Is changing a physical law like changing a speed limit sign?

[Neatras]

Changing some laws on earth is more like changing a speed limit sign.

Is the above true? If so, how does one demonstrate this to be the case?

If not, what are some physical consequences of changing a physical law outside of what one might expect?

My debate position is this: It is extremely uneducated and willfully ignorant to believe that changing a physical law only affects a limited domain of physical phenomena. For example, changing the speed of light to be faster doesn't just affect how quickly light reaches us; it also affects how quickly particles interact, the energy required for all physical interactions, and other sundry details that would, in essence, be very telling if they suddenly altered in an instant.

However, I am aware that both dad and Kent Hovind maintain that God is some sort of master engineer, complete with a box and dials that he can play with, turning some physical laws on and off while the rest remains unaffected. This is a position maintained by and expressed via ignorance and incredulity, with no physical basis or rationale behind it besides "God is awesome enough to get away with it."

So, any creationists wanna try and put it across that changing a physical law is like changing a speed limit sign?

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 15 by dad]

Arguing with you is great because it gives us a true biblical perspective. What I mean by that is that if we were to scoop up an average person from thousands of years ago and have a conversation with him about astrophysics it would sound quite similar to this.

The devolution of human intelligence is not on your side actually.

Well I was referring to the vastly improved literacy rate and overall understanding of complex concepts, and the general body of human achievement that has occurred since the first century AD - but please, why don't you type out on your computing machine connected to a worldwide network powered by the splitting of the atom just how humans have become less intelligent over time. I'm sure, just like all your other responses, you have some sort of coherent and thorough explanation of what you mean by the "devolution of human intelligence". I'm sure you have clear data points that indicate human beings with their increased nutrition, mandatory education, reduced threat of violence, and free access to information are much less intelligent than the average resident of Mesopotamia circa 1AD.

Go ahead, I'll wait. Make the case. You're so good at it.

[dad]

Well I was referring to the vastly improved literacy rate

You think man read in the days of Adam and Noah? Any support for this idea?

and overall understanding of complex concepts

?? Rather than understanding man has turned to fables. You only assume your understanding is better.

and the general body of human achievement that has occurred since the first century AD

Atomic progress eh? Pollution. WOMD. While there are many good inventions, there are also many very bad ones. None of that has anything at all to do with origins though. Hoo ha.

- but please, why don't you type out on your computing machine connected to a worldwide network powered by the splitting of the atom just how humans have become less intelligent over time.

Can you talk to animals or read minds? Having a man with a head transplant who may have a body that is a machine and who was cloned from a monkey with a sex change is not necessarily progress in everyone's mind.

I'm sure, just like all your other responses, you have some sort of coherent and thorough explanation of what you mean by the "devolution of human intelligence". I'm sure you have clear data points that indicate human beings with their increased nutrition, mandatory education, reduced threat of violence, and free access to information are much less intelligent than the average resident of Mesopotamia circa 1AD.

Mandatory education is not a good thing when taught lies. Reduced violence?? Hilarious. Nutrition? Pass the cheetos. Heart problems and diabetes and whole populations being overweight and choking on the smog at times hardly seems like Utopia.

Go ahead, I'll wait. Make the case. You're so good at it.

I am not sure that if we gave Cain an Oozy to whack Able, that would be much more 'evolved' than using a club.

[DeMotts]

Well I was referring to the vastly improved literacy rate

You think man read in the days of Adam and Noah? Any support for this idea?

You're making my point. Widespread literacy didn't exist until the printing press was invented. What I'm saying is literacy is better NOW.

and overall understanding of complex concepts

?? Rather than understanding man has turned to fables. You only assume your understanding is better.

You're referencing a time where fables were literally the only explanation for how things worked, and saying that they had a better understanding than we do now. What?

and the general body of human achievement that has occurred since the first century AD

Atomic progress eh? Pollution. WOMD. While there are many good inventions, there are also many very bad ones. None of that has anything at all to do with origins though. Hoo ha.

Agreed, that has nothing to do with the point you're trying to make.

- but please, why don't you type out on your computing machine connected to a worldwide network powered by the splitting of the atom just how humans have become less intelligent over time.

Can you talk to animals or read minds? Having a man with a head transplant who may have a body that is a machine and who was cloned from a monkey with a sex change is not necessarily progress in everyone's mind.

Do you have any proof that people thousands of years ago could talk to animals or read minds? Can you explain the "devolution" process that caused us to lose these abilities?

I'm sure, just like all your other responses, you have some sort of coherent and thorough explanation of what you mean by the "devolution of human intelligence". I'm sure you have clear data points that indicate human beings with their increased nutrition, mandatory education, reduced threat of violence, and free access to information are much less intelligent than the average resident of Mesopotamia circa 1AD.

