Okay I just from a friend that entropy is affecting the speed of light does anyone have anything to say on this? Cuz' they apparently came up with a new age of the earth of about 10,000 years, cuz' apparently light was 8x faster in king davids day so all this affects the half-life of carbon and so the earth is thus 10,000 years according to some scientists. I don't want to believe this but someone please explain this to me. Now this isn't proven but lets exhange thoughts on this.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There is a VSL (Variable Speed of Ligh) conjecture being seriously considered by at least a few reputable physicists, but the one I've read about has light being faster only in the very early stages of the universe, billions and billions of years ago.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Like Dag, I'm aware of some vaguely related work in science, but as far as I can tell what you heard was pseudo-scientific hogwash.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Based on your last two posts, Sid, it appears your friend is a very poor source of information. I would not believe anything they tell you.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
1) The speed of light has nothing to do with Carbon 14 Dating, or any other isotopic dating system.
2) Considering that we are seeing stars in the night sky that are approximately Millions of present-speed-light years away. When was the time of Solomon--5000 years ago? 3000? Lets say that every 1000 years the speed of light dropped 1/2. So 1000 years ago it was 2x present. 2000 years ago it was 4x present. 3000 years ago it was 8 times present--Solomon's time? That puts 10,000 years ago at 1,024 times the speed it is today.
Over the 1st 1000 years the light traveled from a distant star, it traveled 1,024,000 of what we call Light Years. Over the 2nd 1000 years it would have traveled 1,536,000 (not doubled the 1000 year mark because it would have slowed down because of this "Speed of light entropy effect"). Over the 3rd it would have traveld 1,792. By today it would be a total 2,047,000 light years.
The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.2 light years away, and is visible from earth. That is just outside the range of what these numbers add up to. That is the closest Galaxy we've been looking at. That means there must either be a flaw in how we measure distance, or God is playing jokes on us by putting light in the sky to make us think it came from farther away.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.2 light years away
You left out a magnitude there, Dan.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:The Andromeda Galaxy (also known as Messier Object 31, M31, or NGC 224) is a giant spiral galaxy in the Local Group, together with the Milky Way galaxy. It is at a distance of approximately 2.9 million light years or 920 kpc, in the direction of the constellation Andromeda.
Emphasis mine.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm sure it was just a typo - I didn't want it to detract from the very good point Dan made.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The speed of light does, in fact, affect carbon-14 dating, in some fairly esoteric ways. If the speed of light changes, then alpha, the fine structure constant, also changes. Since the electromagnetic and weak interactions are unified, the Fermi constant G_F will also change. The rate of C-14 decay depends on G_F.
That said, c(King David's time) == 8c(now)? It is to laugh.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'd say the speed of dark just went up ten fold.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
One of my teachers (private religous school) once told the class that the speed of light was slowing down, and that the speed of light was infinite in the year 4004 BC. Alas, I was young and stupid and did not have the understanding of science and statistics to know that the data weren't good and the interpretation of the data was worse. To be fair, it was an art teacher, not a science teacher.
I remember reading that there was some very slight variation in some physical constant, but it would never be enough to significantly alter the calculations of the age of the universe. Actually, does anyone know whether the age determined by WMAP would be off if c had been much larger in the past?
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Alright, I finally found the thread again. However is it possible to get a... hmm... a paper or essay or something that fully disproves what my friend/accaintance is trying to say? I know I may be asking alot here, but the people I know are kinda little too smug about it. And also I don't think enough like a scientist to fully express the evidence in a convencing manner. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*snort*
If someone's that credulous about utter claptrap (8x faster in the past indeed), I'd suggest avoiding them.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
When we walk into a dark room, flip a switch and the light is instantly on, it seems that light has no speed but is somehow infinite - instantly there - and that was the majority opinion of scientists and philosophers until September 1676, when Danish astronomer Olaf Roemer announced to the Paris Academie des Sciences that the anomalous behavior of the eclipse times of Jupiter's inner moon, Io, could be accounted for by a finite speed of light. 2 His work and his report split the scientific community in half, involving strong opinions and discussions for the next fifty years. It was Bradley's independent confirmation of the finite speed of light, published January 1, 1729, which finally ended the opposition.3 The speed of light was finite-incredibly fast, but finite.
The following question was: "Is the speed of light constant?" Interestingly enough, every time it was measured over the next few hundred years, it seemed to be a little slower than before. This could be explained away, as the first measurements were unbelievably rough compared to the technical accuracy later. It was not that simple, though. When the same person did the same test using the same equipment at a later period in time, the speed was slower. Not much, but slower.
These results kicked off a series of lively debates in the scientific community during the first half of the 20th century. Raymond Birge, highly respected chairman of the physics department at the University of California, Berkeley, had, from 1929 on, established himself as an arbiter of the values of atomic constants.4 The speed of light is considered an atomic constant. However Birge's recommended values for the speed of light decreased steadily until 1940, when an article written by him, entitled "The General Physical Constants, as of August 1940 with details on the velocity of light only," appeared in Reports on Progress in Physics (Vol. 8, pp.90-100, 1941). Birge began the article saying: "This paper is being written on request - and at this time on request ... a belief in any significant variability of the constants of nature is fatal to the spirit of science, as science is now understood [emphasis his]." These words, from this man, for whatever reason he wrote them, shut down the debate on the speed of light. Birge had previously recognized, as had others, that if the speed of light was changing, it was quite necessary that some of the other "constants" were also changing. This was evidently not to be allowed, whether it was true or not, and so the values for the various constants were declared and that was that. Almost. In the October 1975 issue of Scientific American (p. 120), C.L. Strong questioned whether the speed of light might change with time "as science has failed to get a consistently accurate value." It was just a ripple, but the issue had not quite disappeared.
Partly in order to quell any further doubts about the constancy of the speed of light, in October 1983 the speed of light was declared a universal constant of nature, defined as 299,792.458 kilometers per second, which is often rounded off to the measurement we are more familiar with in the West as 186,000 miles per second.
Birge's paper was published in 1941. Just a year later, Barry Setterfield was born in Australia. In 1979 he was 37 years old. That year he received a book from a friend, a book on astronomical anomalies. It was a large book, and near the end of it there was a section on the speed of light, questioning its constancy. Barry was stunned. Nothing he had read or learned in physics or astronomy had even hinted that there was a question regarding the speed of light. It was a constant, wasn't it? As he read, he learned about the measurements that had been taken years before, and the arguments that had gone on in the scientific literature, and he was fascinated. He figured he could read up on it and wrap up the question in about two weeks; it didn't quite work out that way.
Within a couple of years, one of the creationist organizations had started publishing some of Barry's findings. They were still preliminary, but there was so much more to this than he had thought. In the following years his exploration continued, and he read all the literature he could find. His work caught the attention of a senior research physicist at Stanford Research Institute International (SRI), who then asked him to submit a paper regarding his research. It was to be a white paper, or one that was for the purposes of discussion within the Institute.
Barry teamed up with Trevor Norman of Flinders University in Adelaide, and in 1987 Flinders itself published their paper, "Atomic Constants, Light, and Time." Their math department had checked it and approved it and it was published with the Stanford Research Institute logo as well. What happened next was like something out of a badly written novel. Gerald Aardsma, a man at another creationist organization, got wind of the paper and got a copy of it. Having his own ax to grind on the subject of physics, he called the heads of both Flinders and SRI and asked them if they knew that Setterfield and Norman were [gasp] creationists! SRI was undergoing a massive staff change at the time and since the paper had been published by Flinders, they disavowed it and requested their logo be taken off. Flinders University threatened Trevor Norman with his job and informed Barry Setterfield that he was no longer welcome to use any resources there but the library. Aardsma then published a paper criticizing the Norman-Setterfield statistical use of the data. His paper went out under the auspices of a respected creation institution.
Under attack by both evolutionists and creationists for their work, Norman and Setterfield found themselves writing long articles of defense, which appeared in a number of issues of creation journals. In the meantime, Lambert Dolphin, the physicist at Stanford who had originally requested the paper, teamed up with professional statistician Alan Montgomery to take the proverbial fine-tooth comb through the Norman-Setterfield paper to check the statistics used. Their defense of the paper and the statistical use of the data was then published in a scientific journal,5 and Montgomery went on to present a public defense at the 1994 International Creation Conference. Neither defense has ever been refuted in any journal or conference. Interestingly enough, later in 1987, after the Norman-Setterfield paper was published, another paper on light speed appeared, written by a Russian, V. S. Troitskii.6 Troitskii not only postulated that the speed of light had not been constant, but that light speed had originally been about 1010 times faster than now.
Since then, a multitude of papers on cosmology and the speed of light have shown up in journals and on the web. The theories abound as to what is changing, and in relation to what, and what the possible effects are. There is one person who is continuing to work with the data, however. As the storm around the 1987 report settled down, Barry Setterfield got back to work, investigating the data rather than playing around with pure theory.
Meanwhile, halfway around the world from Australia, in Arizona, a respected astronomer named William Tifft was finding something strange going on with the redshift measurements of light from distant galaxies. It had been presumed that the shift toward the red end of the spectrum of light from these distant galaxies was due to a currently expanding universe, and the measurements should be seen as gradually but smoothly increasing as one went through space. That wasn't what Tifft was finding. The measurements weren't smooth. They jumped from one plateau to another. They were quantized, or came in quantities with distinct breaks in between them.
When Tifft published his findings,7 astronomers were incredulous and dismissive. In the early 1990s in Scotland, two other astronomers decided to prove him wrong once and for all. Guthrie and Napier collected their own data and studied it. They ended up deciding Tifft was right.8 What was going on? Barry Setterfield read the material and studied the data. The universe could not be expanding if the red shift measurements were quantized. Expansion would not occur in fits and starts. So what did the red shift mean? While most others were simply denying the Tifft findings, Barry took a closer look. And it all started to make sense. The data was showing where the truth of the matter was. While many articles continued to be published regarding theoretical cosmologies, with little regard for much of the data available, Barry was more interested in the data.
Yet, his work is not referenced by any of the others. The Stanford paper is just about forgotten, if it was ever known, by the folks in mainstream physics and astronomy. However, not only are the measurements still there, but the red shift data has added much more information, making it possible to calculate the speed of light back to the first moment of creation. So Barry wrote another paper and submitted it to a standard physics journal in 1999. They did not send it to peer review but returned it immediately, saying it was not a timely subject, was of no current interest, and was not substantial enough. (It was over fifty pages long with about a hundred and fifty references to standard physics papers and texts.) So Barry resubmitted it to an astronomy journal. They sent it out to peer review and the report came back that the paper was really interesting but that it really belonged in a physics journal. So, in 2000, he sent it off to another physics journal. They refused it because they did not like one of the references Barry used: a university text on physics. They also disagreed with the model of the atom that Barry used - the standard Bohr model. In August 2001, the paper was updated and submitted to a European peer-reviewed science journal. The editor has expressed interest. We will see what will happen. In the meantime everything continues: Barry Setterfield is giving presentations in different countries, the mainstream physicists and theorists are continuing to publish all manner of theoretical ideas, and the subject of the speed of light has erupted full force back into the scientific literature.
There is a reason that Barry's work is not being referenced by mainstream scientists - or even looked at by most. If Barry is right about what the data are indicating, we are living in a very young universe. This inevitable conclusion will never be accepted by standard science. Evolution requires billions of years.
And there is a reason why the major creation organizations are holding his work at an arm's length as well: they are sinking great amounts of money into trying to prove that radiometric dating procedures are fatally flawed. According to what Barry is seeing, however, they are not basically flawed at all: there is a very good reason why such old dates keep appearing in the test results. The rate of decay of radioactive elements is directly related to the speed of light. When the speed of light was higher, decay rates were faster, and the long ages would be expected to show up. As the speed of light slowed down, so the radioactive decay rates slowed down.
By assuming today's rate of decay has been uniform, the earth and universe look extremely old. Thus, the evolutionists are happy with the time that gives for evolution and the creationists are looking for flaws in the methods used for testing for dates. But if the rates of decay for the different elements have not been the same through time, then that throws both groups off! Here was an "atomic clock" which ran according to atomic processes and, possibly, a different "dynamical" clock, the one we use everyday, which is governed by gravity - the rotation and revolution rates of the earth and moon. Could it be that these two "clocks" were not measuring time the same way? A data analysis suggested this was indeed happening. Tom Van Flandern, with a Ph.D. from Yale in astronomy, specializing in celestial mechanics, and for twenty years (1963-1983) Research Astronomer and Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C., released the results of some tests showing that the rate of ticking of the atomic clock was measurably slowing down when compared with the "dynamical clock."9 (Tom Van Flandern was terminated from his work with that institution shortly thereafter, although his work carries a 1984 publication date.)
In recognizing this verified difference between the two different "clocks," it is important to realize that the entire dating system recognized by geology and science in general, saying that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and the universe somewhere around ten billion years older than that, might be thrown into total disarray. The standard science models cannot deal with that. The standard creation models cannot, at this point, deal with the fact that radiometric dating may be, for the most part, telling the truth on the atomic clock. And, meanwhile, the Hubble spacecraft keeps sending back data which keep slipping into Barry Setterfield's model as though they actually belonged there.
* * *
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Powerful Parental Controls let your child discover the best the Internet has to offer. MSN Premium: Join now and get the first two months FREE*. From: Nick Atamanchuk <cyber_dude22@hotmail.com> To: t_diddy_003@hotmail.com Subject: Speed of Light info Sent: February 2, 2005 7:43:22 PM Here is the speed of light apper i foudn for you. [Ed Note: We have been following Barry Setterfield's research on the speed of light since 1993.1 It is interesting that both evolutionists and creation scientists can be blinded by their own presuppositions...]
When we walk into a dark room, flip a switch and the light is instantly on, it seems that light has no speed but is somehow infinite - instantly there - and that was the majority opinion of scientists and philosophers until September 1676, when Danish astronomer Olaf Roemer announced to the Paris Academie des Sciences that the anomalous behavior of the eclipse times of Jupiter's inner moon, Io, could be accounted for by a finite speed of light. 2 His work and his report split the scientific community in half, involving strong opinions and discussions for the next fifty years. It was Bradley's independent confirmation of the finite speed of light, published January 1, 1729, which finally ended the opposition.3 The speed of light was finite-incredibly fast, but finite.
The following question was: "Is the speed of light constant?" Interestingly enough, every time it was measured over the next few hundred years, it seemed to be a little slower than before. This could be explained away, as the first measurements were unbelievably rough compared to the technical accuracy later. It was not that simple, though. When the same person did the same test using the same equipment at a later period in time, the speed was slower. Not much, but slower.
These results kicked off a series of lively debates in the scientific community during the first half of the 20th century. Raymond Birge, highly respected chairman of the physics department at the University of California, Berkeley, had, from 1929 on, established himself as an arbiter of the values of atomic constants.4 The speed of light is considered an atomic constant. However Birge's recommended values for the speed of light decreased steadily until 1940, when an article written by him, entitled "The General Physical Constants, as of August 1940 with details on the velocity of light only," appeared in Reports on Progress in Physics (Vol. 8, pp.90-100, 1941). Birge began the article saying: "This paper is being written on request - and at this time on request ... a belief in any significant variability of the constants of nature is fatal to the spirit of science, as science is now understood [emphasis his]." These words, from this man, for whatever reason he wrote them, shut down the debate on the speed of light. Birge had previously recognized, as had others, that if the speed of light was changing, it was quite necessary that some of the other "constants" were also changing. This was evidently not to be allowed, whether it was true or not, and so the values for the various constants were declared and that was that. Almost. In the October 1975 issue of Scientific American (p. 120), C.L. Strong questioned whether the speed of light might change with time "as science has failed to get a consistently accurate value." It was just a ripple, but the issue had not quite disappeared.
Partly in order to quell any further doubts about the constancy of the speed of light, in October 1983 the speed of light was declared a universal constant of nature, defined as 299,792.458 kilometers per second, which is often rounded off to the measurement we are more familiar with in the West as 186,000 miles per second.
Birge's paper was published in 1941. Just a year later, Barry Setterfield was born in Australia. In 1979 he was 37 years old. That year he received a book from a friend, a book on astronomical anomalies. It was a large book, and near the end of it there was a section on the speed of light, questioning its constancy. Barry was stunned. Nothing he had read or learned in physics or astronomy had even hinted that there was a question regarding the speed of light. It was a constant, wasn't it? As he read, he learned about the measurements that had been taken years before, and the arguments that had gone on in the scientific literature, and he was fascinated. He figured he could read up on it and wrap up the question in about two weeks; it didn't quite work out that way.
