Is this it for creationism?

[Jose Fly]

For the last few years or so I've noticed a decided decline in the number of people trying to advocate and/or defend creationism online. Not only that, I've also noticed a definite decline in the quality of arguments they put forth, and that many of the ones who are left seem to mostly argue via empty assertions.

I believe both stem from the same overall cause....creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments.

To illustrate the above, consider Talk Origin's "Index to Creationist Claims". Note that it was last updated sixteen years ago (2006) and how it still pretty much covers just about every argument you can expect to see an internet creationist make, even today.

This tells me that creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments, and because of that, online creationists have nothing new to present and therefore are reduced to relying mostly on argument via assertion.

Question for debate: Am I missing some new creationist arguments, or is what we've been seeing from creationists over the last sixteen years all they have?

Subquestion for creationists: Given that the arguments in the TO Index have not had any impact on science, do y'all have any expectations that repeating those arguments will change anything?

[Clownboat]

I'm afraid you are very wrong here Jose. The scientific method is based on unprovable claims, beliefs! The belief that the universe is rationally intelligible, the belief that nature is governed by laws, the belief that same results will always be obtained with the same test under the same conditions all of these are beliefs, rational I agree but assumed, taken for granted.

I hear you. Now what method would your propose we use in place of the scientific method?

Who suggested it needed replacing? What problem are you trying to solve that makes you want to replace it?

No one suggested that it needed to be replaced and yet you imagine that I want it replaced because of some problem I'm trying to solve.

So why did you bring up questions about replacing it?

Please check your imagination as it has gotten carried away here.

But you wanted to discuss options for replacing the scientific method, something I never once raised, you raised the question not me.

However, you did say this: "The scientific method is based on unprovable claims, beliefs!"
This is what caused me to ask you what method you would suggest is better. I would assume it would be one that doesn't have the unprovable claims you complain about. I'm really starting to think you don't have a better method though and are just complaining about the best we do have. Is that the case? If so, why?

In which case you assumed wrongly and please don't blame me for "causing" you to ask irrelevant questions.

What I said is a fact, the scientific method is based on unprovable claims, it is not a complaint, it is a fact. You can agree with this or disagree, it would help if you told me which, but I won't hold my breath waiting for a straight answer.

I have no idea if there is a "better" method, but I don't think there is any method that doesn't rely on unprovable beliefs.

Do you agree that the scientific method is the best method so far that humans have come up with to determine truths about the world we live in?

[Jose Fly]

I agree science cannot prove propositions about the natural world I wanted to emphasize that you cannot therefore prove your claims scientifically.

Since science doesn't deal in proof, your sentence makes as much sense as saying "you can't prove your claims athletically".

These include propositions like "genocide is morally wrong" and "the earth is a ball", yes? neither of these can be proven, only believed, yes? As for five year olds they have no trouble understanding these things.

Again, I urge you to proclaim far and wide that you, as a Christian, believe genocide and taking girls as spoils of war are potentially moral acts. Cite the OT while you do it too.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #59]

The reason behind your initial objection to the speed of light measurements is (whether you actually know this or not) that the measurements themselves are limited by c, so if part of the experiment occurs instantaneously, there's no way in principle for us to know. That's also the reason that the instantaneous change in state of entangled particles cannot in principle be measured. It's the same limitation common to both questions. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the objection that you're making.

Only because relativity limits how fast "information" can travel through regular space. Bubbles of space can travel faster than the speed of light. Like the edges of the universe, or at least that is how the theory goes. This is why Einstein did not like the idea of entangled particles because there was nothing to carry the "information" of observation and we still do not know what carries the "information" of observation. So how can you put a speed light on something that we do not know what is carrying the information if anything is carrying the information of observation? That is why it is called "spooky action" at a distance.

I understand, that you are saying that there is no way to measure that this actually happens. But we are discussing different theories. Relativity says that there is a speed limit whereas quantum mechanics says that there is no speed limit. The speed of light is derived from relativity so that means that light has a speed limit and has to have a speed limit. Entangled particles are derived from quantum mechanics so the particles cannot have a speed limit.

This is one of the reasons why physicists have been trying to find a way to bring these two mathematical theories together.

