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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 99 by Still small]

Yes, studies have shown that dust will accrete due to gravity but only to about one metre in diameter before smashing apart again.

One metre? Do you have a reference to such a study? It wouldn't surprise me if someone concluded that, but we can observe clouds of gas and dust that are light years across, and in various stages of condensation including eventually star formation where the nuclear reactions occurring in the core trying to blow the star apart are balanced by the force of gravity trying to compress the system (this balance is what allows a start to be stable). There is a minimum mass required to form a stable star, so maybe you are referring to some situation where there isn't enough mass?

In our own Solar System, they have trouble explaining why planets still have magnetic fields after supposedly 4.5 billion years.

This isn't a mystery either, at least concerning Earth and its magnetic field. The outer core is liquid and composed of mostly iron and nickel, and this liquid is responsible for the Earth's magnetic field. From Wikipedia:

"The magnetic field is generated by electric currents due to the motion of convection currents of molten iron in the Earth's outer core driven by heat escaping from the core, a natural process called a geodynamo."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

Radiogenic heat (due mainly to Uranium-238 and Thorium-232 decay) accounts for a little more than 50% of the internal heat budget, with frictional heating and cooling from initial formation of the earth accounting for the remainder.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... s-core-so/

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/07/ ... ginal-heat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s ... eat_budget

This heat is what maintains the liquid state of the outer core, and hence the magnetic field of the Earth. As long as the outer core remains liquid, we'll have a magnetic field, and there has been enough heat available since formation of the Earth 4.6 billion years ago to maintain that liquid state. Jupiter may have a similar situation and I'm sure some Google searches would offer reasonable explanations why it isn't "stone cold "by now.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

No one can really say what is possible and what is not when you bring (if I can use this term) magic into it. But that's the problem with magic, it's a catch all cure all for possible problems, and pure speculation that has yet to be substantiated.

While 'magic' maybe 'a catch all cure' and 'pure speculation', when specific claims are made, one can investigate to see if the evidence indicates the possibility.

Except one can't consider something a "possibility" if it is pure speculation, can they? Perhaps you can think of specific empirical data that shows that magic is a real and can affect the universe? I'd think one would need to show magic exists before claiming that it was involved in a specific event.

What broke the balance? No idea. Why does there need to be a something that broke the balance? We think cause and effect because we live in spacetime. Before spacetime there is no need for cause and effect. Empty space is unstable (and for that matter, not truly empty) and space does all sorts of things on its own. It's noteworthy to point out that we are STILL balanced. We are just nothing broken up into pieces, but still balanced. The universe has never been NOT BALANCED in other words. I've attached an interesting article about a hypothesis on the something from nothing ability that the universe seems to have.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mario-li ... 23732.html

It would appear that here, you are appealing to your own version of 'catch all cure' magic when you refer to thinking of 'cause and effect because we live in space time'. What other state could you be referring? Do you know of somewhere that 'cause and effect' does not apply? Previously, (in Post 74), you stated -

"But that, Smalls, is exactly why explanations involving the supernatural have no reason to be considered. There is never, ever any evidence provided to support claims or explanations that involve the meta-physical. I've asked many for proof of such claims, and I've received exactly zilch. So although I don't say that such a thing is impossible, I have no reason to consider the supernatural as even a remotely plausible explanation for something. This is especially true when the natural facts appear to fully explain the phenomena in question." (Emphasis added)

Do you believe there is something outside of our natural 4D universe where different 'laws' apply? Again, do you know of such a place where 'cause and effect' does not apply?
Regarding your linked article, I have read a number of similar papers and explanations but they, just as this one speak of that which is beyond our 'natural' science to measure. Such papers raise the oft asked question, "Why is there 'something' rather than 'nothing'? They, again, are delving into and speculating about the supernatural or meta-physical. Now one has to accept the possibility of something beyond our natural 4D universe, its laws and acknowledge its existence and examine the possible claims of its effects and/or restrictions. Or believe only in the natural 4D universe as the only possible existence and find naturalistic solutions to its formation that do not violate its natural laws. You cannot have it both ways.

