Summations Only

I have already shown earlier in the thread that change does not always necessarily leave evidence. Have you been able to show the flaws in my logic. I probably did read message #20. What about it?

No, you have NOT shown that change might not leave evidence.

Logic has nothing to do with reality.

If you read message 20 then you would know that the mass did not change as you asserted.

The fact is that simple observation shows us that the physical laws have not changed in billions of years.

Until you can present evidence of the change you have nothing but fantasy and fairytales.

dwise1 writes: Certainly, the official creationist line is an age for the earth that is no greater than 10,000 years, even though the Ussher reckoning would require it to be no older than 6,000 years. I've always assumed, since "creation science" had to play the game of "Hide the Bible" in order to deceive the court system, that they just rounded up in order to hide their source. And, certainly, while most creationists would be expected to just blindly follow the official creationist line that they've been fed, there should be and are variant views on that particular question. And, certainly, when those variant views present themselves, we quite naturally want to ask how those variant views had been arrived at. So then, please, on what do you base your one-million-year maximum age? Is it a variation of the two-hundred-year-old Gap Theory? And if, in differing from the clear genealogies used by Ussher, one million years is not out of line, then what about two million years? Or a hundred million years? Or a billion years? Or about 4.5 billion years? What is it that draws the line in the sand at one million years? About 20 years ago on a Yahoo Groups forum, a creationist gave me two aha! epiphanies. The first was when he used that hoary old PRATT about the concentration of sodium in the oceans (the old sea salt concentrations claim, which actually deals with residence times for various elements and compounds; aluminum's is 100 years, but instead of trying to claim that the seas could be no older than 100 years, Henry Morris just wrote something like "Huh? I wonder what that would mean."). Now, this creationist had already demonstrated before that he toed the party line of no older than 10,000 years, but here he was arguing for millions of years instead. When I pointed out to him that he was contradicting himself, he said that he did not care whether it was 10,000 years or a hundred million years, "just so long as it's not BILLIONS OF YEARS as science says it is". That is when I had one of the epiphanies he gave me: creationists don't care what any of their claims really mean, just so long as they can disprove or cast doubt on what science says; they're not trying to prove or promote creationism, but rather they're just attacking science. So then, do you actually have a reason for setting the limit at one million years? Or are you just allowing for more age, just so long as it's less than what science says?

I don't believe things just so that it will contradict science. I know that is your impression of creationists. Perhaps that description fits some of them. 4.56 billion years is a ridiculous amount of time for mankind to be around and for the bible to be absolutely silent about most of that time. The bible says all the original animals were created whole and did not come from prior animals. It specifically says they were created in a 2 day period. That does not allow for darwinian evolution. We do know that evolution has occurred and is occurring right now. Darwinian evolution requires millions of years to work. Darwinian evolution is in direct contradiction to the creation of animals in a 2 day period. Created animals that came off the ark with environmentally cued evolution preprogrammed into their genes does not require millions of years to work. 1 million years is sufficient time to get todays diversity from a couple thousand of originally created animals. The 1 million year figure comes from the absurdity of expanding 20 generations in a genealogy to several million generations of humans who are not even mentioned in passing. It also comes from the necessity of providing an explanation for the fossil record and observed evolution that does not contradict the clear wording of scripture regarding the creation of animals.

No, you have NOT shown that change might not leave evidence.

I certainly did.

Logic has nothing to do with reality.

Sorry to disappoint you , but it does

If you read message 20 then you would know that the mass did not change as you asserted.

How do you know it did not change?

The fact is that simple observation shows us that the physical laws have not changed in billions of years.

So you say, but you have yet to make a case for it.

Until you can present evidence of the change you have nothing but fantasy and fairytales.

Until you can present evidence that change ALWAYS AND BY NECESSITY leaves evidence of that change, you have nothing but fantasy and fairytales

Again, we have genetic evidence from humans going back to Adam's time as well as from animals, plants, shrooms and there just in no real difference between the humans and critters that were contemporaries of Adam and those today. See Looking for the Super-Genome. -And it ain't found.

And humans have not been around for 4.6 billion years. The fact is it's just yet another place where the Bible is factually wrong.

And the idea that the Biblical Flood (whichever of the Biblical flood myths you pick) has been absolutely refuted. It just never happened. Bringing up the Ark is simply a non-starter, DOA. See No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood.

I know mass did not change because the earth exists. See Message 20.

