Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
42 online now:
Admin (Percy), AZPaul3, jar, JoeT, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric (7 members, 35 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,346 Year: 20,382/19,786 Month: 779/2,023 Week: 287/392 Day: 18/129 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 181 of 309 (664349)
05-31-2012 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 1:58 AM


Re: copied from RAZD's dendrochronology thread
I have no idea what you mean by that.

Let's go back to what you said in the previous post:

quote:
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.

Notice how there is not a single reference to any evidence. Not one scintilla. Nothing. That is what I meant by "sans evidence" (sans being french for "without").

Bald lie. I do not state they were as if I were stating a fact. All I am saying is that it is possible.

Sure looked like you were stating facts to me. Go back to message 123 and judge for yourself.

As to possibilities, what evidence do you have that this was a possibility?

That is because there would not NECESSARILY be changes in distant starlight.

Yeah, there would be. See message 109 by RAZD:

quote:
[note: go back to message 109 for the diagram]

EARTHWe assume a six fold faster speed at the start than at the end, just for this example:

The first marker leaves the star and advances 6 places. Then the second (delayed) marker leaves the star and both advance 6 places. The speed of light changes to 5, and both markers advance 5 places. The speed of light changes to 4, and both markers advance 4 places. the speed of light changes to 3 and both markers advance 3 places, the speed of light changes to 2 and both markers advance 2 places. The speed of light changes to 1 and both markers advance 1 place.

The first marker has moved 27 places and the second marker has moved 21 places. The delay between them is now 6 places instead of 1 (as would occur if the speed of light did not change).

To get from the star to earth in 10,000 years the speed of light would have to average 168,000/10,000 or 16.8 times the current speed of light, as a minimum. This means a 16.8:1 increase in the time between the first marker and the second when observed here on earth compared to when they left the star.


If the speed of light had changed in the last 200,000 years then we would see a difference in lag time between the light from the supernova and the light from the rings surrounding the supernova. That is the evidence which you continue to ignore. And that is just one piece of the evidence. RAZD goes through the other pieces of evidence which include the decay rate of cobalt-56 and the spectra of elements. All of the evidence is consistent with the constancy of physical laws. None of it is consistent with changing laws.

Let's put it another way. How should the observations of supernova 1987A be different if the laws were constant? You are saying that the laws changed in the past, so if the laws were constant then the observations should be different. In what way should they be different?

You have not gone through all the possible variations in constants and the possibility that we do not know the very foundations of space, energy and matter, particularly the nature of space itself.

We do know those things. Once again, creationism shows us that accepting creationism requires you to ignore the knowledge we do have.

...Only in the mind that wishes it to be so.

Then show us how the evidence would be different if laws were constant. Show us what we are missing.

That is because we don't believe something just because an atheist tells us to believe it.

It appears that you don't believe something even when the evidence supports it.

Didn't your mom tell you it's wrong to lie?

Yes. Did yours?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 1:58 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 182 of 309 (664350)
05-31-2012 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 1:40 AM


Re: first assumption
Science used to be called philosophy. It was the search for certain knowledge. Just because science has bastardized itself from the nineteeth century onward from its honest beginnings, does not mean it is more correct than its original state.

What I find so interesting is how hard creationists try to get creationism into science class, as if they need the support of science to justify their beliefs.

Another creationist quip illustrates how creationists view science. Time and again they try to claim that evolution, and/or science, is just another religion. What are they trying to do? Drag science down to their level. If they truly believed that religious belief was superior to science why would they try so hard to make science and the theory of evolution look like a religion.

Your attempts to drag science down only demonstrates the superiority of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 1:40 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31609
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(4)
Message 183 of 309 (664354)
05-31-2012 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 1:58 AM


on sources.
That is because we don't believe something just because an atheist tells us to believe it.

This is an important point for you to understand and address.

No atheist has told you to believe anything.

What atheists and agnostics and theists and Christians have been telling you is "Look at the evidence. What does the evidence tell you?".

If you MUST put a Christian theological spin on the subject, consider this point of view.

GOD created all that is, seen and unseen.

Therefore, the universe we observe is the direct work of GOD.

We do not know who wrote the Bible or even what works should be included in a Bible or what any of the original documents said or who was on the various Committees of Canon and so cannot say the Bible is anything but the work of man.

When we must decide between the evidence that is this universe and what is written in a Bible story, we MUST as Christians accept what GOD wrote (the universe) over what man wrote (the Bible).


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 1:58 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5530
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 184 of 309 (664362)
05-31-2012 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by jar
05-31-2012 10:50 AM


Re: evidence of change? thread
Changes spotted in fundamental constant.

Note that the change (which isn't yet accepted by the entire physics community) is 11 orders of magnitude smaller than creationists want.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 10:50 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 12:59 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31609
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 185 of 309 (664369)
05-31-2012 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by JonF
05-31-2012 12:28 PM


Re: evidence of change? thread
Yup, and if we can detect changes that are that small we could certainly detect changes like foreveryoung has proposed.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by JonF, posted 05-31-2012 12:28 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 186 of 309 (664373)
05-31-2012 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 1:58 AM


One Enormous And Superfluous Lie
Jar is right.

