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.
Alexzandvar wrote: People ignore Climate Change despite all the proof not because of a god, but because they just don't like the idea of climate change being a thing.
Honestly? Were fethed, utterly, we created a system were its in the benefit of politicians to appeal to far edge fringe groups with lots of money rather than people who actually know what there talking about.
Climate Change will not be addressed because the people who paid to elect our current House of Rep's don't want to address it.
If people are willing to ignore science because its just doesn't fit into there world view, how can we ever educate people who believe they have a divine reason to ignore science?
My only thought to consider on this:
Evolutionists believe in insane probabilities and statistical nightmares that brought about the state of everything as it is. Just the right conditions, the right time, all of it. The odds are incredibly small. Yet they believe it entirely as truth. The very idea of God or intelligent design offends them, in almost the exact same way that their view offends hardcore creationists.
So while atheists may feel superior in their worldview, they are just as stubborn as creationists in that they deny the possibility of any answer that isn't the one they believe.
You're conflating atheism and evolution.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
d-usa wrote: should we also be worried that people might ignore any scientific evidence for a divine being if they don't believe in one?
It seems to me that the Christian definition of God precludes scientific evidence for his existence. This is because God is not just another thing among the things of Creation; that is, God cannot be the object of science.
Well said.
When Descartes made the statement Cogito ergo sum, it was in the context of a dialog about empirical truth. He did not accept the idea that he could conceive of things that could not exist. Since he could conceive that there is a God, there must be a God.
He was being sarcastic when he wrote this. It almost got him executed. The world he lived in had very dim views of unorthodox writings, the Church of his day did not fancy proofs of God beyond those of Acquinas.
This has always been what I look at as the definitive statement about Christian belief. It's centered around this idea that one personally cannot accept the idea of a world without a God, or any other belief system that doesn't acknowledge his existence.
With science, I believe it in because it is measurable, falsifiable, a useful predictor of future outcomes, and doesn't rely on me to make a leap of faith. It's like gravity - it just happens. It's a very different belief system stemming from an entirely different place. Any attempt to make this and religion part of a single world view is intellectually dishonest at best.
When I get it down to this level, there is nothing exclusive about religion or science. They are both very different ways of looking at the world. There are just some people who insist others look at the world one way, and it's important to recognize when this is happening and reject their misguided efforts.
Alexzandvar wrote: People ignore Climate Change despite all the proof not because of a god, but because they just don't like the idea of climate change being a thing.
Honestly? Were fethed, utterly, we created a system were its in the benefit of politicians to appeal to far edge fringe groups with lots of money rather than people who actually know what there talking about.
Climate Change will not be addressed because the people who paid to elect our current House of Rep's don't want to address it.
If people are willing to ignore science because its just doesn't fit into there world view, how can we ever educate people who believe they have a divine reason to ignore science?
My only thought to consider on this:
Evolutionists believe in insane probabilities and statistical nightmares that brought about the state of everything as it is. Just the right conditions, the right time, all of it. The odds are incredibly small. Yet they believe it entirely as truth. The very idea of God or intelligent design offends them, in almost the exact same way that their view offends hardcore creationists.
So while atheists may feel superior in their worldview, they are just as stubborn as creationists in that they deny the possibility of any answer that isn't the one they believe.
You're conflating atheism and evolution.
A fair enough point. In my experience atheists generally believe evolution, but I will agree that not all evolutionists are atheists.
My point remains that atheists are just as stubborn and often more preachy than creationists.
I generally feel that atheists deny the existence of God for the same reason people believe in God, validation. Unless they are existentialists who believe life has no meaning and no consequence. There are plenty of points to be made on either side of the argument as to why anyone believes what they do.
At the end of the day, I believe in God, and in creation(albeit not entirely as presented by Ham). But I don't feel the need to try and force others to agree with me. I may make my case to them, and offer them my thoughts, but never so far as to try and push it on them or think less of them for not agreeing with me. And all I ask in return is that same treatment.