Not trying to have it both ways. As I said, I've no idea what broke the balance, but since the balance isn't actually broken, that's a moot question.

Our current understanding is that spacetime began at the Big Bang. Before that, there was no universe, no spacetime, and for that matter the laws of physics didn't exist either. Nothing existed as we know it, which naturally follows that cause-effect (among all the other things) didn't exist either. Unlike magic however, we do have evidences that point to the Big Bang theory, so we are not basing these statements on pure conjecture. Nor am I invoking extra dimensions or universes either.

And since we are having an honest and valuable discussion, I will also point out a hypothesis that doesn't require for the laws of physics to break down, but instead it's the laws themselves that cause the universe to exist, yet the Big Bang would still be the start of spacetime. This "no boundary condition" uses imaginary time, and was proposed by Hawkins and others:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Which begs the question of where the laws of physics come from, naturally. Why would I show you something that might countermand my arguments? Because I want to be intellectually honest, and the truth is we don't actually know where the universe comes from, even if we can understand that it did have a start in the finite past. Maybe some day we will.

It's a good analogy at a basic level, but ultimately cannot explain how a universe with entropy in it could suddenly reverse that by the creation of a new character, or a pillar of fire, or a lightning bolt, or whatever the action is. If every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and energy is conserved, there's no way to interact with the universe without affecting the laws of the universe that have no known violation, nor any way to not affect literally everything in the universe by suddenly changing something in the universe. It requires (if I may use this term again) magic, a wholly conjecturous concoction...

Maybe it is an interaction with the 'location' where 'cause and effect' do not apply, which you referred to earlier. Also, the very purpose of the interaction is usually to bring about a change in this universe. When a computer programmer adds a character into a 'simulated world', it doesn't destroy the original game, only changing the course of the game. The introduced character is endowed with whatever features and abilities his creator/programmer chooses.

But any change in this universe affects everything else. In that way it most definitely not like a computer program. For instance, if a pillar of fire is created to block Egyptian chariots, that energy has to come from somewhere. Either it is created out of nothing, which breaks the conservation of energy laws in the universe, or the energy is taken from various atoms and molecules in the universe, which means that a thermal disequilibrium is created and energy from adjacent atoms and molecules has to be absorbed to correct it. Which means that atoms and molecules next to those atoms and molecules have to give up energy to balance that next round of equilibrium. So forth and so on. Now one could posit I suppose that the extra energy is removed from the universe after the pillar of fire goes out, or it is returned to the original atoms and molecules that it came from. That would of course require a god for which there is zero evidence for to use magic for which there is zero evidence for to temporary halt the conservation laws of the universe. There are too many baseless things in there to be taken seriously as a plausible explanation.

If a god created even one atom of matter and stuck it in this universe, it would have a gravitational affect (albeit a small one) on all the other matter around it. Everything affects everything in this universe...

But you can't convert random pieces of atoms and molecules into a fertilized egg inside Mary without affecting all the energy and mass that those pieces were interacting with.

Why not? Are not fertilised eggs made of protons, neutrons and electrons which are arranged to form 'atoms and molecules'?

Yes they are, but something (a godly sperm?) had to add the rest of the DNA and cause the egg to be fertilized. We are back to the creating mass/energy out of nothing scenario, or the taking mass from elsewhere in the universe scenario, neither of which is logically supported. Let's not forget that Jesus body (mass) was taken into the supernatural as well, another slap in the face of conservation laws of the universe...

Which means all of the mass and energy affected by those pieces was affecting other energies and masses. It's a cascading effect that affects literally everything. Nature as the saying goes abhors a vacuum, . . . .

True

. . . . and every magic act that happens in this universe creates a vacuum.

Can you link a reference to this phenomenon?

Not sure what you are looking for exactly. We can't make energy and mass disappear and reappear, although people have tried. You could google conservation laws, there's all kinds of youtube videos and teaching articles on the web about it.

Or it violates conversation laws, which has never happened that we know of.

