Real Science Friday: What technologies needed Darwin or an old earth?
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
The reasoning for a changing speed and not an instantaneous one is that an instantaneous one would render life impossible with todays laws of physics. God, for whatever reason, wanted an entire creation in one week. In order to do this and not break most of the laws of physics, he needed vastly quicker speed of light. He had to slow it down over time to allow liee to exist. God just doesnt pop things into existence. He chooses to work with the laws he created and only make small changes to them like putting a deceleration curve on his initial speed of light.
Alate_One
Well-known member
And what you've just said is not a scientific explanation. You are reading your own view of scripture into science. You can believe it if you choose, but there is no scientific reason to believe it.
If your new doctrine works only by imagining unscriptural miracles, than any doctrine can be made to work by calling in a miracle wherever needed.
Somehow, that doesn't seem like a good idea to me...
Tyrathcas example of variable stars measuring the size of nebulaes does not show much in the way of disproving an accelerated speed of light in the past. Here's why: All the light that was emitted from sources when the speed of light was double or more what it is today is only from those sources a considerable distance away. These nebulae are less than 200,000 ly away and the light they emitted when light speed was much greater has already passed us long ago.
Why is my explanation not scientific alate one? Why is my explanation not biblical barbarian? Are only certain miracles allowed in your interpretation of the bible? Alate, a faster speed of light that decays explains the phenomena we see. I thought ideas that explained phenomena was what science was all about.
You only think my explanation is unscientific because you assume all the physical constants have always had their current value. Is there any scientific basis for this other than not detecting any change in the modern era? Do we know why the constants are the value they are? If not, then it is unscientific to declare any theory based on the past variableness of them beyond the bounds of science.
Alate_One
Well-known member
It is not science because you started with scripture and are trying to explain evidence with scripture AND more importantly, your explanation as I'm reading it is untestable. Anything that is untestable is not science.
Unless you have some way of testing your idea of changing speed of light?
You have to ask why supposing unscriptural miracles is not biblical?
If you get to summon up a miracle to deal with any problem in your interpretation, than all interpretations are equally valid.
The problem is, the observed phenomena from that time don't show any change. The stars and galaxies would not have behaved as we see them doing if the speed of light was significantly different, because many other physical constants would have been different also.
AGREED. I couldn't agree more A_O. That's why whenever I list the creationist fathers of the physical sciences I go out of my way to stipulate something that TOL evolutionists refuse to accept even as they quote this, that: "This is not an argument from authority, as a typical evolutionist might claim. Rather, this list rebuts the common claim that only uneducated people reject evolution, made by countless atheists."
Likewise, my lists of creationists and technologies/inventions is not offered as evidence that their creation view was correct but as a rebuttal to Whorton and Robert's claim and your claim Alate_One that, "Mainstream science is the only science that actually works." In what I have read from you including the post I'm reply to, I don't believe you have falsified either of these rebuttals.
A_O, thanks. Let's save the link to this in case we ever need to remember it.
If they were standard, why are there more than one? And aside from YECs, do adherents of one theory for nuclear decay make atomic clocks differently than adherents to a different theory? If not, your bringing this up seems to be an obfuscation, for no evolutionary view of the universe is required to build atomic clocks.
So, you seemed to list the following as requiring either Darwinism or belief in an old earth:
atomic clocks, nuclear reactors, satellites, DNA
sequencing, seismograph, seismometer, sonar
sequencing, seismograph, seismometer, sonar
I think I demonstrated your gloss regarding atomic clocks. And the same can be done with your offering of this list apparently as an answer to our question to you: "Please identify which ones were enabled by Darwinian insight or belief in an old earth."
Are you actually claiming A_O to claim that one or more of those seven technologies require belief in an old earth or Darwinism to develop? If so, why don't you narrow down the list to one or two and then make your case.
And here you appear to be responding to Fred Williams challenge to you: "Identify any technology or invention for which Darwinism or a belief in an old earth is an enabling prerequisite."
