Raving Conservative

Google

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Dismembering Evolution 2: Billions of Years of History

One of the things at the core of the debate between evolution and religious creationism is the very obvious geologic history of the world, nay, the universe that makes the idea of a six day creation look absolutely ludicrous.

Let’s examine this a bit, shall we?

On the one hand, we have a universe that displays all the signs of being something along the lines 15-20 billion years old, and an Earth that is about 4 billion years old. This is all detectable through various means of radiology and thermography as well as other forms of detection and mathematical extrapolation. For the sake of this series I will consider math to be a most reliable source of data. Score one for evolution. If the universe and the Earth are so incredibly old then the Biblical idea of a six day creation culminating in the creation of man must be ludicrous. The argument ends there.

That is, of course, unless there are alternatives.

The typical creationist argument is that all was created at a point of age. There is no mention of Adam being born, but rather made as a mature adult. If this is the case then an all-powerful God could most certainly create a universe that appears to be about 16 billion ears old, and a world that appears to be about 4 billion years old, and could have even placed the fossils in the rocks just for us to discover and wonder at. While this is possible, as a Christian I find it to be somewhat perverse, but only because I find it hard to believe that God would willfully create a world, a universe that is deceptive enough to fool people into disbelief in Him. That would be such a cruel joke. Score two for evolution.

Enter Einstein.

We are all familiar with Einstein’s general theory of relativity, and many of are also familiar with his special theory of relativity. At this point it is important to note that these theories have been so well proven that they are now considered to be scientific laws, now referred to as the laws of relativity, just as Newton’s laws of physics are natural laws. Relativity is considered proven beyond reasonable dispute. You gotta love physics, it is the one branch of science that works so intimately with math that it produces laws rather than and endless parade of theories with no laws in sight.

Part of the law of relativity states that time is itself, a relative thing, shaped by mass and speed. Every grade school science class that teaches astronomy uses this fact to give a demonstration of how increased speed slows the passage of time for the object in motion. The law of relativity shows that if one can achieve light speed that time will effectively stand still for the object in motion at said speed.

So how does any of this matter to the age of the age of the universe?

The Big Bang, the most accepted theory for the origin of the universe states that all of the matter and energy in the universe was contained in an infinitely dense quantum anomaly that basically exploded, spewing forth all of the matter and energy in the universe. The origin of this anomaly notwithstanding, I can accept this as a legitimate theory as demonstrated by the data we have available. Score three for evolution.

But does evolution really have a 3-0 score versus creation right now?

I’ll be the first to say that creationists such as myself are prone to producing easy theological answers to every question regardless of the scientific evidence. After all, with an all powerful God, nothing is beyond the realm of possibility. But I, for one, have always held firm to the belief that God created all things within the constructs of the natural laws He created. I have said since the age of fourteen that God created the universe, created this world within a construct of natural laws that we could understand, and with that understanding marvel at His creation.

So how does all of this mesh?

The law of relativity shows us that the billions of years between the big bang, AKA the creation of the universe, and the rise of man, and the six day creation are actually one and the same.

Huh?

As I mentioned earlier, time is distorted by mass and speed. At the very moment of the big bang all of the matter (mass) in the universe was still very close together, and moving very fast, starting at near the speed of light, and eventually slowing down, not to mention spreading out, to the speed and dimensions of the universe today. Basically proving, according to proven natural law, that the flow of time has NOT been constant throughout all of history. Indeed, time as we perceive it now progressed at a MUCH slower rate early on in the age of the universe than it does now.

Using the data we have regarding the current state of the universe and the widely accepted change in density, speed, and temperature of the universe over the around 16 billion years it has been around the law of relativity shows us something that is most fascinating.

One the first day God said “let there be light”. This first day can be shown to be the big bang event itself. Te law of relativity shows us that this first day took approximately 8 billion years in the current flow of time as we perceive it today. Note that day one equals 8 billion years in the literal sense. The one day and about 8 billion years are BOTH true.

On day 2 God separated the “firmament” from the “waters”. It is during this approximately 4 billion year period that the galaxies began to form, stars condensed, burned, exploded, recondensed, and at some point the Sun formed. It is quite probable that some stars formed prior to the aggregation of galaxies, and the resulting supernovae were critical in shaping the universe as we know it today. Mathematics and physics show us, through the law of relativity, that this 4 billion years took 1 day in the current flow of time as we perceive it today.

On the third day God separated the waters from land (continents and oceans) and life appeared first in the oceans, then on dry land. This one day encompasses some 2 billion years, during which time life did indeed first appear in the oceans as is proven by the fossil record, the later appeared, initially in plant form on the land. Once again, proven by the fossil record. Notice that time is slowing down exponentially and this approximately 2 billion years took one day in the modern flow of time.

At this point things seem to get a little confusing because the development of everything seems to take a colossal step backwards when God “places the sun and the moon and the stars in the heavens”. However, geology has shown us that Earth’s primitive atmosphere was once far more dense than it is today. Indeed, it was dense enough that the source of light may have been indistinguishable, leaving only the greater, and the lesser lights without visible form or substance in the sky above the Earth. It is during this day, this billion or so years where the atmosphere thinned out enough to become transparent, finally allowing the life the Earth contained to see the individual sun, moon, and stars for what they truly are. No longer was the sky simply “the greater and the lesser lights”. So, day four and around a billion or so years, once again, as proven by relativity, are one and the same.

Day five of the Bible saw the appearance of an explosion of aquatic animal life. Interestingly enough, this is also shown by the fossil record as more complex aquatic creatures appeared close to a billion years ago where before there had been primarily algae and bacteria. Also on this day winged animals and reptiles first appeared. Now when people think about winged animals the generally think birds, but according to the geological record the first winged animals were actually insects. This one day lasted about half a billion years in the current flow of time.

We finally arrive at day six, which saw all of the rest of the animal kingdom explode into its massive variety (specification), and finish up with the development of man. This 250 million year period of time encompasses the entire reign of the dinosaurs, their eventual extinction, the rise of mammals, and, finally the rise of man. All of this is recorded as day six in the Bible, and, oddly enough, the two varying times have been shown by the law of relativity to be one and the same.

This is only a very brief overview of a more complex set of equations that have been proven to be mathematically sound. For a more in depth study I recommend reading Genesis and the Big Bang, and also The Science of God, both by Gerald Schroeder.