Not 'naturally', at least but again, we are talking of the possibilities beyond the natural.

Yes we are, for which there is zero evidence for, and therefore no reason to think it has any plausibility whatsoever.

You turn water into wine, you have to get the alcohol molecules from somewhere, which means you've taken them from somewhere else. It's a very real problem to the insertion of magic into a balanced universe.

Once again, it is just a simple rearranging of atoms and molecules. Scientists do this every day in labs. Alcohol is just a simple combination of protons, neutrons and elections arranged as CnH2n+1OH.

You need sugars and yeast to make wine. It doesn't just appear from water. It is not simply a rearranging of atoms and molecules. There are atoms in wine that would not be present in plain water. Which means that carbon had to be pulled from somewhere and inserted into the water. So a god just pulls carbon from other molecules, eh? You think that doesn't have any affect on anything else?

This is the problem with magic think. It ignores the reality of what happens to everything else when gods supposedly intervene with the universe...

There are too many facts in existence which support naturalism, and none which support anything else. That's not a logical paradox at all, that's just the rational conclusion to reach, given the data that exists...

But it is yet to explain, satisfactorily, the 'initial cause' and "it don't go nowhere without a beginning."

Completely agree. It is most definitely an open question, and no one can ever say if humans will ever be able to answer those questions in the context of naturalism.

As the laws of nature cannot explain it, it must, therefore, fall into the category of that 'beyond the natural', being 'supernatural'.

I didn't say it didn't have a natural explanation, I said humans may not ever able to answer those questions in the context of naturalism.. Our ability or inability to answer something doesn't automatically make "magic" more plausible. In other words, the failure of finding the answer scientifically doesn't make magic the winner. Each hypothesis must succeed or fail on its own merits.

Prove a god creature exists, and prove it uses magic to make these things happen. Prove the supernatural explanation. That's the responsibility of the person claiming that is the right answer.

Absolutely. The cosmic microwave background is proof of that. Something with enough energy can emit a photon, it doesn't have to be a star. But plants on this planet weren't around for that, and there is no evidence that there was a strong enough light in the beginning to power photosynthesis even if plants had been around back then.

That is only on the presumption that your time scale/worldview is correct which you have yet to establish. But clearly, a presumption that does not include other possible views. The main difference between your apparent worldview and mine is the time scales. Your's takes millions, if not billions of years, mine takes merely seconds. Your understanding of such lengthy timescales could simple be due to, as you stated earlier, your viewing it from within a spacetime universe. I view it from the possibility of one outside of and thereby unaffected by spacetime, as claimed.

There are clear and established line of evidences that point to a universe with an age of about 14.6 billion years old. All this data points to that conclusion. The conclusion does not include "other possible views" because the data does not support those other possible views. The conclusion doesn't include "steady state theory" because the evidence does not support it. The conclusion does not support geocentric models because the evidence does not support it. And the conclusion doesn't support magic because the evidence does not support it.

The main difference between your worldview and mine is scales of evidence. Mine is supported by empirical data, and yours is not.

Serious question: Have you ever considered other mythologies' claims for how the universe started? In not, why not? They have just as much evidence for their claims (that is to say - none) as the one you happen to favor. Why limit yourself to the one you were raised with? There are thousands of possibilities out there, and all with the same level of substantiation.

Another is the warping of space time as described by General Relativity but, due to the length of our posts, we can discuss this later, if you wish.

Whatever you'd like to do. The fact that GPS satellites work is proof of relativity, and that spacetime warps in the presence of mass, so I'm not sure what could be objected to here.

Firstly, I agree with the proofs of relativity but just as a quick thought experiment. The usual illustration of warped space due to relativity pictures a ball on a trampoline or similar. This shows a 2D representation of warped spacetime caused by the mass into the 3rd dimension. In a true 3D/4D representation, the ball causes warping in all planes or dimensions, not just vertically due to gravity as in the illustration. If all the 3D/4D dimensions are being warped equally around the ball, into what are they warping? (i.e. try to imaging the 2D warping effect on the trampoline all around the ball) To me, this indicates the likelihood of dimensions beyond those which we experience.