Put forth your beliefs, let people know how you feel, but do not try and force them to agree with you, and do not get offended when they don't.
Heaven forbid the world get along and disagree civilly.
"Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! ... It’s become the promotions department of a toy company." -- Rick Priestly
Alexzandvar wrote: People ignore Climate Change despite all the proof not because of a god, but because they just don't like the idea of climate change being a thing.
Honestly? Were fethed, utterly, we created a system were its in the benefit of politicians to appeal to far edge fringe groups with lots of money rather than people who actually know what there talking about.
Climate Change will not be addressed because the people who paid to elect our current House of Rep's don't want to address it.
If people are willing to ignore science because its just doesn't fit into there world view, how can we ever educate people who believe they have a divine reason to ignore science?
My only thought to consider on this:
Evolutionists believe in insane probabilities and statistical nightmares that brought about the state of everything as it is. Just the right conditions, the right time, all of it. The odds are incredibly small. Yet they believe it entirely as truth. The very idea of God or intelligent design offends them, in almost the exact same way that their view offends hardcore creationists.
So while atheists may feel superior in their worldview, they are just as stubborn as creationists in that they deny the possibility of any answer that isn't the one they believe.
You're conflating atheism and evolution.
A fair enough point. In my experience atheists generally believe evolution, but I will agree that not all evolutionists are atheists.
My point remains that atheists are just as stubborn and often more preachy than creationists.
I generally feel that atheists deny the existence of God for the same reason people believe in God, validation. Unless they are existentialists who believe life has no meaning and no consequence. There are plenty of points to be made on either side of the argument as to why anyone believes what they do.
At the end of the day, I believe in God, and in creation(albeit not entirely as presented by Ham). But I don't feel the need to try and force others to agree with me. I may make my case to them, and offer them my thoughts, but never so far as to try and push it on them or think less of them for not agreeing with me. And all I ask in return is that same treatment.
Put forth your beliefs, let people know how you feel, but do not try and force them to agree with you, and do not get offended when they don't.
Heaven forbid the world get along and disagree civilly.
The entire deal with atheism and evolution being separate concepts is that one deals with matters of faith and the other doesn't. It doesn't matter if you believe in evolution or not, it still happens. The reason people get preachy about it is because claiming it doesn't is demonstrably false.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Aerethan wrote: Evolutionists believe in insane probabilities
What does it mean to "believe in a probability"?
Sorry, that was a crap phrase.
The probability that all of the conditions for the big bang to happen is some huge statistical number. To the point where it's nearly impossible except when compared to the concept of infinity(compared to infinity, any possibility may as well be 100%).
And then further the odds for evolution to have gone down exactly as theorized to get us to where we are today are insane as well. The statistics behind a massive universal event leading to the development of Nutella(our greatest achievement) are crazy.
So people believe that these crazy odds were exactly what happened. And that is fine and dandy. But I would posit where did those conditions for the big bang come from? Energy as we are told doesn't die, it is transferred. So where did the first energy come from? Where did the first subatomic particles come from? Even with evolution as OUR origin, I've not seen anything that explains entirely the origin of everything.
Also, keep in mind that there are plenty of people who believe in both God and evolution. So let's not make this about whether God exists(which was in fact not the actual point behind the debate). Neither side can prove their point on that which Manchu summed up well a few posts ago.
My only question is where did everything come from? If the big bang is as far back as we can measure then how do we know what happened before it?
I'm honestly not trying to be sarcastic or rhetorical. I'm asking legitimately.
"Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! ... It’s become the promotions department of a toy company." -- Rick Priestly
Aerethan wrote: The probability that all of the conditions for the big bang to happen is some huge statistical number. To the point where it's nearly impossible except when compared to the concept of infinity(compared to infinity, any possibility may as well be 100%).
We don't yet know why the Big Bang happened, but we understand that a point in finite time, the universe existed in state of extremely high density and temperature and then began to go through what is called inflation where it began to rapidly expand and cool.
