Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
You know, that is a very good point. If one is to accept that there is a God and it created this universe is any way contrary to our perception, then A Decietful God is the only Logical Conclusion.
The evidence thus far certainly compels the Creationist to believe in a decietful Creator.
Originally Posted by DrkSdBls
But, Why is it that the possiblity of a Decietful God existing is so hard for someone to Accept when looking at the evidence of it.
I have no idea. I am also baffled as to why theists seem unable to accept the possibility of a deity/Creator who isn't omnibenevolent.
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Perhaps, but only if c increased now. In our hypothetical scenario, c is higher in the past.
If it is still decreasing, then it must be doing so with an extraordinarily high exponent: c has not appeard to changed in the however-many decades it's been measured for.
It is safe to say that it hasn't changed for the 13.4 billion years that photons have been moving across our universe. Not that you disagree, but it is worth pointing out.
E = m*c^2. By the energy conservation law, an increase in c requires a decrease in m such that E is constant (namely, the ratio of the low m to our m is equal to the square of the ratio of the high c to our c).
I never thought of it from the first law of thermo POV. How does this affect the gravitational constants?
I'm stepping out of my comfort zone, so please correct me if I misstep. Einstein's general theory equates gravity to acceleration which seems to be independent of c. So we can (I hope) assume that gravity is unaffected by a change in c. If mass is decreased by energy remains the same then the Sun would have acutally been smaller in the past. Why? As I stated before, a star's size is determined by two opposing forces: the outward pressure produced by fusion (governed by E=mc^2) and gravity. The rate of fusion is also governed by mass and gravity. The more mass there is the more fusion reactions per second which is why large stars burn hotter and faster than smaller stars. Would this mean that stars would be the same size if 1) c changed, AND 2) energy is conserved?
Of course, this is all Creationist-level science, and is therefore baloney. c is a constant
We are still within the realms of std. science. We haven't added magic yet.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
Assumptions are made about the characteristics of the universe which may not be valid.
Which is why those assumptions are tested. The speed of light in a vacuum is a well tested and well supported assumption. For example, microsecond puslars and Supernova 1987a clearly point to a constant speed of light over many millions of years.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
Which is why those assumptions are tested. The speed of light in a vacuum is a well tested and well supported assumption. For example, microsecond puslars and Supernova 1987a clearly point to a constant speed of light over many millions of years.
>...clearly point to a constant speed of light over many millions of years.
So then, why do you provide a link which claims 167 thousand years?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I never thought of it from the first law of thermo POV. How does this affect the gravitational constants?
Assuming that current physical models are correct, I don't see why G would alter. Of course, I have yet to study General Relativity in any depth, and GR places a cap on force (as Special Relativity places a cap on velocity). Maybe there's an equation somewhere with both G and c...
Originally Posted by LovesEnduringPromise
I'm stepping out of my comfort zone, so please correct me if I misstep. Einstein's general theory equates gravity to acceleration which seems to be independent of c. So we can (I hope) assume that gravity is unaffected by a change in c. If mass is decreased by energy remains the same then the Sun would have acutally been smaller in the past. Why? As I stated before, a star's size is determined by two opposing forces: the outward pressure produced by fusion (governed by E=mc^2) and gravity. The rate of fusion is also governed by mass and gravity. The more mass there is the more fusion reactions per second which is why large stars burn hotter and faster than smaller stars. Would this mean that stars would be the same size if 1) c changed, AND 2) energy is conserved?
They would be the same size if energy is conserved, since the outward pressure from the Sun's core is simply the result of energy released by fusion. So if energy is conserved, no 'bonus' energy is being released, and so the outward pressure remains the same.
Thinking about it, though... if a fermion has less mass in order to conserve energy, that may actually decrease the energy released by thermonuclear fusion: less mass is actually converted back into energy.
So stars should be smaller in the past. Yes. Hurrah for independantly correlating conclusions!
Originally Posted by LovesEnduringPromise
We are still within the realms of std. science. We haven't added magic yet.
Variable physical constants invoked to effectively refute empirical data, thus allowing an a priori assumed worldview to remain possible? If you smell smoke, see smoke, and feel a bit hot, there's probably a fire.
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
>...clearly point to a constant speed of light over many millions of years.
So then, why do you provide a link which claims 167 thousand years?
Supernova 1987a and microsecond pulsars are but a small portion of the evidence. The speed of ligh (c) is a part of every equation that governs the characteristics of supernova. We see these same characteristics both in Supernova 1987a and in supernova in distant galaxies millions of light years away. We see constant radioactive decay in naturally occuring nuclear reactors near Oklo, Africa.
Besides, SN 1987a shoots a big hole in a universe that is supposed to be, at most, 10,000 years old, does it not?
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
Linear Mode