Within a couple of years, one of the creationist organizations had started publishing some of Barry's findings. They were still preliminary, but there was so much more to this than he had thought. In the following years his exploration continued, and he read all the literature he could find. His work caught the attention of a senior research physicist at Stanford Research Institute International (SRI), who then asked him to submit a paper regarding his research. It was to be a white paper, or one that was for the purposes of discussion within the Institute.
Barry teamed up with Trevor Norman of Flinders University in Adelaide, and in 1987 Flinders itself published their paper, "Atomic Constants, Light, and Time." Their math department had checked it and approved it and it was published with the Stanford Research Institute logo as well. What happened next was like something out of a badly written novel. Gerald Aardsma, a man at another creationist organization, got wind of the paper and got a copy of it. Having his own ax to grind on the subject of physics, he called the heads of both Flinders and SRI and asked them if they knew that Setterfield and Norman were [gasp] creationists! SRI was undergoing a massive staff change at the time and since the paper had been published by Flinders, they disavowed it and requested their logo be taken off. Flinders University threatened Trevor Norman with his job and informed Barry Setterfield that he was no longer welcome to use any resources there but the library. Aardsma then published a paper criticizing the Norman-Setterfield statistical use of the data. His paper went out under the auspices of a respected creation institution.
Under attack by both evolutionists and creationists for their work, Norman and Setterfield found themselves writing long articles of defense, which appeared in a number of issues of creation journals. In the meantime, Lambert Dolphin, the physicist at Stanford who had originally requested the paper, teamed up with professional statistician Alan Montgomery to take the proverbial fine-tooth comb through the Norman-Setterfield paper to check the statistics used. Their defense of the paper and the statistical use of the data was then published in a scientific journal,5 and Montgomery went on to present a public defense at the 1994 International Creation Conference. Neither defense has ever been refuted in any journal or conference. Interestingly enough, later in 1987, after the Norman-Setterfield paper was published, another paper on light speed appeared, written by a Russian, V. S. Troitskii.6 Troitskii not only postulated that the speed of light had not been constant, but that light speed had originally been about 1010 times faster than now.
Since then, a multitude of papers on cosmology and the speed of light have shown up in journals and on the web. The theories abound as to what is changing, and in relation to what, and what the possible effects are. There is one person who is continuing to work with the data, however. As the storm around the 1987 report settled down, Barry Setterfield got back to work, investigating the data rather than playing around with pure theory.
Meanwhile, halfway around the world from Australia, in Arizona, a respected astronomer named William Tifft was finding something strange going on with the redshift measurements of light from distant galaxies. It had been presumed that the shift toward the red end of the spectrum of light from these distant galaxies was due to a currently expanding universe, and the measurements should be seen as gradually but smoothly increasing as one went through space. That wasn't what Tifft was finding. The measurements weren't smooth. They jumped from one plateau to another. They were quantized, or came in quantities with distinct breaks in between them.
When Tifft published his findings,7 astronomers were incredulous and dismissive. In the early 1990s in Scotland, two other astronomers decided to prove him wrong once and for all. Guthrie and Napier collected their own data and studied it. They ended up deciding Tifft was right.8 What was going on? Barry Setterfield read the material and studied the data. The universe could not be expanding if the red shift measurements were quantized. Expansion would not occur in fits and starts. So what did the red shift mean? While most others were simply denying the Tifft findings, Barry took a closer look. And it all started to make sense. The data was showing where the truth of the matter was. While many articles continued to be published regarding theoretical cosmologies, with little regard for much of the data available, Barry was more interested in the data.
Yet, his work is not referenced by any of the others. The Stanford paper is just about forgotten, if it was ever known, by the folks in mainstream physics and astronomy. However, not only are the measurements still there, but the red shift data has added much more information, making it possible to calculate the speed of light back to the first moment of creation. So Barry wrote another paper and submitted it to a standard physics journal in 1999. They did not send it to peer review but returned it immediately, saying it was not a timely subject, was of no current interest, and was not substantial enough. (It was over fifty pages long with about a hundred and fifty references to standard physics papers and texts.) So Barry resubmitted it to an astronomy journal. They sent it out to peer review and the report came back that the paper was really interesting but that it really belonged in a physics journal. So, in 2000, he sent it off to another physics journal. They refused it because they did not like one of the references Barry used: a university text on physics. They also disagreed with the model of the atom that Barry used - the standard Bohr model. In August 2001, the paper was updated and submitted to a European peer-reviewed science journal. The editor has expressed interest. We will see what will happen. In the meantime everything continues: Barry Setterfield is giving presentations in different countries, the mainstream physicists and theorists are continuing to publish all manner of theoretical ideas, and the subject of the speed of light has erupted full force back into the scientific literature.
There is a reason that Barry's work is not being referenced by mainstream scientists - or even looked at by most. If Barry is right about what the data are indicating, we are living in a very young universe. This inevitable conclusion will never be accepted by standard science. Evolution requires billions of years.
And there is a reason why the major creation organizations are holding his work at an arm's length as well: they are sinking great amounts of money into trying to prove that radiometric dating procedures are fatally flawed. According to what Barry is seeing, however, they are not basically flawed at all: there is a very good reason why such old dates keep appearing in the test results. The rate of decay of radioactive elements is directly related to the speed of light. When the speed of light was higher, decay rates were faster, and the long ages would be expected to show up. As the speed of light slowed down, so the radioactive decay rates slowed down.
By assuming today's rate of decay has been uniform, the earth and universe look extremely old. Thus, the evolutionists are happy with the time that gives for evolution and the creationists are looking for flaws in the methods used for testing for dates. But if the rates of decay for the different elements have not been the same through time, then that throws both groups off! Here was an "atomic clock" which ran according to atomic processes and, possibly, a different "dynamical" clock, the one we use everyday, which is governed by gravity - the rotation and revolution rates of the earth and moon. Could it be that these two "clocks" were not measuring time the same way? A data analysis suggested this was indeed happening. Tom Van Flandern, with a Ph.D. from Yale in astronomy, specializing in celestial mechanics, and for twenty years (1963-1983) Research Astronomer and Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C., released the results of some tests showing that the rate of ticking of the atomic clock was measurably slowing down when compared with the "dynamical clock."9 (Tom Van Flandern was terminated from his work with that institution shortly thereafter, although his work carries a 1984 publication date.)
In recognizing this verified difference between the two different "clocks," it is important to realize that the entire dating system recognized by geology and science in general, saying that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and the universe somewhere around ten billion years older than that, might be thrown into total disarray. The standard science models cannot deal with that. The standard creation models cannot, at this point, deal with the fact that radiometric dating may be, for the most part, telling the truth on the atomic clock. And, meanwhile, the Hubble spacecraft keeps sending back data which keep slipping into Barry Setterfield's model as though they actually belonged there.
Here we go. One of my other friends forwarded this to me. Frankly I haven't read enough of Isaac Asimov to understand some of this.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Sid, are you a physics major?
I think I'll reserve judgement until real experts arrive. Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
I am not a physics major and nor do I believe a word of this. However, I'm ignorant in physics and because of that I posted this inorder to become wise, by being corrected by others.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As the fine structure constant is dependent on the speed of light, this could theoretically mean a decreasing speed of light. It could equally well not, with one of the other constants in the equation varying.
And even if they're correct beyond their wildest dreams (and this wasn't a thorough analysis, either, this was a communication suggesting an interesting area of research), the amount they think it varied might be as large as
edit: chopped off part of my post, dang it.
might be as large as (-.72 +/- .18) * 10^-5 over the last six to ten billion years. That wouldn't result in the speed of light being 8x slower in hundreds of billions of years, much less a few thousand. (source: full text article through my university, presumably NASA should have similar access, Jay).
You can do the math, Jay, and that article soundly opposes the idea of a young universe, not supporting it in any way, shape, or form.
[ April 06, 2005, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
What a great response, Sid. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and if you look at those articles, I'd like to expand my response: they're not only claptrap, they're such obvious claptrap that anyone reading them and accepting them at face value needs their head examined.
edit to clarify: not that one should see what's wrong, immediately, but that it should be obvious the article authors are completely glossing over all the real information in favor of just citing whatever they think works. Note things like the lack of real numbers from any of the things actually resembling science.
[ April 06, 2005, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Wow, and most of those arguments for a young earth rely on such amusing conceits as "since this is the current rate it must always have been the rate!" and "lunar dust clearly lacks weight, and therefore will not collapse and increase in density like every other bit of dust in the known universe!"
I mean, seriously, if they're going to come up with "evidence" for a young universe, the least they could do is leave out the obviously-bad-to-anyone-who-paid-attention-in-high-school-science evidence.
Willful stupidity is not becoming.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
I do not think the nature of light has changed so much as the timebase by which we measure it.
Events occur faster or slower in relation to an arbitrary timebase selected by man. Unfortunately, that timebase is also part of the universe we are trying to measure. If the whole system speeds up or slows down, we will never perceive the difference.
Applying today's timebase to events that happened in the distant past is probably a mistake.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*shrug*
As far as science is concerned, if everything is experiencing time in the same way (light included), then time is the same.
If we can't measure any difference, there is no scientific difference.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Hey Jay, the mission statement of answersingenesis.org, a site you just linked to, is as follows,
quote:Welcome to Answers in Creation, a creation science ministry believing in an inerrant Word of God and a literal interpretation of Genesis. We also believe the earth is billions of years old. We apply logic and common sense to creation science, and bring conservative Christianity and Old Earth Creationism together, without conflict.
Edit: Emphasis mine.
[ April 06, 2005, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Primal Curve ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Fugu:
quote:If we can't measure any difference, there is no scientific difference.
Sure, but you're talking about measuring current events with the current timebase. I'm talking about trying to measure past events with today's timebase.
We dig up an old black and white movie that was filmed 1 billion years ago, and we want to watch it. How "fast" do we play the movie?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Also from Answeringenesis:
quote:The anticreationists, both the anti-theists and their compromising churchian allies, launched their attacks with glee
Those damned compromising churchian allies!
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
But seriously, here's a quick refutation of Setterfield's claims:
quote: History of AiG About 25 years ago, Dr. Carl Wieland, Ken Ham and others saw that the church in their own country, Australia, was struggling and often compromising its biblical integrity in the face of the ever-increasing attacks from those hostile to Christianity. They realized that most Christians were not equipped to provide answers to a "doubting" world in a so-called age of science.
In response to these observations, they began speaking on creation/evolution issues—equipping the church to answer the skeptics, and encouraging the body of Christ to trust in the authority of God's Word. Additionally, Dr. Wieland began publishing the magazine now called Creation (formerly Creation ex nihilo) as a way for believers to stay up-to-date on the latest issues in the creation/evolution arena (Creation magazine currently goes to subscribers in over 140 countries!). Listen as he explains further about the beginnings of AiG and the magazine in these two interviews:
The beginning of Creation magazine The beginning of Answers in Genesis Today, with offices in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK and the USA, AiG ministers to the church around the world through speaking events, publications, and this website. We are also actively translating our materials and website into other languages (including Chinese, Danish, Italian, French, German, Hungarian, Japanese, Russian, Korean and Spanish).
Our message Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith, and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a "millions of years old" earth (and even older universe).
AiG teaches that "facts" don't speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of "evidences" for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible—the "history book of the universe"—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the "evidence" confirms the biblical account.
quote: Answers in Genesis Mission Statement Goal: To support the Church in fulfilling its commission. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the earth. (Matthew 28:18-20)
And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-12)
Mission: To bring reformation by restoring the foundations of our faith which are contained in the book of Genesis.
If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Psalm 11:3)
And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: Thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, the repairer of the breach, the restorer of paths to dwell in. (Isaiah 58:12)
Strategic Plan: To provide answers from Genesis to make Jesus Christ, our Creator and Redeemer, relevant to the Church and world today.
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. (Revelation 4:11)
And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou has redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. (Revelation 5:9)
quote: Statement of Faith (A) PRIORITIES The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(B) BASICS The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, man’s sin.
(C) THEOLOGY The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
All things necessary for our salvation are set down in Scripture.
Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.
(D) GENERAL The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture: Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
How fast did God play the Creation of the Earth movie when he showed it to Moses, who authored the book of Genesis?
If I were going to play back an old movie, I'd find a few frames with some familiar motion and adjust the speed of the film so that the familiar motion took place at what I perceive to be normal speed. Still, that's a big assumption on my part, and not at all scientific.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:AiG teaches that "facts" don't speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of "evidences" for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible—the "history book of the universe"—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the "evidence" confirms the biblical account.
Jay, as someone with a scientific mind, you do understand why this mission statement means that their work is not science, right? It's why they come out and say that they're apologetics instead of real scientists.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
If c was 8 times larger ... doesn't that mean that permitivity constant and the permeability constant were BOTH 8 times smaller since c=1/√(εμ). And doesn't that meant the fundamental properties of electromagnetic waves were different? And doesn't that mean ?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I think it would be cool if the speed of light eventually got slower than the speed of sound.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Does anybody here think that Moses' vision of the creation of the earth was played in real time? That's a lot of popcorn!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Skillery: at exactly the same speed as we do now.
If everything changes, nothing changes.
Think of it this way: if football players moved ten times as slowly as they currently did (slo-mo!), but camera's also took images ten times as slowly, then when played back it'll look exactly like normal football players today -- just as when it happened it no doubt looked like normal footballers back then.
This is somewhat simplified, as we're talking about "more slowly", when if time changes, the definition of a speed changes.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Basically, the notion of a "timebase" is nonscientific. Time proceeds at the "speed" it does, and without observing from another frame of reference, there's no way to distinguish that. This is a fundamental part of relativity.
Posted by sexy_aaron (Member # 7312) on :
The fact that the words King David appears in an argument for the Earth being 10 000 years old shoudl be enough.
WHY CANT RELIGOUS WACKOS STOP TRYING TO 'PROVE' THEIR STUPID THEORIES TO US? YOU REALIZE THAT, BY TRYING TO GET SCIENCE TO PROVE THE BIBLE, YOU'RE CREDITING SCIENCE - SOMETHING YOUR STUPID FUNDEMENTAL BELIEFS SPIT ON?
Um, your friend is wrong. You should probably never talk to him again. Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:I think it would be cool if the speed of light eventually got slower than the speed of sound.
Yes. But it won't.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:WHY CANT RELIGOUS WACKOS STOP TRYING TO 'PROVE' THEIR STUPID THEORIES TO US? YOU REALIZE THAT, BY TRYING TO GET SCIENCE TO PROVE THE BIBLE, YOU'RE CREDITING SCIENCE - SOMETHING YOUR STUPID FUNDEMENTAL BELIEFS SPIT ON?
The volume of your response has completely convinced me of the error of my ways.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Thanks, Mike.
But it would still be cool, at least for a day or so.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Tom – Well, no, it’s just where you take your base for complete 100% truth. Sure it’s hard to bring a bible to a debate, but for your own statement of faith what’s the big deal?
Aaron – What? Why would you tell him not to be friends with him anymore? Would you really do that to a friend of your over something this petty? Does it really matter in the scheme of things? Yes I believe it, but I’m certainly not going to stop being friends with someone because they have a different believe in something. Especially in something that shouldn’t have anything to do with why you are friends. I really hope some of you others who disagree with me other everything else under the sun will back me up on this one. Come on Tom, let’s add another to the Top Ten list.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
We might... if we thought it was actually worth it.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
The only work I’m familiar with that says that the universe could be about 10,000 years olds because of a change in the speed of light is Barry Setterfield’s work. Setterfield believes that the speed of light has been decaying at an exponential rate, making it thousands of times higher at the beginning of creation and hardly changing at all in the last 100 years.
The main problem that I see is that the speed of light is connected to the electromagnetic force. One way of looking at light is as an electric current that produces a magnetic current, that produces an electric current, that produces a magnetic current, etc. etc. etc. This is why the speed of light is part of Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations, which unifies electricity and magnetism, and has been used successfully for over 100 years.
So if the speed of light increases, then either the electric force or the magnetic force must increase, too. But that has significant implications.
For one, surface tension in water is based on the electric force between atoms. If the electric force changes, then so does surface tension. And someone pointed out that if surface tension changes too much, life on earth could not exist.
Therefore if the speed of light was many times what it is today for the first few thousand years, nothing was living then, which makes Adam and Eve’s tale suspect.
Another problem is in the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is composed of neutrons (which have no charge) and protons (which only have a positive charge). Normally, protons would fly apart because of electrical repulsion, but are kept together because of the strong nuclear force. So, if you increase the electrical force to increase the speed of light, you also need to increase the strong nuclear force to keep atoms together.
And when you change the strong nuclear force, that affects all other sorts of fundamental constants (including nuclear decay rates)…
IIRC, even Setterfield et al. are trying to account for how all these fundamental forces were changed, and all the implications of such changes. I haven’t heard lately how successful they were.