And then further the odds for evolution to have gone down exactly as theorized to get us to where we are today are insane as well. The statistics behind a massive universal event leading to the development of Nutella(our greatest achievement) are crazy.
Given what we know about the early Earth, it would have been highly unlikely for life not to form. Even conservative estimates of the amounts of organic compounds present in Earth's early history are absolutely staggering.
So people believe that these crazy odds were exactly what happened. And that is fine and dandy. But I would posit where did those conditions for the big bang come from? Energy as we are told doesn't die, it is transferred. So where did the first energy come from? Where did the first subatomic particles come from? Even with evolution as OUR origin, I've not seen anything that explains entirely the origin of everything.
That energy came from the creation of the universe itself. You are surrounded by it every day and by extension, you are it. Turn on a radio and listen to the fuzz; some of that is the raw energy from the Big Bang that has been echoing through the universe for almost 14 billion years. While it is true that we do not know everything about the early universe today, that is not to say we will not tomorrow (or the next day).
Also, keep in mind that there are plenty of people who believe in both God and evolution. So let's not make this about whether God exists(which was in fact not the actual point behind the debate). Neither side can prove their point on that which Manchu summed up well a few posts ago.
You can believe in god and recognize evolution, but god can never be the solution to evolution (or any other scientific question).
My only question is where did everything come from? If the big bang is as far back as we can measure then how do we know what happened before it?
We don't know, but see above.
I'm honestly not trying to be sarcastic or rhetorical. I'm asking legitimately.
Read some books. Seriously, there are tons of books out there that explain what we currently know about the formation and evolution of the universe and many are written to be accessible to people without backgrounds in science. Here is a brief summary of the timeline of the universe:
Spoiler:
10^-43 seconds Known as the Planck Era, this is the closest that current physics can get to the absolute beginning of time. At this moment, the universe is thought to be incredibly hot, dense and turbulent, with the very fabric of space and time turned into a roiling morass. All the fundamental forces currently at work in the universe - gravity, electromagnetism and the so-called strong and weak nuclear forces - are thought to have been unified during this stage into a single "superforce".
10^-35 seconds The so-called Grand Unification Era, at the end of which the superforce begins to break apart into the constituent forces we see today. Around this time so-called inflationary energy triggers a dramatic burst of expansion, expanding the universe from far smaller than a subatomic particle to far larger than the cosmic volume we can see today. In the process, the primordial wrinkles in space-time are smoothed out.
10^-32 seconds The energy dumped into the universe by the end of inflation leads to the appearance of particles of matter via Einstein's celebrated equation E=mc^2. Initially a mix of matter and antimatter, most of the particles annihilate each other in a burst of radiation, leaving behind randomly scattered pockets of matter.
10^-11 seconds The so-called Electroweak Era, when the last two fundamental forces still unified with one another - electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force - finally split, leaving the universe with the four separate forces we observe today.
10^-6 seconds As the universe continues to expand, it becomes cool enough to allow the familiar particles of today's matter, protons and neutrons, to form from their constituents, known as quarks.
200 seconds At a temperature of one billion degrees celsius, protons and neutrons start to come together to form nuclei, the charged cores of atoms. Within 20 minutes, the temperature of the universe has become too cold to drive the process, which ceases with the formation of the nuclei of hydrogen and helium, the simplest and most common chemical elements in the universe. The formation of all the other elements - including the carbon, oxygen and nitrogen needed for life - will emerge with the first massive stars millions of years later.
300,000 years The universe has cooled to about 1,000C - cool enough for electrons to pair up with nuclei to form the first atoms. By the end of this so-called Recombination Era, the universe consists of about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium. With the electrons now bound to atoms, the universe finally becomes transparent to light - making this the earliest epoch observable today.
200m years Small, dense regions of cosmic gas start to collapse under their own gravity, becoming hot enough to trigger nuclear fusion reactions between hydrogen atoms. These are the very first stars to light up the universe.