You'd have to imagine a manifold to get it to a true 3D representation, which is pretty hard to do. But the image of the ball on a trampoline is just a way to help people visualize what it is going on. Spacetime does not warp into anything that I know of.

The weight of the water on Earth is about 1,450,000,000,000,000,000 tons, so while 500 tons is no laughing matter, it is really just a (pardon the pun) spit in the ocean.
We should also consider that the moisture in the atmosphere is from the waters found under the firmament, should we not? Where does the water that forms clouds come from? The ground/oceans. It's all the same water, evaporating up into the air only to eventually fall back to the ground and begin the cycle again. Clearly these waters are not "separated" from each other like those spoken of in the Bible.

Whilst there is an expanse/gap between the two visible forms of water, in the past, there may have been a much greater amount and greater separation being the source of the 'rain for 40 days and 40 nights'. I can only go by the information supplied in the texts.

There is not a gap at all, that is the point. The water in the atmosphere and the water on Earth are in the same "gap". The Bible speaks of separating water from water "in the midst of the waters", and having it "divide the waters from the waters". Obviously the atmosphere and ground waters aren't separate, as they constantly exchange water molecules all the time.

I think it's plausible that the blue sky seemed like a layer of water to the ancient people that wrote this stuff, and they felt a need to explain it. Just like they felt a need to talk about the wind coming out of "storehouses", and clouds arising from the "ends of the Earth", and containers of snow and hail, etc. They had no clue about this stuff, and that is the best they could come up with back in the day.

"Just say'n", there is water above the surface of the Earth, separated by an expanse.

There's rocks too. I wonder why there is no mention of the firmament that separated the rocks from the rocks. How odd...

Considering that this entire event, the separation of the waters, is described in just three verses, one may consider it as just an abstract or summary rather than an entire scientific research paper.

One may consider it that way I suppose. I'm inclined to disagree.

There would be some disagreement about the accuracy of radio metric dating methods. For example -Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative by the RATE team.

A lot has been written since that ICR document came out in 2000.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

And a lot said in reply.

Which was also covered in my link you've quoted above. I know the article at my link is exhaustively long (and overly technical which doesn't make it exciting to say the least), but it truly hammers Humphreys work, which a thorough read will adequately demonstrate.

The order of appearance according to location of the fossils determining the age can be misleading. For example, if there were a situation where insects, dinos and 'protobirds' existed at the same time and location which was subjected to a catastrophic flood, involving massive sedimentation, which would be buried first? Obviously, the non-flying insects, then dinos which may escape for a short period and then the flying species as their higher perches eventually disappear. Same order, different time scale. One relies upon uniformitarianism, the other on catastrophism.

The "firsts" in question were found in different rock layers. For example the first flying insects were found in younger rocks than the first insects. The first insects were found in the early Ordovician Era. Here's a link that breaks down some of the layers of rock in different areas of the world (under Subdivisions). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician
The first flying insects are found in the Devonian Era.
But I appreciate your skepticism and you raised a valid question

A clear example of SEDI (Same Evidence, Different Interpretation).

Except the first flying insects were buried BEFORE the first dinosaurs, which were buried before the first flying dinosaurs, which were buried before the first dinosaurs with feathers, which were buried before the first birds, which were buried before the first apes.

So you really believe that flying insects died in the great flood first, followed by dinosaurs, followed by pterosaurs (flying reptiles), followed by dinosaurs with feathers, followed by birds, followed by apes? Because that's how they are laid out in the geological record. It's amazing that dinosaurs and apes could survive longer than soaring, gliding animals like pterosaurs during a worldwide flood, eh?

That's ignoring the impossibility of hundreds of sediments layers being deposited in one flood event of course, with layers of finer material being laid first and layers with coarser material coming after (Stokes Law), and chalk cliffs of just one type of creature (cocolithophore) happening in a flood event.