So the bottom line is, no, there is no credible evidence that the speed of light has changed enough to support a 10,000 year universe.
[ April 06, 2005, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
quote: Sure it’s hard to bring a bible to a debate, but for your own statement of faith what’s the big deal?
No it's not. It's only hard to bring it into a scientific debate. If you want to discuss theology, then it's perfectly applicable.
You take that work a little too literally, I think. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Well, no, it’s just where you take your base for complete 100% truth. Sure it’s hard to bring a bible to a debate, but for your own statement of faith what’s the big deal?"
That's the thing: is the issue of the age of the universe a scientific one or a faith-based one?
From an apologetic viewpoint, the Bible (if interpreted in a certain way) says the Earth is young -- and so therefore the only evidence which can be valid is evidence which supports that view. Even if overwhelming evidence suggests something else, the presumption that the Bible trumps all other evidence forces the apologetic to reach another conclusion, however strained.
This makes it difficult to have a conversation on scientific merits, or indeed with anyone who does not share your assumption about the accuracy of the Bible.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: I'd say the speed of dark just went up ten fold.
I'd say the speed of dark just went up ten Bob. (I just read his 11,000 landmark.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's also important to note that the two biblical creation stories are logically exlcusive, at least in regards to the order of creation. In one, man is created before animals. The other has it the other way around. Strict literal biblical creationism is logically impossible even when your only source is the bible.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Science doesn't start with an outcome you want to prove. It works by trying to falsify the hypothesis. I can't take Creation Science seriously as long as these people are trying to prove something. When they try to DISprove their hypothesis and then repeatedly fail, I'll begin to listen.
This is not even remotely similar to science. You find a way to jimmy the data to give you the outcome on one tiny point - and then expect us to wipe out all the other evidence.
And the dead giveaway is the idea that lightspeed changes would have anything to do with radiation decay rates ... puh-leeeeze. This only works on people who are either ignorant or so eager to believe the outcome that they become functionally, deliberately ignorant.
And what's the point? Nowhere does the Bible claim and nowhere does God say that the document called "the Bible" is inerrant. This is a very late concept. There is no contradiction between science or religion as long as both parties are behaving rationally and recognizing the limits of our understanding of either source.
So why wreck science in order to affirm a relatively trivial point in religion - the literal inerrancy of Genesis? Why can't we just hold these questions in abeyance? If God thought it was essential to our salvation to know the exact way he created the earth, he would have told us so. But nowhere does Jesus suggest that to enter into the kingdom of heaven, you have to have correct opinions about creation.
Oh why, why, why did I plunge into the argument over creationism vs. darwinism? A plague on both your houses! Distorting evidence on either side, to "prove" points as meaningless as quantifying angelic pinhead dancing.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: This makes it difficult to have a conversation on scientific merits, or indeed with anyone who does not share your assumption about the accuracy of the Bible.
Now, I can laugh at you all - until rivka, Raia or Ela come and provoke me for patronising you on the Bible's accuracy.
Who'd believe I'd love Hebrew? I mean, the Bible has some poetry that English simply distorted.... So I gain from reading the true Psalms of David.
Then, "he makes me lie down in green pastures", "He maketh me to lie down in green pastures", "He takes me to lush pastures", "In pastures of tender grass He causeth me to lie down", - none mean "בנאות דשא ירביצני". That's because "נאות" also can be used in the context of an oasis.
Hey, who can blame the translators?
[ April 06, 2005, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Fugu:
quote:Basically, the notion of a "timebase" is nonscientific.
So our scientific determination of the age of the earth should have no bearing on the validity of a Biblical account. There is no timebase. There can be no absolute measure of elapsed periods. It doesn't matter whether we call it days, weeks, or eons; past events happened at the rate that they happened.
[ April 06, 2005, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: skillery ]
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Thanks Ya'll. I'm forwarding him the link to this thread. Keep on the disucssion, its fascinating. (Spock Ears)
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
I keep wishing that Creationism will actually come up with something worthwhile, maybe a new perspective. But to date, I see nothing but holes.
Now, didn't the Catholic Church actually give an award to Stephen Hawking for his work on the big bang? They saw it as proof of a beginning to everything, as in Genesis. I believe they realize that the dates are not to be taken literally. What is one day in the life of an omnipresent Creator? Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Waht you're talking about is philosophy. From a scientific perspective, a second is quite well defined -- of course anybody could call the word a "second" something else. That's not a some sort of pseudo-scientific concept called "timebases" or anything, that's called language.
And I'd like to point out I haven't been distorting evidence on either side
*can plague his own house, darn it*
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
*willfully distorts evidence*
Mu-ha-ha-ha! Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and yes, considering time to have a flow is mistaken. WHich is why I put "speed" in quotation marks. There are different frames of reference, which we mentally conceive of as having different "rates" of time, though.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Of course. All of your points are valid.
My point is that a college of theologians can take the Bible a little more liberally, but many view it too literally.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Though this isn't nessasarily a Darwin vs Creation debate its just me worried that my belief system of A: evolution is a theory that I think makes sense, B: The universe is billions - trillions of years old. and C: if there is a heaven I'll get in it for being a good person and D: The revolution will come to all nations. So seeing anything that conflicts with the big 4 made me anxious so I looked to the Hatrack family for guidence and a second (and third and fourth...) opinion. So far I'm satisfied with the result but the discussion has gotten very interesting and I hope for it to continue.
However in the context of the discussion this indirectly becomes a creation vs darwin thingy because evolution requiring millions of years would be "disproven" supposedly if the Earth was only <= 10,000 years. And wow Mr Card sir, this is the first time I've seen you post on this side of the forums.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:From a scientific perspective, a second is quite well defined
...as long as the surface tension of water, the speed of light, and the strong nuclear force remain constant relative to some absolute standard outside the system.
But in reality the whole thing could change and we'd never know it.
Can we take today's "seconds" and use them to measure periods that elapsed between yesterday's events? Sure, but our results would be in todayseconds, not yesterdayseconds. And we can all agree that there is no scientific basis for equating todayseconds with yesterdayseconds.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, There is water above the sky.
quote: Genesis 1: 6 And God said, "Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water." 7 And so it was. God made this space to separate the waters above from the waters below. 8And God called the space "sky." This happened on the second day. And God said, "Let the waters beneath the sky be gathered into one place so dry ground may appear." And so it was. 10 God named the dry ground "land" and the water "seas."
Or in simpler terms, the atmosphere of the earth was originally formed between two great expanses of water. The water below the atmosphere was then gathered together to expose the land.
If you insist on a literal translation of genesis, then no only should you be seeking to prove that the earth was created in exactly 7 24 hour periods, but also to prove that outer space is not a vacuum but is actually water.
[ April 06, 2005, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Another one of my friends put forward a theory that the loss of that extra layer or water caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, since supposedly that water allowed for more oxygen. Though how god knows how many millions of tons of water can possibly be held above the amtosphere and not fall towards gravity is beyond me, unless that water is the atmoshpere.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:the waters above
Clouds Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Tales: "All is water".
In Hebrew, though, שמים, "sky", can also be interpreted as "there water", שם מים.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, no, its not dependent on most of that stuff at all.
And even what its dependent on doesn't really work like what you're talking about. Time perspective doesn't really change like that.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: The astounding fact, as noted in another context a page or two earlier, is that we do have a direct observation pertaining to ancient decay rates! The light of supernova SN1987A, in its trailing phases, was produced almost entirely by the radioactive decay of cobalt-56, at first, then cobalt-57 a few years later. Those two nuclides of cobalt were positively identified by their gamma rays as they decayed. In both cases the rate at which the light faded precisely matched the decay rates for cobalt-56 and cobalt-57! (Regarding the claim that the speed of light may have slowed down, see topic A6.)
All we need now is the distance to SN1987A which turns out to be around 170,000 light-years (i.e. 52,700 parsecs). See topic A6 for more details. Surprisingly, that distance does not depend on the speed of light (in a Newtonian sense). Putting it all together, we reach the firm conclusion that we are seeing SN1987A as it was about 170,000 years ago. Thus, as it were, we have a window on the past which confirms that there has been no changes in the decay rates for cobalt-56 and cobalt-57. Hence, there is no reason for believing that any of the decay rates have changed as quantum mechanics describes them all and has been vindicated in the case of the two cobalt isotopes.
Jay, the "scientific" paper you linked to ( http://www.icr.org/research/df/index.html ) had I think one equation--sorry if I missed some. And though written from a creationist POV, it finds a large number of flaws in creationist astronomy.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
quote:Well, no, its not dependent on most of that stuff at all.
Well our good ole cesium fountain clock at the NIST depends on all that stuff.
quote:Time perspective doesn't really change like that.
Nobody can know for sure if it changes or how it changes. To assume that it remains constant is also a mistake.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, we have a pretty good idea of many of the ways it changes -- we have measured time distortion due to relativity, for instance.
Of course, we could have a limited or incorrect understanding, but that's always true. The most we can say is that what you're talking about makes zero sense in the context of modern physics.
Also, your link is only a problem if we presume science can explain everything. It likely can't, and I don't presume it can.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:I don't presume it can
So why are we arguing?
I think it's silly for these Bible believers to take up arms in defense of their concept of the age of the earth, when time itself is an unknown commodity.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I love Hatrack. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You were presenting this as a thought that somehow impacts science, which it doesn't and couldn't as far as we know.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Someone tell me how entropy can effect the speed of light please?
Would a more random universe cause the speed of a wave to slow down?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Another one of my friends put forward a theory that the loss of that extra layer or water caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, since supposedly that water allowed for more oxygen. Though how god knows how many millions of tons of water can possibly be held above the amtosphere and not fall towards gravity is beyond me, unless that water is the atmoshpere.
But the Genesis account doesn't describe a layer of water above. Clouds clearly don't fill the description. The literal picture described is that there was water everywhere and to create the earth, God first made a layer of air in the water and then put land in the water below the air and the sun moon and stars in the water above the air. The Genesis account literal says that the Universe is water. That account is pretty well irreconcilable with modern science.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Someone tell me how entropy can effect the speed of light please?
Since the constant we are talking about is the speed of light in a vacuum, entropy is irrelevant. Entropy is a property of matter and there is no matter in a vacuum.
The speed of light in any region of space containing matter, will be slower than the speed of light in a vacuum. In fact, a material has been constructed in which the speed of light is ~ 38 mph. There is a general trend for light to propagate more slowly in denser more highly ordered materials (ie materials with lower entropy). I don't know how strong the correlation is between the entropy of a material and the speed of light in that material but even if is a strong causal correlation, it would be irrelevant because the constant "speed of light in a vacuum" is by definition independent of entropy.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Fugu:
quote:You were presenting this as a thought that somehow impacts science
...or the originator of this thread might have been.
I'm not going to come up with any thoughts that might impact science sitting here at my desk.
My first love and my first attempt at a college major was geology. It always bothered me that the earth was billions of years old, but that Moses wrote that it all came together in days. Those articles about time in the September 2002 issue of Scientific American helped to settle my mind upon a reasonable explanation.
I've got some thoughts about anti-gravity and luminiferous aether that might be fun to punch holes in. Gotta explain how angels' feet don't touch the ground and how prayer works without a transmitter.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
This is kind of off topic but it doesnt deserve a whole new thread. Can someone tell me what this 10,000 year mark has to do with the Bible and it not being true? I have heard 10,000 a number of times but I do not understand how it proves or disproves anything. Thanks alot whoever answers this for me.
[ April 06, 2005, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Promethius ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:And the dead giveaway is the idea that lightspeed changes would have anything to do with radiation decay rates ... puh-leeeeze. This only works on people who are either ignorant or so eager to believe the outcome that they become functionally, deliberately ignorant.
I'm sorry to have to point this out again, but decay rates do in fact depend on the speed of light. Alpha, the fine structure constant, is inversely proportional to the speed of light; it determines the strength of the electromagnetic interaction.
Now, the last time I posted on this subject, I said that since the electromagnetic and weak forces are unified, alpha would influence G_F, the Fermi coupling constant which determines weak decay rates. Having thought about it, I don't believe this is accurate : Electroweak unification occurs at energy scales where the mass of the weak carriers (about 80 GeV) may be considered negligible, while nuclear decay occurs at energies of a few keV - many orders of magnitude below that unification point.
However, there are a few slightly more subtle effects of changing the speed of light that would still occur. First, of course, E = mc^2 (actually, this only applies to particles at rest, but let the subtleties go for now). Now, when you do the quantum mechanics of a decay, you find that the rate is proportional to a quantity called the phase space, which grows as more energy becomes available to the decay. Let me run that by you again : Before the decay, you have a mother particle of mass M, and energy Mc^2. Afterwards you have two (or more, but let me stick to two for simplicity) daughters, whose total mass is M' = m_1 + m_2, so the total energy is (m_1 + m_2)c^2. (Again ignoring kinetic energy). The decay can only proceed if M' is less than M; thus the mass-energy after the decay is less than you had before the decay. This is what makes atom bombs work, in that you can extract energy from fission. However, energy does not disappear : The mass-energy has gone over to kinetic energy, and the larger that kinetic energy is, the greater the phase space.
Now we can get to the point : The kinetic energy released in the decay is just (M-M')c^2. In other words, if you change c, more energy becomes available, the phase space grows, and the decay goes faster.
This reasoning applies to all decays; for the special case of alpha decay, there is another effect. Unfortunately this is a bit difficult to explain without a blackboard, but I'll do my best.
Alpha particles are essentially helium nuclei : Two protons, two neutrons. Thus they have two units of positive charge. We can assume for the purposes of this calculation that the helium nucleus exists inside the larger radioactive nucleus before the decay occurs; this is reasonable as helium nuclei are very stable, so if one formed by accident it would stick around for a while.
Nuclei are held together by the strong nuclear force. This force has a very short range; if the helium nucleus gets out beyond about 10^-15 m from the center of the nucleus, it stops operating, the electromagnetic repulsion takes over, and you have a decay. However, this can't happen, because the strong force is very strong.
Ah, but wait - this is quantum mechanics, where anything can happen. The position of the alpha particle is somewhat analogous to a marble in a glass buried on the top of a heap of sand. If the marble could get out of the cup, it would roll down the pile; but it can't get through the walls. Except through the phenomenon of tunneling. In essence, the alpha particle is bouncing against the walls several million times a second, and each time, there is a small but nonzero chance it will tunnel through and find itself free.
Now, if you change the strength of the electromagnetic force, you change the distance the particle has to tunnel; and the probability of a decay depends very strongly - exponentially, in fact - on that distance. A stronger electromagnetic force leads to a shorter tunneling distance and faster decay rates.
The problem with this approach, of course, is that a faster speed of light gives you a smaller fine structure constant and a weaker electromagnetic force. Hence slower, not faster, decay rates. But oh well, who cares about mere math when the Bible is on your side? You would have to do some very careful math to find out how any given change in c would affect alpha decay rates.
Then there's gamma decays. Now gamma decays occur when a nucleus is in an excited state, which it de-excites from by spitting out a photon. At some point that photon will have coupled to a quark, and the likelihood of that happening is, again, proportional to alpha (the fine structure constant). So once again, faster lightspeed would lead to slower gamma decay rates.
We see, then, that the question of how lightspeed changes affect radioactive decay rates is by no means trivial. If you increase lightspeed, the phase space increases for all types of decays, alpha, beta, and gamma. But the matrix elements for alpha and gamma decays go down. The decay rate is proportional to the product of the two. So you might see beta decays getting faster while alpha and beta slow down, or remain the same, or get faster but less so than beta. Or alpha might be more affected than gamma. In short, you would need to do some fairly heavy math to find the exact effects.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, and as someone pointed out, the speed of light depends on the permittivity and permeability of free space. Now, alpha is inversely proportional to the permittivity, but not to the permeability. So you get an additional effect depending on how you change the speed of light : If you do so by changing the permeability of free space, you just get what I outlined above, but if you change the permittivity, the effect would be slightly smaller. (Or larger if I've remembered the relation between permittivity and lightspeed wrongly).
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
I actually followed that!
Thanks KoM!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
skillery -- the thing is, you don't have to. So long as there's no measurable mechanism for prayers to be received, they can happen in a totally (scientifically) impossible way.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:decay, you find that the rate is proportional to a quantity called the phase space, which grows as more energy becomes available to the decay...The mass-energy has gone over to kinetic energy, and the larger that kinetic energy is, the greater the phase space.
So the rate of decay increases with an increase in heat? Was the universe much hotter in the past than it is now? Maybe you'll say that there hasn't been a significant change in the heat of the universe over the last 15 billion years, but a fraction of a second after the big bang, wasn't the universe hot enough that the speed of light was different from what it is now?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, no. I phrased that badly. I should have said, "the more energy comes out of the decay". Any external energy, such as the kinetic energy from heat, can always be removed by considering the decay in the rest frame of the particle.
