|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Physical Laws ....What if they were different before? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10388 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
I have no idea what you mean by that.
Let's go back to what you said in the previous post:
quote: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10388 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 496 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 910 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 910 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 910 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10388 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025