The most interesting thing about this situation is not that it is mathematically correct according to the accepted laws of physics, but rather the reaction of people who are opposed to the idea of creation. It didn’t take long after this information was published for people to start modifying the age of the universe. By simply saying that the universe is actually closer to the high end of the estimated age rather then the age range this theory encompasses people have been able to say that none of what I have just put forth is valid because it presupposes a universe that probably isn’t really young enough to fit this model. Note that the data itself has not changed in any significant way, only the way that certain people choose to interpret it. By reinterpreting existing info to mean something other than what is has been accepted to mean a person can alter any situation just enough to favor one theory over another. For the purposes of this argument I am going to stick by the classically, and still generally, though not universally accepted view the universe is somewhere in the range of 15-20 billion years old. This range, while huge, is a reasonable range due to the fact that despite our best detection efforts we can still only extrapolate the approximate age of the universe without actually pining it down. It also factors in the uncertainty inherent in measuring such vast expanses of time.

What I have just put forth here is an Intelligent Design argument. While I am no supporter of ID over Creation, it is the scientific and intellectual efforts of ID advocates who actually providing most of the science that shows how God created everything within the laws of nature as we have been able to determine them. It is fascinating and compelling information. Bear in mind though, that not all ID advocates are religious at all, while not all Evolution advocates are Atheists. ID has managed to get caught n the middle of two ideological sides of a debate, the stridently Creationist, and the stridently Darwinist. Two groups of people who are willing to back their own pet theories on the origins of life, the universe, and everything no matter what scientific evidence may be brought up to show that the truth may be slightly different than the understanding these people have.

I rather like this part of the intelligent design argument because it presents the full merger of what we can measure through science, and the full measure of Biblical teaching, and it shows how the two are one and the same. Here, at least, we have a glimpse of a truth that does not require science and religion to be antagonists the way they have been since evolution was first proposed by Darwin, indeed, on many other topics for far longer prior to evolution. It shows what I have been saying for years, that God created all that is within a construct that we can understand through science is true. Why have I been saying this for years, even before I ever found such scientific evidence to back this claim? It’s simple. I love science almost as much as I love God. Both provide the answers to parts of life, and I have simply never been able to tell myself that one could possibly invalidate the other. This, as you may have guessed, is what first motivated to look into the subject of evolution. I have heard so many ideological arguments from people stating that evolution removes the need for a Creator God, and so religion is a pointless fairytale because we have a natural answer for life that it caused me to question whether evolution was truly science, or theology.

More on every aspect to come in later installments.

27 Comments:

  • Daniel wrote in part I:
    This philosophy was initially accepted as the only reasonable norm. then the scientific method was developed and mathematics advanced, and the answer of the Earth being the center of a geocentric universe arranged in perfect spheres needed to be proven through science and math, and for several hundred years both science and math “proved” this to be true.

    Then he wrote in part II:
    This is only a very brief overview of a more complex set of equations that have been proven to be mathematically sound.

    Think maybe you and others like you needed this to be true and made the math fit?

    I didn't bother with commenting on the first post. It was an apple to oranges comparison that your yes crowd would jump on and agree with. They did. And most answered in bumper sticker style. The opposition did a fine job of tearing it down, even if you are incapable or unwilling to realize it.

    This second part is just funny. I love fiction just as much as the next guy/gal, but this isn't keeping my interest. Later Daniel.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:44 PM  

  • evolutionist are so hard to talk too!

    By Blogger Philosopher, at 2:11 PM  

  • Daniel,

    Rarely have I seen such a confused mass of ignorance, misconceptions and errors used to justify an irrational belief in fairy tales.

    First, evolution has nothing to do with cosmogenesis; it only describes how life evolved after it began. I understand your need to try to negate anything that conflicts with your worldview, but in the process, you are attacking science itself.

    Your entire argument is based on a false premise. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about the meaning of relativity. Yes, time slows down for an object approaching the speed of light, but only from the point of view of (or relative to) an external observer, not for the object itself. Take the classic example of a spaceship that leaves the Earth and travels out to a star and back at close to the speed of light. For the people on the ship, the trip takes only a decade or so, but when they return, they find that the Earth has moved on by thousands of years. So, to the people on Earth, time appears to have slowed down on the ship.

    Now, in your argument, the universe is the spaceship where time appears to be moving slowly. But, to whom does it appear that way? There is and can be no external observer. There is nothing outside the universe. To everything inside the universe (the spaceship) time appears to be flowing normally—a billion years is really a billion years; a day is just a day. So right there, your day/age creationism falls on its head and sustains brain damage. It doesn’t matter how many times you say, “as proven by relativity”; it isn’t—it proves nothing of the sort.

    Let’s move on to another problem. You say the universe began about 16 billion years ago. If we add up your days, we get 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 + 0.5 + 0.25 = 15.75 billion years. Unfortunately for your argument, the current age of the universe has been calculated to be 13.7 billion years plus or minus 200 million years. At best, that puts us somewhere in day three of your creation timeline. Life should only just be crawling out of the oceans, according to you.

    Daniel: For a more in depth study I recommend reading Genesis and the Big Bang, and also The Science of God, both by Gerald Schroeder.

    And I recommend that people read this critique of Schroeder’s work to obtain a balanced view. He’s just another believer trying to justify his irrational belief in fairy tales.

    What I find interesting in this entire argument is that you agree that the universe, Earth and life took billions of years to form, just as science shows it did. All you are trying to do is contrive a way of interpreting that real and well accepted data to fit your silly Genesis story, which contradicts even itself.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 2:29 PM  

  • Daniel,

    After re-reading your post, I have some further comments and questions. First you say this:

    Daniel: I find it hard to believe that God would willfully create a world, a universe that is deceptive enough to fool people into disbelief in Him.

    But then you follow it up with this:

    Daniel: God created everything within the laws of nature as we have been able to determine them.

    This is fascinating and I’d like to explore it for a moment. So the creation of the universe, the Earth and life is within the laws of nature. In other words, it could all have come about by natural means; nothing supernatural was required. So why believe some supernatural being was involved? I think right there you’ve shown that what you fear most about science is true, “that evolution removes the need for a Creator God”.

    Let’s explore this a little further. Does God always work within the laws of nature? If so, then I think miracles would have to be impossible. After all, isn’t the definition of a miracle something that is beyond the laws of nature? Or do you think that a miracle is merely some unlikely occurrence?

    If God is constrained by the laws of nature then he isn’t omnipotent; he can only do what is physically possible. I don’t see how he could be omnipresent or omniscient either, unless you can show me how they are possible within the laws of nature.

    I think what you refer to as God is just your awe at natural processes.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 4:34 PM  

  • Daniel, do you buy the notion that the most obvious explanation is usually correct?

    Given that there's nothing in the Bible that says we need to believe in a six day creation, why not accept the most obvious answer to the evidence that the world is billions of years old?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 4:58 PM  

  • CJB,

    The interesting thing about your premise is that it's entirely distorted.

    Take your math for example, I acknowledge that all figures regarding such vast amounts of time are approximations, and that as approximations there is an age range we can discern but not a precise age. I also noted that the evolutionist response to the work I have cited was to decide that the age of the universe had to be changed through a reinterpretation of the data. You have demonstrated the typical acceptance of any position that contradicts anything that supports a creationist idea that Atheists seem to need to cling to regardless of what the evidence says.