Let me put that another way. All reference frames are equal; this is basic Einstein. No matter what speed a particle is going at, there exists a frame in which it is at rest. So decays are not speeded up by heat, because they go at the same speed in our frame of reference as in the rest-frame of the particle.
In principle, you could postulate so much heat that the rest frame of the particle is moving at some appreciable fraction of the speed of light; that would look to us as though the decay was slowing down. However such temperatures have not exited in the Universe since about 10^-30 seconds after the big Bang, and at that time, there were no nuclei anyway. Nor could nuclei exist at such a temperature, they'd fall apart as soon as they collided.
DIT : In any case, while the speed of light affects the decay rate, the reverse is not true.
[ April 06, 2005, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heat doesn't really exist at that scale.
Heat is an aggreggate property of a lot of molecules.
When you're talking about one molecule, it doesn't have any heat, though as part of a system it may contribute to the heat by having a high energy (kinetic energy, perhaps).
[ April 06, 2005, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, that's true, of course, but there is a sloppy-language sense in which temperature does exist. Namely, consider a particle having some definite energy : If a large assembly of particles had that as their average kinetic energy, that would define some definite temperature. Conversely, in an assembly of a given temperature, there is a well-defined average energy. So particle physicists often talk of even a single particle having a temperature.
Also, any quantum system has a temperature, in the sense that temperature is just the derivative of energy with respect to entropy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, I was more responding to skillery.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So the rate of decay increases with an increase in heat?
What do you mean by "heat"? Since you connect this with temperature, I assume you mean the energy that is "stored" in the random kinetics of atoms and molecules. This energy is orders of magnitude smaller than the nuclear binding energies involved in radioactive decay.
For example, the energy released in the formation of a single Iron 56 nucleas from free protons and neutrons would be sufficient to increase the temperature of a gram of water (~3x10^22 molecules of water) by about 4 million °C. Because the thermal kinetic energies of molecules are so much smaller than the nuclear binding energies, temperature has no effect on decay rates of atomic nuclei.
[ April 06, 2005, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, Rabbit, I think you're off by a couple of orders of magnitude there. Just intuition, but it doesn't feel right. Do you mind showing your calculation?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You're right King, It was a back of the envelope calculation and I screwed up the units.
The mass deficit in Fe56 is 0.522 amu. That amounts to only 7.8e-11 J/atom.
So, the energy released by making 1 g of Fe56 from free protons and neutrons would be 8.31e11 J, or enough to heat 2e8 kg of water by 1 °C.
[ April 06, 2005, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Remember, when citing the meaning of Hebrew words, that the Bible - Torah, the histories and the prophets and the poets - ARE the repository of the ancient Hebrew language. So words that occur in the Bible have shaped the language - but have also been shaped by it. There are words that are now taught as if they were unambiguous in meaning, which once were ambiguous.
When someone who has been to Hebrew School tells you what a word in the Bible means, he is not telling you what it meant to the original writers of the text, he is telling you what it is now taken to mean in that context by contemporary Jewish scholars; there are many old arguments behind those conclusions, and it is merely a matter of faith whether you believe the meaning that prevailed at the end of those arguments is, in fact, the original intent of the writers.
Translation is a tricky thing - not only between languages, but between centuries in the "same" language. This is true of every language, including Hebrew. Contemporary speakers cannot always accurately recover original meanings.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Contemporary speakers cannot always accurately recover original meanings.
No, but if you know many Aramaic nouns and adjectives, several verbs, and are studying Arabic seriously - you know a little more.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Remember, when citing the meaning of Hebrew words, that the Bible - Torah, the histories and the prophets and the poets - ARE the repository of the ancient Hebrew language. So words that occur in the Bible have shaped the language - but have also been shaped by it. There are words that are now taught as if they were unambiguous in meaning, which once were ambiguous.
When someone who has been to Hebrew School tells you what a word in the Bible means, he is not telling you what it meant to the original writers of the text, he is telling you what it is now taken to mean in that context by contemporary Jewish scholars; there are many old arguments behind those conclusions, and it is merely a matter of faith whether you believe the meaning that prevailed at the end of those arguments is, in fact, the original intent of the writers.
That is an excellent point, and one I hadn't thought of. Very interesting.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Okay, so we know that a change in c can effect decay rates, but are the decay rates changing in such a way that it can be attributed to a change in c?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, see Morbo's post. Decay rates, as far as we know, have remained constant for millenia.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I always thought the assumption that the decay rate is constant is pretty safe. I hadn't heard of any experimental confirmation. That's pretty cool.
What I'm still not clear on is how they know the original proportion of isotopes. Small changes there can have big effects in dating. Seems you'd have to know precisely when something died thousands of years ago to experimentally confirm it. Have such tests been done in sufficient quantity to give us high confidence?
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
I have a question for people here, and I hope you pardon my lengthy background for why I ask this question:
I have often heard the terms "science" (or "real science") and "pseudo-science" bandied around with creation-evolution discussions. What do they mean? If you can't provide a totally objective definition of either, then what does it mean to you? An implicit assumption made with regard to these terms is that "science" can produce objective truth, but "pseudo-science" cannot (or maybe some would just say it does not guarantee objective truth). What basis do people have for these assumptions? Both the assumption that Science can, and the assumption that Pseudo-science cannot.
The reason I ask is that I have found that for most people, myself included, we distrust the findings or implications of people or ideas that have been branded pseudo-scientific by others, often before actually evaluating their work personally.
I grew up in a Christian home but was also taught to highly value science and knowledge, and evolution/million of years ideas were an obvious part of everything I learned and believed. When I was in high school and found that my parents had difficulty reconciling the Bible to science, I quickly gave them a lecture on metaphors and how the Bible clearly was talking about "why", and objective science answers the "how," and the realms of the two did not overlap. I did not ever have anyone tell me that; those were conclusions I had come to myself based on my own reasoning. My parents readily accepted this, and do to this day.
Another aspect of my upbringing is that I progressed rapidly in school. This isn't a subject I like to talk about because it's no fun when everyone you know thinks of you as the "smart" kid, and the first thing people ask you when they meet you is "how old are you?" because you're obviously too young to be their peer. As a side note, this is one reason Ender's Game resonated so well with me, and I became interested in OSC's work to begin with. Like Ender, I consciously worked to overcome this social stigma, and still be the "best" at everything. My parents say they never pushed me to skip grades in school, and I acknowledge that they often tried to discourage me from doing everything so fast, because they wanted me to have a normal life. However, their attitude spoke louder than words, and I grew up thinking that knowledge and academic performance was the most important thing in life, and that I was going to be someone "great" in that I would be famous and do something amazing. This was also pushed on me by many of my teachers and friends, who would often make comments like saying I would grow up to cure cancer or something. Well, this had to come to a halt. When I was the equivalent of a Junior in college at the age of 15, I started thinking about what the point of it all was. I was majoring in Mathematics and Computer Science, and was having a hard time seeing what exactly I could do that would be so great. Making the most money was clearly not a great goal in life, neither was any academic pursuit I could think of. The stuff I was the most interested in was the most abstract mathematics and least practical to help people in their daily lives. What good would that do? And I even began to think, even if I had pursued more practical sciences and cured diseases or made people's lives better, what was still the point of that? What was really the point in saving lives? They would die anyway. What was the point of making people happy? People will always have something to gripe about. I was in a spiral that was drawing me dangerously close to complete nihilism and apathy about absolutely everything, except for the fact that I did still cling to the idea of God existing somewhere, and having some sort of solution to this dilemma.
That's primarily the reasoning that drove me to accept a literal interpretation of creation according to Genesis. My background in logic and questioning into mathematical philosophy gave me the intellectual tools I needed to overcome the belief that all scientific knowledge as I knew it then pointed toward a old earth and evolutionary origins of life, without also holding views I would deem inconsistent. At that point, I still viewed "creation science" as "pseudo-science", and continued to do so for a while. I just also began to view evolutionary/long age thought with the same level of skepticism, because I knew both were equally based on foundational assumptions. It was only later, after I had already come to these conclusions from a philosophical point of view, that I began to read creationist ideas and materials, and allowed myself to be influenced by them to reconstruct a view of history consistent with what I now know to be true. Furthermore, my desire to find purpose in life told me that the only way life could have any meaning was if evolution was not true, and the literal truth of the Genesis account was a historical reality. I then realized it did not really matter what "great things" I might do with my life; there was no great or small if it was done to God's glory as he intended for us to when he gave us a paradise to live in and have dominion over. However our sin has rejected that goodness that God created for us, and so we have death and suffering now in this world as a result of our actions, not part of the original creation that God called Very Good. And that physical death and suffering was instituted in God's mercy as a loving punishment so that we would see the consequences of our suffering, as I could readily see in my own search for truth. If I had not been driven to desperation to find meaning to life, if we had all still been living sinfully in a physical paradise, I would never have come to the realization that I am not my own authority.
I am now happily married, and I consider one of the greatest roles I play in this life to be that of a husband and hopefully a father soon. I can be satisfied in my job because I know I work to the glory of my creator. And I try to share what I know about my purpose in life with others, so that they too would know. But the point of all this background is that I only allowed myself to question what I "knew" about science until I was driven to a point of desperation in a search for meaning. When things are labeled "real science" or "pseudo-science" by people, they are operating under specific assumptions which I find people don't often know exist. So my question is, are these assumptions justified?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
quote: The problem with this approach, of course, is that a faster speed of light gives you a smaller fine structure constant and a weaker electromagnetic force. Hence slower, not faster, decay rates.
Are you sure about this, KoM? There seems to be some contradictions with what I recall.
For one, according to one of the references I found at Talk.Origins (see my previous post), they said decay rates would be faster with a faster speed of light.
For another, there is the relationship between electric permittivity and magnetic permeability and the speed of light per Maxwell’s equations. Since the speed of light squared is equal to the inverse of permittivity and permeability, increasing the speed of light would require a decrease in the permittivity and permeability constants.
Since the electric force is inversely proportional to the permittivity constant, wouldn’t that imply that increasing the speed of light would increase the electromagnetic force?
(Don’t ya’ll love it when we speak in Jargon? )
Admittedly, I may be mistaken in my physics. It’s been quite a few years since I worked with the equations, I don’t have my Feymann’s lectures in front of me, and I was never really all that good at it anyway. But when I examined this problem previously, I recall deciding that the electric force would have to increase with an increase in the speed of light. Am I mistaken?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Avin: there's nothing (scientifically) wrong with believing something for non-scientific reasons. Its asserting those beliefs are scientific when they're not that's problematic. Your belief in creationism seems founded on a religious philosophy, which is perfectly fine. We can't know, scientifically, so believing otherwise for nonscientific reasons is scientifically reasonable.
However, we can come very close to knowing due to a preponderance of evidence, such as with the age of the earth. Anyone asserting science's estimates of the age of the earth are scientifically incorrect, as most YECs (Young Earth Creationists) do, needs actual scientific evidence. Beliefs founded on philosophy don't count.
However, most of the proposed "evidence" is laughable. Lets take a look at one of my favorites, the moon dust argument. Here's how its presented in the link Jay has on "the current state of creation astronomy":
quote:Lunar Dust
Back in the 1960's estimates of the depth of the dust on the moon were made. This was important information to know during the Apollo program, because if there were a thick layer, the lunar landers could have sunk and disappeared. The dust on the moon results from meteors falling onto the surface. Each meteor strike, no matter how small, knocks some debris from surface rocks, and this gradually accumulates along with the incoming material. If we can measure the rate at which meteors are falling today, then we can estimate how much should accumulate over 4.6 Gyr. Actually, this would be an upper estimate since the meteor flux would have been greater in the past. Measurements of the meteor flux made nearly 40 years ago indicated that the lunar dust should be many meters thick. The actual depth is only a few centimeters, consistent with a recent creation but not an old one.
This remained a mystery until new meteor flux measurements in the early 1970's were far lower, consistent with the measured depth of lunar dust and an old age. Creationists apparently were ignorant of these newer measurements that were consistent with an ancient moon, and were rightly criticized [52, pp. 143-145], [53, pp. 67-82] for this lapse. Snelling and Rush [49] have reevaluated this issue, and they recommended against using this argument for recent creation.
Many creationists have abandoned this argument, but some continue to use it. It seems that there are some questions about the more recent meteor flux measurements, especially when one considers that the earlier measurements that were supposedly too high have never been explained. About the time that the paper by Snelling and Rush appeared, a new, more direct, and higher measurement of meteoroid influx was published [34]. This has been one factor in the rejection of some creationists to the warning by Snelling and Rush against this argument. The newer measurements should not be taken as the final word in this matter, and future measurements should be carefully monitored. Furthermore, laboratory measurements show that the bulk of lunar dust is made of lunar material rather than meteoritic material (the ratio could be as much as 67:1 [12, pp. 213-215]). If that is the case, then the depth of lunar dust would be more consistent with a young moon rather than a 4.6 billion year old moon.
First, they just say meteor flux would have been greater in the past. That's incredibly scientific -- we'll assume something that supports our argument without even a theoretical argument to back it up. Not that such an argument's hard to come by, but there needs to be one.
Then they talk about how the dust should be many meters thick given a certain rate of accumulation. The argument is clearly that any dust must remain there in a powdery form. They're neglecting a few things, even assuming that high rate of accumulation:
meteorites compact material as well
dust compacts itself, take a look at all the sorts of rocks on earth that form from pressure
once you have a layer of dust down, subsequent meteor impacts don't knock of more and more lunar material into dust, they just move the existing dust around
There are more points to be made, but you get the idea. I'll give this paper the credit for acknolwedging that those old estimates of lunar dust accumulation were likely hooey, but note they still insist there's a possibility that they weren't. The thing is, even if they weren't, they wouldn't be at all inconsistent with an old moon for the reasons I've cited above. Or then there's the convenient ignoring of evidence:
quote:What is left unexplained by gradual reversals over millions or billions of years is how the field is regenerated once it ceases to exist.
is stated in reference to the earth's magnetic field's reversals. This is silly for a number of reasons. That these magnetic field reversals happen can be practically "read off the rocks", its not some weird interpolation. Also, allow me to propose a very simple explanation for why our magentic field decreases in magnitude then increases again, rotating in the opposite direction, that is, where the energy comes from. The freakin' rotation and orbit of the earth! Its not like we have to look far for where the energy's coming from. We've got a core which, when turned, rotates at a different speed than the mantle. That's your basic electric motor right there. There's nothing mysterious about where the electric/magnetic field gets its energy fed from, as they strongly suggest.
Anyone with a basic high school science education and a little thoughtpower should be able to understand a high rate of lunar dust accumulation doesn't mean the dust has to be really thick if the moon is old, or where the earth's magnetic field might get energy from. That they're suggesting the former is necessary, or that the latter is mysterious, reflects significant ignorance and/or intentional misdirection.
That article is a prime example of pseudo-science. It looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like many people think a duck should quack like, but a duck thinks it sounds like a guinea fowl.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
[ April 07, 2005, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
quote: I have often heard the terms "science" (or "real science") and "pseudo-science" bandied around with creation-evolution discussions. What do they mean? If you can't provide a totally objective definition of either, then what does it mean to you?
To me, science means theories that are based on the observable data. These theories agree (mostly) with the observable data, and have been logically tested to see if they are not true (falsification). The reason we believe that science provides objective truth is because he has a good track record for finding objective truth and for uncovering objective truth that was previously unsuspected. In other words, it usually gives a far more precise explanation of the world, and leads us to discover aspects of the world we never suspected (such as relativity and quantum mechanics).
Of course, all scientific theories are subject to revision as new data is discovered, so they are all somewhat tentative. But those that stand the test of time are usually more reliable, because there have been so many people looking for data to disprove them. And, believe me, nothing makes a good scientist more happy than to show that he’s smarter than everyone who came before him.
What science really is to me is a method of gathering data, analyzing it and coming to a consensus about what it means. I believe it to be a superior method than any that has come before it, primarily because of some of the dramatic results of utilizing it. It may not be a very good way to find The Truth, but it seems to be an excellent method for discovering Weak Ideas and Falsehoods.
The reason creationism, especially Young-Earth creationism (which you seem to be a proponent of, Avin), is considered pseudo-science is because its theories do not meet the standards required for a good scientific theory. Sometimes it is because there is significant data that contradicts it (such as the theory the Earth is less than 15,000 years old, which is contradicted by radioactive dating of rocks, among others). Sometimes it is because there is no way for the theory to be falsified (like the current Intelligent Design theories, which have no way testing them to see if they might be false). Sometimes there is no direction the theory provides for further research.
