Acceptance, Evolutionists vs. Creationists

Well we are assuming of course the constants are in fact constant, an idea that even einstein was unsure of. If the very fabric of space is infact being stretched out, might not the constants be varying proportionally with one another? You've probably already debunked this idea too. But I wonder how many people have explored this idea? Quantized redshifts? Aren't they still largely unexplained? What about the pioneer satelite experiencing an unexplained decceleration? I just don't think we know as much as we claim to know.You do know much more about this than I do, so I'm afraid I'll have to get more of an education under my belt before I can argue into more detail.Oh yes the footprints. How deep is a few hundred million years?
When Mt. St. Helens erupted much snow and ice was melted causing mudslides which deposited hundreds of feet of layered sediments and also carved a huge canyon out of the rock, if my mind serves me right, 1/3 the size of the grand canyon. If someone had taken a walk in the park during the eruption, this mudslide might have buried footprints hundreds of feet deep.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-08-2004 12:05 AM

That is always a great idea. But some of the things can be checked. For example, if we look at distant spiral galaxies, we find that the part turning towards us has a slight blue shift while the half spining away from us has a slight red shift. This shows us that things are behaving the same today as they did long, long ago. How can we tell? Well when we look at those far away galaxies we are actually looking at what happened long long ago. Yet we see the same things that we see with close objects that are happening right now.Also, you really need to do some more research on Einstein. The constant that he hated, and really wished he hadn't put in, actually seems to be true and needed. He turned out to be right afterall. Remember, he was really pushing the state of art, was always questioning his conclusions and we have learned a lot since then.Now let's just touch on the Pioneer Satelite for a second. First, it is creeping along. We aren't talking about very fast speeds at all. If it slows down, speeds up (and I don't know of any such thing happening even though I follow all of those things pretty closely) that still has absolutely nothing to do with relativity, with the speed of light or with any of the things we're talking about.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No comment on Mt. St. Helens?
What the pioneer deceleration has to do with the speed of light is that either the deceleration is occuring or the radio signals are slowing down due to the equation they use to determine its velocity.
There is no known cause for a deceleration.Its such a shame my knowledge is so limited or I might really be able to kick butt on here! Right... I'm addicted to this site now because I've been long deprived of argumentation... (I'm really a nice guy and don't like to piss people off).But whenever I get discouraged and feel like I'm losing (I usually am) I just remember that "The fool has said in his heart there is no God" and "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" and "I will make the wisdom of the wise foolishness", and some other things C.S. Lewis said, and...
... and then someone like crashfrog puts up a ridiculous argument like the one about sperm, me, and abiogenesis and I feel much better.
hahahaThis message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-08-2004 01:08 AM

No, because he didn't address the point.The point is that there's a pattern of increasing complexity in the fossil plant record. I've never heard a creationist explanation, because whenever I bring it up, they start talking about radiometric dating.The problem is that I'm not talking about dates, or even age. I'm talking about position. There's a pattern of complexity and position in the plant fossil record, and the only explanation I'm aware of for that pattern is called "evolution." No creationist has ever proposed an explanation; they just pretend like the pattern doesn't exist.That's what I mean by "willfully ignoring evidence." That's what you're doing when you pretend that something that's right in front of you doesn't exist.

Does this help Crashfrog? Kingdom of the Plants: Defying Evolution | Answers in Genesis

Well, see, the way I understand it, and I haven't really heard anything different in a biology textbook nor from people on here, is that paleo's find some simple life forms in a certain band of layers (presumably older) at one site. They find some more advanced life forms in another band of rock (presumably less old) at another site. And still more advanced (if you can call it that: I've heard the trilobyte had the best eyes of any known bug) fossils at another site in a different looking layer closer to the surface (most digs aren't very far from the surface anyways, certainly not anywhere near the range of depths the geologic column extends) To me, this "pattern" does not seem reliable enough to justify dogmatic statements about a fossil record. We simply do not have enough information.

Seriously, I thought this threadwas supposed to be about tolerance and acceptance. What the hell kind of acceptance involves burning bridges? I'm not trying to play moderator, but shouldn't you guys start a new thread if you're going to be talking about that? Because this sure won't create tolence.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

Not in the least. Did you understand what I was asking for? I'll try again:What's the creationist explanation for the corellation between complexity and position in the plant fossil record?

See, once again the willful ignorance comes out. You can't explain the pattern, therefore there must not be a pattern.Ridiculous. There's a pattern in the fossil plant record. For instance, You never find grasses in the stomachs of dinosaurs. (For that matter, you never find cows in the stomachs of dinosaurs, though we've found nearly everything else.)There's a pattern, and you have to explain it. Telling me there is no pattern is not an explanation; and moreover, it's not even true.

I'm sorry my post where I mentioned crashfrog's argument was probably not the Christian thing to say. After all I'm sure I've made plenty of arguments that justify a good laugh.As long as we only know in part, we will never agree on evolution, creation, God or atheism.The interesting thing is that pretty much everyone on here agrees that there is some universal truth. Thats more than most people can say. We just don't agree on what it is.Few people hold to any dogma.. They go about their lives in a funk, not really thinking about anything outside themselves.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-08-2004 01:35 AM

Wait a second. I've just been told that there could have been millions of years without a single fossil formed that would survive until today meaning our fossil record is hugely incomplete. You want to use this to justify the millions of missing fossils, yet you expect to find a dinosaur with every item on his plate in his stomach? Couldn't the dinosaurs with grass and cow in their stomaches have not been fossilized or been destroyed over a few hundred million years?

If they were, we'd notice the speed of light changing, though.Physics college students measure the speed of light as freshmen. It's not changing. How much do you think we claim to know? If you think we're claiming we know everything, you're quite mistaken. If we knew everything, there wouldn't be any science left to do. I can assure you that that is not the case.But just because we don't know it all doesn't mean we know nothing. We don't know everything about how cancer works, for instance. But that doesn't mean we tear down hospitals - it means we build more schools.

Incomplete in the evolutionist model, yes. According to the creationist model it's a nearly complete record. We find plenty of dinosaur fossils, and plenty of mammal fossils.Look, we have this theory that says that the vast majority of modern mammals didn't come to be until long, long after the dinosaurs. If this isn't true - if dinosaurs and modern mammals are contemporaries - should we find at least one fossil that suggests that? Especially from a creationist model that predicts a much greater rate of fossilization?

How do they measure it? Don't they measure it with a laser and an atomic clock? I could be wrong.All I'm saying is that man (myself included) tends to be arrogant and overestimate his own knowledge. This is a historical fact as evidenced by the numerous dogmas that have been discarded.And this is my final word for tonight... i've wasted far too much time on here already.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-08-2004 01:47 AM

My friend with the physics degree described an experiment involving a laser and a mirror spinning at a known rate. Don't ask me for the math but when you consider the wavelength of the light and the precise speed of the mirror required to put the reflected beam exactly out of phase with the primary beam, you can calculate the speed of light. I guess. That's the point of the scientific method, though - it's an epistomology designed to let us be as sure as we can that we really know what we think we know.