    I love the way you say I am attacking science when I am using science to discuss one flawed theory as if that one theory encompassed all of science. The only thing you do by this argument is demonstrate you own personal need for this one theory to be true, not any true scientific view of any kind.

    It is you who have the fundamental misunderstanding of relativity. Relativity doe not change the mere perception of time with seed, it, in fact, CHANGES THE ACTUAL FLOW OF TIME. Time on the sun, in reality, differently than time does on earth. Time in the primordial universe flowed differently than it does now as well. All that t was in being during the time so far past would not have perceived any oddity on the flow of time, but it did, in fact have vast amounts of time pass in what would be a very short period of time today at the current time flow. The notion that you put forth that there must be a reference point at the same moment in relative time for there to be a distortion is a fallacy. It holds no scientific truth of any kind. Any scientist who makes that claim is either incompetent, a fraud, or ignorant. However, you and others like you are only too happy to accept such scientific fraud if it supports you emotional need for it to be true rather than any science that supports an opposing view.

    You say that relativity proves nothing, not true. Relativity is a natural law, meaning it is a proven fact. Hence it is called the LAW of Relativity, while evolution remains the THEORY of evolution.

    You suggested a critique, I find it to be rather distorted . . . a frantic attempt to assault science and math that demonstrates the possibility of a union between science and religion. It also comes across somewhat ideological in it's own right, therefore bringing the validity of the results and conclusions it draws into question.

    I wrote about Cosmogenesis because the first thing an evolutionist says when a creationist mentions a six day creation is the billions of years of history the universe and this planet display. It has become sucked into the evolution debate by virtue of its use by people like you to browbeat people who hold a creationist view.

    In reference to what you would like to explore more deeply . . . That is next weeks installment. Spontaneous Generation versus Creation. It will be a combination of cosmology and biology that I will use to transition into full biology.

    While I will be speaking primarily about science, there will be times that I intend to delve into religion. This will mostly happen when I speak about Intelligent Design theories. Yes, I will talk about Intelligent Design in this series. I will also talk about Creation. But mostly I will talk about evolution.

    Anonymous,

    You are a poster child for Darwinist ideology. You discount any criticism or alternative views from evolution out of hand and refuse to consider the evidence placed before you. I knew going into this that there would be ideologues like you who have zero chance of thinking beyond your own desire for what you have chosen to believe to be absolute truth.

    Dan T,

    Is the most obvious answer usually true? Sometimes it is, and sometimes it aint. That is why we must research, test, and reason.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:44 PM  

  • Daniel,

    Let’s talk about the age of the universe for a moment. You say that the age has been determined using “radiology and thermography”, but radiology is a branch of medicine dealing with medical imaging and thermography deals with thermal imaging so where on Earth did you get the idea that these help determine the age of the universe? These assertions are just plain wrong.

    You mention twice that the age of the universe is between 15 and 20 billion years old, once that it’s 16 billion years old and, adding your day-to-age equivalents, we arrive at 15.75 billion years old. You also assert that:

    By simply saying that the universe is actually closer to the high end of the estimated age rather then the age range this theory encompasses people have been able to say that none of what I have just put forth is valid because it presupposes a universe that probably isn’t really young enough to fit this model.

    But the age of the universe determined by several independent means is actually 13.7 billion years with an error margin of 1%. This is less than the lowest estimate you have given so all of your age estimates are wrong and your assertion that people move the age to the high side of the range is also wrong.

    Daniel: I love the way you say I am attacking science when I am using science to discuss one flawed theory as if that one theory encompassed all of science. The only thing you do by this argument is demonstrate you own personal need for this one theory to be true, not any true scientific view of any kind.

    Which theory are you talking about? So far you’ve directly attacked the theory of evolution and Big Bang theory and indirectly attacked the theory of stellar evolution and I’m sure there are others in the background. I’ll bet that, before this series is over, you’ll also attack geology, archæology, palæontology and numerous other branches of science. I concede that there will be branches of science that you won’t attack, but I think that if we look at those you do attack we’ll notice something interesting—they will all be branches of science that conflict with your idea of creation. Why is that? Is it only those branches of science that conflict with your creationist views that are flawed? Why should that be the case when all branches of science use the same scientific method?

    I think it seems more likely that it is you who is seeking to protect an irrational belief rather than me. The things I believe are supported by sound evidence whereas those you believe have not a shred of evidence to support them. A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. I expect that you will go through this entire series doing nothing but mounting negative attacks against branches of science that conflict with your creationist views and rely on the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy as your supposed evidence of creation. Not once will you provide sound positive evidence to support creation. Again I’ll point out that first you need to show that God exists before you claim he created anything.

    On to relativity.

    I assumed from your description of speed and time that you were referring to the Special Theory of Relativity. If you read that reference, you will find that time dilation depends upon the relative speeds of two or more observers’ inertial frames of reference. Yes, in the spaceship example, time actually slows down on the spaceship compared to time on Earth. Inside the ship, however, everything appears normal. Now, in the case of the early universe, time is slow compared to… what, exactly? What is the universe moving in relation to? The universe isn’t moving through anything or expanding into anything. The principle of relativity states that there is no stationary reference frame so no absolute velocity. Special relativity says nothing about time due to velocity then and velocity now, only time between different reference frames moving at relative speeds. You can’t say that different parts of the universe are moving at different speeds and use that as an excuse. You want to say that time across the entire universe was slowed so you have to treat the entire universe as a single frame of reference (Schroeder actually does this). The problem is, there is nothing to compare it to.

    In his second book, Schroeder gives up special relativity in favour of general relativity and switches from time dilation due to relative speed to time dilation due to gravitational fields, but the same problem remains. There is no absolute time reference against which we can measure time in the early universe and time now. All time references are within the universe so even if there was a speeding up of time over the eons, we would have no way of detecting it because all the clocks we could examine would have been equally sped up. In fact, the opposite could be true—time could be slowing—and we still wouldn’t be able to tell.

    Daniel: Hence it is called the LAW of Relativity, while evolution remains the THEORY of evolution.

    I don’t know of any physicists that speak of a “Law of Relativity”. Only lay people and creationists use this term. There is the Principle of Relativity, the Special Theory of Relativity and the General Theory of Relativity. Where did you get the notion of a “Law of Relativity”? It appears to me that relativity is just a theory along with evolution. Look at the definition of a physical law and in particular the last paragraph of the description where it describes the differences between theories and laws.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 4:33 AM  

  • CJB,

    Regarding the age of the universe, the only thing you are proving is that the scientific community cannot, as a whole, pin down the actual age. All your argument does is expand the possible age of the universe from 15-20 billion years to 13-20 billion years. This is, of course, by using the multiple theories on the age of the universe that, responsible scientists at least, acknowledge is not precisely pinned down. you are also proving your own need to go with wahatever number makes you feel comfortable rather than simply being responsible and acknowledging that there is wide uncertainty about the exact age of the universe. Again, you have completely ignored the fact that Every number I gave was qualified with the words "approximate", or "about" in regards to the age of the universe dou to the inherrent margin of error when attempting to measure such vast amounts of time. You are still proving my greater point regarding the ideology of Darwinism.