Of course, this is all in the realm of science, which has certain foundational assumptions, such as the assumption that laws of the universe are the same throughout space and time, or that we actually can observe things. Without many of these assumptions, science could not function, because observation would be meaningless. But there is nothing in science that proves that these assumptions must be true.
So when you reject evolution and such, you need to specify whether you are doing so scientifically or not. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God and completely inerrant, and that nothing that we can observe can override this truth, then that’s fine. You have a biblical-based worldview, one where faith overrides all else. I may disagree with such a worldview, but that is my choice, as it is yours.
However, if you say science says that evolution and such are false, and the world is a mere 15,000 years old (or whatever), then you must play by science’s rules. Which means you have to meticulously gather the data, rigorously show how it supports your theory, and show how your theory can be falsified by further research. And you have to do this very carefully, because it will be judged by others knowledgeable in the field, who love nothing better than to show how they are smarter than you are.
Creationism, in all its various guises, has not been able to do so, which is why you see it being promoted in popular venues, and not in the rigorous, peer-reviewed arenas where real science takes place. This is why it is considered pseudo-science.
Whether it is true or not is another story, depending on your faith in scientific methodology and your philosophical outlook, for which YMMV.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I reccomend Voodoo Science by Robert L. Park for a good discussion of disfunctional science.
he doesn't talk about Creationism at all, but many of his points apply.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:(...) I started thinking about what the point of it all was. I was majoring in Mathematics and Computer Science, and was having a hard time seeing what exactly I could do that would be so great. Making the most money was clearly not a great goal in life, neither was any academic pursuit I could think of. The stuff I was the most interested in was the most abstract mathematics and least practical to help people in their daily lives. What good would that do? And I even began to think, even if I had pursued more practical sciences and cured diseases or made people's lives better, what was still the point of that? What was really the point in saving lives? They would die anyway. What was the point of making people happy? People will always have something to gripe about. I was in a spiral that was drawing me dangerously close to complete nihilism and apathy about absolutely everything, except for the fact that I did still cling to the idea of God existing somewhere, and having some sort of solution to this dilemma.
That's primarily the reasoning that drove me to accept a literal interpretation of creation according to Genesis.
This is a prime example of why creationists are usually considered, um, sub-optimally informed. You are basically arguing that if evolution were true, there wouldn't be any point to life, so it can't be true. Surely, if you're 'trained in logic', you can see the fallacy here. Wishful thinking is not a good argument in a factual debate.
Moreover, so what if there's no Cosmic Grand Purpose (tm)? Your life is what you make of it. Falling back on a desperate belief in an outside force because you are incapable of coming up with a good meaning is intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
AndrewR, having thought further about the lightspeed and deay rates issue, I'm no longer certain decays would slow down. I stand by the analysis in my previous posts, but there's a further effect I neglected to consider : If lightspeed is faster, the atomic radius is effectively smaller; that is, you can transfer information from one edge of it to the other in a smaller minimum time. Hence the helium nucleus would knock against its edges more often in a given unit of time, so the probability of a tunneling event per unit time would go up.
Basically, I'm going to have to say that I don't know whether the decay would speed up or slow down. I've reached the edge of what can be done with intuitive, qualitative arguments. You would have to sit down and do some serious math to find out which effect prevails - in principle, they might even cancel out, though that seems a bit unlikely.
In the absence of time and inclination to do such a calculation, I'm willing to take TalkOrigin's word for it.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
fugu13 and AndrewR, it sounds like you are both saying I reject evolutionary ideas because of a philosophical basis and not a scientific one. I think that is absolutely true. However, AndrewR, you state that science is theories that are based on the observable data. While I agree with this too, I have to point out that this is where I started my seeds of doubt in the mainstream scientific agenda, because this definition is not sufficient to show this "works". You've got data, which is collected by observation of some sort. Now you form theories about this data. Do you see what assumptions we've already been making? We have assumed that the data we have collected is accurate based on the accuracy of observation. What makes us think that observation gets us anything that is true? There has to be a reason why we can observe things and know them to be true. You can make an argument that our observational capacity has evolved and natural selection favored organisms who had more accurate observational skills. Or you can say God created reality orderly and also created us with the ability to observe it. Either way, this is not a result of any belief system, it is a part of the belief system itself. Using any existing belief system to "prove" the fact that our observations reflect reality is circular logic: there has to be a starting point.
So there's one assumption you have to make, but most people don't state it, because they think it's too obvious. I think it makes a huge difference.
Second, once you have data, what then? How do you make a theory based on data? In other words, what guarantees that logical, deductive, or inductive, or any other form of reasoning will lead to new truths? Similarly, you have to make another assumption.
Now, I never seriously questioned that either of these two assumptions were wrong, and I don't think anyone without mental illnesses has reason to. But that does not mean that there don't have to be valid reasons for these assumptions, and these reasons have to be taken on faith in some way, because you can't reason your way to proving reason. My point with this is that philosophy undergirds any reasoning, and I now think that to dismiss scientific or pseudoscientific theories or results because they include certain assumptions that a certain group of other scientists deny, is rather unfair.
In the branch of mathematics known as Set Theory, there is a proposition known as the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) which states (as simply as I possibly can, although I don't know how many people reading this will understand it) that the size of the set of all real numbers (the continuum) is the next highest "size class" (cardinality) from the set of natural numbers. It is well known that the Continuum Hypothesis can neither be proven nor disproven from the axioms of standard set theory (ZFC). Now, some people might prove theories assuming that CH is true (i.e. using the axiom system ZFC+CH). Other people might prove theories assuming that CH is false (using the axiom system ZFC+~CH). All of these theories would be equally valid, however, because their proof would state the assumptions of which axiomatic system they are working in, so that although they may never be true in the same system, their reasoning is sound.
Accordingly, I most highly respect scientific studies that most clearly state their assumptions. Since creation science usually states the assumption of starting with a literal biblical worldview, I now have much more respect for it than I once did, especially since I now happen to think their assumptions are true. I also still have much respect for naturalistic scientists that state they have an a priori commitment to naturalism. I do not agree with their assumptions, but I respect their reasoning based on their assumptions. Most of the conclusions I see then, I can agree with, although I am more careful to see where our conflict in assumptions would create conflict in conclusions. What I find most distasteful, however, is science that claims to be objectively true or only "based on evidence". This in my opinion, is more pseudoscientific than anything.
Anyway, AndrewR, you make the comment about creationism being pseudoscientific because it must argue on a scientific ground in order to be viable, but it does not. However, what it seems like you are actually saying is that it must argue on a naturalistic ground. And that defeats the purpose. However, I do recognize that I have seen several attempts of supporters of Biblical creation trying to do just what you suggest. And it still does leave a bad taste in my mouth. I often find that Christians who try to prove the literal biblical accounts using mainstream science do a disservice to both, using both inconsistent theology and biblical interpretation as well as illogical reasoning in their science. I'm sorry to see so many people fall into this pitfall. I do think though, that there are Creation Scientists and ministries out there that also explicitly say they have a philosophical basis for their beliefs in creation, and use science to build from that, not to prove it.
King of Men: I was not trying to argue that my belief was true because I wish it was. If you notice, I was not trying to prove anything - in fact, I would claim that this is something that cannot be proven. Even now, I do not logically deny the possibility that God does not really exist and that evolution is true. Even though my experience and observations and reasoning lead me to think God does really exist, I cannot exclude the possibility that all these factors are inaccurate and I am completely delusional. I also cannot exclude the possibility that God exists, but created us via theistic evolution, for similar reasons. However, I see no point in living nihilistically and even less meaning in worshipping a God that I could not bring myself to care about. So instead, I chose to trust the God of the Bible, which I have found to be the most reasonable of all available choices.
Oh, and yes, I do feel that I am incapable of coming up with good meaning apart from a loving creator external to myself. And if that means by your standard I am intellectually and morally bankrupt, then so be it. Personally, I find myself to be far more intellectually and morally fulfilled than before I came to these beliefs, but I won't stop you from thinking otherwise.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Avin, Conversion stries like yours give me the willies. From a faith/values perspective, I've got no justification for saying that you're wrong, but from a psychological standpoint, you're echoing nearly all of the masochistic cult/facist conversion stories I've read.
If it works for you and gives you meaning, then hey, there you go. But in my opinion, desperation and the idea that "If this isn't true, I have no meaning." form a terrible basis for belief.
---
edit: I really did try to keep that as non-offensive as I could. I'm serious about the cult thing. It reads just like it. That doesn't mean that you are necessarily falling prey to the same thing, but it's enough to give me the willies.
[ April 07, 2005, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
By the way, Avin, how old are you now? You mentioned being fifteen at the time you first started thinking about this.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
I'm 20 now. I'm sorry; I didn't mean to make this all about me - I do genuinely want to know what other people who do not have the same views about science as me think about what science is and more importantly, WHY it works, and WHY what they dismiss as pseudoscience does not work, in their opinion. AndrewR's response has elements, but I'm hoping to delve further than "it works because experience has shown it does". This response does not make an exclusive definition of what science really is, in my opinion. I have never posted my views about creation online before this, mostly because I always saw these discussions degenerate into points and counterpoints citing different websites that successively disproved each other by citing different scientific evidences. However I have seen people here be willing to discuss more philosophical issues related to science, and I am still hoping I can find people here who have consistent justification for their views of science.
MrSquicky: No offense taken. I think that the only time that anyone would really seriously call into question their foundational assumptions is when they are driven to points of desperation in some way - not necessarily the same as mine (which was a search for meaning), but there has to be some reason, nonetheless. The danger in that is that once at that point, people are more vulnerable and can be willing to get caught up in something that could be harmful to them, like a cult. So your concern is definitely legitimate. To be wary of such a danger is always a good thing. Personally, I would not consider what I believe "cultish" because I believe in a book that people have believed in for thousands of years. I am part of a mainline protestant denomination (Episcopal) that has widely varying views on all sorts of doctrinal issues. However, if you consider Christian self-denial (i.e. holding moral values that discourage over-indulgence in sensual pleasures, service of others, etc) "masochistic," then I can't argue against that. I just will have to disagree.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
What about Judaism? Its technically older and a more friendly religion its not the "converting" type which is why I respect it so much, they also hold the beleif that you can go to heaven even if you don't believe in god and there is no concept of hell (from what I hear). I would convert but I don't take the idea of a god seriously enough so it would be in my mind an insult to the religion by putting it almost of the same page as some kind of club.
Now what happens if aliens invade and say that their religion is truer then ours? Dilemnas, dilemnas...
Posted by Alex Brown (Member # 7770) on :
First off, this is not my account, but a friend of mines who knows Sid Meyers here, and I wanna make it clear that I don’t necessarily believe in this article’s arguments. He came to me and told me that he couldn’t read it cause it `went against his beliefs of evolution and I respected that with a slight hint of irony. But then he came back a few months later because it was apparently bothering him a whole bunch. He ASKED ME to dig it up for him. I said I would, but he pushed for me to do it then and there. I eventually found it again and gave it to him. I’m happy he’s refuting it or whatnot, but I really don’t care. While I like a good debate as much as the next guy or two times more , I don’t like being called an “Ignorant Religious Wako who should never be listened to again” . While I am admittedly not a super uber science freak, I am a Jesus freak, and I am surrounded by science all the time seeing as my dad is a science teacher, and we have more text books in our house on science than you could count. I thought this was interesting, and I have tried to follow the posts so far, but I can’t keep up with this `Jargon`` all the time, it’s pretty hard to. Also I haven’t looked at science for a good bit of time now, so it’s familiar, but it doesn’t hit home with me. But there does seem to be some seriously arrogant people here, although some have `covered their tracks` very nicely I might add, along with those who are rationally discussing this as a question. Bottom line is that I am a Christian, and for those who can respect it, that’s cool, for those of you who can’t take that, lock yourself in a box… `we are everywhere ! Anyways, what I want to find out is not what people see evidence for or want to religiously believe, as important as that may be, it’s not quite pertinent to the question at hand. What I want to know is if the speed of light could theoretically, but by scientific laws, be slowing down, and if that could possibly account for our current scientific methods of calculating, or more importantly our interpretations of the calculations we receive, be off by a long shot? By the way, good job Skillery, I like you already .
One last time, I`m not even using my account here, just a friend of mines account, we both know Sid.. So he just had to join this forum, along with I was the one being attacked at the beginning.. and I’m not ignorant, I’m just tired of hearing Sid’s arguments and refuting them, then hearing the same ones again the next day as though I hadn’t said anything. Oh well, Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, because clearly being a Christian means you must reject evolution, and all those Christians who don't (including the late pope) are really fooling themselves about their Christianity.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, I rather suspect I could knock down any (edit: scientific, I don't much care about the others) argument you cared to put up. Just so's y'knows
And on a structural issue, I think you'll find your response rate to be higher given a more structured post.
[ April 08, 2005, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
Begin Macro:
Evolution =\= Atheism, Satanism, Naziism, or Non-Christianity Evolution =\= Atheism, Satanism, Naziism, or Non-Christianity Evolution =\= Atheism, Satanism, Naziism, or Non-Christianity Evolution =\= Atheism, Satanism, Naziism, or Non-Christianity Evolution =\= Atheism, Satanism, Naziism, or Non-Christianity Evolution =\= Atheism, Satanism, Naziism, or Non-Christianity
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Friend of Alex Brown:
quote:there does seem to be some seriously arrogant people here
Don't let that keep you from learning something. (What else are we here for?)
quote:good job Skillery, I like you already
Don't be too quick to choose up sides; my opinions on this matter are still in flux.
Mr. Squicky, fugu13, and King of Men like to give us believers a hard time, but they know their stuff. Ultimately they'll do us good because in my opinion, faith propped up by bad science is worse than blind faith. On the other hand, as OSC has shown, scientific speculation based upon one's faith is a heckuva lot of fun.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: We have assumed that the data we have collected is accurate based on the accuracy of observation. What makes us think that observation gets us anything that is true?
Descartes wound up addressing this at some length. Cogito ergo sum and all that; what it really boils down to is that one perceives, and one is aware of perception, and that awareness validates existence for a given value of existence. In the same way, perception validates the existence of perception; in other words, if you perceive something, there is something that caused you to perceive it -- be that an actual event, a delusion, or whatever. You didn't perceive it for no reason at all.
Science makes an additional assumption: that which happens can be perceived, provided you know how and where to look. This is one of the three basic axioms of science. In my opinion, these axioms are considerably simpler than the axioms required to accept any given religion.
----------
"Anyway, AndrewR, you make the comment about creationism being pseudoscientific because it must argue on a scientific ground in order to be viable, but it does not."
You're misquoting AndrewR. His point is that creationism is pseudoscientific because, while it it must argue on a scientific ground in order to be valid science, its followers do not actually understand scientific principle. This does not mean that creationist "theory" cannot be true without being scientific, but it does mean that it's absolutely impossible to discuss creationism from a scientific standpoint without holding it to scientific standards. And that's where creationism breaks down: it fails every single test of scientific theory, every one.
[ April 08, 2005, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Welcome Avin and other newcomers.
quote: Accordingly, I most highly respect scientific studies that most clearly state their assumptions. Since creation science usually states the assumption of starting with a literal biblical worldview, I now have much more respect for it than I once did, especially since I now happen to think their assumptions are true.
Avin, stating assumptions is not enough to garner respect. A great scientific paper will start off with few assumptions and generate general results with wide applicability.
The broader the assumptions, the weaker the theory.
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
Most current research in biology assumes evolution for the same reason physics assumes gravity.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, there's evidence all over the freakin' place (that the theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution we see, just as the theory of gravity explains the facts of gravity we see).
It could, for instance, be angels moving everything about, and so long as one doesn't think that's science its a scientifically acceptable belief (funny, that). But that doesn't make it science.
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
However, because science is not demonstrated by positive evidence but instead by lack of negative evidence, the important bit is that there is no evidence against evolution today.
We can't say the same about the theory of gravity.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
And I could really trash any theological arguments in favor of "CreationScience". The most obvious being that it is blasphemous to assume that the Omniscient&Omnipotent must use scientific means to Create.
Ya wanna believe in Creation -- even a Creation of seven human-subjective days -- that is fine: it is contradicted by neither evolution nor logic. Nor does a literal Creation contradict anything which can be addressed by science. However, "CreationScience" is a real can of tapeworms which runs afoul of science, logic, and Christian theology.
[ April 09, 2005, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
quote: Ya wanna believe in Creation -- even a Creation of seven human-subjective days -- that is fine: it is contradicted by neither evolution nor logic. Nor does a literal Creation contradict anything which can be addressed by science.
Yes, it does...
The order, the timeframe...