0.5bn - 1bn years The force of gravity starts to pull together huge regions of relatively dense cosmic gas, forming the vast, swirling collections of stars we call galaxies. These in turn start to form clusters, of which one - the so-called Local Group - contains our own Milky Way galaxy.
9bn years The force of gravity trying to slow the cosmic expansion begins to lose out to the anti-gravitational effect of "dark energy", a mysterious force which has been accelerating the cosmic expansion ever since.
9.1bn years A region of gas and dust from exploding stars in the Milky Way galaxy starts to collapse under its own gravity, forming a small star surrounded by a disk of rocky material and gas. Swarms of giant chunks of debris form within the disc, collide and merge - forming the Earth, moon and other planets.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
An actual scientist giving these Young-Earth cretins only gives them perceived legitimacy from their ignorant followers. Better to simply ignore them and allow them to go the way of the Hollow-Earth proponents and other failed pseudo-scientific pipe dreams.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
An actual scientist giving these Young-Earth cretins only gives them perceived legitimacy from their ignorant followers. Better to simply ignore them and allow them to go the way of the Hollow-Earth proponents and other failed pseudo-scientific pipe dreams.
There is still a flat earth society. A FLAT EARTH SOCIETY!
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
An actual scientist giving these Young-Earth cretins only gives them perceived legitimacy from their ignorant followers. Better to simply ignore them and allow them to go the way of the Hollow-Earth proponents and other failed pseudo-scientific pipe dreams.
There is still a flat earth society. A FLAT EARTH SOCIETY!
They don't try to get it put into our schools though.
An actual scientist giving these Young-Earth cretins only gives them perceived legitimacy from their ignorant followers. Better to simply ignore them and allow them to go the way of the Hollow-Earth proponents and other failed pseudo-scientific pipe dreams.
There is still a flat earth society. A FLAT EARTH SOCIETY!
They don't try to get it put into our schools though.
Good thing too.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Yeah, Daedalus nailed it. There are people that believe all sorts of crazy things but for some reason Bill Nye decided to pour gasoline in this particular fire by acting like the subject is even open for debate.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
An actual scientist giving these Young-Earth cretins only gives them perceived legitimacy from their ignorant followers. Better to simply ignore them and allow them to go the way of the Hollow-Earth proponents and other failed pseudo-scientific pipe dreams.
There is still a flat earth society. A FLAT EARTH SOCIETY!
Hey if you lived in Oklahoma or Houston, you'd be a member too. Its flat, like really flat, like mirrored glass kind of flat.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
An actual scientist giving these Young-Earth cretins only gives them perceived legitimacy from their ignorant followers. Better to simply ignore them and allow them to go the way of the Hollow-Earth proponents and other failed pseudo-scientific pipe dreams.
There is still a flat earth society. A FLAT EARTH SOCIETY!
Hey if you lived in Oklahoma or Houston, you'd be a member too. Its flat, like really flat, like mirrored glass kind of flat.
It could have been some sort of earth-evolution though, helps us see the tornadoes better.
Co'tor Shas wrote: There is still a flat earth society. A FLAT EARTH SOCIETY!
It's amusing to even say that there's "still" a flat earth society, given that the belief that people thought the Earth was flat is only a recent thing. It's a long standing myth that people thought the Earth was flat. Cubed, perhaps, but not flat. And that goes a long way to show just how deranged these people are, thinking something that no one actually really thought.
We should probably lump them in the same bag as those that think the moon landings were faked, or that Paul McCartney is dead.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/05 20:47:42
Co'tor Shas wrote: There is still a flat earth society. A FLAT EARTH SOCIETY!
It's amusing to even say that there's "still" a flat earth society, given that the belief that people thought the Earth was flat is only a recent thing. It's a long standing myth that people thought the Earth was flat. Cubed, perhaps, but not flat. And that goes a long way to show just how deranged these people are, thinking something that no one actually really thought.