Look Smalls, I'd like to be frank with you. If you want to think that the mountain of evidence collected for the last few hundred years actually supports the claims of the Bible, that's your business. There is no way, however, that even the people at ICR or AIG can explain away all the data that shows otherwise. As always, I invite anyone to study all of it themselves, there is no need to take my word for it. In fact I beg everyone to do their own research, and not believe me. The proof is clear and direct - there was no worldwide flood and the Earth ain't young.

This can be just as easily be explained by the 'common designer, common design' principle.

Not when combined with the geology and genetic data. Clearly not all these animals found in fossils lived at the same time.

This being the difference in interpretation. 'You' view geological layers as differences in 'time', whereas 'we' view them as differences in 'niche/location' brought together by catastrophic events. Remember that fossilisation requires rapid burial in sediment such as would be the case in a flood - catastrophism.

Fossilization doesn't require rapid burial, to be technical about it. Lack of oxygen (anaerobic conditions), lack of water (desert environs), or extreme cold can also preserve something until such time as it is covered up. But I would agree that the majority of fossils are a result of a rapid burial.

I view geological layers having differences in time because we can accurately date the layers and prove that they were formed during different times. Your interpretation requires completely ignoring the mathematical certainty that is radiometric dating. It requires one to ignore Stokes Law, it requires one to ignore hydraulics, it requires one to ignore thermodynamics, it requires one to ignore the entire field of genetics.

Perhaps you are not fully aware of just how much one has to ignore in order to think that a conclusion that the planet is young and suffered a global flood. The amount of empirical data is staggering, Smalls. Creationist claims don't "interpret" the data, they simply ignore it.

For instance, to think that geologic sediment layers are different "niches" brought together by a massive event is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. You can't get conglomerates or breccia under this scenario, yet they exist. You can't get hundreds of sediment layers from one flood, yet they exist. You can't get layers of fine material under layers of course material, yet they exist. You can't get chalk layers made up of so many creatures that there wouldn't be any food or oxygen left over for anything else in the ocean, yet they exist. You can't get salt domes under sediment layers, yet they exist. On and on and on...

I'm sorry Smalls, but it's not interpretation of the data, it's ignoring the data that is going on...

There is also no reason why some ungulates would need an odd number of toes and other ones an even number for example, . . . .

Adaptability to various ecological niches otherwise why did they evolve? Also, remember that the terminology 'ungulate' is a man-made grouping definition rather than a name on an attached label.

I agree that the terminology, and classifications, of living things are arbitrary division points. That's a result of us humans wanting to organize things into groups. Our brains are wired to see order. That has little to do, however, with pointing out that your claim of a "common designer, common design" makes no sense when some even toed and odd toed ungulates are found in the same environs, yet are more distantly related to each other than zebras and tapirs are.

. . . or why chimps and humans share more retroviral insertions into our DNA than humans/chimps and other apes. Naturalism starting points compliment each other rather well.

Human design is closer to chimp design than the other apes. Also one needs to realise that despite the similarity in DNA between humans and chimps (actually % is disputed) that there is a vast difference in ability and capability.

Define "vast". Chimps play. They use tools. They smile and laugh (that is they find things funny). They are able to reflect on their own thoughts, and can therefore make intelligent decisions. They have morals, and are social. They can count. They also wage war and murder unfortunately, just like us.

But like you said, fossils are a fact. Radioactive decay is a fact. Genetics is a fact. A common designer? We never get evidence for that, do we. That starting point never seems to be proven by anyone...

What evidence would you accept?

Throw whatever you have at me. I'm not picky.

Again, the 'common designer, common design' principle. The same genetics would be required for similar features, genetic variation only being for the variations.

If we start at the beginning, all we need to do is establish that a common designer is a fact. I'll let you tackle that. I look forward to what you can provide.

Again, what evidence would you accept, (remembering that by definition the Common Designer is a metaphysical being)?

Metaphysical beings that have interacted with the universe in just about every way conceivable. There should be evidence all over the place. Gods have become human or animal form, they apparently perform miracles on a daily basis judging from what I read on Twitter any given day. With all this magic being used all over the Earth for thousands of years, there ought to be something that someone could ring forth I imagine.

