi has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 28 of 64 (503857)
03-22-2009 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Sky-Writing
03-22-2009 8:39 PM


Re: no law of nature evolves
If mass affects time then the creation of mass will massively effect time.
E=mc2 does not involve the variable t.
But the presence of mass involves the slowing of clocks which make radiological clocks 'off' in the wrong direction for YECs.
YECs need to speed the passage of time, not slow it down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-22-2009 8:39 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-22-2009 9:16 PM shalamabobbi has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 37 of 64 (503870)
03-22-2009 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Sky-Writing
03-22-2009 9:16 PM


Re: no law of nature evolves
Anyway, if mass slows time then the -space- before mass is created, or -where- mass is created, would be a timeless place. Or very fast.
I'm not saying that life appeared over millions of sped up years. But it seems likely that the rest of the cosmos did.
If we're discussing the rest of the cosmos only, then this doesn't resolve the YEC problem for radiological dating on earth.
One example is the lack of short term radioactive elements in the earth which is explained by an old enough earth that they have all decayed away.
Another example doesn't involve radioactivity at all. Fossil corral beds reveal a faster spinning earth in the distant past. This does not tie in with YEC very well since we know how fast the spin rate is slowing and why, the tidal interaction with the moon.
Another is the use of polystrate fossil trees by YECs. If the flood were the cause of this, polystrate fossil forests the world over would be the norm, not the exception to the rule.
Also incised meandering rivers such as in Utah's Gooseneck state park. It is known that the river must be slow to cause a meandering pattern. Yet 10,000 years is not a sufficient amount of time for the depth of erosion caused by the river.
Edited by shalamabobbi, : grammer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-22-2009 9:16 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 8:52 AM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 63 of 64 (503948)
03-23-2009 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Sky-Writing
03-23-2009 4:15 PM


Sky's the limit..
There is no "direct contradiction" today, so there was none back then either.
Here is a thread you may be interested to participate in then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 4:15 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024