On the one hand we have your favorite interpretation of your favorite translation of your favorite recension of your favorite book. Errors may have crept in somewhere in that process.

On the other hand, we have the universe. If there is a God, then to square your favorite interpretation (etc, etc) we have to suppose that the universe itself is one big lie. Because it looks like it would look if it was billions of years old.

As Kingsley wrote about Omphalism: "I cannot believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind."

If he has, then I confess that I am deceived. But do you or I believe that this is what God has done?

Believe in God all you want. But at least believe that God created this universe, the one that we actually live in.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 1:58 AM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 2:41 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 58 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 187 of 309 (664383)
05-31-2012 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dr Adequate
05-31-2012 1:27 PM


Re: One Enormous And Superfluous Lie
Jar is right.

On the one hand we have your favorite interpretation of your favorite translation of your favorite recension of your favorite book. Errors may have crept in somewhere in that process.

If true errors have crept in along the way, it is not a supernatural book and cannot be trusted and should simply be thrown into the trash. You either believe God had the ability to preserve it through the ages or he didn't.

On the other hand, we have the universe. If there is a God, then to square your favorite interpretation (etc, etc) we have to suppose that the universe itself is one big lie. Because it looks like it would look if it was billions of years old.

It only looks like it is billions of years old because of the assumptions you and others have made. Don't blame God for that.

As Kingsley wrote about Omphalism: "I cannot believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind."

The rocks do not record an enormous lie. The rocks do not necessarily record an earth that is billions of years old. Radiometric dating does that, but what if there is more to the story than what radiometric dating is telling us? Is God lying or does he expect us to use our noggins and not make silly assumptions about the basis for all reality?

If he has, then I confess that I am deceived. But do you or I believe that this is what God has done?

God did not deceive when he created. He did allow a system of thought to come along in the philosophies of men that created the intellectual environment were men deceived themselves mainly in the enlightenment.

Believe in God all you want. But at least believe that God created this universe, the one that we actually live in.

I do believe that. I am sorry that he didn't create it in such a simplistic manner that men born of the enlightenment could not understand how it was actually created.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2012 1:27 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 3:08 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 194 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2012 3:56 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 196 by vimesey, posted 05-31-2012 4:44 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31609
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 188 of 309 (664389)
05-31-2012 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 2:41 PM


Re: One Enormous And Superfluous Lie
If true errors have crept in along the way, it is not a supernatural book and cannot be trusted and should simply be thrown into the trash. You either believe God had the ability to preserve it through the ages or he didn't.

Well, the Bible was never meant as a scientific text and yes, regardless of what someone might believe, it is factually wrong in many cases.

Sorry about that.

The rocks do not necessarily record an earth that is billions of years old.

Of course the rocks record an earth that is billions of years old, and that was known long, long before anyone knew anything about radiometric dating. Read through Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. for the evidence of that.

Consider the lowest exposed level of the Grand canyon, the Vishnu Schist. In your studies have you covered how schist is formed yet?

Read How to make sand.. Consider how to make sand. First, raise up and wear down a mountain...


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 2:41 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 3:24 PM jar has responded
 Message 190 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 3:28 PM jar has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 58 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 189 of 309 (664391)
05-31-2012 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by jar
05-31-2012 3:08 PM


Re: One Enormous And Superfluous Lie
Of course the rocks record an earth that is billions of years old, and that was known long, long before anyone knew anything about radiometric dating. Read through Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. for the evidence of that.

Consider the lowest exposed level of the Grand canyon, the Vishnu Schist. In your studies have you covered how schist is formed yet?

Read How to make sand.. Consider how to make sand. First, raise up and wear down a mountain...

I know how schist and sand is formed. I also know how the grand canyon was formed. I does not take billions of years to form all the sedimentary layers of the grand canyon. Erosion and sedimentation is much faster than that. Schist is formed from metamorphism of sedimentary and igneous rocks. That does not require billions of years either. The only way to come to that conclusion is to assume plate tectonics has always occurred at the rate it does today.

As for sand, yes it takes raising up and wearing down mountains. Raising up mountains only takes millions of years if you require plate tectonics to always have occurred at today's rates. Much of the sand of the grand canyon is not fluvial. It is marine and aeolian in nature. I do not see why either requires a time in the order of hundreds of millions of years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 3:08 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 3:33 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 58 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 190 of 309 (664394)
05-31-2012 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by jar
05-31-2012 3:08 PM


Re: One Enormous And Superfluous Lie
Well, the Bible was never meant as a scientific text and yes, regardless of what someone might believe, it is factually wrong in many cases.

Whoever said the Bible was a scientific text? I didn't. It is a collection of writings,however, all of which testify to the truth. It is not factually wrong at any place in its length and breadth. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what it is saying. If you think it is saying something it does not actually say, of course that perception will be wrong. It will also be wrong when you claim your misconception is actually what it actually says and then proceed to claim the bible is factually wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 3:08 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Taq, posted 05-31-2012 3:39 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 193 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 3:40 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 195 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 4:13 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31609
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 191 of 309 (664395)
05-31-2012 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 3:24 PM


Re: One Enormous And Superfluous Lie
Think it through.