We should probably lump them in the same bag as those that think the moon landings were faked, or that Paul McCartney is dead.
Aren't they lumped together already?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Im hoping that by the time I get back home the rest of the debate will have streamed... took about 40 minutes to watch the first 10 minutes.
Guess my internet connection is kind of a metaphor for creationism really... in that it really doesnt work and just annoys anyone who is trying to do anything constructive
But in relation to the first 10 mins - I hope more is made of the bow tie story... it was quite a smart move To plant that at the start.
Re Hams intro... well... I guess it is fun to listen to his accent, although one of my friends is Australian and a scientist, so I could get the same accent with some worthwhile conversational material behind it at the pub on Fridays
Re: the probability of life occurring on Earth in the first place, which I think is what Aerethan was talking about when he mentioned "insane probabilities": as far as its implications for us being here, how low the probability of life starting was doesn't actually matter. We are here, now - and that means that however unlikely it was, our precondition occurred. If it hadn't, as it apparently did not on many other planets, we wouldn't be here to speculate about it.
It's like if you know I won the game, but I had to roll double 6s to win. You already know I won the game so you know that, however unlikely it was at the time, I did roll double 6s.
Its probability (or improbability) says more about our chances of finding life in other places in the future.
Wow - I'm sorry GG, but how can you follow the kinds of things Ham say? And not only that but work in a field based upon applying scientific knowledge?
Pretty much everything he has said in his 30 minute segment has been to horrifically torture the English language to twist it to fit his world view, sprinkled in with a hefty dose of... well... scientific gibberish.
Same reason that those scientists and engineers that Ham presented do.
I believe that uniformitarianism is just a competing faith system, in that like Ham said "Historical Science" is not observational and you have to assume things to fill in the gaps.
For example..speed of light is thought to be constant(I read somewhere where some noncreationist scientists are questioning that) But lets assume that it is constant currently. Speed of light is used to date the age if the universe. Because uniformitarianism just assumes that the speed of light currently is the same now as over 6,000 years ago.
The fact is you cannot prove definitively that that was so, because we cant jump in a time machine and verify the speed of light thousands of years ago...or to even mention that a Divine Being/Creator intervened.
I can't scientifically prove it happened, and you can't scientifically prove that it did. You can only prove what it is now.
Same thing can be said about radio isotope dating, in regards to decay rates
Anyway it has no bearing on current science, or engineering. Why? because I can observe what happens in the present and use that to infer things in the present or future.
I believe that uniformitarianism is just a competing faith system, in that like Ham said "Historical Science" is not observational and you have to assume things to fill in the gaps.
The thing I get hung up on is this: Why is it that "things were different and changed over time" is your base assumption when there's no evidence to show one way or the other?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And Ham makes the same assumptions. He just does it from an old book translated over many years into many languages by many people, instead of an admittedly best guess model that can adapt and change as needed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/05 23:03:08
I believe that uniformitarianism is just a competing faith system, in that like Ham said "Historical Science" is not observational and you have to assume things to fill in the gaps.
The thing I get hung up on is this: Why is it that "things were different and changed over time" is your base assumption when there's no evidence to show this
Corrected that for you.
I'm not an astrophysicist however I can take a stab in the dark (no pun intended) that changable natural laws do not fit into the "Observational Science" (made up scientific category kindly provided by creationism) that we can do today regarding the recording of red and blue shifts, the universal event horizon, etc, etc, etc which demonstrate the "Historical Science" (again, made up term kindly donated by creationism) that the universe has remained, at least in terms of the speed of light, etc, constant for over 14 billion years...
generalgrog wrote: I believe that uniformitarianism is just a competing faith system, in that like Ham said "Historical Science" is not observational and you have to assume things to fill in the gaps.
And that belief is about as reasonable as belief in flat earth theory, black helicopters, and mind control in the chemtrails.
The fact is you cannot prove definitively that that was so, because we cant jump in a time machine and verify the speed of light thousands of years ago...or to even mention that a Divine Being/Creator intervened.
