|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Physical Laws ....What if they were different before? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Would fantasy get a pass at your school?
How do you change the mass of the sun and still have this solar system?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Please provide a link to where I claimed flying pigs exist.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
I just want to correct the quote foreveryoung used since it lost all formatting it seems.
Here is a quote with the formatting.
quote: What he is proposing is an object with less mass than Mars undergoes nuclear fusion. So let's place a mass less than Mars, considerably less than Mars, less than Mercury which has a mass of 3.3 x 1023 as the sun for this solar system. Well, first off, we wouldn't have this solar system. Sure, we can imagine changing the laws so that something with a mass many orders of magnitude smaller than Mercury is the central star, but something that small even if it could undergo nuclear fusion, is too small to hold anything like Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, the Oort Cloud. Of course we can imagine all of them having equally reduced masses. So again it's possible to imagine a Universe where the laws and constants are different than here, but it's impossible to have THIS universe.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
foreveryoung writes: I don't believe things just so that it will contradict science. I know that is your impression of creationists. Perhaps that description fits some of them. 4.56 billion years is a ridiculous amount of time for mankind to be around and for the bible to be absolutely silent about most of that time. The bible says all the original animals were created whole and did not come from prior animals. It specifically says they were created in a 2 day period. That does not allow for darwinian evolution. We do know that evolution has occurred and is occurring right now. Darwinian evolution requires millions of years to work. Darwinian evolution is in direct contradiction to the creation of animals in a 2 day period. Created animals that came off the ark with environmentally cued evolution preprogrammed into their genes does not require millions of years to work. 1 million years is sufficient time to get todays diversity from a couple thousand of originally created animals. The 1 million year figure comes from the absurdity of expanding 20 generations in a genealogy to several million generations of humans who are not even mentioned in passing. It also comes from the necessity of providing an explanation for the fossil record and observed evolution that does not contradict the clear wording of scripture regarding the creation of animals. That's really a great summary of the problem you face. The answer is really pretty simple, the Creation Myths in the Bible are simply wrong. The Bible is factually wrong about many things, but then the Bible was written by men, men that simply had far less knowledge then even little kids today. The problem is that reality and ALL of the evidence is simply in direct contradiction to much of what is written in the Bible.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You would know because change leaves evidence.
It's possible to imagine a universe where the physical laws are different, but it would not be THIS universe. AbE: See Message 5, Message 12, Message 20, Message 41, Message 48, Message 59, Message 125 and Message 141. Edited by jar, : add AbE links.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There was a study IIRC (remember I'm old and so often forget things)...(where was I? )... (oh yea)... about two years ago out of Cambridge and one of the Australian universities that did show very slight changes to the electromotive force in a few far different galaxies. I'm not sure about any follow up studies.
The point is we can look and science has looked for evidence of changes. Changes leave evidence. And IIRC the changes they did find were only of the magnitude of a few parts per million. And none of that has any relevance to the Earth and during its history.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
That is because we don't believe something just because an atheist tells us to believe it. This is an important point for you to understand and address. No atheist has told you to believe anything. What atheists and agnostics and theists and Christians have been telling you is "Look at the evidence. What does the evidence tell you?". If you MUST put a Christian theological spin on the subject, consider this point of view. GOD created all that is, seen and unseen. Therefore, the universe we observe is the direct work of GOD. We do not know who wrote the Bible or even what works should be included in a Bible or what any of the original documents said or who was on the various Committees of Canon and so cannot say the Bible is anything but the work of man. When we must decide between the evidence that is this universe and what is written in a Bible story, we MUST as Christians accept what GOD wrote (the universe) over what man wrote (the Bible).Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Yup, and if we can detect changes that are that small we could certainly detect changes like foreveryoung has proposed.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If true errors have crept in along the way, it is not a supernatural book and cannot be trusted and should simply be thrown into the trash. You either believe God had the ability to preserve it through the ages or he didn't. Well, the Bible was never meant as a scientific text and yes, regardless of what someone might believe, it is factually wrong in many cases. Sorry about that.
