Message 1059 of 1323 (827662)
01-29-2018 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1055 by creation
01-28-2018 4:24 PM
Re: Separate school and state and religion
Replying to a number of your messages...
Regarding your Message 1054 to Modulous:
|creation in Message 1054 writes:|
Relativity says its the same entity. So, yes actually - for the far universe.
In your dreams. Prove it.
It's appropriate that you say "in your dreams," because everything you say is in your dreams. You're asking for proof that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by distant objects is still the same (adjusted by the rules of relativity) when it arrives here.
But you're asking the question the wrong way around. The entire history of observation tells us that the electromagnetic radiation arriving here is a true representation of what is out there. We saw the moon, went there, and discovered that it really was the moon, something no one ever doubted. And we saw Mars, went there via probes, and discovered that it really was Mars, something no one ever doubted. The same for Mercury and Venus and Jupiter and Saturn and Pluto and the distant boundaries of the solar system where the Voyagers are now.
Your idea is that what we see in the form of electromagnetic radiation arriving here from distant objects beyond some distance (i.e., outside your "fishbowl") is not the same electromagnetic radiation emitted by those distant objects, that it is modified in some way. There are a several fatal problems with this:
- There is no evidence for your "fishbowl."
- Our observations of distant objects are completely consistent with the natural physical laws we uncovered here on Earth.
- You need some mechanism that takes whatever really happened with those distant objects (you don't say what that is) and transforms it into electromagnetic radiation completely and totally consistent with what we expect according to the natural physical laws uncovered here on Earth.
Until you address these fatal problems your "fishbowl" is just a dream of fantasy.
Another problem is that you're approaching the question of the "fishbowl" backwards, a fallacy of the first degree. One doesn't ask for proof that there *aren't* unicorns dancing on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. Rather, one asks for evidence of these unicorns. In the same way, one doesn't ask for proof that there *isn't* a "fishbowl." Rather, one asks for evidence of this "fishbowl." So far you have no evidence, and your "fishbowl" is just a silly idea.
Example of something predicted in deep space? Gravitational lensing won't do. You see that effect out there is not known in detail, since we have so many unknowns. Distances to the stars and how big whatever is seeming to bend the light...for example.
Those aren't unknowns.
Known by religious belief doesn't count even if you claim it is science falsely.
This isn't a religious thread. Your religious beliefs are your religious beliefs, and they deserve to be respected, but this is a science thread where evidence for your position is a requirement.
Science will never know everything, but not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing, as has been explained to you several times. You're drawing a false equivalence between not possessing omnipotent knowledge and not knowing anything. As Modulous indicates when he comments, "Those aren't unknowns," there is much we do know about gravitational lensing, distances to stars, and the bending of light by gravitation.
|Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, Black Holes, Redshift, the behaviour of binary pulsars, gravitational waves.|
None of those things matter or mean what you think unless time exists out in far space as it does here. Gong!
Everything Modulous listed is evidence that space-time (not time, a mistake you keep repeating) is the same out there as it is here. If you have evidence to the contrary then this is your opportunity to present it.
Regarding your Message 1055 to me:
|creation in Message 1055 writes:|
The issue is not that time progresses here now or not.
You just said it was an issue. You said, "The arrow of time may be a short shot for all we know!"
|The issue is whether our current nature complete with time as it is now will always exist and always has!|
That's the same as what you said before, except you added a clause about whether time has always existed.
Once again, it is space-time, not time. Space can not be separated from time - they are completely interdependent. The space-time of our universe has not "always existed," and did have a beginning about 13.5 billion years ago.
Regarding your Message 1057 to me:
|creation in Message 1057 writes:|
No. How long an atom in the fishbowl takes here to do something is not time. That is a clock in the fishbowl!.
Time in physics has a clear and unambiguous definition. A second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of a radiating cesium atom.
I already distinguished between "time" and "the nature of time." You're asking about the nature of time, for which we do not a have a good answer. But as far as just plain old time, something clocks measure, we define the second according to the number of vibrations of a cesium atom. There is no evidence that cesium behaves any differently at distant locations than it does here.
There is no evidence for your "fishbowl."
|Since the fishbowl just refers to how far man has been and what he knows, it is not fiction in any way.|
Our knowledge is not limited by "how far man has been," so if you want to define your "fishbowl" by drawing a false equivalence, that makes it not just a fiction but a fallacy.
|What you see, whether an atom or light, is here in the fishbowl! Time here dictates it unfold or behave a certain way in time. That tells us diddly squat about what time is like far far from the fishbowl. That should be obvious.|
Who cares what time is like "far far" from a fictitious concept. You need evidence for your "fishbowl" before you begin building arguments around it.
|In public school science classrooms we teach the scientific consensus. Evolution has so much evidence that a scientific consensus has formed around the theory.|
They can teach whatever beliefs the local consensus may desire. They may not teach it as anything but beliefs!
We're talking about the consensus of science (not "local consensus"), which is frameworks of understanding constructed around bodies of evidence. Science has real world evidence and conceptual theory. It is you who have nothing but belief.
|There is overwhelming evidence that the natural physical laws of the universe have been unchanged for billions of years.|
Great, so post it. You sure haven't yet.
I, and others, have already posted a great deal of evidence. You had a single response to all of it, calling it just belief. Until you begin considering the evidence and/or presenting some of your own evidence, there can't really be any meaningful discussion.