    Regarding thermography and radiology, perhaps they were the wrong words, butthey concpets are the same, measuring radiation and temperature. These arethe measurement tools I know of know of that are used to estimate the age of the universe.

    "So far you’ve directly attacked the theory of evolution and Big Bang theory and indirectly attacked the theory of stellar evolution and I’m sure there are others in the background."

    Are you truly that incapable of grasping the most basic statements people make? I have not attacked the Big Bang theory at all. I have allowed for it to be true. Then I used what math and physics have shown us to demonstrate how it can be true CONCURRENTLY with the Biblical account of Creation. I was really hoping for more intelligent arguments from you, but you can't seem to get past you ideological, almost religious belief that anything that does not say what you want it to say in science is an attack on science. I suppose that if a complete strand of dinosaur DNA were found, replicated, and tested only to show that dinosaurs are completely unrelated to birds you would start screaming that the test was tainted by religion and is invalid. That seems to be the strain of argument you, and most people ideologically wrapped up in Darwinism take when your pet theory has it's weaknesses exposed.

    "Now, in the case of the early universe, time is slow compared to… what, exactly?"

    Why now, of course. I thought I made that amply clear. Time in th eprimordial universe is slow compared to time now. There are your two reference points. Is this concept really beyond you? Is this sort of limited understanding of science is what you are basing your body of knowledge on then you have nothing to stand on.

    "You want to say that time across the entire universe was slowed so you have to treat the entire universe as a single frame of reference (Schroeder actually does this). The problem is, there is nothing to compare it to."

    Wrong again. I compare back then to right now. I understand that some people don't like it, but those are, in fact, two seperate reference points.

    "All time references are within the universe so even if there was a speeding up of time over the eons, we would have no way of detecting it because all the clocks we could examine would have been equally sped up"

    Umm . . . duh! That is exactly what this theory relies upon for it to be true. If that were not the case then we would not be having this discussion right now. We have reference points within the universe today through the experiments that verified Relativity that provide the mathematical basis for extrapolating the data I have presented in this essay.

    "In his second book, Schroeder gives up special relativity in favour of general relativity and switches from time dilation due to relative speed to time dilation due to gravitational fields"

    Not true at all. He keeps Special Relativity, in fact is the foundation he builds upon. He simply aded the other tools to provide a better measuring stick. You have obviously no tread Schroeder's work for yourself. Your statement here also show that whomever you are believing has lied to you.

    It took researching the subject for me to encounter thefact that relativity is considered a physical law. Until a few months ago I, like every layperson I have ever known, called it the Theory of Relativity. Your claim that laypersons are the ones who call relativity a law is contrary to my lifetime of personal experience. Hence, your final argument comes acoss as simply being deceptive.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:26 AM  

  • CJB,

    I have read you link regarding physical laws, and I must have missed something because I fail to see where Relativity fails to fit in.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:28 AM  

  • Daniel,
    You're still missing the point on special relativity. Time neither slows down or speeds up; it's relative to the observer. There is no absolute concept of time that can either speed up or slow down; relativity proves that. Remember that relativity shows that space and time are the same. Schroeder is comparing the entire universe to itself, which leaves no inertial frame that can observe a change in time. Schroeder could say the early universe equals 6 days, 6 minutes or 6 seconds; with no external frame of reference any such assertion is meaningless.

    If you're interested in relativity theory, I recommend Brian Greene's book The Elegant Universe. It really goes in to string theory and M-theory but has a great couple of chapters at the beginning explaining Einstein's relativity theories.

    By Blogger Samurai Sam, at 10:36 AM  

  • I can't say as I've ever heard of relativity being referred to as the "Laws of Relativity" but given that it's an academic distinction, what does it really matter? Trying to draw some sort of normative contrast between relativity and evolution by saying one is a "law" while the other is "just a theory" is to create a difference of no distinction. Both relativity and evolution are very well supported by a mountain of evidence but in the end, nothing can be absolutely proven about the universe unless one can step outside of it to a neutral frame of reference. Remember also that plenty of scientific theories which are called laws have areas that are not well understood. Gravity is one example. Some, such as the Laws of Conservation, actually have exceptions under certain conditions. So don't get too caught up in the differences in nomenclature.

    By Blogger Samurai Sam, at 10:49 AM  

  • Relativity doe not change the mere perception of time with seed, it, in fact, CHANGES THE ACTUAL FLOW OF TIME.

    No, it doesn't. Time doesn't "flow" except in literature and poetry. Time is a dimension of the universe in which mass-energy moves. Human consciousness only perceives events in a linear fashion. The universe is not constrained by that perception. A person standing on Earth and a person standing on the sun do not experience time any differently. They only perceive that the other frame is experiencing time differently. From the human perspective, we move through time at a certain rate, photons don't move through time at all and positrons actually move backward through time. From a photon's perspective, neither we nor the positrons move through time. From the positrons perspective, photons don't move through time and we are actually moving backward through time. It's all relative to the inertial frame.

    By Blogger Samurai Sam, at 11:06 AM  

  • Daniel: Time on the sun, in reality, differently than time does on earth.

    Yes, I realize it sounds funny, but that's how you typed it. Time doesn't flow differently on the sun. I don't know where you got this idea from. Obviously you've been to the sun. Seeing as the sun is too hot for anyone to get close to the surface and spend any significant amount of time there. So, show me here where it says that time on the sun flows different from time here on Earth.

    By Blogger Unsigned, at 1:17 PM  

  • Daniel: Every number I gave was qualified with the words "approximate", or "about" in regards to the age of the universe dou to the inherrent margin of error when attempting to measure such vast amounts of time. You are still proving my greater point regarding the ideology of Darwinism.

    You should have qualified your numbers with the words ‘wrong’ or ‘inflated’. Did you read the last link I gave you on the age of the universe? It begins by saying that, until recently, the estimated age of the universe was 12 to 14 billion years, not 15 to 20 billion and the last few paragraphs point out the reasons why the estimate is now 13.7 billion years with an error margin of 1%. An error margin of 1% does not mean that the estimate is now 13 to 20 billion years. And get it through your head that it isn’t me saying this to support my supposed ideology: it’s the data saying it. The data is the result of numerous experiments carried out by thousands of scientists working for NASA and elsewhere. I think I’d trust someone who actually works in this field more than someone who thinks radiology is used to determine the age of the universe.

