the fallacy of the constancy of physical laws

[Oliver]

Originally posted by Hank

I do hope in the future we can visit other solar systems and find out. Let's assume we can search some of those planets, how many would you accept as being completely void of life and still maintain the possibility of abiogenesis?

Honestly, I don't know. But if such planets are found, I think they will help us to better understand the process by narrowing the range of conditions we think are sufficient for life to appear.

Originally posted by Hank

If planet earth turns out to be the only one having life and that in such tremendous abundance would we need to alter the premise of abiogenesis and it's logic?

if we discover many planets with similar conditions, all void of any form of life, then yes, I think we'll have to change our ideas about abiogenesis, at least about HOW we think it happened. But those ideas are already constantly changing.

Originally posted by Hank


German

I am a Canadian now , but when it comes to The World Cup, my side is on the German Team, even so they lack one thing, the winning team or at least spirit.

Who knows.. some players only show their real capacities during these big events. I wish them good luck.

(btw, I'll be unable to respond until Monday, maybe even wednesday)

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Oliver

Who knows.. some players only show their real capacities during these big events. I wish them good luck.

(btw, I'll be unable to respond until Monday, maybe even wednesday)

What could I respond too? You made your point.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do creationists always assume big bang cosmology and evolution are the same science?

Biological Evolution constitutes 1/7 of Big Bang cosmology.

They're not.

Yes they are.

Thunderstorms are a part of the weather: biological evolution is a part of cosmic evolution.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Biological Evolution constitutes 1/7 of Big Bang cosmology.Yes they are.

Thunderstorms are a part of the weather: biological evolution is a part of cosmic evolution.

AV & this thread:

 

[Astrophile]

Evolution depends upon an assumption, namely that physical laws are constant, and that no supernatural force intervenes in the life of the universe, and therefore basically evolution must have occurred rather than creation. There is no proof of this assumption. In fact, Big Bang theorists argue that at least in the beginning physical laws were not constant.

Would you like to tell us which physical laws are not constant, or perhaps which physical constants are not constant? Do you think that, for example, the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the Planck constant, the Boltzmann constant, the permittivity of free space, the Faraday constant, the elementary charge on an electron, the Bohr magneton, the nuclear magneton, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, the fine structure constant, the Bohr radius, the Hartree energy, or the Rydberg constant are variable?

You say that evolution depends on the assumption that physical laws are constant. However, it is not merely evolution that depends on the constancy of physical laws; if any of the above physical constants were significantly variable, we should not be here to discuss the matter.