The rocks do not necessarily record an earth that is billions of years old. Of course the rocks record an earth that is billions of years old, and that was known long, long before anyone knew anything about radiometric dating. Read through Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. for the evidence of that. Consider the lowest exposed level of the Grand canyon, the Vishnu Schist. In your studies have you covered how schist is formed yet? Read How to make sand.. Consider how to make sand. First, raise up and wear down a mountain...Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Think it through.
Read what you write.
Much of the sand of the grand canyon is not fluvial. It is marine and aeolian in nature. Which means that seas must be created and the mountain worn down to provide the marine sediment and then the land raised up to eliminate the sea and more mountains worn down to build the next layet to cover the earlier one and bury it deep enough to cause metamorphism. And again, you are imagining changing rates. Change leaves evidence. Where is you evidence? Read the thread Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up..Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You are using it as a science text.
We know for a fact that the Biblical flood, whichever of the different contradictory Bible Flood myths you select, never happened. See No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood. You have presented no evidence to support that any of the Physical Laws have changed and you have been shown evidence from right here on this earth that shows that at least for 1.5 Billion years those laws have not changed and from the stars that shows no change in many billions of years. Until you can present evidence to support your position you have nothing.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Take a look at Conclusion vs Presupposition which may also help you.
It concerns the Green River varves and conclusions versus presuppositions. If we look at the evidence what we find is a long, long history showing that what we see happening today, what we see related to physical laws, to process is what has been happening here on earth as long as there has been an earth. That is yet another conclusion based on the evidence, not a presupposition based on a belief that some Bible story must be true.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Sorry that you feel that way, but there are still many questions you have left unanswered.
How do you change the mass of objects like the sun and our planets without leaving evidence? How do you change the nature of the energy of radioactive decay without leaving evidence? How do you change the rate of continental drift, raising and eroding of mountains without leaving evidence. How do you accelerate decay (remember Bikini? ) without leaving evidence? How does accelerated decay change the age of a sample? Where is the evidence of any such changes?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Do you remember Message 5?
We dealt with the speed of light issue way back then. E=Mc2. If you change the speed of light you change Energy. We have radioactivity decay rings from the Oklo reactor going back 1.5 BILLION years. Yes, billion. Those decay rings match decay rings made today. Ergo; the speed of light has remained the same for at least the last 1.5 Billion years based JUST on the evidence found here on Earth. Edited by jar, : fix sub-titleAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Of course my conclusion follows directly and only from the evidence, that is one of the nice things about this example; like the proof that the Biblical Flood never happened it is simple.
The equation is really simple, only three factors; energy, mass and the speed of light. We have radiation rings (spheres actually) from the Oklo reactor that we can compare to radiation waste from today. For each element, the spheres are the same as they are today. As explained in Message 5:
quote: E=mc2. If you want to keep the energy the same you then need to change the mass and that was dealt with in Message 20.
quote: So we can say with a very high degree of confidence that mass has not changed at least for the duration of existence of this solar system. And that covers all the parts of E=mc2. Unless and until you can show comparable evidence to what I have presented, the conclusion does follow from the evidence.
It's possible to imagine a Universe where the laws and constants are different than here, but it's impossible to have THIS universe. But maybe you want to speculate on some form of accelerated radioactive decay? Well that too would leave evidence. First, Oklo shows that accelerated radioactive decay did not play a part. How can I say that with confidence? Well, accelerated radioactive decay has been observed and the evidence documented; consider Bikini Atoll, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, all of the Nevada tests.
Change leaves evidence Now, if you want to say "Despite all of the evidence I will simply believe in magic", then that's fine, but this is over in one of the science forums and here you are expected to either present evidence or reasoned logic to support your position. What you need to do is explain how mass can be changed and leave the solar system as we find it today; how the speed of light could be changed without changing the radius of radioactive decay spheres; how radioactive decay could be accelerated without leaving evidence. It's a tough challenge and so far no one has ever been able to do it, so don't get too disappointed should you fail.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024