Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

GeneralGrog, if you assume that those constants of the universe can change, you have to provide evidence that they even CAN change. There is absolutely zero evidence that even remotely suggests uniformitarianism is false. You must furnish us with the evidence that shows even the slightest change in the decay rates is even remotely possible.

I swear, if you can provide the slightest shred of evidence that uniformitarianism is false, that fundamental forces like gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces and magnetism can weaken or decay as time goes on, I will eat a Reaver Titan.

generalgrog wrote:The underlining assumptions are based on uniformitarianism. You can't prove that decay rates have always been what they are now, you can't prove that the speed of light has always been what it is now, you can't prove that universe expansion has always been what it it now, you can't even prove that electricity and magnetism have always worked the same. You have to assume it has always been what it is now, to make macroevolution and an old earth work.

Of course the opposite is true in that you can't prove that it hasn't always been the same either.
GG

I can't prove that the human race wasn't murdered by aliens and replaced by communist pod people for the sole purpose of tainting my Precious Bodily Fluids, but you don't see me up a bell tower with a hunting rifle, now do you?

generalgrog wrote:
NO I understand perfectly what a theory is.

Really? It doesn't seem like it. . .

generalgrog wrote:
The "supported by a vast body of evidence" doesn't = proof.

You do realize that that is the exact definition of proof, don't you?

Dictionary.com
Proof-
noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true

I think a "vast body" would be sufficient, don't you? It's far more evidence than there is for anything proposed by creationism.

generalgrog wrote:
Also it would be nice if they showed the "vast body of assumptions" needed to make these "vast bodies of evidence" fit the origin models they have come up with.

Well, if the theory of evolution contains "vast bodies of assumptions" (it doesn't), then creationism contains "bodies of assumptions" that are far vaster, and thus should not be taught in place of, or alongside, evolution.

generalgrog wrote:
It's much easier to assume it's true, and move on.

Yeah, sort of like it's easy to assume that everything in the Bible is true.

ChrisWWII wrote:GeneralGrog, if you assume that those constants of the universe can change, you have to provide evidence that they even CAN change. There is absolutely zero evidence that even remotely suggests uniformitarianism is false. You must furnish us with the evidence that shows even the slightest change in the decay rates is even remotely possible.

Basing your evidence off of well-grounded assumptions is perfectly acceptable, so yeah, that's another area Grog falls on his face. I and just about every sane person on this planet assume that the sun will rise as expected in the morning. It's possible that god is going to go and make the sun stand still one night and it won't rise in the morning, but anyone actually freaking out over the possibility is going to be written off as a complete nutter because they can't provide any sort of supporting evidence that something about the sun has changed to cast the existing assumptions into doubt.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Well, if the theory of evolution contains "vast bodies of assumptions" (it doesn't),

Go back and look at what I said about uniformitarianism...uniformitarianism = "vast bodies of assumptions"

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:I swear, if you can provide the slightest shred of evidence that uniformitarianism is false, that fundamental forces like gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces and magnetism can weaken or decay as time goes on, I will eat a Reaver Titan.

There has been some interesting research such as the R.A.T.E.(radioisotopes and the age of the earth) project. And also Robert Gentry radio halos which was published in nationally recognized scientific journals. His work is unrefuted by the way.

Here is a pdf of some of their work.
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf
http://www.icr.org/rate2/

The RATE project goes into some detail on hoe radioisotope decay could have been sped up and explain some experiments. the major problem they found with their model is the amount of energy created by speeding up decay rates is HUGE. And the question is what happened to all of that energy. They plan on doing a follow up project to investigate further.

Gentry has a website.I recommend reading his book Creation's Tiny mystery it's free on his website.
http://www.halos.com/book/index.htm

Gentry also challenges the astrophysics community.... if your into high level math and physics he has written several white pages about the issue.
http://www.orionfdn.org/

GG

Well, i dont know about you guys, but that last post convinced me, we should start teaching the (non existent)controversy.

Im fully behind this, so i am writing to my local university and demanding that medical students get taught the black bile/yellow bile theory, and lets not forget to teach them to smash holes in peoples skulls to get the ghosts out if they suffer headaches.

Oh and storks deliver babies in biology class, and voodoo causes aids.

As a believer myself, I think it's folly to try to link Religion and Science in the first place. Genesis is pretty vague, so it's probably best to try to not use it to prove anything scientific.

Young earth Creationism isn't the only way people think about this issue either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone to convert based on this, but reading the same arguments over and over again get pretty tiring. In closing, refuting Science probably isn't the best way to spread the Gospel. Better to stick with the more spiritual, philosophical aspects IMHO.

mattyrm wrote:Well, i dont know about you guys, but that last post convinced me, we should start teaching the (non existent)controversy.

Im fully behind this, so i am writing to my local university and demanding that medical students get taught the black bile/yellow bile theory, and lets not forget to teach them to smash holes in peoples skulls to get the ghosts out if they suffer headaches.

Oh and storks deliver babies in biology class, and voodoo causes aids.

Don't forget the Wolvernine theory:



Even if incinerated to the bone, you still regenerate everything. The only way to die is to open his adamantium skull and murder the brain.

And even if he does die, if he beats the angel of death in a fight, he gets to come back again.

Lol. I actually have that comic, i remember reading it a few years back, it was Logan going after the guy who killed everyone as a precursor to the Marvel Civil War wasnt it?

Wolverine has always been a cool character, but its hard to nail down his powers, i remember an old comic where he got burnt and his hair grew back to his normal classic hairdo in about 20 seconds, but in a later one his hair didnt grow back.

I think id just drown the fether.

mattyrm wrote:Lol. I actually have that comic, i remember reading it a few years back, it was Logan going after the guy who killed everyone as a precursor to the Marvel Civil War wasnt it?

Wolverine has always been a cool character, but its hard to nail down his powers, i remember an old comic where he got burnt and his hair grew back to his normal classic hairdo in about 20 seconds, but in a later one his hair didnt grow back.

I think id just drown the fether.

But then the Theory of Wolverine kicks in.

Crack open his skull and destroy the brain? At the very least sever the head from the body to deny bodily regeneration?

No.

Then he will simply regenerate and breathe again.

And knive-claws in the throat.