Please provide the link to where you showed that changing the physical laws might not leave evidence.

Edited by jar, : fix link

jar writes: root of its former value. So what difference would that make? First, none of us would be here and there would be no star sitting at the center of this solar system. HUH? How can that be true? Well the mass of the Sun is currently about 2 x 1030kg. If the mass was "less by an amount equal to the square root of its former value" what would the effect be? Well the mass would be √2 x 1015 or 1.4 x 1015kg. Now that's still a really big number, BUT, how big is it? Mass of Jupiter = 1.9 x 1027kg. Mass of Saturn = 5.7 x 1026kg. Mass of Uranus = 8.7 x 1025kg. Mass of Earth = 6 x 1024kg. Mass of Mars = 6.4 x 1023kg. It's less than the mass of Jupiter, of Saturn, of Neptune, of Uranus, less than the mass of the Earth, even less than the mass of Mars. Jupiter is too small, has not enough mass to become a Sun. And all the others are real lightweights compared to Jupiter. So IF the assertion above was true, there would be no sun, likely no solar system, maybe something like the Oort Cloud at best. It's possible to imagine a Universe where the laws and constants are different than here, but it's impossible to have THIS universe.

Yes, the sun would have less mass than jupiter currently has. Under the currently laws of physics, the sun would be unable to even be a sun with that amount of mass. We need to consider the matter a little deeper then, don't we?

What are the physical laws that make it possible for the sun to shine and be a star today? Is it possible to tweak those laws in a way that would make it possible for the sun to have the mass of jupiter and still behave as the thermonuclear oven that it is today? It would seem so to me. The problem you have is that you limit your possibilities to only what you can perceive physically happening today.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

I know mass did not change because the earth exists. See Message 20.

Already rebutted.

Please provide the link to where you showed that changing the physical laws might not leave evidence.

My reply to nwr answers this nicely. The fact that my aunt has no testicles doesn't mean there was never a time when aunt did have testicles. Creationism is only proven wrong if you assume all the physical laws and constants have been the same since the beginning. Like I said to nwr, if the prior physical universe and its laws were so radically changed and its forms radically changed to the point to were there was no way to tell it ever existed, you would have no way of knowing it ever existed. You can have a wild sex party in your parents basement but clean it up and leave everthing exactly the way it was before and make sure everyone has alibis for the time in question, your parents would have no reason to believe there was ever a wild sex party that occurred in their basement.

Prior to the above post that I copied from earlier in the thread, see post #37 in response to nwr

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Utter nonsense.

This is not a rebuttal, it's a joke.

Yes you can imagine a universe where the physical laws are different than in this universe, but you cannot have this universe.

Where is the evidence?

Until you can present evidence that change ALWAYS AND BY NECESSITY leaves evidence of that change, you have nothing but fantasy and fairytales

No, that's not how it works. The burden of proof lies with you.

Alice: There are flying pigs.
Bob: Let's see some evidence for flying pigs, then.
Alice: Er ... don't seem to have any.
Bob: Then you have nothing but fantasy and fairytales.
Alice: No, unless you can present evidence that flying pigs ALWAYS AND BY NECESSITY leave me evidence of their existence, you have nothing but fantasy and fairytales.
Bob: That's really not how it works.

Now, who's in the right? Bob, obviously. Alice can't shift the burden of proof like that, it's absurd.

Now if she'd said: "There might conceivably be flying pigs", then she would be justified --- to refute that, we would indeed have to show that if they existed we would have evidence of them. And in the same way we can conceive of natural laws being somewhat different in the past, but we have absolutely no reason to believe it: it is fantasy pure and simple.

Yes it was a rebuttal. I can't help it if you are too retarded to recognize it as such. I already gave you the evidence; its not my fault that your ideology prevents you from accepting it.

dwise1 writes: So then, do you actually have a reason for setting the limit at one million years?

foreveryoung writes: 4.56 billion years is a ridiculous amount of time...

foreveryoung writes: The 1 million year figure comes from the absurdity...

So - your reason for choosing an age of 1 million years is simply your own personal incredulity.
In other words: you pulled that number from out of your butt.
/golfclap

Would fantasy get a pass at your school?

How do you change the mass of the sun and still have this solar system?

That's all well and good but you and jar are the ones who are claiming that flying pigs exist.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Please provide a link to where I claimed flying pigs exist.