A Challenge To Anti-Uniformitarianists

[The Cadet]

There are some here who reject the uniformity of natural laws. They claim that we cannot know that things like radioactive decay rates or the speed of light were the same in the past.

To these people, a simple question: how do you know to stop at a red light?

 

[AV1611VET]

There are some here who reject the uniformity of natural laws.

Yup.

They claim that we cannot know that things like radioactive decay rates or the speed of light were the same in the past.

I'm not aware anything decayed prior to the Fall.

Decaying is a result of the Fall.

To these people, a simple question: how do you know to stop at a red light?

I was taught to stop at a red light.

It's the law of the land.

 

[juvenissun]

There are some here who reject the uniformity of natural laws. They claim that we cannot know that things like radioactive decay rates or the speed of light were the same in the past.

To these people, a simple question: how do you know to stop at a red light?

Should this one be in the philosophy forum?

 

[Loudmouth]

It's the law of the land.

How do you know that the laws of physics haven't changed so that a green light now outputs red and red lights now output green, all in the blink of an eye just an hour ago?

 

[crjmurray]

Boop

 

[whois]

There are some here who reject the uniformity of natural laws. They claim that we cannot know that things like radioactive decay rates or the speed of light were the same in the past.

To these people, a simple question: how do you know to stop at a red light?

what about transdimensionality?
how are we to know these laws are the same, or that it obeys any law at all?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know that the laws of physics haven't changed so that a green light now outputs red and red lights now output green, all in the blink of an eye just an hour ago?

What in the world are you driving at?

Is this a reference to Pluto being our ninth planet one year, and not a planet the next?

 

[Loudmouth]

What in the world are you driving at?

Uniformitarianism.

Is this a reference to Pluto being our ninth planet one year, and not a planet the next?

No. Can you point to any of my posts that mention Pluto at all? We aren't talking about how names for things can change over time. We are talking about how the fundamental forces of nature can change over time.

 

[bhsmte]

What in the world are you driving at?

Is this a reference to Pluto being our ninth planet one year, and not a planet the next?

Do you have nightmares about Pluto?

 

[AV1611VET]

Uniformitarianism.



No. Can you point to any of my posts that mention Pluto at all? We aren't talking about how names for things can change over time. We are talking about how the fundamental forces of nature can change over time.

What forces of nature that can change over time?

I am aware of things in nature that have been changed.

I am not aware of any forces in nature that can change over time.

I like how Henry Morris compares creation to evolution:

Evolution is a series of ongoing processes, whereas creation is a one-time completed process.

(Something like that. I'll look it up later.)

 

[Loudmouth]

What forces of nature that can change over time?

It is the anti-uniformitarianists who claim that they have changed, not us. As an example, they have proposed that the nuclear weak and strong forces were different in the past so that radioactive decay was different.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is the anti-uniformitarianists who claim that they have changed, not us. As an example, they have proposed that the nuclear weak and strong forces were different in the past so that radioactive decay was different.

Okay.

Sorry I misunderstood you.

 

[Goonie]

I misread the subject as anti-Unitarians, doh!

 

[Oafman]

The laws of nature only need to be subject to change when they do not otherwise support someone's predetermined beliefs. Eg a YEC's response to radiometric dating.

The colour of traffic lights does not contradict such people's predetermined beliefs, so in that case they consider the laws of nature to be consistent and reliable.

Basically, they just change the laws of nature when they need to, and not when they don't. Just one of the pieces of mental gymnastics they need to perform to maintain their demonstrably wrong beliefs.

 

[Zosimus]

There are some here who reject the uniformity of natural laws. They claim that we cannot know that things like radioactive decay rates or the speed of light were the same in the past.

To these people, a simple question: how do you know to stop at a red light?

Your example is poor because it relates something that you believe is intelligently designed (red lights) to something that you do not believe is intelligently designed (natural laws).

In addition, you are missing the fundamental argument. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is one set of uniform, unchangeable, unshakeable, unalterable natural laws that even God himself cannot vary in the slightest.

How, then, do you know that your theory T is an example of that unalterable law?

Let us consider the case of a hyper intelligent 3-month-old child. He is able to speak, to reason, and even to do advanced calculus. He is entirely self taught. One day he approaches you and says, "We have a problem."

"What's the problem?"

"The sun is dying."

"How do you know?"