    Daniel: I have not attacked the Big Bang theory at all. I have allowed for it to be true.

    I was hoping you would reinforce this. Yes, the Big Bang is true and the universe, Earth and life arose over billions of years, not six days. All you and Schroeder are doing is attempting to twist and interpret your Biblical creation story to fit the actual facts. No one other than Biblical literalists believes your silly story. Has Schroeder published his hypotheses in peer-reviewed papers? If so (which I seriously doubt), how were they received by the wider scientific community—with ridicule I imagine?

    Daniel: but you can't seem to get past you ideological, almost religious belief

    I am always amused when Christian believers use the term ‘religious belief’ as a pejorative.

    Daniel: I compare back then to right now. I understand that some people don't like it, but those are, in fact, two seperate reference points.

    Not when it comes to Special Relativity, they aren’t. They are just two points in time in the one inertial reference frame (the universe as a whole). You need another inertial reference frame—something outside the universe—to compare it to.

    Go back to the spaceship example. A spaceship passes the Earth at close to the speed of light. To an observer on the Earth, time on the ship appears to be running slower than normal. To an observer on the ship looking at the Earth, time on the Earth appears sped up. How is the observer on the ship making that judgment? She is comparing the time on Earth to her experience of time. To her, time on the ship is running at the normal rate; she’s aging normally; the clocks are running normally; everything on the ship is running as she would expect it to be. If she could not see anything outside the ship, there is no way she could tell—no experiment that would show her—that time is proceeding in any way other than normally at any point in her journey. To her, a second now is the same as it was ten years ago because she is within a single inertial reference frame; everything around her is moving at the same relative speed. To her, the ship and everything in it is experiencing time at the same rate, regardless of when she measures it.

    Now suppose the ship slows and travels for some time at a lower speed. To an observer on the Earth, the rate of time on the ship has changed; it seems to have been sped up and is now a little closer to normal speed. If the ship slowed in a series of steps until it was stationary relative to the Earth then a long-lived Earth observer would see time on the ship changing from where one day on the ship was billions of years on Earth to where a day on the ship is the same as a day on Earth. This is the effect I think you are looking for. However, for the observer on the ship who cannot see outside the ship, time always appears to be running at normal speed regardless of when she measures it. At each of the steps, a second is still a second long because the clock she is using to measure the second is within the ship and has sped up along with everything else in the ship. There is no way she can tell that a second at one step is any different from a second at another step. It is only the Earth observer who sees these differences.

    The universe is that spaceship, but there is no equivalent outside reference like the Earth to compare time to. It does not matter when we measure time in the universe. We cannot tell whether it has sped up, slowed down or remained the same from one moment to the next because anything we can use to measure it has been similarly affected.

    I admit that I haven’t read Schroeder’s books and that I’m just going by the various detailed critiques I’ve read. It was my error to diminish the role of Special Relativity in Schroeder’s second book, not the error of the reviewer. However, that doesn’t negate my refutation of your using the Special Theory of Relativity to justify the Genesis story.

    I didn’t mean that the article on Physical Laws had any specific reference to Special Relativity. I was pointing out to you the differences between scientific theories and laws. A law is not some higher form of truth than a theory; they perform different tasks. A scientific law is a statement of fact to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present. It is usually expressed mathematically. A law is a description of a scientific phenomenon whereas a theory is an explanation of that phenomenon.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 2:23 PM  

  • From a lexis-nexus search:
    The Jerusalem Report
    February 14, 2000
    HEADLINE: THE BATTLE FOR JEWISH SOULS
    BYLINE: Erik Schechter

    This is a snippet concerning what you have said about the theory/law of relativity. Maybe we could look into it...

    Another central player in Discovery, MIT physics doctorate Gerald Schroeder, invokes the Theory of Relativity to reconcile the Bible's reference to mere days of creation with the scientists' multi-billion-year timetable. The apparent contradiction, he claims, stems from a distorted perception of time as the universe expands. According to Schroeder, therefore, the first five and a half days of Creation can be measured as having lasted both 132 hours and 15 billion years - depending on whether one counts "forward," from the Big Bang, or "backward" from the present.

    "Pure baloney," scoffs Mark Parekh, emeritus professor of physics at California State University, Fullerton. By positing an objective "cosmic clock" that began ticking when matter first formed, Parekh says, Schroeder's argument actually undermines the notion of time's relativity.


    How does it undermine the notion? Just curious.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:44 PM  

  • Okay, with all of the desperate scambling to distort a simple concept by my evolutionist readers I feel the need to ask a few simple questions.

    You do realize that the actual flow of time is changed by speed, not just the perception of it, right? you do realize that perception is the only thing that a known refernce point can measure of an actual event, right? And given this, are you intellectually capable of understanding that while our ability to measure time comes from our known point (the present) the actual passage of time for an object is, in reality, changed by it's speed and mass.

    Unsigned, I don't need to visit the sun to determine that the timeline passes differently there. It can be calculated mathematically using measurements of the sun's mass and rotational speed combined with the overall speed of our galaxy. Your argument is the same as saying "Atoms don't exist, have you ever seen an atom? No, but I sure can find them. Try not to be ridiculous in your arguments.

    CJB,

    I see you are obsessed with my misuse of a term, and ignoring the clarification of said use. So, for your benefit, I shall repeat and hope you are capable of grasping the concept this time. I used the word radiology, (poorly chosen word) to describe the practice of measuring the ambient radiation of the universe. I used the thermography (another poorly chosen word) to describe measuring the temperature of the universe. I was not speaking in the medical sense, and I was not speaking about geology. Perhaps the better word would have been "radiography". of course, I'm sure you will read this, and it won't stick for one second.

    "Has Schroeder published his hypotheses in peer-reviewed papers? If so (which I seriously doubt), how were they received by the wider scientific community—with ridicule I imagine?"

    Yes, he has published many works in peer reviewed papers, and no, far from ridicule he is a highly respected physicist who the science community takes very seriously. Yes, he does have his critics, but then, so does Einstein, Darwin, and even Newton. if you are measuring a scientists competence by whether or not he has critics then you must call every scientist in the world an incompetent boob, and then you must invalidate all of science based upon this assertion. Is that your desire? I thought you were all about science . . . or is it just science that you can use to assault religion thet you are a fan of? If that is the case then your pet theories have become your religion.

    Regarding your spaceship example, again, I must say . . . duh! if relativity didn;t work exactlytht way ten we could not possibly be measuring billions of years of history from our current reference point! Our current refernce point is the present. when we look at chunks of the pat, that took immense amounts of time that di, in fact pass, those chunks of time that passed would fit in a set time within the current passage of time. You are simply restating facts that must be true for what I have presented in this esay to be true. Are you trying to criticize what I have written, or confirm it? Because it looks like you are trying to criticize it, but you keep confirming it.