How are you associating a literal six day creation as stated in Genesis with anything that science has found?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because theoretically all that could be byproducts of Creation - the world was created in such a state that it appears as it does now.
Evolution since then contradicts nothing in the Bible.
I don't believe this is what happen, but science can never prove this is wrong.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Science, indeed, cannot prove that the world was not created five minutes ago, complete with our memories of it. However, that would contradict Christian theology, in that it means the creator would be lying to us.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Heh, this is turning into a theological debate. Anyways ya I was a bit disrepectful of my friend before so ya I apologized to him both in email and in person. However apparently its said (by a source that shall remain nameless) that evolution was created by a french person to attack the church and contradicts (supposedly) the first 6 chapters of I forget the bible or genesis I don't remember.
But ya I myself have no problems with religion and my thanks to OSC for widening my viewpoint of other cultures. However, I am a democratic/socialist person and a humanist. I have problems with the whole debate between creationists and evolutionists because so many of their arguements tend to be be barely hiding scorn and insults for the other party. Is it so hard to accept the possibility of BOTH being true? Like possibly God (which one it is you decide) created a rough "skeleton" of the universe in the big bang? And from their everything else happened according to scientific law? For example theres this one girl who joined in a debate about evolution and I felt like leaving the room, she simple didn't believe in the possibility of evol. and laughed it off as something ridiculus that only idiots would believe. Sometimes evolutionists do the same to creationists I'm also disgusted (though I'll be honest and say not as much) with their behavior. If scientists are confident then they can just simply cite the evidence and how their hypothesis hasn't been disproven and can hold their ground as such and not resort to name calling. Creationists also can do the same thing and can try to prove it by as OSC said by constantly failing to disprove their hypothesis.
And now for something random. the Wave!
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
You don't understand that the debate is not between Creation and Evolution; those two ideas are not mutually exclusive -- in dact, science says nothing at all about 'Creation'.
The debate is between Evolution and Creationism, in all its forms: ID, YEC, OEC, Gap, etc.
In that way, yes, it is impossible for both Evolution and, say, YEC to be true.
Evolution and ID could be true, but ID fails as a science.
The point is that Evolution does not say there is no creator and no creation, it simply describes the as-of-yet only scientific way that the diversity of species that we see today arose.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Science, indeed, cannot prove that the world was not created five minutes ago, complete with our memories of it. However, that would contradict Christian theology, in that it means the creator would be lying to us.
But if it were 10,000 years ago, that wouldn't be the case.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I disagree. We observe stars at more than 10000 light-years' distance. If those events never occurred, but a creator is envertheless showing them to us, then that is a lie.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It is our human interpretation that makes that "information." The travel of light is a natural phenomenon. Just because we traditionally interpret that as a record of an event doesn't mean that someone is telling us the event happened. There isn't any question of "lying."
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
So, if the creator created in such a way that it appears to us that an event ocurred that never actually ocurred, it isn't deceiving?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dag, that's just ridiculous. If I create a Photoshop movie of you committing a murder, (and we will suppose that there is no contradictory evidence, and that I am so 1337 that the fake is totally un-spottable) and you are convicted on that basis, am I lying?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course you are. But suppose you make a movie with an absolutely convincing scene of me murdering someone. The movie has a disclaimer at the front ("this is not real"). Years later, the film is discovered. Amazingly, the disclaimer is misinterpreted - the word "not" is not noticed when the film is examined.
You didn't lie.
[ April 09, 2005, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I suppose if you're going to make up a creator you can make up disclaimers while you're at it. But really, I think only a lawyer could consider a disclaimer in tiny print and grey ink at the bottom of a five-hundred-page contract to be non-dishonest.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The point isn't that there is a disclaimer - the point is the people who viewed the film didn't have all the information needed to correctly intepret it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That just puts us in the realm of a meta-lie : The evidence is presented as though it is all there is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Or man's hubris in thinking they understand everything is coming into play.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, sure, blame the victim. It is the responsibility of the presenter-of-evidence to make sure that all the information is included, is clear and accessible, and that his audience understands it as he intended. If the indications that 'this is not all there is' are obscure to the point of non-existence, even to the best minds of the audience, then that is a lie on the part of the presenter.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is the responsibility of the presenter-of-evidence to make sure that all the information is included, is clear and accessible, and that his audience understands it as he intended.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the intent wouldn't be to present information at all, but rather to create a universe.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fine, the lie is a byproduct of the creation. It's still a lie.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, it's not. We haven't gotten an instruction manual that says, "Images viewed from space are the result of light produced by actual events."
We assume that's the case.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And we have excellent and sufficient reasons for doing so. To present such a view, with so many self-consistent details, without a single indication that this is not the real truth - that is a lie.
We are going around in circles on this; unless you can come up with something new, I'm going to drop the discussion before my arguments degenerate into insults.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Look, the mere possibility of a variable speed of light makes this possible with no lying.
Science cannot prove that the Creation story is untrue. It flat out can't.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
All I'm concerned about is how fast this affects the speed of Superman. Is Superman slowing down? Will he be able to get that plucky Lois Lane out of danger in the future? I am troubled.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, Dag. A speed of light sufficiently variable to give a ten-thousand-year-old Universe with the events we see in it would also change the laws of physics so much that stars would not form - so we wouldn't see those events. Of course, you can postulate that God holds those stars together with Deep Magic, but then we're back to lying again.
And I didn't claim that science could prove Creation false, I claimed that it could prove that either Genesis is wrong or Yahweh is lying to us.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, Dag. A speed of light sufficiently variable to give a ten-thousand-year-old Universe with the events we see in it would also change the laws of physics so much that stars would not form - so we wouldn't see those events.
More hubris. We don't know the laws of physics. We certainly don't understand what changes to them are possible and which ones aren't.
Like I said, I don't believe in a young universe myself. But you're kidding yourself if you think the tiny bit of physical understanding of the Universe our brightest minds possess can disprove such a theory.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sorry, but you speak from ignorance. Using only the assumption of causality - that effects do not occur before their causes - we can impose quite strong constraints on what physical laws are possible. And we have quite a good understanding of the physics of stars, thank'ee kindly.
Moreover, you started with just
quote:Look, the mere possibility of a variable speed of light makes this possible with no lying.
and now, one post later, you are introducing additional changes to the laws of physics to compensate. Indeed, if a god is going to all that effort to make lighspeed variable, but changing the other laws of physics to create stars which are in every particular what we would expect from our current understanding of physics - then once more I can only call him a liar.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sorry, but you speak from ignorance. Using only the assumption of causality - that effects do not occur before their causes - we can impose quite strong constraints on what physical laws are possible. And we have quite a good understanding of the physics of stars, thank'ee kindly.
Until VSL, the thought of anything travelling faster than the current speed of light was pretty much scientific heresy. Now it's considered, at least serious enough for publication in peer-reviewed journals, an alternative to inflation. Every time we look, we find out the universe is more complex than we thought. We also happen to have a great big gaping hole in our understanding of gravity.
quote: Indeed, if a god is going to all that effort to make lighspeed variable, but changing the other laws of physics to create stars which are in every particular what we would expect from our current understanding of physics - then once more I can only call him a liar.
Fine. Then you have a meaningless definition of liar and therefore this is pointless.
You don't understand the universe. You don't understand the limits of what's possible. I guarantee you someone is going to discover something that was once thought impossible according to our current understanding of the laws of physics is actually possible. Will God be lying then, too, because he didn't take into account the sheer arrogance of humans who think their understanding of the universe should limit what's possible?
Dagonee
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:the assumption of causality - that effects do not occur before their causes
We're talking about thermodynamics, right?
This could be an interesting topic, because in the LDS faith we do have an example of the effect preceding the cause: people were able to obtain forgiveness of their sins before Christ had actually wrought the atonement.
It would be analogous to kids getting ice cream from the ice cream man before he even drives down the street. The power for this amazing feat would be derived from the surety of the ice cream man's word and the trust that he puts in the kids. He says he's going to drive down the street, and so sure is his word, that something clicks in the universe, and the timing of his visit is no longer a factor. His trust in the kids' willingness to pay for the ice cream also overcomes or satisfies some law, allowing the kids to enjoy the benefits of the ice cream before paying.
Sure this is in the theological realm of reasoning, but it may also lead to some interesting scientific speculaton. If you had sufficient power and knowledge at your disposal, you could undo and redo effects, satisying the law of thermodynamics, without any regard for time or causality. (To state that such a being actually exists is another matter altogether.)
Are there any examples in quantum mechanics of the effect preceding the cause? Quantum tunneling perhaps...where the mere possibility, however unlikely that something will happen, means that it will happen?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dag, I see we are not going to get anywhere on this.
skillery : In quantum mechanics, yes, but that's because quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. In quantum field theory, which takes special relativity into account, there are no such effects. Moreover, causality doesn't apply just to thermodynamics - I'm not sure where you got that idea. It applies to anything you can think of.
In fact, I think it even applies to your example of forgiveness, because the cause of forgiveness is not the atonement, but God's decision that he's going to permit atonement.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Sorry, but you speak from ignorance."
No, KoM, Dag does not. He knows exactly what you mean. What he's trying to point out is that God could easily have created the whole universe -- with conditions as we see it now -- for reasons of His own, and the fact that evidence we now see suggests another origin is a by-product of that choice, not a direct intention. In other words, God felt like creating light in transit (to use one example); He didn't do it to fool us, but we have been fooled by it. There is no way for science or philosophy to dispel this possibility.
Skillery, note also that the LDS God was already aware that the atonement was going to happen. In this case, causality is preserved, since He was the one offering forgiveness in the first place.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thank you Tom, that's much clearer than I've been able to articulate.
Let me reiterate, I don't think he actually did this. Everything I know about cosmology and evolution is compatible with my faith, and I think there's actually a spiritual beauty to both theories as mechanisms for creation.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
TomD:
quote:since He was the one offering forgiveness in the first place
Sounds like a bank loan with a promise to pay. But the bank hadn't yet printed the currency.
King of Men:
quote:causality doesn't apply just to thermodynamics - I'm not sure where you got that idea. It applies to anything you can think of
I think most cause/effect scenarios involve the conversion of energy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Sounds like a bank loan with a promise to pay. But the bank hadn't yet printed the currency."
And, again, nothing violates causality, since God in this case is also the bank. Someone dies, He says, "Okay, a thousand years from now, your afterlife is paid for."
No biggie.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Now it has evolved to the point where we finally have Swerpunkt. The point of concentration or "conflict", yessss.... *sits back top enjoy the show* Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That's 'Schwerpunkt'.
Sorry, Dag, but when you say "We do not know what physical theories are possible" you prove yourself ignorant. There are vast swathes of theories that can be eliminated by very modest assumptions, and much that can be said about what kinds of theories are logically possible. Note, I did not say physically; I said logically. As in, can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"There are vast swathes of theories that can be eliminated by very modest assumptions, and much that can be said about what kinds of theories are logically possible."
Sadly, this isn't always true of God. For one thing, most of those logical inconsistencies can be brushed away with a "we don't know." And in religion, that's an acceptable answer.
BTW, KoM, please stop calling Dag ignorant. It's not only insulting but so inaccurate that it calls into question the quality of your own observations.
[ April 10, 2005, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
When it comes to physics, Dag is indeed uninformed, just as I am uninformed on the finer points of law or Catholic theology.
And 'omnipotent' does not mean that a god can do things that are logically impossible. Again I refer you to the example of creating a rock too heavy to lift.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sorry, Dag, but when you say "We do not know what physical theories are possible" you prove yourself ignorant.
There a many, indeed infinite, theories we could say are impossible. But there an infinite number of theories that are possible. Therefore we don't know what theories are possible.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But we know what kinds of theories are possible. Certainly you can adjust coupling strengths, which gives you an infinite amount of theories right there, but we know what the consequences of that would be.
Now, you can postulate new forces if you like. But then you need to explain why those forces are no longer operating; and remember, the instant you resort to 'divine intervention' I'm going to call 'Liar!' Changing the rules in unpredictable ways is cheating.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Now what happens if god is a 9 year old playing a massive game of Sim Metaverse?
God: Hey look! Theres Earth! Lets get the nearby aliens to invade them and wipe them all out for the hell of it! dah du dah de dum."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now, you can postulate new forces if you like. But then you need to explain why those forces are no longer operating;
At high enough energies, the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces are unified. There's hope/speculation that at even higher energies gravity is unified as well. There is always the possibility than rather than unifying, another force exists at those high energies. Or that gravity acts very differently than how we comprehend it.
Hell, for that matter, the Earth could have been ferried around the universe for a while at near the speed of light while the light traveled from the stars, allowing one day to pass on earth. If the acceleration were great enough, the time slowdown would start almost immediately, right?
quote:and remember, the instant you resort to 'divine intervention' I'm going to call 'Liar!' Changing the rules in unpredictable ways is cheating.
"Changing" the rules in ways unpredictable to us is not cheating. Think of all the things impossible to predict prior to relativity and quantum theories. It's very possible that 100 years ago you would have called it "cheating" to suggest that there is no such thing as simultaneity, that two observers could each observe their own time going more slowly than another's and both be right.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
OK, moving the Earth around gets you bonus points for creativity, I admit. But it also comes under the heading of divine intervention.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But it's specifically not lying, because Einstein proved that each such viewpoint is equally valid.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But there is no natural process that could cause such a thing, so it's still cheating by using means we cannot reconstruct. In any case, it doesn't account for the evidence that the Earth is 4 billion years old.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So now we've moved from the direct evidence of light to the indirect evidence we've interpreted to set the earth's age?
You're changing the rules again.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Sorry to step in, but is the point of this debate whether or not God is lying?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There has to be a point?
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
seemed kinda pointless to me
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My sole point is that a literal intepretation of the Creation stories in Genesis is possible, and does not mean that God lied to us.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
While the lightspeed evidence is possibly the best evidence for an ancient universe, it is hardly the only evidence, nor have I ever claimed it was. So how do you account for radioactive dating, lake layering, and so forth, without divine intervention? Which, incidentally, you still haven't gotten around in the case of the lightspeed evidence, since there's no natural process that would move Easth around so fast and then slow us down.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not trying to avoid divine intervention. I'm positing it. Your specific problem was with the information encoded in the light. I've answered that - in this theoretical creation story it was naturally created and not a lie.
As to all the other evidence, that is our interpretation of something that happened, and there are many more possible, more plausible theories for such things than for the light from the stars objection.
Geologic layering seems the easiest - if there was a globe-encompassing flood, it would have to mess with everything.
Radioactive dating is dependent on the initial ratios of the various isotopes, right?
Again, I don't buy those. I think the evidence for an old universe is fairly compelling. But fairly compelling is a long way from being a lie if it's not true.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, Dag, I can see we're never going to agree on this, so I'm going to let it lie.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I have to roll my eyes at the arrogance of the human race. We are so certain that our theories about the universe are correct, just as people were once so certain about Aristotle's earth-centered model of the solar system. How long till a future "Copernicus" comes along and comes up with a whole new way of looking at things? Yes, I know we are so proud of our current technology, our ability to observe sensitive phenomina, tiny particle paths. And our theories do an excellent job of predicting what will happen. But why should that mean that we understand what is happening?
I can watch the 3 dimensional "shadow" of a rotating 4D object and predict what it will look like next. Does that mean I perceive its true form?
Obviously our theories are not complete since all the loose ends don't tie up neatly. Certainly string theory and M-brane theory have caused us to consider a wildly different understanding of things. If true, they could explain "everything". And yet the evidence to back these theories up is still lacking. Why are we so sure of our understanding of the universe?
Goodness knows I am no creationist. But I would not be suprised should science reveal new information never before considered. Or for that matter, only come to an understanding of it after this life through God revealing all mysteries. In fact, I believe that there are mysteries about the physical universe that science may never reveal.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Bev, the reason some people get so heated about these debates in not that they think science has all the answers now. It is that the alternative is to go backwards. If we decide that our science may possibly be wrong so the Bible must be literally correct about the age and make-up of the universe, we write off finding further scientific discoveries and theories that some future Copernicus may make.
We don't know the answers, but do have a logical and improving system of figuring out what those answers are. Going back to, "My book says A so A is right. If your book says differently, then you are a lieing hateful pagan sinner who must die." is only useful to those who control the churches.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And as for the hoary old Plato's cave analogy, even in an updated form with four dimensions, it is totally useless. It may or may not be true, but you cannot possibly make discoveries with such an attitude. Who cares whether you 'understand' what the four-dimensional object is doing? As long as you can describe it sufficiently to blow up your enemies, what more do you want?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, there are some things we do know.
For instance, just as we know gravity (whatever that is) moves stuff towards other stuff with mass, such as the earth, we know evolution (whatever that is) results in new species coming from existing species, such as with the many speciation events we've observed. Yet there are lots of people out there who insist new species can't happen naturally.