Read what you write.

Much of the sand of the grand canyon is not fluvial. It is marine and aeolian in nature.

Which means that seas must be created and the mountain worn down to provide the marine sediment and then the land raised up to eliminate the sea and more mountains worn down to build the next layet to cover the earlier one and bury it deep enough to cause metamorphism.

And again, you are imagining changing rates. Change leaves evidence.

Where is you evidence?

Read the thread Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up..


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 3:24 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 192 of 309 (664396)
05-31-2012 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 3:28 PM


Re: One Enormous And Superfluous Lie
Whoever said the Bible was a scientific text? I didn't. It is a collection of writings,however, all of which testify to the truth. It is not factually wrong at any place in its length and breadth. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what it is saying. If you think it is saying something it does not actually say, of course that perception will be wrong. It will also be wrong when you claim your misconception is actually what it actually says and then proceed to claim the bible is factually wrong.

The let's go with what the Bible says according to you:

quote:
Message 123:

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.


So you are saying that if in fact life was not created in just a 2 day period, wholly formed, then the Bible is factually incorrect. Am I getting this right?

So what happens when we test this statement? It fails, spectacularly. There is a fossil progression. There is not a 2 day creation. This is supported by the measurement of radioisotopes in rocks.

Your response? Claim that the physical constants were different in the past for no other reason than allowing you to ignore this evidence. You can not show us one iota of evidence that would indicate a change in the physical constants needed to make the Bible factually correct, according to your claims. Instead, we have mountains and mountains of evidence consistent with constant physical laws.

You want to claim that the physical constants changed in such a way that they look exactly like they did not change. Do you know how insane that is? Let's use an analogy. I am a defense attorney, and you are on the jury. The prosecution presents DNA, fingerprint, fiber, shoeprint, tire mark, and palm print evidence all linking my client to the murder of the victim. What do I do? I tell the jury that the prosecution has not presented any evidence against my client. Why? Because it is possible that Leprechauns planted all of that to make my client look guilty when in fact he is not. As a juror, would you find my argument compelling? If not, why should we buy your story about supernatural magic making the physical laws look like they are constant when in fact they are not? Why should we buy the story that the evidence was faked?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 3:28 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31609
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 193 of 309 (664397)
05-31-2012 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 3:28 PM


Re: One Enormous And Superfluous Lie
You are using it as a science text.

We know for a fact that the Biblical flood, whichever of the different contradictory Bible Flood myths you select, never happened. See No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood.

You have presented no evidence to support that any of the Physical Laws have changed and you have been shown evidence from right here on this earth that shows that at least for 1.5 Billion years those laws have not changed and from the stars that shows no change in many billions of years.

Until you can present evidence to support your position you have nothing.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 3:28 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(2)
Message 194 of 309 (664401)
05-31-2012 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 2:41 PM


Re: One Enormous And Superfluous Lie
If true errors have crept in along the way, it is not a supernatural book and cannot be trusted and should simply be thrown into the trash.

I don't see how you jump from: "is not a supernatural book" to "should simply be thrown in the trash". I don't believe that the periodic table or the writings of Plutarch are supernatural, but I don't simply throw them in the trash.

It only looks like it is billions of years old because of the assumptions you and others have made.

But the assumption is just that the universe is not a big lie. That's it. If it is, then we are deceived, if it isn't, then we aren't.

The rocks do not record an enormous lie. The rocks do not necessarily record an earth that is billions of years old. Radiometric dating does that, but what if there is more to the story than what radiometric dating is telling us? Is God lying or does he expect us to use our noggins and not make silly assumptions about the basis for all reality?

But it looks like that's what the rocks record. That's why even back in the nineteenth century creationists familiar with geology needed to invent Omphalism. This is why this thread is still pushing Omphalism in a more obscure form. If we "use our noggins", we find that the Earth is old. That's what scientists have concluded, having employed their noggins. And would you have even thought of rejecting this conclusion were it not for your adherence to your favorite interpretation of your favorite book?

I do believe that. I am sorry that he didn't create it in such a simplistic manner that men born of the enlightenment could not understand how it was actually created.

You're sorry that God didn't create the universe a different way?

Well, I guess this is where your brand of bibliolatry leads you. You believe in principle that God is omnipotent and omniscient, but you regret that what with all his power and wisdom he didn't choose to create the universe in such a way that you would appear to be right rather than completely wrong.

Perhaps you could mention this blunder to him the next time you pray.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 2:41 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31609
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 195 of 309 (664402)
05-31-2012 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 3:28 PM


Conclusion vs Presupposition
Take a look at Conclusion vs Presupposition which may also help you.

It concerns the Green River varves and conclusions versus presuppositions.

If we look at the evidence what we find is a long, long history showing that what we see happening today, what we see related to physical laws, to process is what has been happening here on earth as long as there has been an earth.

That is yet another conclusion based on the evidence, not a presupposition based on a belief that some Bible story must be true.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 3:28 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019