Mandatory education is not a good thing when taught lies. Reduced violence?? Hilarious. Nutrition? Pass the cheetos. Heart problems and diabetes and whole populations being overweight and choking on the smog at times hardly seems like Utopia.

Mathematics is a lie? Studying literature and history are lies? Biology and chemistry, all lies? I guess if a school doesn't follow your whole "physics completely changed randomly at some point in history and I offer absolutely no proof of this" curriculum it's all lies.

Violence has been declining vastly over time. This is a provable fact. The likelihood of an individual being a victim of violence or murder is at an all time low.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -violence/
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-a ... itle-slide

Nutrition - Norman Borlaug and his green revolution in which he saved literal billions of lives would like a word with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

Go ahead, I'll wait. Make the case. You're so good at it.

I am not sure that if we gave Cain an Oozy to whack Able, that would be much more 'evolved' than using a club.

Firstly, it's spelled Uzi. Secondly, you haven't even tried to prove anything related to your claim that our INTELLIGENCE is "devolving". Once more, you've referenced a bunch of random disconnected thoughts and walked away from the premise of your argument.

Dad, this is the science forum. You're supposed to be building a provable case here. If you keep doing this misdirection debate style you'll never win any arguments. So, tell me, what proof do you offer that human beings are on average less intelligent now than thousands of years ago?

[Still small]

[Replying to post 20 by Kenisaw]

If you accept the assumption that a god being created the universe, and that same universe contains multitudes of facts that specifically refute the existence of an intelligent design effort, then there was an attempt to deceive.

To which 'multitudes of facts that specifically refute the existence of an intelligent design effort' are you referring? (Please be specific.)

Bible claims being short on details is not the problem. It's the complete and utter lack of evidence for them that's the problem. Naturalistic explanations are based on facts and empirical data, Biblical claims are not. They don't compare.(Emphasis added)

Again, to which specific 'facts' are you referring? To which 'empirical data' (being repeatable and observed data) are you referring regarding a naturalistic explanation for the creation of the universe?

Have a good day,
Still small

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 12 by Kenisaw]

Time doesn't affect light, because AT the speed of light there is no time. Relativity. I already explained this to you. I even asked you to look it up yourself and not take my word for it. Light also doesn't experience distance. We see time and distance for light because, relative to the light, we are experiencing such dimensions. At the speed of light photons experience neither. So it doesn't matter if time exists or doesn't exist, because time doesn't affect light in the first place. NOTHING does. So the speed of light can't change because nothing affects it.

How do you align this train of thought with research that appears to contradict these statements? Such as:

Even in vacuum conditions, light can move slower than its maximum speed depending on the structure of its pulses. The finding could be important for physicists studying extremely short light pulses.
...
Researchers led by optical physicist Miles Padgett at the University of Glasgow demonstrated the effect by racing photons that were identical except for their structure. The structured light consistently arrived a tad late. Though the effect is not recognizable in everyday life and in most technological applications, the new research highlights a fundamental and previously unappreciated subtlety in the behavior of light.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/spe ... -after-all

https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed ... stant.html

From a very general point of view, G. Ellis expressed concerns that a varying c would require a rewrite of much of modern physics to replace the current system which depends on a constant c. Ellis claimed that any varying c theory (1) must redefine distance measurements (2) must provide an alternative expression for the metric tensor in general relativity (3) might contradict Lorentz invariance (4) must modify Maxwell's equations (5) must be done consistently with respect to all other physical theories. Whether these concerns apply to the proposals of Einstein (1911) and Dicke (1957) is a matter of debate, though VSL cosmologies remain out of mainstream physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

Would this not suggest a possibility for the "laws of science" as it pertains to the speed of light could be altered by an intelligent designer. Changing the structure of light photons could result in a different speed, which would ultimately change the way light interacts with the known universe.

Wouldn't this qualify?

Most physics calculations rely on the constant c or G. If these constants were altered or varied, even for a brief moment of time, then the laws of physics would be "broken" or suspended, even if only momentarily.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 24 by Still small]

Surely any and all biological features that are less than perfectly optimal would suffice? Take back pain as an example.

[DeMotts]

Would this not suggest a possibility for the "laws of science" as it pertains to the speed of light could be altered by an intelligent designer. Changing the structure of light photons could result in a different speed, which would ultimately change the way light interacts with the known universe.

Wouldn't this qualify?

Most physics calculations rely on the constant c or G. If these constants were altered or varied, even for a brief moment of time, then the laws of physics would be "broken" or suspended, even if only momentarily.

From reading the articles you posted, it sounds like they've discovered a variable speed based on the impedance of particles within the vacuum. It doesn't sound like they've discovered that c in a pure vacuum has variability at all. Am I reading this wrong?