Similarly, there are people who insist there's no natural process to add new genetic information to an organism. I've added new information to a bacteria using only naturally occuring enzymes, in high school AP biology.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But then you need to explain why those forces are no longer operating; and remember, the instant you resort to 'divine intervention' I'm going to call 'Liar!'"
Why? It seems to me that it would be perfectly reasonable, in a thread about divine intervention superceding the laws of physics, to speculate that certain physical forces no longer operate because of divine intervention.
The problem, KoM, is that it IS logical to assume divine intervention. It's just not necessarily right. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Perhaps you misread my post - I'm not calling Dag a liar, I'm calling God a liar. To use divine intervention to make the Universe look as though it is 14 billion years old and was created by natural processes, that's lying.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
King of Men, your labeling God a liar for using divine mechanisms is absurd. What should he use, Genuine GM parts?
Do you think people thought God was a liar when it was proved the Earth is a sphere.
"But, but...I thought we were on a plane! It looks that way. I feel so used."
As Dag points out, the same process will happen again. Knowledge evolves.
And Dag, you've made a valient effort, but a 6,000 year old Earth just contradicts too much science, in too many varied disciplines. True, God could have made the Universe however he wanted, using divine power and miracles. But that is beyond the scope of science.
So you're both right, and both wrong. Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: What, then, is the meaning of it all? What can we say to dispel the mystery of existence?
If we take into account-not only what the ancients knew, but all of what we know today that they didn't know-then I think we must frankly admit that we do not know.
But, in admitting this, we probably found the open channel.
This is not a new idea; this is the idea of the age of reason. This is the philosophy that guided the men who made the democracy that we live under. The idea that no one really knew how to run a government led to idea that we should arrange a system by which new ideas could be developed, tried out, and tossed out if necessary, with more new ideas bourght in-a trial-and-error system. This method was a result of the fact that science was already showing itself to be a succesful venture at the end of the eightennth century. Even then it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of possibilites was an opportunity, and that doubt adn discussion were essential to progress into the uknown. If we want to solve a problem that we never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar.
We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our repsoniblity is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on. It is our responsiblity to leave the people of the future a free hand. In the impetuous youth of humanity, we can make grave erros that can stunt our growth for a long time. This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so young and ingorant as we are. If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming "This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!" we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authoriy, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.
It is our responisblity as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value fo this freedom; to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed; and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations.
-- Richard Feynman
Phew. What a load to type.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Morbo, I don;t object to divine intervention as such, I object to divine intervention which then makes it look as though only natural processes operated.
Now, it's certainly possible that some god created the Earth precisely as described in Genesis (well, one of those accounts, anyway - take your choice) and then made it look 14 Gy old. I don't object to the first part. But the second is a lie, on a literally astronomical scale.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Dan, I agree and that is why I am *not* a creationist. I believe that scientific observation reveals truth. If I thought there were a huge conspiracy to create false truth and cover up true evidence, I might be more intrigued. I am more responding to KoM's assertions that we already understand everything sufficiently to know what is happening.
Sure, we know enough to "blow up [our] enemies", but that isn't anything near what we are talking about here. We are talking about understanding what is actually happening.
How can we ever really know that we do?
I am a science agnostic.
As for me, I really do want to understand "how things work" even while I will always wonder if we *really* understand them. Ever since I was a kid, I was fascinated by such things. I fell in love with string theory nearly two decades ago when I was but a teenager. I knew that before, we always thought of particles as "points" that yet acted like waves. The idea of a vibrating one-dimensional line was so appealing to me as to almost bring up religious sorts of feelings about it. The beauty, the possibilities, entranced me. It made me realize that there are other ways of looking at things, ways that can blow your mind.
And how can we come up with other ways of looking at things unless we are either extremely creative, or we observe something that makes us think of it? Yet, if we are never looking for it, how can we observe it? Especially knowing how subtle the evidence is for many of our current discoveries! I think there is so much that we just don't know yet. I feel like a child looking with wonder upon a magical universe filled with mystery. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually bev, from the early-to-mid-20th century (at least) we knew that light was both particle and wave. String theory still isn't advanced enough to be considered a truth (it has yet to make any testable predictions, or the tests are ongoing).
We are often taught oversimplifications...
-Bok
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Bok: I know. Sorry if I was less than clear.
Edit: What I read about Superstring Theory was out of the Encyclopedia Britanica year book of science. I can't remember the year, though. Late 80s, I think. At the time, a lot of the actual science was over my head. I learned more later from Stephen Hawkings and other sources. As I said, the theory lacks the evidence to be accepted as true. But it is a fascinating look at the possibilities.
And regardless of its truth, it always appealed to me. But "appeal" just isn't scientific. It is more "religious" to me.
[ April 10, 2005, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
This is only tangentially relevant. But I thought it rather interesting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I object to divine intervention which then makes it look as though only natural processes operated."
Why? Are you offended by the thought that God may have wanted a universe 14 billion years old but only wanted to take seven days to make it? Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, yes. That is a bald-faced, outright lie. I object to being lied to, especially on a grand scale like this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't see why that's a lie, exactly. God made it fourteen billion years old because He wanted it that old, perhaps; it's only a "lie" if His intention were to mislead.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
But if God (who is assumed omnipotent) knew that some people would mistakenly misinterpret the data to indicate the universe is 14 billion years old, and He did nothing to prevent such a reasonable misinterpretation, isn't that lying by omission? He allows sincere people to believe something wrong, even though He could easily have prevented it. Isn't that a form of lying?
BTW, KoM, the universe needs only be logically consistent for science. In reality, there is no reason God could not have preformed some one-time miracles that have left no trace. However, making such an assumption immediately takes it out of the realm of science, since there is no possible way to disprove such a contention. It is then a matter of faith, not science.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But if God (who is assumed omnipotent) knew that some people would mistakenly misinterpret the data to indicate the universe is 14 billion years old, and He did nothing to prevent such a reasonable misinterpretation, isn't that lying by omission?
By that logic, He should have made the Earth stationary and the stars fixed points in a rotating celestial sphere, since at one point this was the best interpretation humanity could make.
Why is our current understanding the standard for what would be a lie by ommission? We know far more than we did, and far less than we will.
I think this is based on an assumption that the Universe should be fundamentally understandable to us, and I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make.
Dagonee
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
This discussion is highly amusing. I obviously agree with the points of TomDavidson and Dagonee because I actually believe what it appears they are only defending the "possibility" of. Let me add this point:
Suppose God really did create the world in 6 days recently. KoM, you claim that it is a "lie" to make it seem like the universe is really older than that. However, according to the literal model, in that sixth day God created the first humans who are the descendents of all humans, and walked with them and communicated with them and told them about their creation. Clearly, it is not a "lie" to create a situation in a certain manner, then specify the truthful manner of what happened even if under certain assumptions, if you disregarded what you were told, you could come to a different conclusion. To claim that God was decieving them would be ridiculous, because you would have his direct word. Every human alive would have had this direct knowledge communicated to them from their creator. Subsequent generations should have been able to learn these things from their parents. However, human sin made it so this message became corrupted and twisted, even though it was probably put in writing long before the time of Moses, so God continued to reveal himself again and again through human history, until he finally became human himself.
When you deny the literal truth of the written records handed down to us and assume certain things about what "science" is apart from a creator, you may come up with an old age for the universe. But even now, is that really lying, when we still have his words available? This despite the fact that throughout human history, we have continually rejected God, so why should he still be honest with us anyway? If you accept the Biblical account, you must completely accept it and not just one aspect, such as taking the presented age of the earth out of it and arguing that it contradicts evidence based on naturalism. You have to take the age it presents, and also take the history it presents, especially the knowledge that God intended for us to be in unbroken relation with him, and that it was our own fault that this isn't the case today, and as a result, God cursed all of creation so that we could realize the error of our ways. So we should not expect the creation to be a completely realiable witness to who God is or its own history, if we take it by itself.
Furthermore, when you run into seeming "contradictions," then you stop and look at your assumptions. Is it necessarily wrong to hold some assumptions without question, but to question other assumptions? I would say people do this all the time; when any scientist finds data that doesn't fit the theories, they would not question their observational skills or reason (usually). Rather, they question other scientific theories. Many critics of Biblical inerrancy will cite supposed internal contradictions in the text as a method of disproving it. However, they make the mistake of starting with certain assumptions from outside the text and using it to interpret the text. For instance, people will say the four Gospels contradict each other with the order of events of Jesus' life. This is because they are viewing the gospel accounts as straight biographies, which is clearly not the case. Rather, when you question your assumption that they are biographies while affirming the assumption that they are inerrant, you will realize that since they do not attempt to give a chronological account (except in certain parts of the gospels), there is no point to cling to that aspect of them. However, too many people question the wrong assumption (i.e. that the gospels are the accurate Word of God) and ignore the order of events, which is a net loss because they lose the literary value of why the gospelwriters ordered their accounts in the way they did for thematic purposes.
Likewise, in the Genesis accounts, I would not hold to the fact that the order of events of the six days was necessarily the order they took place in. In my opinion, it's quite likely they are, but it wouldn't destroy my understanding of it if they were arranged that way for literary reasons rather than chronological reasons. But there are aspects of the creation account that do make a significant theological difference, such as the timeframes involved. It also makes a huge difference whether God created a perfect world with no suffering and man rejected it, or God gradually created the world using survival competition resulting in death and suffering as a mechanism for building up to the creation of man. So when there is any argument against those core aspects of my belief, again, I question my assumptions. But not the assumption that I can trust the knowledge my Creator gave us, because to doubt that to me would be to doubt everything and send me spiralling toward nihilism once again. Rather, I call into question the scientific assumptions used to come up with this argument. And I don't find this to be any less intellectually satisfying than most scientists do when they question certain assumptions upon finding inconsistent data but still hold onto others.
[ April 11, 2005, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Avin ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Avin, But that nihilism is purely a consequence of the worldview you created. When you set the world up as either 1) I believe in X or 2) The world and my life is without meaning, then you're going to cling to X no matter what. But there are obviously other options. Vast numbers of people, entire civilizations and historical epochs, in fact, have lived lives they've found meaningful without believing in the same thing you do. Hordes of people have believed the very thing that you're saying would rob life of all meaning and yet they don't seem to be succumbing to nihilism. There are other options besides the two you're limiting yourself too.
It's fine if what you blieve brings you meaning, but it should be a positive thing, and not in the sense that it is what holds off the sense of meaningless that you feel.
I also don't agree that desperation is the only state in which we re-examine our fundamental beliefs. The drive towards a static belief state is one of the things I find need changing in our culture. Of course, by the way I see the world, God is the obvious villian in the Garden of Eden story, so there's certainly room for other interpretations.
---
Incidentally, I probably used masochistic in a confusing context there. The technical meaning I was going for differs a lot from the common understanding of it as pain-fetishizing. I was trying to use it in the context of sort of submission in the sense of submerging oneself into something else in order to avoid the anxieties incumbent on being a limited individual.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:order of events of the six days was necessarily the order they took place
Like when God said: "let there be light," and afterwards created the sun and the moon.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
You're right; there are more options than what I was letting on. I'm sorry I worded things that way. I was referring to the consequence of naturalistic evolutionary thought as being nihilistic, in my opinion. Theistic evolution is less so, but to me seems to be contradictory, depressing, and a product of compartmentalized religion. Regarding naturalistic evolution, I do fail to see how to establish any meaning to anything if it were true. However there are plenty of other worldviews that do have a lot more meaning attached; to me these primarily consist of worldviews now considered "primitive," such as tribal religions with their own creation stories indicating purpose to our lives. From my current point of view though, I view those with respect in that I believe they all contain an element of truth in that they all originated with the truth of the same God I believe in now, but were corrupted or changed as time went on because of the peoples' rebellion against God.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Avin, I believe in naturalistic evolution (I think, I'm not entirely sure if I've got your meaning corecct. I'm talking about a non-intelligently guided process of evolution) and yet I find my life and worldview full of meaning, as do plenty of other people who hold that belief. It is possible. If you fail to see how there could be any meaning in it, it's possible that the fault lies in how you're looking at and not necessarily the belief itself.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Okay explain to me how indians in polynesia who never heard of christianity could possibly rebell against a god of some form?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
One example of old science being shunned because of its ties to religion, to be replaced by new science, only to be replaced by a new version of old science is the geologic concept of catastrophism .
When I studied geology at BYU back in 1978, the textbooks and professors were all preaching the notion of uniformitarianism. That is that nothing happens suddenly or briefly in this world; geologic processes operate slowly and uniformly over eons of time. That this idea would be taught at an LDS university shook many of us kids up, and there were a lot of questions in class about Biblical catastrophes and such. Our professor warned us that the religious view would get us nowhere in professional life, and it would earn us a failing grade in class. I dropped out of the program.
Then Walter and Luis Alvarez came along in 1980 and turned the scientific world on it's ear with their theory of a comet or meteor impact causing a mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous period. Their theory caught on, and now neo-catastrophism is widely embraced. Unfortunately for me, it's too late to get back into geology.
So don't give up your religious beliefs because of a scientific theory, and don't give up your science study when it clashes with your religion.
Re: Polynesia: Regardless of what culture or people you are talking about, I believe they descended from Noah and his family, and hence Adam and Eve. So their ancestors took part in the original fall and rebellion against God. Furthermore, their specific ancestors (i.e. the ancestors unique to their people) would have been dispersed from the rest of humanity at the Tower of Babel. At some point in time, whether immediately after that or a while after that, they would have distorted or abandoned the teachings and history they knew to what we can see today.
And I don't know about Indians that live in Polynesia; I wasn't aware that there were that many Indians living there, but I could be wrong. Being originally Sri Lankan, I am somewhat aware of the religious history of my people, and I find the further back you go, you are almost guaranteed to find some God who is pre-existent and apart from his/her creation. A basic look at wikipedia reveals this to be the case for at least the Samoan peoples (I randomly picked them from the groups listed from Polynesia), and in fact shows evidence of a deified first man and woman myth connected to it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I know I said I was going to let this lie, but...
Dag, I'm not demanding a creator make the universe conform to the current theory, I'm demanding he make it possible in principle to find out what really happened. That is not possible if at some point a magic wand was waved and there was light, or a fast-moving Earth, or whatever.
Avin's point about having the words available is moderately well taken, except that it doesn't account for all the people without access to the Bible. Not to mention that you still have to choose which creation account in the Bible you're going to accept.
But really, why would you accept either? I mean, this is the creation account of a nomadic tribe in the desert, 3000 years ago. Why give them special status? They are moderately interesting as anthropology and history, but of complete irrelevance to any other science.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm demanding he make it possible in principle to find out what really happened.
And this is what I think is arrogance. There's no particular reason it should be possible in principle to find out what happened.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And this is what I consider a ridiculous and humiliating crawling before false idols, and beneath the contempt of any civilised person.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
That might be a little too strongly worded, there, King.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think that point long since passed . . .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And this is what I consider a ridiculous and humiliating crawling before false idols, and beneath the contempt of any civilised person.
This doesn't even make sense, KoM. Why should we be able to understand the very forces that created us? If the universe is an entirely natural process, why would it be such that we could understand it all? And if it's not, if it was created by a supernatural act, why would we be able to understand it completely? It's an unfounded assumption either way.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
To make a universe too complicated for humans to grasp is one thing, as long as it could in principle be grasped (without prior knowledge) by some sufficiently superior intelligence. I'm not convinced this is actually possible - I have a high opinion of human intelligence - but it wouldn't be dishonest. But to make a universe that is actually deceptive, impossible even in principle to figure out from the inside, that's dishonest. And, from a god who then goes on to say "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free", hypocritical as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, a Universe with discontinuities seems perfectly plausible to me. By discontinuities, I mean places where mulitple sets of prior conditions, known by someone inside to any level of detail, could lead to current conditions.
If such discontinuities exist, then we couldn't know the past with any certainty.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm not arguing plausibility, but dishonesty. And, if such a thing came about from the operation of non-miraculous physics, you would still be able to infer a lot about the general course of history. Certainly you would be able to distinguish fourteen billion from six thousand!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But it's not dishonest unless there's a particular reason you should be able to tell. And there isn't.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And I say again : "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." If truth is inherently unknowable, how is this honest?
And in a universe containing the christian god, knowing the truth is curst important, since he seems inclined to punish you for all eternity if you make a mistake!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If truth is inherently unknowable, how is this honest?
You're stuck in your scientist's paradigm that nothing is knowable that isn't scientifically confirmable.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And you're stuck in your religious paradigm which says that emotion is a substitute for knowledge.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, I'm the one who acknowledges that science is only one way of learning truth.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
well, this is productive.