A_O, I don't recall any major creationist ministry denying recombinant DNA. Rather, they celebrate the whole system as an example of tremendous interacting sophistication that operates at many layers of complexity. They do call for great care to be taken in the field of genetic engineering (just like countless Darwinists do). I think that again you are glossing your claim.
Because they are building blocks.
As from our show, Darwin's Other Shoe:
God laid out a basic genetic blueprint that He coded into virtually the entire animal kingdom, and from that big batch of basic raw materials, He masterfully chooses which genetic resources He'll use to implement a dolphin, a lion, and a squid, and a million other creatures! Way to go God! ... The pro-evolution magazine New Scientist rejected one of Darwin's two major theories when they published their cover story: Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life... because... of the thousands of species genetically evaluated, more than half are clearly not the product of a developmental biological pathway represented by a tree (or a bush for that matter). Now the second shoe is dangling. Geneticists have found the basic blueprint for the overall animal kingdom in virtually every creature they've investigated! Now Darwin's second shoe is about to drop. For if evolution were true, then by the genetic mapping of the animal kingdom, it is becoming obvious that millions of years before creatures with structures like eyes, hearts and limbs had evolved, the sophisticated regulatory genes that develop those structures had already come into existence! ... And thus: Darwin Was Wrong about Natural Selection also! For if evolution were true [and the earth were old], then sophisticated regulatory genes appeared 50 million years before they were needed. So there would have been simply no role for a selection-for-survival mechanism to make them.
And A_O, it seems to me that you likewise gloss your other examples from farming and pharmacology.
Thanks though for interacting. I'll pass your answer on to Fred.
-Bob Enyart
Real Science Friday
The problem is, the "building blocks" aren't quite the same. There are actually a few differences in coding between domains. So that proves no common descent?
No, it actually verifies common descent. The differences sort out according to phylogenies worked out earlier on other evidence. And if you look at the entire genome, they establish the same family tree worked out by Linnaeus over two centuries before. And we know it works, because we can test the process with organisms of known descent.
Sure. There should be a spreadsheet on that. We know one can be built because we can build one for our own moon, which is in flux because of the energy it is dumping into the earth.
So either physics works differently when you get out as far as Jupiter, or the moons are receding around Jupiter because they are dumping energy to heat Io.
If you pick up a rock and hold it above your head, you have added energy to the rock. Our moon is receding from the earth (getting “higher”). That seems to indicate the moon is having energy added to it.
But “dumping” energy would cause their orbits to shrink, not recede, wouldn’t it?
Cool!
Or, I mean, Hot!
So, you agree that the claim would be on much better ground if we had some numbers explaining the claim and then we would have some thing to actually discuss? At least? And maybe all be better educated for it?
You have it backwards. The Moon is receding slowly because it is gaining energy from the Earth by tidal friction.
Tidal acceleration is an effect of the tidal forces between an orbiting natural satellite (e.g. the Moon), and the primary planet that it orbits (e.g. the Earth). The "acceleration" is usually negative, as it causes a gradual slowing and recession of a satellite in a prograde orbit away from the primary, and a corresponding slowdown of the primary's rotation. The process eventually leads to tidal locking of first the smaller, and later the larger body. The Earth-Moon system is the best studied case.
The similar process of tidal deceleration occurs for satellites that have an orbital period that is shorter than the primary's rotation period, or that orbit in a retrograde direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration
That should be on the spread sheet!
Looks like we have an "add or subtract at that cell" debate.
And...........
Go!
No. The idea that the moons are losing energy is completely backwards. The are gaining energy from the tidal friction (except in the cases of retrograde motion, or where a moon's period of revolution is shorter than the planet's period of rotation. For reasons that should be obvious, but we can discuss them, if you like.
I think Yorz has been hanging out too much with Stripe. This level of scientific inanity I expect from Stripe, but Yorz is usually a bit higher class than this.
- Status