The Laws of the Universe

[sandwiches]

You are misinformed then. Unless you mean since the laws came to be. That would not be long ago, just after the flood, if the records are correct.

And we know they're not. Unless you can present reasons to think they are.

 

[dad]

And we know they're not. Unless you can present reasons to think they are.

You claim to KNOW that angels did not marry women?? Let's see you show us how....!!??

 

[dad]

That is the most basic sort of science.

"laws" (an old fashion term) are just descriptions of what has always proven to be true in all tests.

HA!!! Good one! Always being defined as...what?? The last 150 years?? or..? Busted....

There is no way to say that it will always apply in all possible situations.

Bingo, so you admit ignorance. A good start.

"There is no evidence that they cant change" is true, but pretty useless.

There is evidence they change at the drop of a spiritual hat.


Moral of the story...believe the record of God...

 

[dad]

I think the laws might have changed slightly (I'm talking less than 0.01% since the very early universe). It seems you're aware that the laws could have been different right after the big bang, there's also serious work being done since then by real scientists.

However, even if these ideas become conclusive and gain the scientific consensus, it won't do much for the creationist position as the changes are too small to effect things like radiometric dating, age of the universe, or using light from stars to show a minimum age in any meaningful way (it's like saying the universe is 99.9 years old instead of 100 years old).

Don't know why the laws changed (assuming that they did), but there is evidence that they have based on analysis of quasars (and comparing their spectra with spectra of closer/earlier stellar objects). I can't post links yet (not enough posts yet) but for references look up the work of John Webb and Victor Flambaum on quasars and variable speed of light hypotheses in cosmology.

Strawman, and red herring. The issue is NOT our laws changing...but existing!

 

[dad]

Well, after the last huge earthquake in Japan it moved slightly, so yes the axis is known to move, at least slightly. That however is connected with events releasing massive amount of energy, like earthquakes. That's what we know. What is your projection into the past?

I do not project land shifts in this state into the past. Maybe you better start here...prove that the earth rotated before the flood...? I am not saying it did or not,,,just want to see what you know...

 

[sandwiches]

You claim to KNOW that angels did not marry women?? Let's see you show us how....!!??

Simple. Angels don't exist.

 

[AV1611VET]

You claim to KNOW that angels did not marry women?? Let's see you show us how....!!??

Don't be silly; atheists don't believe in women.

eek: -- Or is it angels they don't believe in?)

In any case, they don't believe in one or the other.

 

[AV1611VET]

Simple. Angels don't exist.

Oops -- I shoulda read this first -- sorry.

 

[Doveaman]

Hmm, I'n under the impression that the laws have stayed constant- at least according to our knowledge of the Universe.

The dinosaur experience in the past appears to have been different from ours today in relation to gravity:

Impossible Dinosaurs

"It is a fairly easy demonstration that nothing any larger than the largest elephants could live in our world today, and that the largest dinosaurs survived ONLY because the nature of the world and of the solar system was then such that they did not experience gravity as we do at all; they'd be crushed by their own weight, collapse in a heap, and suffocate within minutes were they to."

 

[Upisoft]

I do not project land shifts in this state into the past. Maybe you better start here...prove that the earth rotated before the flood...? I am not saying it did or not,,,just want to see what you know...

Before which flood? The one in Japan that recently killed a lot of people?
And BTW, how you can claim you don't know? It seems you know pretty much of what have changed and what not.

 

[Hespera]

The dinosaur experience in the past appears to have been different from ours today in relation to gravity:

Impossible Dinosaurs

"It is a fairly easy demonstration that nothing any larger than the largest elephants could live in our world today, and that the largest dinosaurs survived ONLY because the nature of the world and of the solar system was then such that they did not experience gravity as we do at all; they'd be crushed by their own weight, collapse in a heap, and suffocate within minutes were they to."

same guys who showed that a bumblebee cant fly?

 

[Doveaman]

same guys who showed that a bumblebee cant fly?

Poor excuse. When you can't refute the theory discredit the theorist, right? Pathetic.

Any science that disagrees with your world view is rejected, the very same thing you accuse creationists of doing?

 

[Hespera]

Poor excuse. When you can't refute the theory discredit the theorist, right? Pathetic.

Any science that disagrees with your world view is rejected, the very same thing you accuse creationists of doing?

No need to make up false and insulting things about me is there?

I dont accuse creationists of rejecting things that dont fit; it is simply an accurate observation of their behaviour.

you might try to consider the vast implications for the earth and the entire universe if gravity were to change as drastically as you are seemingly willing to believe it did.

try that before you declare a bit of skepticism to be pathetic.

 

[Doveaman]

you might try to consider the vast implications for the earth and the entire universe if gravity were to change as drastically as you are seemingly willing to believe it did.

Why don't you tell me those "vast implications" since you are seemingly willing to believe there would be?

 

[Ar Cosc]

Why don't you tell me those "vast implications" since you are seemingly willing to believe there would be?

The whole solar system would be in a non-equilibrium state, sending planets and moons flying all over the place, for a start. So the earth would end up either on a hyperbolic orbit through space, or else a far more elliptical orbit than it's on now, causing huge variation between seasons, and possibly bringing it into contact with many large earth-crossing bodies. The orbital resonance of many celestial bodies would also be thrown out, with complex and unpredictable effects on their speed and direction.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Why don't you tell me those "vast implications" since you are seemingly willing to believe there would be?

The whole solar system would be in a non-equilibrium state, sending planets and moons flying all over the place, for a start. So the earth would end up either on a hyperbolic orbit through space, or else a far more elliptical orbit than it's on now, causing huge variation between seasons, and possibly bringing it into contact with many large earth-crossing bodies. The orbital resonance of many celestial bodies would also be thrown out, with complex and unpredictable effects on their speed and direction.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Poor excuse. When you can't refute the theory discredit the theorist, right? Pathetic.

The theory was concocted from folks with a history of bad science.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me a thousand times, I must be a findie.

 

[Hespera]

The whole solar system would be in a non-equilibrium state, sending planets and moons flying all over the place, for a start. So the earth would end up either on a hyperbolic orbit through space, or else a far more elliptical orbit than it's on now, causing huge variation between seasons, and possibly bringing it into contact with many large earth-crossing bodies. The orbital resonance of many celestial bodies would also be thrown out, with complex and unpredictable effects on their speed and direction.

I guess the magnitude of the implications was so obvious that it wasnt worth giving a bunch of examples.

Not that Im a physicist.. lets refer this to "ask a physicist" for more details if needed!

The thing that gets me is how the less education people have, the weaker their grasp of the most basic concepts, the more ready they are to believe that all them "mainstream scientists' are deluded, and any wild eye maverick that comes on "coat to coast", any preacher or engineer who concocts a hydroplate theory just must be able to see deeper and clearer into every field of science at once than all the people who dedicate their lives to their specialty.

And heck just by believing some guy with his new 'theory', they too are way ahead of all the scientists! Cool!

No wonder the same people are so easily duped by religious quackery when it comes along!

 

[dad]

Simple. Angels don't exist.

You cannot overrule the many that saw them. You merely echo doubts and limited experience and knowledge.

 

[dad]

Don't be silly; atheists don't believe in women.

eek: -- Or is it angels they don't believe in?)

In any case, they don't believe in one or the other.

But they all get laid! (grave)