*hands out cookies*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"All religions are true, for a given value of truth." If you insist on sticking to an ancient lie told for the comfort of children and the justification of warfare and rape, I can't stop you. But I don't see where I have to take you seriously.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's like deja vu all over again.
*takes cookie* Thanks, fugu! *munches*
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
*steals all the cookies and runs out of the thread*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*chases*
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
I heard there were cookies in here....
Hey! Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*munches*
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*quietly slips a couple to Achilles*
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Cookies are a sometimes food!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Cookies make elmo Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:To make a universe too complicated for humans to grasp is one thing, as long as it could in principle be grasped (without prior knowledge) by some sufficiently superior intelligence.
I hadn't thought of the possibility that God created the universe. I always thought that God was part of the universe, just as we are. If there was a big bang, then God had a beginning as a member of that universe. If there wasn't a big bang, then the universe always existed, and God always existed.
If there was a big bang, then there could have been an infinite number of big bangs and an infinite number of universes preceding this one.
If any of those infinite number of universes gave rise to intelligent beings capable of understanding any of the laws of that universe, there is a chance that among those intelligent beings in all those trial universes there was one which was able to grasp all the laws or truth that could be comprehended in that particular universe. That universe would then by definition have a god.
Maybe there have been universes without intelligent beings, and maybe there have been universes without gods, but given an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches, sooner or later there's going to be a universe that has something close to a god.
Personally I don't believe in the big bang. I believe that the universe and everything in it always existed and that nothing exists outside of this universe. I believe that the universe continues infinitely in all directions and that it contains an infinite amount of matter.
We already know that our universe contains intelligent beings. Somewhere in the infinite expanse of the universe, we would expect to find a being with a lot of intelligence...enough intelligence to figure out how to organize matter and how to organize other intelligent beings.
We begin at that most-intelligent being's point of origin and start organizing matter and beings. As we exhaust the available materials we move outward as an organizational wave front into the unorganized universe with an infinite amount of unorganized matter and unorganized beings spread out ahead of us. As we look back we see that all other organized matter in the universe is red-shifted and is moving away from us. That's a good thing!
But maybe, as you say, God created the universe and is somehow outside or above or beyond the universe. I can't comprehend such a god.
Or maybe there is no god. Maybe nobody in the entire universe has yet figured out enough laws and truth to set his program in motion.
Or maybe there is a god somewhere out there, and we are not (yet) caught up in his organizational wave front.
Call it god's play. But what else is a supremely intelligent being going to do with all that time and with all that matter?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, skillery, I was with you right up to the point where you said "I think I'm smarter than the world's best scientists." Pseudo-philosophical speculation is a fine thing, but not when it conflicts with actual ecvidence.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:when it conflicts
You're talking about background radiation...evidence of the big bang, right?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
There are a couple of little tidbits of doctrine in my faith which I'm not likely to give up just because they are currently out of favor in the scientific community:
"Matter as well as spirit (intelligence) is eternal, uncreated, self-existing. However infinite the variety of its changes, forms and shapes; however vast and varying the parts it has to act in the great theater of the universe; whatever sphere its several parts may be destined to fill in the boundless organization of infinite wisdom, yet it is there, durable as the throne of Jehovah. And eternity is inscribed in indelible characters on every particle."
"Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos - chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end."
"The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end...There never was a time when there were not spirits (intelligences); for they are co-eternal with our Father in heaven."
"God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself."
There is no room in these statements for belief in any big bang theories. I am confident that the scientific community will eventually be able to back these statements up.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So remind me again, when was the last time religious doctrine found itself backed up by evidence? The track record of churches is zero in this matter.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, I see nothing in those statements necessarily contradicting the big bang.
Though I'm a little mystified why y'all are still jawing instead of eating the cookies I brought.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm on a virtual diet : Only healthy virtual food for me.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
I thought that the big bang theory suggests that there was nothing before the big bang - no matter in any form, not even space.
Am I wrong?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
The Berkeley Site (they're the experts on cosmic microwave background):
quote:The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.
Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of photons. Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons. Eventually huge numbers of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium nuclei formed. The process of forming all these nuclei is called big bang nucleosynthesis.
Well, if photons can be considered particles, then maybe we can agree that matter always existed.
Edit: But the big bang theory also suggests that there is a finite amount of matter in the universe, which I don't buy.
[ April 12, 2005, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: skillery ]
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
COOKIE! Cookie cookie cookie starts with C!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
Oh, no. Not that opera! Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
It seems to me that ultimately all the arguments here still come down to which authority are you going to trust.
Science trusts observations over almost everything else, since it is believed that we cannot influence what the universe does (except for a bit in quantum mechanics, of course, but there's always an exception ). If a verified observation does not agree with a theory, then the theory must be changed to agree with the observation.
Faith trusts something else--a book, a feeling, an unprovable philosophy--over almost everything else. If a verified observation does not agree with the faith, then the observation (or the theory that explains it) must be wrong.
The problem with faith is that there is no universal means of testing it. Each individual must decide if they agree with it or not, and each individual's opinion is as good as the next persons. The problem with science is that it is limited to what is observable and what can be deduced from that. It is also subject to the agreement of those observing the events and what has been observed.
I consider science a better way of determining reality because (as I stated before) I believe that the universe is out of our control, and so acts as a dispassionate arbiter for our theories. You can have the most beautiful, logical, all-encompassing theory ever seen, but if it doesn't fit the facts, it's ruled out.
As a final note, please remember that whenever someone says "eventually science will bear this out," that is a statement of faith, not science. There is no way to know if "eventually" will ever come. Science must deal with the facts we have now, and the ones we can look (test) for.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Not long ago I watched a TV program that claimed that not only are the objects in the universe moving away from each other, but that they are moving away from each other at exponential speed. Has anyone else heard this? Why haven't we heard more about it?
On the surface it seems obsurd. We can come up with no provable reason *why* this would happen. (In fact, I see this happening a lot in science. We can't come up with provable reasons why things happen, so we jump to conclusions. Since the conclusions do a good, practical job of describing observed phenomena, they are favored and used, even believed.) And yet, exponentially speeding up expansion is what we are "observing". As explained before, I am not one who believes observing is the end-all-be-all of knowledge. I believe our ability to observe is handicapped by our assumptions *and* our lack of knowledge. How much of our scientific "knowledge" is false because it is based on faulty assumptions?
Anyway, among the brilliant minds here, what are your thoughts on this observed phenomenon?
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
I have no idea how correct this is, but that would make sense to me. If the universe was expanded from a singularity the size of a dime, then the expansion would indeed be travelling radially outward, or away from each other. Newtons law of motion says everything that is in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force, and I don't think there's friction in space, thus they would continue to move. The outward expansion would be changed if the moving object encountered an astronomical gravitational force from a planet or star.
__
quote:We can't come up with provable reasons why things happen, so we jump to conclusions. Since the conclusions do a good, practical job of describing observed phenomena, they are favored and used, even believed. How much of our scientific "knowledge" is false because it is based on faulty assumptions?
If they do a good job of describing observable phenomenon, how are they faulty?
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
The original point of the thread was to determine if it was possible for the SoL to become a variable and if it was linked to radioactive decay rates. We have determine that it is possible, next we should determine if it is.However a post on page 2 explains that if the decay rate from 175,000 years ago matches todays rates perfectly then there is no change in the speed of light. Now if there has been no change in the speed of light (thus no change in our perception of time thus a dynamic clock matches the atomic clock) then the creationist scientist arguement in favor of a YEC can be safely refuted. If evidence had been otherwise then there would be cause to support the YEC view point. The discussion on wether nor not god (which one you bow to) is lying to us is now quite old and possibly ridiculas.
Now however I have a new theory, does anyone here think that it is possible that when the story of Genesis was told that God told it simple fashion because early man could not understand quantum/meta/theoretical physics? ANd it is ultimately up to us to explain it all to ourselves????
Randomness! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"does anyone here think that it is possible that when the story of Genesis was told that God told it simple fashion because early man could not understand quantum/meta/theoretical physics?"
Sure, it's possible. Unlikely, but possible.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: is lying to us is now quite old and possibly ridiculas.
What a ridiculas way of spelling ridiculous Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
No, kaioshin, according to this TV show, they are speeding up. At an exponential rate. This is not behaving the way an explosion in space would, where after the forces accelerating them stop, they continue to expand at a steady rate. Does this make any sense to anyone?
Edit: They are speculating that there is a force that runs counter to gravity on a large scale that is pushing objects away from each other.
Edit2: An article on the subject. And this article discusses that and some other interesting observations that do not match what was expected in our current theories.
Seriously, why do we think we understand the universe when it keep surprising us?
[ April 12, 2005, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Though I'm a little mystified why y'all are still jawing instead of eating the cookies I brought.
It's because your cookies are beneath the contempt of any civilised person, fugu. You really shouldn't have gone with the store brand.
Avin, I'm curious what you consider the hallmarks of a primitive belief system to be. Could you elaborate on that a bit?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Skillery, let me blow your mind and your philosophy with one idea...
God the Creator of Everything created everything in the universe--including TIME!
You can not ask "Where was God before he created the Universe" because God created Time.
That is hard for the limited finite human mind to grasp, but physicists have been dealing with time as a thing for over a century.
If they can do so, then God certainly can.
I was stuck in the debate of "what existed before God made the Universe" then I took physics and realized there was on when before the universe and time were created.
However, since we mere mortals live along linear time, that is all we normally assume there is.
Perhaps the eternity in heaven won't be what we expect, a long and possibly boring time, but an eternal existance outside of time.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:they are speeding up. At an exponential rate.
Do you mean that the speed of light will eventually be exceeded?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I imagine it would take awhile, since mass increases as acceleration does. I dunno. It all sounds like hogwash to me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Certainly big bang theory suggests that, but only in a scientific sense. As the LDS church already posits a physical heaven that is undetectable to (living) science, positing other matter that is scientifically undetectable is equally reasonable.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Dan_raven:
quote:You can not ask "Where was God before he created the Universe" because God created Time... However, since we mere mortals live along linear time, that is all we normally assume there is.
What blew me away was that article in the September 2002 issue of Scientific American that asserted that time doesn't exist at all - that time is merely a byproduct of the sequential nature of human perception and memory.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
quote:Seriously, why do we think we understand the universe when it keep surprising us?
No one really understands the universe, and only those who deceive themselves believe they do.
On the other hand, everyone believes they understand a good part of the universe, or at least those parts that are practical to us. Otherwise, how could anyone live, if you're not sure there will be a coffee pot in the kitchen in the morning?
What it all comes down to, though, is what do you trust to determine what is true? Do you trust what you see and hear and feel, the observable? Or do you trust feelings and revelations?
Both are unreliable. Science does revise itself (although not as much as some creationists believe--lately, revisions look very much the same as the original theories, with only slight modifications of the details). Also, science is limited to what can be observed. The invisible is, by defintion, beyond what science can observe.
Feeling and revelations are notoriously unreliable, of course. Just compare how many different, contradictory versions of reality are based on these. However, that does not mean one may be true, or even parts of all.
Who knows which is superior. (I prefer science, as stated in a previous post.) It comes down to "you put down your money, you take your chances."
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:positing other matter that is scientifically undetectable is equally reasonable.
In my little half-baked philosophical model of the universe, if there is unorganized matter in the path of the expanding organizational wave front, that matter has yet to be acted upon - there would be no detectable energy returning from that region of space.
Beverly, if there is an expanding organizational wave front with the purpose of processing the unorganized universe beyond, then the arc of available unorganized space ahead of any segment of the organizational front would become increasingly narrow. It would make sense to increase the speed of the expansion.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: As the LDS church already posits a physical heaven that is undetectable to (living) science
Does it? Is it? I dunno. There isn't any "doctrine" on it, but why would the "LDS" heaven look different than any number of celestial bodies? While it isn't doctrinal, many LDS believe that God lives on a planet of some sort.
As for me, I don't really have an opinion on the matter one way or the other.
On the bizarre observations of our universe, just because I say it "sounds like hogwash" to me, doesn't mean I believe it is hogwash. I don't believe one way or another, since I am a "science agnostic". But that is the sort of reaction that many non-believers have towards a God-created universe. It makes me wonder why.
Certainly many scientists "contradict" each other in their "faith" in different theories in a variety of sciences. Some favor one, some another. They can be quite fervent about it--even unshakable. All this dispite the same evidence being available to all. I am just drawing parallels. Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Lan Party at Skills place!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: So remind me again, when was the last time religious doctrine found itself backed up by evidence? The track record of churches is zero in this matter.
King of Men.
I read something a few years back that claimed that the timing of the bris, or curcumcision, at 8 days (?) after birth, is near-perfect timing to allow the wound to heal. I think because of the state of an infant's immune system.
And kosher laws similarly--if you store meat and dairy products together, both spoil faster. Important info before cooling and canning.
quote:...the objects in the universe moving away from each other, but that they are moving away from each other at exponential speed. Has anyone else heard this? Why haven't we heard more about it?
Beverly, I have heard of this. I haven't dug into it, but I think the data may be incomplete and premature. Why haven't we heard of this? Those who are interested in cosmology (not many) have. It brings a collective yawn from most folks.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'd point out that any physical/medical benefits that come with brit or kosher laws are not the reason. Merely side benefits.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Beverly, I have heard of this. I haven't dug into it, but I think the data may be incomplete and premature. Why haven't we heard of this? Those who are interested in cosmology (not many) have. It brings a collective yawn from most folks.
In otherwords, most people are skeptical? Too weird to be believed? Or is it just not amazing to anyone else? I was pretty amazed.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Like I said, I haven't studied it. I was surprised to hear about it, but coming along with or after dark matter and dark energy, it's just one more weirdity.
I think it's amazing that we are still fairly clueless about dark matter and energy.
[ April 12, 2005, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
ACtually "dark energy" is the current abstract concept that describes the increasing of expansion. What "dark energy" is remains unsolved (though there are theories).
-Bok
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Thanks for clarifying, Bok. I thought they might be related, but not that one was an explanation for the other.
Actually, I only heard about dark energy through Hatrack, not too long ago.
[ April 12, 2005, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
And now I think our friend Sid Meier wants his speed-of-light thread back.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Ya, darn Tyler (Alex brown) for changing the subject. Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
I want my thread back! You people with your theotical views on weather or not god is lying to us and hitjacking my thread... *mumble* *mumble* Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
And why should your thread be any different? Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
is was originally my thread, last time i checked in forum charter of rights my thread is what I want it to be, you people stealing my thread by jingo. Either way... WHERE ARE THOSE COOKIES!!!!!!!! Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Sorry, I only had a couple.
Ask rivka....
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:apparently light was 8x faster in King David's day
Hang on...
λ = c / f
If the human eye has not changed (and how could it in just 3000 years?), then the frequency of the visible spectum would have been eight times what it is now.
I wonder if young King David had black light posters in his bedroom.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
i think its believed that while c was faster our perception of time was different, to us 50 years is 50 years to them its the same but to physics its different. What I'm trying to get at is is it so??
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Gold would have looked black since it's not a very good reflector of UV.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Sid, if you can believe light was faster back then, without evidence, then you can believe physics was different back then, without evidence.
Or, no, it's not so, AFAWK, at least I haven't seen anything that supports it except for desperate hypotheticals from young earth creationists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Let me jsut note that if you change lightspeed that much, the human body collapses from changes to chemistry. Atom binding energies would be completely different. So, short of constant divine intervention to change the physical laws in accordance with lightspeed, this is impossible.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
yesss... solwly reclaiming my thread...
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
And beings that were intended (or evolved) to cook with fire would have needed to be able to see at least a little red and orange. "Mom, I burnt my feet again." "Well dear, there might be hot coals there where you're standing."
Or did cooking fires back then give off UV? Nice tan dude!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
But when I examined this problem previously, I recall deciding that the electric force would have to increase with an increase in the speed of light. Am I mistaken?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
. While I am admittedly not a super uber science freak, I am a Jesus freak, and I am surrounded by science all the time seeing as my dad is a science teacher, and we have more text books in our house on science than you could count. I thought this was interesting, and I have tried to follow the posts so far, but I can’t keep up with this `Jargon`` ![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
! Anyways, what I want to find out is not what people see evidence for or want to religiously believe, as important as that may be, it’s not quite pertinent to the question at hand. What I want to know is if the speed of light could theoretically, but by scientific laws, be slowing down, and if that could possibly account for our current scientific methods of calculating, or more importantly our interpretations of the calculations we receive, be off by a long shot? By the way, good job Skillery, I like you already ![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
and I’m not ignorant, I’m just tired of hearing Sid’s arguments and refuting them, then hearing the same ones again the next day as though I hadn’t said anything. Oh well, ![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)