    "I admit that I haven’t read Schroeder’s books and that I’m just going by the various detailed critiques I’ve read."

    I checked your links, I can tell you the critiques are counting on you having NOT read Schroeder. otherwise you would distrust the critiques. Perhaps, since you are constantly saying I should read the critiques, you should read Shroeder's work? It might be a good idea.

    "that doesn’t negate my refutation of your using the Special Theory of Relativity to justify the Genesis story."

    You mean your uniformed attempt to refute it? You have already aknowlegded that you are arguing from a point of ignorance. This means you are arguing ideology, not physics. I thought you wanted to keep ideology out of science.

    Anonomys,

    "How does it undermine the notion? Just curious."

    It doesn't. you are merely quoting the opinion of someone who, while generally well qualified, is hostile to any notion of Biblical and scientific reconciliation. Just like certain other scientists I shall name in alter installments who have commited various fraudulent acts and made provably ridiculous statements simply because they allowed ideology to affect thier science.

    For example, have you considered the contradiction between what this professor you mentioned said about how a "cosmic clock" undermines relativity, and the "cosmic clock" you encounter in school textbooks? If the concept is so damaging to relativity the why is it so widely used? If the conceppt is simply false, then why are the texbooks that contain it so widely used without criticism? Can it be that this man is simply personally offended by the idea that science could prove the Bible that he is willing to sep out on a limb and make ridiculous statements knowing that the media, and many of his collegues won't question him about it?

    Remember, I have referenced you to 2 entire books loaded with math to demonstrate the theories I have posited here. You are pointing me to a news article where someone who provided no contradictory simply stated his personal disapproval.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:16 AM  

  • Daniel,

    I understand why you misused those terms in your post. It’s because you are not trained in that field so you are unfamiliar with the terms used. This only reinforces my thinking that it would be wiser to trust the statements and evidence produced by the thousands of scientists who do work in the field than the unsupported assertions of someone without the same training, experience and resources.

    Daniel: Yes, he has published many works in peer reviewed papers, and no, far from ridicule he is a highly respected physicist who the science community takes very seriously.

    Nice try, Daniel. I’m sure Schroeder has submitted works to peer-reviewed publications. The question is, have these particular hypotheses about the Biblical Genesis story been accepted by his peers in the scientific community? Can you give us evidence for this? Links to peer-reviewed papers would be good. Oh wait, I forgot, you don’t provide evidence to support your stories—it’s up to us to find the evidence. I have been looking for this evidence for you, but I’ve got to tell you, all I’ve found from scientists is criticism and rejection.

    I give up on trying to show you where you are wrong in your thinking on relativity. If you can’t see by now that Schroeder’s argument depends on a requirement for an absolute time reference then there is no point in continuing the discussion on it.

    By the way, Schroeder’s popular press books are not acceptable as evidence for anything you’ve said so far. One can find all sorts of pseudoscientific garbage in the popular press nowadays. There are plenty of books written by complete cranks that are crammed with mathematics supposedly proving everything from alien visitations to free energy and perpetual motion. What we need is evidence that is generally accepted by the majority of scientists in the relevant field, just like any other theory worth believing.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 1:38 PM  

  • CJb,

    I understand that your arguments aginst what I have presented here are based on critiques of Shroeder's work, and absolutely NO firsthand knowledge of the work itself. I can prove, right now, that your pet critiques have misled you and cannot be trusted simply by using statements you have undoubtedly taken from these critiques.

    "All time references are within the universe so even if there was a speeding up of time over the eons, we would have no way of detecting it because all the clocks we could examine would have been equally sped up"

    AND

    "Go back to the spaceship example. A spaceship passes the Earth at close to the speed of light. To an observer on the Earth, time on the ship appears to be running slower than normal. To an observer on the ship looking at the Earth, time on the Earth appears sped up. How is the observer on the ship making that judgment? She is comparing the time on Earth to her experience of time. To her, time on the ship is running at the normal rate; she’s aging normally; the clocks are running normally; everything on the ship is running as she would expect it to be. If she could not see anything outside the ship, there is no way she could tell—no experiment that would show her—that time is proceeding in any way other than normally at any point in her journey. To her, a second now is the same as it was ten years ago because she is within a single inertial reference frame; everything around her is moving at the same relative speed. To her, the ship and everything in it is experiencing time at the same rate, regardless of when she measures it.

    Now suppose the ship slows and travels for some time at a lower speed. To an observer on the Earth, the rate of time on the ship has changed; it seems to have been sped up and is now a little closer to normal speed. If the ship slowed in a series of steps until it was stationary relative to the Earth then a long-lived Earth observer would see time on the ship changing from where one day on the ship was billions of years on Earth to where a day on the ship is the same as a day on Earth. This is the effect I think you are looking for. However, for the observer on the ship who cannot see outside the ship, time always appears to be running at normal speed regardless of when she measures it. At each of the steps, a second is still a second long because the clock she is using to measure the second is within the ship and has sped up along with everything else in the ship. There is no way she can tell that a second at one step is any different from a second at another step. It is only the Earth observer who sees these differences.

    The universe is that spaceship, but there is no equivalent outside reference like the Earth to compare time to. It does not matter when we measure time in the universe. We cannot tell whether it has sped up, slowed down or remained the same from one moment to the next because anything we can use to measure it has been similarly affected."

    you use these in attempt to demonstsrate flaws in Schroeder's work. The problem with this is that Schroeder's work requires you supposed "flaws" to be true for his work to be valid. What you have done is present evidence that has already been used to prove that Schroeder's work is correct, and saying that it proves it incorrect.

    This brings us back to the whole point of this series.The point being that science has been distorted and misrepresented in an effort to A: protect a flawed set of hypothesese that is required to justify a set of religious (Atheistic) beliefs, and B: to attack religion in general. I find it endlessly fascinating that the only religion people like you want in the classroom is anything that asaults religion. I can neither condone, nor can I respect such a position on education, or culture. It also has no place tainting science.

    Yes, there ARE a lot of crackpots out there. Unfortunately for your position, which appears to be that Schroeder is committing scientific and academic fraud, Schroeder is not one such huckster. sure you can choose to overlook the fact that he is a world renowned physicist in the science community. And you can point to his renown in the religious community while ignoring his status in the global scientific community and try to say that religious people are the only ones who respect his work, but you would be lying.

    One interesting factoid, your age of the universe is a figure put out in 2001 according to the link you have provided. Schroeder first published Genesis and the Big Bang back in 1990. You again prove my point that whenever evidence supporting the Bible comes out there is a mad scramble to try to change the science to debunk it. Of course, for what I have just said to be true we must assume a general hostility to religion being rampant in the scientific community. That is a subject that, while I consider it to be a given, shall be covered in detail in a later post in this series. Did I not mention the fact that parts of the scientific have gone after a change in the age of the universe specifically to create a divergence from Schroeder's timeline? I do believe I did. I also find it interesting that the current tack is go down rather than up, as was once posited.