[Inquirer]

I agree science cannot prove propositions about the natural world I wanted to emphasize that you cannot therefore prove your claims scientifically.

Since science doesn't deal in proof, your sentence makes as much sense as saying "you can't prove your claims athletically".

These include propositions like "genocide is morally wrong" and "the earth is a ball", yes? neither of these can be proven, only believed, yes? As for five year olds they have no trouble understanding these things.

Again, I urge you to proclaim far and wide that you, as a Christian, believe genocide and taking girls as spoils of war are potentially moral acts. Cite the OT while you do it too.

Forget about me, you're fixated on me man, get back to the subject - you object to genocide as immoral yet can't explain how you reach that conclusion, how is that reasoning any different to someone who considers abortion immoral?

[Inquirer]

I agree science cannot prove propositions about the natural world I wanted to emphasize that you cannot therefore prove your claims scientifically.

Since science doesn't deal in proof, your sentence makes as much sense as saying "you can't prove your claims athletically".

These include propositions like "genocide is morally wrong" and "the earth is a ball", yes? neither of these can be proven, only believed, yes? As for five year olds they have no trouble understanding these things.

Again, I urge you to proclaim far and wide that you, as a Christian, believe genocide and taking girls as spoils of war are potentially moral acts. Cite the OT while you do it too.

Forget about me, you're fixated on me man, get back to the subject - you object to genocide as immoral yet can't explain how you reach that conclusion, how is that reasoning any different to someone who considers abortion immoral?

You have no idea do you? you have your taboos and your morality, its all about you, so long as everyone does what you think is right and nobody does what you think is wrong you're content - morality is therefore all about what YOU want isn't it? No different to all the other untold billions of people.

[Jose Fly]

Forget about me, you're fixated on me man, get back to the subject - you object to genocide as immoral yet can't explain how you reach that conclusion, how is that reasoning any different to someone who considers abortion immoral?

If you find "genocide and capturing little girls for your own uses are immoral" to be debatable positions that require defending, that speaks for itself. Just like how some Muslims justify beheading little kids for wearing clothes with images on them, I guess that's what some religions force their believers to do.

We're now to the stage where we're just repeating ourselves, so if it's important to you I'll let you have the last word.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #70]

A standing wave is an interference pattern. Reflecting from one mirror to another.

Yes ... that is the crux of what I've been trying to explain. You can't have a standing wave between two mirrors if the pulse width of the laser is less than the round trip light time between the mirrors. The fact that the mirror spacing can be changed and the pulse width cutoff changes linearly with it, is proof that the speed of light cannot be infinite and that any delays in the round trip time are caused by interactions at the mirror. A simple experiment to debunk that entire idea.

If you read the full Wikipedia article that you linked, it is pretty clear that the "one-way light time" is not only undefined, it has no practical uses. It may be fun for theorists to ponder, and for creationists to latch onto to try and explain away something that doesn't fit the biblical stories, but in the real world it seems to have no role to play.

[Difflugia]

I understand, that you are saying that there is no way to measure that this actually happens. But we are discussing different theories.

What different theories are you talking about? The articles you linked are all just based on the inability to measure in principle certain things that involve the speed of light. How do you think that supports any sort of "therefore creationism?"

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #73]

The speed of light is derived from relativity ...

This isn't correct. The (2-way) speed of light has been directly measured to higher and higher accuracy for over a century (now fixed at 2.99792458e10 cm/s and used to define the meter). If falls out of Maxwell's treatment of electromagnetic waves (eg. Here):

c = 1/(e0m0)1/2

Relativity says that c is constant in a vacuum for all observers in any intertial reference frame, but it doesn't derive c in any way.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #79]

This isn't correct. The (2-way) speed of light has been directly measured to higher and higher accuracy for over a century (now fixed at 2.99792458e10 cm/s and used to define the meter). If falls out of Maxwell's treatment of electromagnetic waves (eg. Here):

c = 1/(e0m0)1/2

Relativity says that c is constant in a vacuum for all observers in any intertial reference frame, but it doesn't derive c in any way.

This is correct I misstated my argument. Although I was speaking in terms of our discussion but I should have said that the speed of light being the cosmic speed limit was derived by Einstein. A thousand pardons.