| Creation & Evolution Forum 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. |
 | | 
2nd October 2007, 02:21 PM
|  | Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure
31    
 | | Join Date: 29th December 2006 Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,721
Blessings: 71,852 My Mood 
Reps: 329,997,751,461 (power: 329,997,759) | | Originally Posted by LittleNipper  GOD does not deceive. Satan deceives. Evolutionists accept a deception as their truth. Satan is the accuser, and he wishes to belittle GOD.
Evolution has been used a lot in medical research. Does that mean that Satan is healing people now?
__________________ The human race will begin solving its problems on the day that it ceases taking itself so seriously - Principia Discordia All there is is metaphor - Robert Anton Wilson Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth. It is wise and terrible! - Spider Jerusalem |
2nd October 2007, 02:24 PM
|  | Contributor
23    
| | Join Date: 21st March 2005 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 15,589
Blessings: 50,320,616 My Mood 
Reps: 273,058,856,457,603,328 (power: 273,058,856,457,625) | | Originally Posted by DrkSdBls 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.
__________________ "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
"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone."
- Charles Darwin
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens
"Protecting the sanctity of marriage against people who want to get married"
- Anonymous
Got a question about science?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
!
|
2nd October 2007, 02:29 PM
| | Contributor
23
| | Join Date: 21st March 2005 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 15,589
Blessings: 50,320,616 My Mood
Reps: 273,058,856,457,603,328 (power: 273,058,856,457,625) | | Originally Posted by LittleNipper GOD does not deceive.
According to whom? God? I smell circular logic... Originally Posted by LittleNipper Satan deceives.
Satan's greatest trick would not be convincing the world that he did not exist, but convincing the world that he is God... Originally Posted by LittleNipper Evolutionists accept a deception as their truth.
What deception is this? Originally Posted by LittleNipper Satan is the accuser, and he wishes to belittle GOD.
I thought he was the Deciever?
__________________ "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
"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone."
- Charles Darwin
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens
"Protecting the sanctity of marriage against people who want to get married"
- Anonymous
Got a question about science?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
!
|
2nd October 2007, 02:46 PM
|  | Paradigm Buster
  
| | Join Date: 30th September 2005 Location: Avalon Island
Posts: 3,929
Blessings: 10,890
Reps: 234,912,275,153,794,080 (power: 234,912,275,153,804) | | | Assumptions are made about the characteristics of the universe which may not be valid.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
THE ATONEMENT
(Isa 53:5a) he was wounded for our offenses, and smitten for our wickedness:
for the pain of our punishment was laid upon him,
THE HEALING
(Isa 53:5b)
additionally with his beatings we are cured.
(Mark 16.18) ... they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well
[Myhrrhleine Michelle Hunter]
[Merlin for short]
|
2nd October 2007, 02:59 PM
|  | Contributor
| | Join Date: 26th August 2003
Posts: 9,012
Blessings: 1,096,897
Reps: 84,929,301,057,186,064 (power: 84,929,301,057,204) | | Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child 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.
__________________
“Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154) |
2nd October 2007, 03:04 PM
| | Contributor
| | Join Date: 26th August 2003
Posts: 9,012
Blessings: 1,096,897
Reps: 84,929,301,057,186,064 (power: 84,929,301,057,204) | | Originally Posted by Merlin 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.
__________________
“Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154) |
2nd October 2007, 03:12 PM
| | Paradigm Buster
| | Join Date: 30th September 2005 Location: Avalon Island
Posts: 3,929
Blessings: 10,890
Reps: 234,912,275,153,794,080 (power: 234,912,275,153,804) | | Originally Posted by Loudmouth 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.
THE ATONEMENT
(Isa 53:5a) he was wounded for our offenses, and smitten for our wickedness:
for the pain of our punishment was laid upon him,
THE HEALING
(Isa 53:5b)
additionally with his beatings we are cured.
(Mark 16.18) ... they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well
[Myhrrhleine Michelle Hunter]
[Merlin for short]
|
2nd October 2007, 03:31 PM
| | Contributor
23
| | Join Date: 21st March 2005 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 15,589
Blessings: 50,320,616 My Mood
Reps: 273,058,856,457,603,328 (power: 273,058,856,457,625) | | Originally Posted by Loudmouth 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.
__________________ "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
"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone."
- Charles Darwin
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens
"Protecting the sanctity of marriage against people who want to get married"
- Anonymous
Got a question about science?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
!
|
2nd October 2007, 03:32 PM
| | Contributor
23
| | Join Date: 21st March 2005 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 15,589
Blessings: 50,320,616 My Mood
Reps: 273,058,856,457,603,328 (power: 273,058,856,457,625) | | Originally Posted by Merlin >...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?
Because it's at least 167,000 years. Other evidences push back this age further still.
__________________ "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
"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone."
- Charles Darwin
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens
"Protecting the sanctity of marriage against people who want to get married"
- Anonymous
Got a question about science?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
!
|
2nd October 2007, 03:37 PM
| | Contributor
| | Join Date: 26th August 2003
Posts: 9,012
Blessings: 1,096,897
Reps: 84,929,301,057,186,064 (power: 84,929,301,057,204) | | Originally Posted by Merlin >...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?
__________________
“Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154) | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
