ICANT'S position in the creation debate

Actually, duration has changed because the clock's pulse rate has changed. The time interval between transitions in cesium-133 is 1/9,192,631,770 seconds by definition. When we see that time interval as different on a moving satellite in a different gravitational field, as we do in the case of the GPS satellites, duration has changed on those satellites relative to us. And duration for us has changed relative to those satellites.Another good example is muon decay. The half-life of muon decay is 1.56 μs and all half of all muons decay in that time as measured by an observer moving with the muons. But muons decay much slower than that as measured by an observer standing on the Earth's surface and watching fast-moving muons, such as in a particle accelerator or in casscades caused by cosmic rays. Duration for the moving muons is different than it is for us. See Time Dilation and Muon Experiment.

Hi Mod, Everything.The following is the definition of time, do you agree with this definition?If not what is your definition of time? God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi JonF, Do you disagree that all the satellites initiate a precisely simultaneous series of data transmissions? You state the reason which I changed to red that the clock run's slightly faster is because of the distance the satellite is from the earth thus under less influence of the earth's gravity.Time is not running faster only the clock is running faster due to less gravity.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi lyx2no, Time exists as a tool of man which is used to measure duration, measured with reference to the rotation of the earth.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Really? Could you explain why my definition is relevant to the scientific evidence?

Hi Mod, In 1949 Godel postulated a theorem that stated, "in any universe described by the theory of relativity, time cannot exist".Einstein never refuted that statement.So when you are talking about time it would be nice to know what you are talking about.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I'm talking about time as being a part of spacetime, and that treating it this way in the sense that relativity does, produces tangible predictions that have been successfully tested. Do you dispute that this constitutes scientific evidence for the claim that time is part of the universe?

The only way for the clock to run faster is for time to run faster on the satellite. That's the only thing that can affect the frequency of cesium transitions. Gravity itself does not.And there's sort of two effects; one due to gravity and one due to velocity. If the engineers only compensated for the gravitational effect, GPS would fail. The clocks on the satellites run slower by 7 &mus per day due to relative velocity and run faster by about 45 μs per day due to gravitational effects. You ignored the velocity effect.(Of course, when yuo do the correction using GR the total 38 &us; correction falls out as one correction).If you think that putting cesium atoms in a lower gravitation field changes their transition rate without affecting the rate of time's passage feel free to propose a coherent, detailed, mathematically founded theory that explains that and all the other thousands of observations that have verified GR. Similarly explain the velocity effect. Until then we'll stick with the only viable explanation that we've got.The fact that you don't like GR and its implications is not evidence that GR is wrong. Your unsupported assertions are not evidence that GR is wrong.

Hi Mod, I can't find anybody that knows what spacetime is. Do you know?Relativity gets some things right but it gets more wrong.I don't dispute any scientific evidence. But there are a lot of people who do.Godel for one, and there are many others. Here Is a paper that talks about relativity, Newton, Godel and Kant.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This has not been "proven" under the definition of a sound deductive syllogism that leaves no holes or flaws possible. There is an induction present which has led to a scientific consensus that evolution happened, despite major facts and evidences that would normally lead to a paradigm shift.Instead the answer is; "oh but we already know evolution happened, therefore let's find an evolutionary answer rather than look at another possibility".There are neutral folk whom have big big problems believing in evolution, because of the problems with it.I have not seen good enough logical answers to explain away such contrary facts.

That is exactly true.Evolutionists don't seem to think this is a problem. We have seen in the past how people like Haeckel formed his monera, and told us that a simple form led to present forms yet now we know that all life is complex, and that a cell is just as complex as our bodies.(His supposed gills are nevertheless in modern biological textbooks despite them being fake).The fact is that we are basically asked to dismiss the beginning, as not that relevant, because of biological evolution whereas the logical problems for chemical evolution are major, to say the least, and require a great deal of belief in natural processes having unlimited abilities. And yet people seem to think that we are arguing that God did, based on science not proving he did. How odd.This is the whole thing right here - that people are trying to explain origins without a designer, anyway they can, rather than seeing the most obvious and best answer to the problems. Always learning, but never knowing.Infact science, and facts, which science deals with, certainly show, without a doubt, that there is design, and that logically it follows that a designer therefore must be present, because if we take known designs, however poor they are, like a really bad car, we can see that it follows that it still required a designer and construction. Therefore it is ludicrous to say that something as amazing as an organism, did not need a designer and construction.100% induction of evidence thus far shows life coming from life.That's quite an induction, yet despite it being 100% should we believe in abiogenesis any more that spontaneous generation?Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

List 'em.Oh, and… no comment on the lifetime of muons? No comment on the velocity portion of the GPS clock correction? No proposed mechanism by which the frequency of cesium transitions is changed by a variation in the gravitation field without chnging the rate of passage of time?