"Every day is shorter than the previous one. Soon we will all be plunged into eternal darkness."
-------------------
What's the situation? The child has observed a trend and assumes that this trend will go on forever. He does not know that this is a cycle. Yes, the days will get shorter until the winter solstice after which the days will get longer.

The question, therefore, is not "How do you know that the laws vary?"
The question is, "How do you know that the rule you have postulated is one of the invariable laws and not just based on your observation of the last few hundred years of a one-billion-year-long cycle?"

 

[Loudmouth]

Your example is poor because it relates something that you believe is intelligently designed (red lights) to something that you do not believe is intelligently designed (natural laws).

Intelligent design has nothing to do with it. In the case of radiometric dating, no creationist is saying that rocks were intelligently designed. Rather, they claim that radiometric dating can not be used because the fundamental forces of nature were different in the past.

In addition, you are missing the fundamental argument. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is one set of uniform, unchangeable, unshakeable, unalterable natural laws that even God himself cannot vary in the slightest.

How, then, do you know that your theory T is an example of that unalterable law?

We already accept that God could violate all of these laws and create fake evidence that is indistinguishable from constant laws. However, most Christians don't make this argument, at least on purpose.

Let us consider the case of a hyper intelligent 3-month-old child. He is able to speak, to reason, and even to do advanced calculus. He is entirely self taught. One day he approaches you and says, "We have a problem."

"What's the problem?"

"The sun is dying."

"How do you know?"

"Every day is shorter than the previous one. Soon we will all be plunged into eternal darkness."
-------------------
What's the situation? The child has observed a trend and assumes that this trend will go on forever. He does not know that this is a cycle. Yes, the days will get shorter until the winter solstice after which the days will get longer.

The child lacks a mechanism. For radioactive decay, we do know what the mechanisms are. If those mechanisms were different in the past we also know what to look for. We don't assume that these laws were constant during these time frames because we have direct confirmation that they were the same, assuming an all powerful deity didn't fake all of the evidence.

 

[The Cadet]

Your example is poor because it relates something that you believe is intelligently designed (red lights) to something that you do not believe is intelligently designed (natural laws).

While this is a distinction, it misses the point of the argument. The reason I stop at red lights is not "the law tells me to". It's "I don't want to end up being scraped off the pavement by an EMT". A more apt replacement would perhaps be "You know your friends are at the base of a mile-high cliff, and you want to go see them; how do you know it would be a bad idea to jump down to see them?" It doesn't matter much for the overall structure of

In addition, you are missing the fundamental argument. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is one set of uniform, unchangeable, unshakeable, unalterable natural laws that even God himself cannot vary in the slightest.

How, then, do you know that your theory T is an example of that unalterable law?

I don't. Given the evidence, I assume that it is the case until new evidence comes along. Uniformitarianism is an assumption. However, it is a necessary one, as without it, at least as far as I am aware, empiricism becomes useless, and without empiricism, our path to any knowledge of our surroundings and particularly our past falls apart.

 

[crjmurray]

The laws of nature only need to be subject to change when they do not otherwise support someone's predetermined beliefs. Eg a YEC's response to radiometric dating.

The colour of traffic lights does not contradict such people's predetermined beliefs, so in that case they consider the laws of nature to be consistent and reliable.

Basically, they just change the laws of nature when they need to, and not when they don't. Just one of the pieces of mental gymnastics they need to perform to maintain their demonstrably wrong beliefs.

Pssshhh. So says the guy with a DEMON for his avatar.

 

[Zosimus]

Intelligent design has nothing to do with it. In the case of radiometric dating, no creationist is saying that rocks were intelligently designed. Rather, they claim that radiometric dating can not be used because the fundamental forces of nature were different in the past.



We already accept that God could violate all of these laws and create fake evidence that is indistinguishable from constant laws. However, most Christians don't make this argument, at least on purpose.



The child lacks a mechanism. For radioactive decay, we do know what the mechanisms are. If those mechanisms were different in the past we also know what to look for. We don't assume that these laws were constant during these time frames because we have direct confirmation that they were the same, assuming an all powerful deity didn't fake all of the evidence.

Nothing that you said had anything to do my argument in the slightest. It was incoherent rambling.

When I say, "Let's say for the sake of argument that things are as you say..." Then off-topic comments such as "God can place fake evidence, so nyah nyah nyah" are unhelpful.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pssshhh. So says the guy with a DEMON for his avatar.

Antichrist -- not a demon.