And the fact is that you can not provide even the slightest scrap of evidence that it wasn't constant. You're proposing an alternate theory based on nothing more than your stubborn desire to prove that a literal interpretation of your religion is correct. That isn't just bad science, it's utterly delusional.
Anyway it has no bearing on current science, or engineering. Why? because I can observe what happens in the present and use that to infer things in the present or future.
No you can't. You can't even make any observations about how things are now because it's been at least a few seconds since the last time you observed the speed of light/radioactive decay rates/etc and you don't know that they haven't changed. And you certainly can't make any predictions or do any engineering work about how things will work in the future, since if those things changed in the past they could just as easily change in the future. The fact that you continue to work as an engineer implies a strong belief in "uniformitarianism".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I'm not an astrophysicist however I can take a stab in the dark (no pun intended) that changable natural laws do not fit into the "Observational Science" (made up scientific category kindly provided by creationism) that we can do today regarding the recording of red and blue shifts, the universal event horizon, etc, etc, etc which demonstrate the "Historical Science" (again, made up term kindly donated by creationism) that the universe has remained, at least in terms of the speed of light, etc, constant for over 14 billion years...
I was trying to figure out how to phrase it in such a way that the answer wouldn't involve handwaving away all the capabilities we have for doing that.
If you have a system that appears to function in a particular way, and it has appeared to function in that way for a long time, then without any evidence indicating that it did function some other way at some point, it's illogical to presume beyond a doubt that it did.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/05 23:26:32
Monster Rain wrote: Yeah, Daedalus nailed it. There are people that believe all sorts of crazy things but for some reason Bill Nye decided to pour gasoline in this particular fire by acting like the subject is even open for debate.
It should be discussed because people need to realize that belief in Ken Ham-esque creationsim is nothing short of a fantasy. I agree with Phil Plait when he says, "I suspect that what’s wrong is our messaging. For too long, scientists have thought that facts speak for themselves. They don’t. They need advocates. If we ignore the attacks on science, or simply counter them by reciting facts, we’ll lose. That much is clear from the statistics. Facts and stories of science are great for rallying those already on our side, but they do little to sway believers."
generalgrog wrote: Same reason that those scientists and engineers that Ham presented do.
I believe that uniformitarianism is just a competing faith system, in that like Ham said "Historical Science" is not observational and you have to assume things to fill in the gaps.
There is no such thing as historical science. It is a made up word by someone who adamantly refuses to accept facts because they don't conform to his view of the world. Stop using it, it doesn't help your argument.
For example..speed of light is thought to be constant(I read somewhere where some noncreationist scientists are questioning that) But lets assume that it is constant currently. Speed of light is used to date the age if the universe. Because uniformitarianism just assumes that the speed of light currently is the same now as over 6,000 years ago.
The speed of light is constant. It is a fundamental truth in physics. Yes, there are scientist that question that, which is good. Has superluminal motion been observed? Yes, but guess what, science stepped up to the plate and figured out why we can sometimes see it. Even if VSL is confirmed (and it won't be), that does not automatically make young-Earth creationism true. Every single test has confirmed that the speed of light is constant and the idea that it isn't is outside of mainstream physics.
The fact is you cannot prove definitively that that was so, because we cant jump in a time machine and verify the speed of light thousands of years ago...or to even mention that a Divine Being/Creator intervened.
It doesn't matter, we use reasoning to say that because the speed of light is what it is now, observed from multiple sources in the universe, and then tested and proven true we can say that it always has been.
I can't scientifically prove it happened, and you can't scientifically prove that it did. You can only prove what it is now.
That line of reasoning is a slap in the face to human logic. I did not see the sun come up this morning, but I know for a fact that it did indeed rise at 7:12 AM EST in Leesburg, VA. People before us watched the sun rise and set, calculated the time it takes, and then predicted when it would happen again. They waited until that time and lo and behold, it happened. Using that same information, I can pick any date in time before I was born and know for a fact that the sun rose that day on a particular time. I don't have to be there to know that it happened.