    Regarding absolute time, it has nothing at all to do with Schroeders theory, and is nothing more than a red herring for desperate people to latch onto. feel free to cling to it as much as you want to. Naturally, had you bothered to read Schroeder's work you would already understand this.

    So, lets see what your arguments have accomplished, shall we? You have managed to show that the critiques of Schroeder's work are using the evidence for said work to say it is incorrect, a true nonsense position position to take. It's like saying "For the sky to be blue there must be light, but the sky is not blue because there is light." Typical sloppy, circular arguments that I have come to expect from certain elements in the scientific world.

    You have exposed the dishonesty of the critiques of Schroeder's work and managed to display your own ignorance in the process.

    That's quite an accomplishment. I should thank you for strengthening my position and helping to prove my assertion that evolutionary science is tainted your religion, AKA Secular Humanism. Don't worry, all secular Humanists are Atheists, and most Atheists don't realize that they are Secular Humanists. Another commenter here, Samurai Sam, is intellectually and spiritually enlightened enough to understand this fact about himself. I wonder if you will ever achieve the same level of understanding.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 6:42 PM  

  • Oh for pity’s sake, Daniel, what is the matter with you?

    I’ll try one last time to explain this. For the sake of this argument, let’s assume that time is changing as Schroeder says and to make things easier let’s say that one second today equals ten seconds 100 years ago. Let’s also assume that there is some natural phenomenon that you can use as a clock and that today it ticks once per second. If you can answer a few simple questions, I think we can get to the bottom of this problem.

    Imagine you’ve been transported back in time to 100 years ago and you look at this natural clock. How many times per second does it tick?

    If your answer is anything other than once per second then you need to go away and figure out why you are wrong.

    Now let’s assume that one second today equals 100 seconds 100 years ago and you perform the same experiment. How many times per second does the clock tick 100 years ago under these new conditions? Again, if your answer is anything other than once per second, you are wrong.

    So how can we tell whether a second today equals ten seconds 100 years ago or 100 seconds 100 years ago or maybe only one second 100 years ago?

    This is one problem with Schroeder’s conjecture. There is just no way to verify it. The other problem is that the clock ticks once per second today and once per second 100 years ago regardless of the time dilation. Anything that took 24 hours to happen 100 years ago takes 24 hours to happen today. Those hours may be shorter today than 100 years ago, but all the processes in the universe have sped up accordingly. Ultimately, as much happens in six days now as it did 13.7 billion years ago. I’m not saying that Schroeder is a crackpot. I know he is respected nuclear physicist, but in this instance, he is wrong.

    Daniel: This brings us back to the whole point of this series.The point being that science has been distorted and misrepresented in an effort to A: protect a flawed set of hypothesese that is required to justify a set of religious (Atheistic) beliefs, and B: to attack religion in general.

    Hogwash, Daniel. Science seeks to explain the natural world—nothing more, nothing less. Science has no atheist or anti-religious agenda. You may feel that certain branches of science are attacking your religion because the natural world they reveal conflicts with your irrational beliefs, but science is just telling it like it is. Do you really think thousands of scientists are conspiring to distort the age of the universe simply to contradict one man’s conjecture? That’s just your paranoia. The age of the universe is being defined more and more accurately based on more and better data, that’s all.

    Daniel: I should thank you for strengthening my position and helping to prove my assertion that evolutionary science is tainted your religion, AKA Secular Humanism. Don't worry, all secular Humanists are Atheists, and most Atheists don't realize that they are Secular Humanists. Another commenter here, Samurai Sam, is intellectually and spiritually enlightened enough to understand this fact about himself. I wonder if you will ever achieve the same level of understanding.

    You are becoming even longer on rhetoric and shorter on evidence than usual, Daniel. I’m an atheist. You already know my views on religion so I’m sure you can understand why I would say that I have no religion.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 12:50 AM  

  • CJB,

    Once again, you have done nothing more that state a condition that must be true in order for Schroeder's work to be true. But you would know this if you had ever actually read his work. You continuing "the sky is blue because there is light, but because there is light the sky cannot be blue" argument isn't doing anything for you.

    However, since you seem bent on using the "must be measured right now" stance regarding scientific theories, can you guess hwere this is going? All of your data regarding the age of the Universe must be invalidated because we cannot go back in time and accurately measure it firsthand, we can only use what we can see and test right now, today, and use math to reach a conjecture. The same goes evolution. Since we have never observed morphological evolution in any form we must assume it does not happen. After all, we have nothing but conjecture about the possiblity that evolution may have happened.

    You might like Schroeder if you read him. He is very kind to evolution, he takes it to be true, but he also takes the Bilblical account of creation to be true. I am not so kind to evolution, in fact, I am resonably cetain it is nothing more than a philosophy supported by bad science. More to come on that in a whole lot of posts in this series.

    S to your assetion that I am being short on evidence, this is an essay, not a book. the full explanation of what I have presented here filled 2 books,and I have directed you to them. That is far more evidence than I usually bother to provide, and a rare time when I bother to direct anyone to my exact source of information. My reason? to see if people like you wil bother to read the source, or if you will just plod along as usual. so far you are plodding along as usual, and reinforcing my standard of practice of saying "find it yourself lazy". It's good to know that I really wasn't mistaken when I decided I would be wasting my time by digging up every reference I have ever gotten information from in my life that I used to write on the subject at hand in any given article. For this vindication, I must thank you.

    I can't help but note the increasing weakness of yor arguments this week. Your last 2 comments, and one of your early ones simply stated eveidence that was used to support the theory I have presented to you here in brief, and tried to use it to contradict the very theory that uses them as building blocks. This is the quality of the scientists you read? If I were you I would find scientists who can actually think to listen to.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 1:35 AM  

  • CLB,

    Just because I feel like playing your typical meaningless word game for a moment I want to present the following:

    "I’m sure you can understand why I would say that I have no religion."

    Actually it impossible to "have no religion". This arrangement of words states you have the reigion of no religion. For the word Have to be properly used in this situation "no religion" would have to be a sunbstantive thing, but you intend it in the null sense. Therefore, your statement only makes sense if "no religion" is your religion. Perhaps you meant to say someting more like the follwing: "I'm sure you can understand why I say that I do not have a religion"

    See? I can play that game too. Of course, being rididculous and anal does not change what you are communicating. It just makes me ridiculous and anal. Hence, why I like to stick to substance, and not waste time fighting over silliness. I bring this up because I have been very patient with your practice of twisting language to justify yourself. Be aware that I will not let that pass uncrushed in this series from this point forth.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 1:46 AM  

  • Daniel: I am not so kind to evolution, in fact, I am resonably cetain it is nothing more than a philosophy supported by bad science.

