Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

Hi, Ken!The scientific community largely, though not exclusively, holds to Popperian principles. Popperian science is a deductive, not inductive, method, relying primarily upon replication and falsification.While the principles of science are deductive, the extension of those principles to novel situations is inductive, which is the subject of your inquiry. One can legitimately question whether current scientific principles apply as well in the past or future as they do in the present. However, given that we can observe no change in scientific principles over the past 13 billion years or so, one can also automatically consider most doubtful any assertion that they were at one time different.You question concerning whether Pluto had gravity 5000 years ago *is* representative of inductive logic, but only to a slight degree. While we can't observe the Pluto of 5000 years ago, we can observe other parts of our galaxy 5000 years ago and deduce that gravity then was the same as now. True, Pluto's gravity still could have been different 5000 years ago since we've only induced, not deduced, it, but with no examples on the one hand of scientific principles being broken, and with every instant of existence filled with evidence of constancy in scientific principles, inducing that Pluto's gravity was different 5000 years ago is the weaker induction in the extreme. In other words, you have a point in principle, but not in anything resembling an effective arguing point. You could as reasonably defend an alleged murderer at trial by arguing the laws of physics were different at the particular time and place.About hypotheses, theories and laws, there *is* a hierarchy, but not the one you think. True, hypothesis is low man on the totem pole, but scientific principles receive the name law or theory largely for reasons having nothing to do with our confidence in them. Consider, for example, that Newton's laws were supplanted by Einstein's mere theory. Or that the laws of thermodynamics were overridden by quantum thermodynamic theory. Whether a principle is called a law or theory is governed largely by human perceptions and attitudes, and not by our confidence in them.--Percy

I would recommend to everyone that when typing a post somewhat longer than the message box to instead enter it into a file using one of the common editors like Word, Wordpad or Notepad, then cut-n-paste the text into the message box. A cut-n-paste can be this fast:

• Click in editor window
• Ctrl-A (select all text)
• Ctrl-C (copy all selected text)
• Click in message box
• Ctrl-V (paste)

It's also a good idea to keep your longer posts in a single text file for later reference, like EvCForumGems.txt! --Percy

The Casimir effect *is* well established, but not by the Hawking radiation. While Hawking's theoretical calculations have been verified and accepted within the scientific community, I think they still await experimental validation.The Casimir effect is not the only verification of virtual particles flitting in and out of existence, but it is the most clearly obvious since it is detectable at scales well above the quantum level.--Percy

The Casimir effect is consistent with the conservation laws. Virtual particles appear in pairs, one each of matter and anti-matter, so the net energy change is 0.--Percy

There *is* the little reply button you could use. When I examine your references it is clear that they are saying something different. For example, http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM.html, is saying that what appears to be empty space is actually filled with energy. It isn't saying that energy is "appearing from absolutely nothing," but that it is a property of space itself. The Casimir effect is an expression of this property. The article also says this energy cannot, so far as we know today and consistent with the basic principles of physics, be extracted for our own use. Even worse than violating logic, it violates the laws of physics. It is why perpetual motion machines don't work. But virtual particle pairs are not an example of getting something from nothing.If you have +1 apples in your left hand and -1 apples in your right hand, do you have more or less apples than me holding no apples in either hand? The correct answer is that we both have a net of 0 apples.The same is true of virtual particles. No particles is the same thing as, for example, one positron and one electron (the positron, which is antimatter, is the antiparticle of the electron). When a positron and an electron temporarily flit into existence you have no more mass and energy then you had before. It's the ultimate Biblical metaphor. From the vacuum you came, and to the vacuum you shall return.--Percy

What I actually said was (and you quoted it), "For example, http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM.html, is saying that what appears to be empty space is actually filled with energy. It isn't saying that energy is "appearing from absolutely nothing," but that it is a property of space itself."I am stating the opposite of what you somehow thought I was saying. "Empty" space is not empty. It is seething with virtual particles flitting in and out of existence, and this is an expression of a property of so-called (but not actually) "empty" space where it contains energy. Once again, just to be clear, I didn't say space is empty. That's what I did. The SciAm reference was yours, not mine. If you have other references you'd like me to examine please just provide them or the specific post where they reside. You have links in most of your messages, so I can't tell which you're referring to.The bottom line is that rather than representing a challenge to conservation laws, the Casimir effect and virtual particles are consistent with them. If we actually had experimental data that called the conservation laws into question there would be a tremendous uproar within the physics community.--Percy[text=wheat][Fix syntax error in last para. --Percy][/text][This message has been edited by Percy, 03-24-2004]