[KingandPriest]

Would this not suggest a possibility for the "laws of science" as it pertains to the speed of light could be altered by an intelligent designer. Changing the structure of light photons could result in a different speed, which would ultimately change the way light interacts with the known universe.

Wouldn't this qualify?

Most physics calculations rely on the constant c or G. If these constants were altered or varied, even for a brief moment of time, then the laws of physics would be "broken" or suspended, even if only momentarily.

From reading the articles you posted, it sounds like they've discovered a variable speed based on the impedance of particles within the vacuum. It doesn't sound like they've discovered that c in a pure vacuum has variability at all. Am I reading this wrong?

Based on the literature, I would suggest, yes your statement is not a correct summation of Variable Speed of Light (VSL).

It is not the impedance of particles within the vacuum but the structure of the light particles themselves.

I would further suggest that they haven't discovered anything about c, itself. What is being observed is that even in a vacuum, with no impedance, the speed of light can vary based on the structure of the light photon.

[dad]

You're making my point. Widespread literacy didn't exist until the printing press was invented. What I'm saying is literacy is better NOW.

As opposed to several hundred years ago? Ha. How is that relevant to the topic?

You're referencing a time where fables were literally the only explanation for how things worked, and saying that they had a better understanding than we do now. What?

No. I am referencing science! It has been turned to fables, as you show by your fail to show laws were the same!

Do you have any proof that people thousands of years ago could talk to animals or read minds? Can you explain the "devolution" process that caused us to lose these abilities?

Science has none for or against. It is sidelined on the issue. The bible does indicate Adam could communicate with them. So believe what you like, remember you can't speak with any knowledge or authority whatsoever on the issue.

Mathematics is a lie?

When we use letters to represent light speed, time, the alpha constant, and etc etc etc in the deep past or deep space, of course it is a lie. If all you do is build a bridge on earth...fine.

Studying literature and history are lies?

Yes. Jesus is the whole reason and purpose of the past and future. To miss that is to miss history in any meaningful way. Literature? Well, we have some bad and good, so some of it is fables of course.

Biology and chemistry, all lies?

When they talk of how early life was, yes that is a cotton pickin lie. Chemistry? Well, keep things in the here and now and the reactions are OK.

I guess if a school doesn't follow your whole "physics completely changed randomly at some point in history and I offer absolutely no proof of this" curriculum it's all lies.

They teach lies about creation based on beliefs. If they dropped the belief based fables and stuck to what is known, that would be OK.

Violence has been declining vastly over time. This is a provable fact. The likelihood of an individual being a victim of violence or murder is at an all time low.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -violence/
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-a ... itle-slide

The clouds of war seem to be gathering, and you think it is all love and roses? I see the mass shootings of kids and folks at concerts and etc and I don't see that as a great sign man is evolving into a peacenik. Sorry.

Nutrition - Norman Borlaug and his green revolution in which he saved literal billions of lives would like a word with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

Tell him to look at most food in US grocery stores and get back to us eh?

Firstly, it's spelled Uzi. Secondly, you haven't even tried to prove anything related to your claim that our INTELLIGENCE is "devolving". Once more, you've referenced a bunch of random disconnected thoughts and walked away from the premise of your argument.

With greater science comes greater potential for fallen sinful man to do greater damage. Elementary.

what proof do you offer that human beings are on average less intelligent now than thousands of years ago?

Less intelligent? Well, can you build a great pyramid? How do we even know what pre flood man could do? Some people say man might have had the ability to fly in the distant past. The drawings in South America and etc seem to indicate it could be a possibility. How about even the magicians of Egypt turning a rod into a serpent? Can you do even that? We can't really speak to what man used to think and be able to do, how would we know now???

If you think that modern science is so intelligent why is man poised to destroy most life on the planet? Is that smart to you?

[dad]

Would this not suggest a possibility for the "laws of science" as it pertains to the speed of light could be altered by an intelligent designer. Changing the structure of light photons could result in a different speed, which would ultimately change the way light interacts with the known universe.

Wouldn't this qualify?

Most physics calculations rely on the constant c or G. If these constants were altered or varied, even for a brief moment of time, then the laws of physics would be "broken" or suspended, even if only momentarily.

From reading the articles you posted, it sounds like they've discovered a variable speed based on the impedance of particles within the vacuum. It doesn't sound like they've discovered that c in a pure vacuum has variability at all. Am I reading this wrong?

Based on the literature, I would suggest, yes your statement is not a correct summation of Variable Speed of Light (VSL).

It is not the impedance of particles within the vacuum but the structure of the light particles themselves.

I would further suggest that they haven't discovered anything about c, itself. What is being observed is that even in a vacuum, with no impedance, the speed of light can vary based on the structure of the light photon.

Hey, if there was no time in deep space, then forget the 'speed' of light! That only applies on earth and area where we do know time exists.

How much time anything takes to move depends on...what time is like there!