    You amaze me, Daniel. Do you think your readers are gullible fools? Let’s be realistic here—you are nothing more than a creationist layman on a blog. Why would you think that we should believe you when you claim that the theory of evolution is false rather than the hundreds of thousands of scientists who work in the many fields that support the theory of evolution? You claim that it is bad science despite the mountains of supporting evidence gathered over the last 150 years and despite the innumerable times it has been tested and confirmed by those same well educated and well trained professional scientists. Do you really think that they are all mistaken, that all the verifications are wrong and that all the supporting evidence is false? Do you honestly believe that the meagre amount of reading you have done qualifies you to say that the entire theory of evolution is false?

    If you really do think you have falsified the theory of evolution, then don’t bother telling us about it; publish your findings in Nature, Science or some other peer reviewed publication to show those scientists how stupid they all are. First, you need to convince the scientists working in the field that they know nothing—then you may possibly have some credibility here. Unless you can use logical reasoning and material evidence to convince real scientists they are wrong then, really, your opinions on evolution are worthless.

    But maybe I’m being uncharitable. Maybe you do know more than all the scientists in the field—though does this seem even remotely possible to anyone here? Never mind, let’s say by some miracle you do falsify the entire theory of evolution and most scientists accept your conclusions. What then? Does this mean that creation is true? Of course it doesn’t. This isn’t an either/or situation—maybe Lamarckism is the answer or exogenesis. Creation isn’t the only alternative and doesn’t win by default. No, to prove creation, you have to produce sound evidence to show that it is true. You can’t just say something is true and expect everyone to believe your bare assertion—though this may work for people gullible enough to believe there is a God. For the rest of us, you need to provide evidence to support your claims.

    This fearful prattling against the theory of evolution is pointless and proves nothing. Tell us how you think life developed on this planet and—most important of all—give us evidence to show us why we should believe you.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 3:06 AM  

  • CJB,

    In regards to your entire last comment; Yes, I am a layman, but I am presenting the findings and research of experts. Your basic premise that the entire scientific community believes as you do about evolution is simply false. People just get a whole lot of exposure to it bcause people like you scream, shout, and sue when the research of those dissenting scientists starts to get taught in any format. One niice thing about me not being one of these scientists is that I can present these things and not have to worry about my carrer assaulted by Dawinist fanatics who will do anything to suppress information that is unkind to evolution.

    And you have yet to respond my challenge that you actually READ Schroeder's work. Are you afraid to expose yourself to it? Do you restrict youself to baseless criticisms based on a lack of exposure to that which you are atacking? If so you will continue to present falsehoods in you critiques just like you have in your comments in this posting. If I can slog through multiple books and peer reviewed articles to research this series, including ones that support evolution, then the least you can do when I tel you that you are the evidence that is in favor of a theory to try to attack it is go to the source and verify it for yourself.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:18 AM  

  • Daniel: Your basic premise that the entire scientific community believes as you do about evolution is simply false.

    Really? Where did I say that? I asked why we should take the word of a creationist layman against the evidence produced by hundreds of thousands of well-trained, professional scientists. I don’t think the entire scientific community believes in the theory of evolution; there are dissenters in any crowd. It doesn’t mean they are right and usually means they are wrong, particularly when all of the evidence is against them and they won’t subject their ideas to peer review.

    Daniel: Dawinist fanatics who will do anything to suppress information that is unkind to evolution.

    Poppycock. Have Schroeder’s books been banned? How about Icons of Evolution and Darwin’s Black Box? Have they been banned or was their publication refused? This is nothing but hyperbolic rhetoric and paranoia, Daniel.

    Daniel: Do you restrict youself to baseless criticisms based on a lack of exposure to that which you are atacking? If so you will continue to present falsehoods in you critiques just like you have in your comments in this posting.

    Tell it to Mark Perakh. It was his critique I directed you to and he has read Schroeder’s books.

    Could you please point out the falsehoods in my comments and provide evidence that shows they are false; not just that you think they are false, but that they actually are false. If you can show me that I have said something that is false then I will retract it.

    Daniel: And you have yet to respond my challenge that you actually READ Schroeder's work.

    No, I’m not going to read Schroeder’s books because it would serve no purpose. As I noted before, books in the popular press are worthless as scientific evidence because they have not been peer reviewed. They can and many times do contain multiple errors and basic misconceptions. Using any of these books you’ve noted as evidence to support your case is a fruitless exercise. If you tried it at a scientific conference, you would probably be discounted immediately as a charlatan; if you tried it in college, you would be failed; and if you try it here, you will be ridiculed as much as you would ridicule someone for using legal arguments in a scientific debate. It’s like trying to use the Bible as evidence for something: it’s worthless.

    I think the people who write these books are the ones with an agenda, not the scientists who publish peer-reviewed papers. They publish their ideas in the popular press because I think they know they would not survive critical analysis by their peers in the relevant field. Back up your assertions with sound scientific evidence, not worthless puff pieces from the popular press.

    Daniel: If I can slog through multiple books and peer reviewed articles to research this series, including ones that support evolution

    Well if you’ve slogged through these peer-reviewed articles and remember them, it shouldn’t be too hard for you to at least point to them so that we can check for ourselves that your interpretation is correct.

    Daniel: the least you can do when I tel you that you are the evidence that is in favor of a theory to try to attack it is go to the source and verify it for yourself.

    You’ve become incoherent again. I have no idea what you mean by this.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 1:32 PM  

  • "Poppycock. Have Schroeder’s books been banned?"

    You mean, like, in Schools? Yes. as is all material promting Intelligent Design in certain areas of the country.

    "Daniel: the least you can do when I tell you that you are the evidence that is in favor of a theory to try to attack it is go to the source and verify it for yourself.

    You’ve become incoherent again. I have no idea what you mean by this."


    lol, I left out a word, let me simplify for you. Go to the source before you trust secondhand information. you want to criticize Schroeder? Read what he has written.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 6:40 PM  

  • Daniel,

    All your mathematics prove is that the sun moves at a different rotational speed then the rest of the universe. In no way have you made any solid science that the Sun has a different 'time flow' then the rest of the universe. Time is something we made up as people. I guarantee that 10 seconds on the Sun is the same as 10 seconds anywhere else. the only difference is that the surface you are standing on has moved less then the others.

    At no point was my arguement ridiculous. By your statement, it obvious you'd rather attack my person then read a scientific article (with many statistics included) about the Sun. But I guess ad homein is what you are all about these days.

    I have many horrible things I want to say to you, but I'd rather be the better person. They sya ignorance is bliss. I guess it's true since you are so happy.

    By Blogger Unsigned, at 8:36 AM  

  • Unsigned,

    The full formulae that demonstrate what I told you about the passage of time on the sun can be found in The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder. The proof you have asked for is in there. Feel free to read it.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares