B
buffalo
Guest
Well no it has not. It has changed. And what goes right along with it? Decay rates.
- Status
O
o_mlly
Guest
Name calling again? Shame, shame, shame.
So you think Ripperger makes a categorical error where he writes:
No, Fred you’re wrong and Ripperger is correct. Ripperger merely affirms that the evolutionist’s claim that higher forms of life is self-evident.
Bacteria to human being is your claim, not apes to man only, right?
Well, given that your conditional is false, we can assume your consequent is equally false. Looks like Ripperger’s conclusions are not wrong. (Did you just want to get a philosophical sounding word into your post, e.g. categorical?)
Try again, Fred.
Now, you’re losing it, Fred.
Macro is not just micro on a few steroids. Remember the seminal work, “On the Origin of Species”? Scientists knew all about micro, what was debated was macro, how did new species come into being.
Darwin, without any evidence, using undisciplined imagination gave us a speculation and labelled it as such using may as his operative verb. Atheists have found it convenient to simply drop the “may”. Ripperger calls them out. And I call you out.
Try again, Fred.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
And how do you propose to prove that Loki/Trickster is not cogent?
R
rossum
Guest
Where is your evidence? I have quoted the Fine Structure Constant. We have also observed decay rates in SN 1987A. They show that decay rates have not changed in the last 168,000 years.
Where is your countervailing evidence, buffalo?
O
o_mlly
Guest
First, Loki/Trickster must be shown as valid. How do you propose to show it as valid?
B
buffalo
Guest
Remember Einstein had to have C as a constant or he had to admit the earth was stationary. I am sure you know the history behind this.
Theory challenging Einstein's view on speed of light could soon be tested
New paper describes for first time how scientists can test controversial idea that speed of light is not a constant
www.theguardian.com
Bottom -line - theory of inflation can be invalidated by a variable light speed. Just think what an early infinite light speed would do to all that science thinks it knows.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
I don’t need to. If Loki/Trickster is not valid, then he is not cogent. That means you have to show he is not valid.
Once you have done that, you can do the same for the aliens and their supercomputer driven virtual environment.
R
rossum
Guest
So, you do not have any evidence to support a changing speed of light. You have a three year old article looking at a possible change at the time of the Big Bang – billions of years ago. I have already said that there is a possibility of a change between 10 billion and 12 billion years ago. Makes your 6,000 year old universe look somewhat erm… wrong.
As with so much YEC ‘science’ there is no evidence to back up the fantastical claims made. That puts you in the same boat as Hindu fundamentalists who claim a 500 billion or more year old universe: all hat and no evidence.
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
Time is not a constant.
“The modern understanding of time is based on Einstein’s theory of relativity in which rates of time run differently depending on relative motion.“
Some postulate that time began at the “Big Bang”. Anyway, the time travel and time warps of science fiction may someday have some context in reality. The Bible’s Book of Revelation refers to an event after which “time will be no more.”
Tides, moon phases, sunrise, sunsets, eclipses, comet positions are all predictable with great mathematical precision. Why is there order in nature and physics and mathematics? Does it seem logical that no-one designed this order? Or, does a Creator God provide the best explanation?
“The modern understanding of time is based on Einstein’s theory of relativity in which rates of time run differently depending on relative motion.“
Some postulate that time began at the “Big Bang”. Anyway, the time travel and time warps of science fiction may someday have some context in reality. The Bible’s Book of Revelation refers to an event after which “time will be no more.”
Tides, moon phases, sunrise, sunsets, eclipses, comet positions are all predictable with great mathematical precision. Why is there order in nature and physics and mathematics? Does it seem logical that no-one designed this order? Or, does a Creator God provide the best explanation?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Make the argument. As I understand your logic the validity of the same argument can be true, false or unknown. So let me know how you feel about your own argument.
N
Noose001
Guest
The problem with you and science is that you define and then get lost in your work to the point your work starts defining you.
The rate you call the speed of light is your own creation, you can’t worship it. You define what a meter is and what a second is and take measurements and now you have ‘facts’?!
B
buffalo
Guest
Three year old article - yet you are wedded to a 160 year old book?
Changing light speed is not a YEC thing at all. There are articles all over mainstream science publications on it. Paul Davies in not a YEC. Einstein himself allows it in special relativity.
Research why Einstein had to come up with the cosmological fudge factor.
Last edited:
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Here you make the classic mistake of confusing the speed of light with the value of c. No, the speed of light is most certainly not assumed to be constant in physics. Light is even known to be slower than particles having a rest mass, even if particles having a rest mass never can move at the velocity of c.
Really? I guess you are not familiar with the theory of special relativity. Or the fact that clocks on satelites orbiting the earth does tick at a different rate relative to clocks here on earth. Even to such degree that is has to be accounted for in our GPS systems.
Not quite right. The theory of general relativity says that mass causes space to curve which effects light traveling through that space.
Well time is relative. In all our experiments so far, there has been no sign of a universal clock
Last edited:
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
The speed of light changes all the time. But what seems not to change is the value of c. And the value of c is what determines decay rates.
N
Noose001
Guest
The universal clock is earth’s movement against the sun as observed.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Really? But earth does not move at a constant speed relative to the sun. You can set yourself to be the universal frame which makes everybody else’s clocks to move at a different rate. But that does not solve the problem. We have not found a universal reference for time.Michaelangelo:
The universal clock is earth’s movement against the sun as observed.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Not quite. A three value logic is one possible logic. I do not accept it as valid in all circumstances. According to circumstances I may use a two, three or four valued logic; whatever is appropriate to the situation. The logical error of a False Dichotomy is an example of trying to use a two valued logic when a three or more valued logic would be more appropriate.
R
rossum
Guest
Bwahahahaha! You are in error about the dates of the Tripitaka.
Darwin was right on the general outline, but missing a huge amount of detail. A great deal of that detail has been filled in over the last 160 years. What we have now is a lot more robust than the original.
It is the “cosmological constant” and is a standard part of integration. The integral of f(x) = x2 is equal to the integral of f’(x) = x2 + c, where c is any constant. He proposed a non-zero value because he thought that the universe was static, not expanding. He was wrong about that.
You still have no evidence to support a changing speed of light or a change in radioactive decay rates. Your obvious avoidance of producing any relevant evidence is very very obvious.
YEC has nothing to show, and you are confirming that it has nothing to show.
B
buffalo
Guest
And 160 years of a priori science trying to keep up the facade. But now we know it will not stand.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Everything obeys God, except… Man and the Devil.
- Status