One place you could start would be with the spectral lines of hydrogen. If what we observe here is not what actually happened at some distant star, then explain to us what really did happen, and explain how the original electromagnetic radiation from the distant star was modified in such a way as to directly reflect the same natural physical laws we observe here on Earth.
|Where is your evidence that evolution ever worked any differently? Given that evolution is based upon fundamental principles such as heredity and adaptation, how could it ever work differently?|
All you are doing is confirming your present state bias. 'Gee, things always must have been as they are..'
Our understanding of evolution as change over time is reflected in the fossil record going back billions of years. That's evidence, not bias. If you have evidence that something different happened then you need to present it. Otherwise you're still just making things up. The answer to your question, "Says who?", is not a who but a what, and that what is evidence, something you don't seem to have. All you have is unsupported belief that is strongly at odds with the evidence.
|Human fossils over a couple hundred thousand years old have been found.|
The flood was probably more like 70 million so called science same state past belief based years ago. You fossils are decidedly post flood therefore irrelevant to the issue.
If you have evidence for the flood and when it occurred, this is your opportunity to present it. Of course you won't do that. It is abundantly obvious that you're just stating your religious beliefs. But despite your emphasis on religious beliefs at the expense of science, don't you at least think it important that there be evidence behind what is taught in science class?
|So you accept evolution but believe it used to happen much faster? Any evidence of this, or is this just another idea you're making up.|
Yes. I cannot see how all the species we now have were on the ark. I assume the rapid evolving of many kinds took place. Bus as for the evo idea we came from animals or are kin to potatoes..etc..phooey.
"Phooey," huh. How incisive.
The relatedness of all life is what the evidence suggests, given that it's all based on DNA with commonality a function of relatedness. Your assumption about rapid evolution is driven by your religious beliefs, not evidence - you need evidence in this thread.
|You're proposing that organisms evolved during their lifetime? How do you imagine this happening? There are all kinds of problems. How do all the cells in the organism change in the same way at the same time. When an organism evolves into a new species, there will be no organisms of the opposite sex to mate with. And so on.|
Easy. Just lose the shackles of current physics. Now imagine a different set of forces acting on those atoms that made up those cells...!
You're making up physics to accommodate your religious beliefs. There is no evidence that physics in the past was any different from today. When we look out into the universe, which is a window into the past, we can see physical processes taking place billions of years ago that follow natural physical laws that are the same as those on Earth today. And your "forces acting on those atoms" is irrelevant - it is the structure of DNA that is important.
What you describe is not physics but a miracle, one you're making up. If you're going to insist on intruding religion into a science thread you might at least stay true to the Biblical narrative - there's nothing like you describe in the Bible.
And the problems remain. When a creature "evolves" into a new creature, it would need a creature of the opposite sex to "evolve" identically. Sounds like another miracle. And all the DNA in all the cells changing identically at the same time so the creature doesn't die sounds like another miracle. And what causes the creature to change physically, given that its altered cells are in a body they weren't intended for? Another miracle? And so on.
|There's a certain consistency in the vacuity of your ideas, and it's because you think them up without first seeking supporting evidence.|
No. It is because they fit all scientific evidences as well as God's written record!
Well now you're just lying. If your ridiculous ideas had any scientific evidence then a) You'd be gleefully describing this evidence for us; and b) Creationists wouldn't be forced to do pretend science in order to hoodwink those unfamiliar with science.
|Yes, science does know what "laws were in place" in the past. There is no evidence they were ever any different.|
Or that they were the same. Don't kid a kidder.
Much evidence has been presented to you that natural scientific laws were the same in the past as they are now. You've dismissed the evidence instead of considering and rebutting it. The best you've been able to come up with is this incredibly weak strategy of calling all evidence "belief." You're just avoiding discussion of what's really important, which is evidence. Whatever the evidence shows, that's what science builds consensus and theory around, and that's what gets taught in schools.
|So when you want to say something bad about science you call it a religion? Way to go!|
I never asked them to oppose God or base all past models on a belief. Don't blame me for their badness.
Don't blame who for their badness? The only one here making your ludicrous arguments is you. It was you who criticized science by calling it a religion, thereby invalidating your position's basis, which is religious.
|Public school science classes should continue to teach the scientific consensus on all subjects.|
As baseless beliefs that are diametrically opposed to Christ the creator...sure.
This is a science thread, and the science being taught in public school science classrooms is based upon evidence. It's clear that you would rather religion be taught in science class, and ignore the evidence.
Regarding your Message 1058 to Coyote:
|creation in Message 1058 writes:|
I deny no evidence ever.
That's all you've done is deny evidence. You call it belief.
|I simply expose the belief based methodology that you spray and dunk all evidence in, and still try to call the colored result evidence.|
Look, there you are denying evidence by calling it belief.
When you teach creation science in science class, wouldn't you like to have evidence so that you can say things like, "We know the flood happened because of this evidence I'm going to describe for you now," and then proceed on to describe the evidence? And like, "We know there was rapid evolution after the flood because of this evidence I'm going to describe for you now," and then proceed on to describe that evidence? And like, "We know the Earth is young because of this evidence I'm going to describe for you now," and then proceed on to describe that evidence?
Where's your evidence?
Edited by Percy, : Typos.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 1055 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:24 PM|| ||creation has responded|
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 1064 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 2:01 AM|| ||Percy has acknowledged this reply|