Same thing can be said about radio isotope dating, in regards to decay rates
Nope. Sorry, these are just bad arguments that creationist use to try to validate their incorrect ideas. They have no bearing in actual science
Anyway it has no bearing on current science, or engineering. Why? because I can observe what happens in the present and use that to infer things in the present or future.
You cannot use creationism to make predictions because it isn't science.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/05 23:29:58
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
generalgrog wrote: Same reason that those scientists and engineers that Ham presented do.
I believe that uniformitarianism is just a competing faith system, in that like Ham said "Historical Science" is not observational and you have to assume things to fill in the gaps.
For example..speed of light is thought to be constant(I read somewhere where some noncreationist scientists are questioning that) But lets assume that it is constant currently. Speed of light is used to date the age if the universe. Because uniformitarianism just assumes that the speed of light currently is the same now as over 6,000 years ago.
The fact is you cannot prove definitively that that was so, because we cant jump in a time machine and verify the speed of light thousands of years ago...or to even mention that a Divine Being/Creator intervened.
I can't scientifically prove it happened, and you can't scientifically prove that it did. You can only prove what it is now.
Same thing can be said about radio isotope dating, in regards to decay rates
Anyway it has no bearing on current science, or engineering. Why? because I can observe what happens in the present and use that to infer things in the present or future.
GG
I suppose we can't also prove that you aren't a sentient wedge of cheddar cheese using your psionic powers to project a hallucination of a man to all those interact with you or anything with 10 degrees of interaction with you. I guess it's probably as valid a perspective as any Mr.Cheddar.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/05 23:31:32
Aerethan wrote: And then further the odds for evolution to have gone down exactly as theorized to get us to where we are today are insane as well.
This is incredibly bad math. Let's give a 40k analogy for what you're doing: you shoot a pair of lascannons (at BS 4) at a single guardsman standing in the open on the last objective you need to clear to win the game. You roll a 4 and a 5 to hit, and then a 2 and a 5 to wound. And then you conclude that it's unbelievably unlikely that you would win that game, because there was only a 1 in 1296 chance that you would roll those exact numbers. This is obviously absurd, because the exact numbers aren't relevant, all that matters is the final result of killing the guardsman by any means. And the answer to that question is that you had about an 80% chance of success.
What this means in the context of evolution is that there are a lot of very similar outcomes that are functionally identical (for example, a species averaging very very slightly darker fur), an unimaginably huge number of outcomes that are similar enough that we'd recognize them as "our" world (one where a single species didn't ever appear and a similar species filled its niche in the ecosystem), and an almost limitless universe of outcomes which would be very different from "our" world but still be the obvious result of evolution (one where the dinosaurs never went extinct and eventually produced a sentient dinosaur species and a human-like civilization). Once you look at general trends and similar-enough outcomes the actual odds are pretty good, and there's strong consensus among the experts that the evolution of complex life is pretty much inevitable given the right initial circumstances and enough time.
But I would posit where did those conditions for the big bang come from? Energy as we are told doesn't die, it is transferred. So where did the first energy come from? Where did the first subatomic particles come from? Even with evolution as OUR origin, I've not seen anything that explains entirely the origin of everything.
We don't know the answer to those questions. But what does god contribute as an explanation? You just end up asking the same questions about god: where did the first energy that god used to create the universe come from, etc?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/05 23:37:18
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Aside from anything science can or cannot tell us about the universe, what makes Christian creationists right rather than those who follow a different religion? The Egyptians were around before Christianity, surely they have a better claim then to being right (especially as they were happily living away and building pyramids and stuff at the time the flood was supposed to have happened).
Hell, I love Vikings - they are pretty cool and I would love to wear a beard and chainmail to religious services. The Norse gods have their own creation myths - why are they less valid than what your book says? After all, they have exactly the same amount of evidence to prove them correct (ie none).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/05 23:37:22