The question is, do you dispute that what I presented was scientific evidence in favour of the claim?

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

We have seen in the past how people like Haeckel formed his monera, and told us that a simple form led to present forms

---

Ahem. What does this have to do with origins? You just agreed the the origin of life is quite distinct from the diversification of life once it comes to arise and yet you immediately revert to the claim that because evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, there is something wrong with the theory.Make up your mind.Are you saying god cannot make life that evolves?

quote:

---

His supposed gills are nevertheless in modern biological textbooks despite them being fake

---

Prove it. What are the titles of these "modern biological textbooks"? And beyond that, what exactly is the accompanying text that is printed with the pictures should there be such a textbook that includes them?Beyond that, are you saying that embryology is false?

quote:

---

The fact is that we are basically asked to dismiss the beginning, as not that relevant

---

Incorrect. You are not asked to dismiss anything. You are asked to understand that you are asking a separate question. Architecture, the creation of buildings, is very different from interior design, the use of the space created from the existence of the building. It isn't that we dismiss architecture when discussing how to best utilize the space we have. It's that the question of how the space got here is a different question.

quote:

---

the logical problems for chemical evolution are major

---

Name one.Name one "logical problem" for evolution.Remember, evolution has nothing to do with origins. That doesn't make the question of origins unimportant...just that it is a different question. Let's not change the goalposts, please.

quote:

---

Always learning, but never knowing.

---

That's the way science works. Are you going to jump off the bridge because we don't "know" that you'll plummet to your death but have only "learned" that you will?

quote:

---

Infact science, and facts, which science deals with, certainly show, without a doubt, that there is design

---

So why has nobody been able to show it? Why is it that every single example that has been proffered to show this "design" has been found to be evolved?Can you show me a single journal article that has ever demonstrated this claim of yours? You say the evidence is out there, so this should be a trivial request.Where is your evidence?

quote:

---

Therefore it is ludicrous to say that something as amazing as an organism, did not need a designer and construction.

---

So who designed god? Shouldn't we be worshipping that being rather than the middleman?And who designed that god, in turn? Shouldn't we be worshipping the ultra-ubergod rather than the middlemen?Exactly how far back do you plan on taking your infinite regression?And if you decide that god doesn't require a god despite being so much more "amazing" than you or me, then why does life need a designer? Surely if something that rates an 11 on the "amazing" scale doesn't need a designer, then something that only rates an 8 or 9 doesn't need one.

quote:

---

should we believe in abiogenesis any more that spontaneous generation?

---

Who said anything about "believe"?Why is it you can't handle the "We don't know" response?Do you clearly not understand that I don't need to show that two and two make four in order to definitively prove that they don't make five?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I thought I told you I was finished with you forever. no really, I find you very argumentative which makes our exchanges futile.I do not remember the names of the textbooks. One was published in 2001. I believe they still show the branchial arches to be gill slits even though they form into the ear canal, tonsils, etc...nothing to do with breathing. creationworldview.org might have the names, as I heard the seminar from Dr Grady McMurtree.As for abiogenesis, chemical evolution and biological evolution, seem to basically be two types of highly unlikely evolutions and are obviously part of the same naturalist approach. Which evolution? I believe we have discussed this elsewhere. If you mean abiogenesis, the problems are well know, such as the racemic aminos being left-handed in lifeforms. Also things such as enzymes to speed up processes.Time is also an enemy. The time-lengths involved are too great a problem, as the make-up for life would break down before it was made. There is no evidence for abiogenesis. But alas, i am not discussing it further with you.the rest is wildly off-topic. I did not state evidence, I stated "fact". Evidence is a weak consequent because of the modus tollens, therefore I would not state that design is so much evidence as it is fact. Even scientists use the term design, and they don't show how it evolved, they use a phylogenetic tree, which they compose, to show how they think it evolved.There will be no response, I have given my opinion but it's already a tatty affair because you wildly jump from one issue to the next. Perhaps you should just read the conversation between me and modulous.
Thanks.