I respect your opinion, although I do not see it as an accurate representation of the facts that are currently known at this time. All living things share common DNA. We share some of the DNA as oak trees.

Some common DNA. True. But it's because we are all carbon-based life forms utilising some common elements of our environment. Oak trees don't have the DNA to produce eyes, nor lungs, nor legs, being some of the difference in the designated purpose and, thus, design.

It is because we all evolved from a common ancestor, according to all the data. It was predicted in the scientific theory of evolution that all living things were related and shown through analysis of the geological record. Genetics was just a second, independent confirmation of that. If one wants to claim design, then one ought to prove it. Claiming creator beings are the reason for common DNA, without proving the creator being, is putting the cart before the odd-toed ungulate

There appears to be plenty of genetic data that shows that all living things shared a common ancestor. (The attached link is a tree of life that I happen to think is pretty cool)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... fe_SVG.svg

Nice picture but it is the same imaginary 'tree' viewed from above rather than side on. Though, many of the connecting lines should be dotted, denoting speculation based upon an evolutional paradigm rather than upon actual data.

That's why I mentioned "plenty of genetic data". There is abundant evidence. No need for dotted lines.

For example, Lenski's long term experiment has clearly shown that evolutionary change is limited to within the Family level. His bacteria, though slightly modified in certain cases, is still bacteria.

You are assigning limitations to it that do not exist. The purpose of the experiment (as stated in the original document) was: To examine the dynamics of evolution, including the rate of evolutionary change, to examine the repeatability of evolution, and to better understand the relationship between change on the phenotypic and genotypic levels.

It was not attempting to create a crocoduck or some other nonsense.

Anyone and everyone is free to do their own research and come up with their own conclusions of course. The scientific theory of evolution consistently explains all the data and makes accurate predictions. It's been verified and validated time and again by multiple independent fields of research.

If I may use a slight variation of a point made previously by you - "If we start at the beginning, all we need to do is establish that [life from non-life] is a fact. I'll let you tackle that. I look forward to what you can provide."

Without that naturalistic 'beginning', ToE doesn't kick off.

Why? I know theists that claim their god being started life, and then it evolve however it evolved. That way they don't have to deny the mountains of evidence supporting evolution, yet still get to claim their creator god did it's thing.

As for tackling the life from non-life thing, that's simple. Is there any atom in your body that is alive? No? Than you are clearly "life" from "non-life", are you not?

Folks at places like ICR or AIG should be able to shred the theory if it wasn't accurate or dependable. Yet that has never occurred. If common design was equally as valid, they should have been able to support that claim as well (even ignoring the lack of proof for a common designer). Yet here again they have failed miserably. At the very least someone who disagrees should be able to find something that evolution does not explain. The theory has been around since Darwin, and we are way more technically advanced then the people in that day. Surely a theory rooted in the mid 1800s should be able to be defeated by some of the smart creationist out there today, right?

Organisations like ICR and AIG have produced such arguments which is only rejected by those that will only accept a naturalistic explanations, asking for such things as scientific evidence for a metaphysical/supernatural being or event.

Smalls, please peruse the annals of this website. Arguments from ICR and AIG have been smashed time and again in here. The Humphreys thing above is one such example of someone at one of those places making massive errors and manipulating data in order to attempt to make facts agree with the contents of the Bible.

The AIG and ICR stuff isn't even about metaphysical/supernatural for that matter. They are trying to make scientific arguments that support the Bible stories, and they are really, really bad at it. But they aren't trying to convince the scientific community, please do not mistake their intentions. They simply want to give the appearance of scientific legitimacy to those seeking confirmation bias for their belief system, and will lie and manipulate in order to achieve that goal. Apparently that is allowed in instances where one is trying to propagate their dogma.

I'm not opposed to new or different ideas, but they need to explain the facts in existence, and common design can't do that.

You are entitled to hold any position you wish but what, in particular, does 'common design' not explain?

Radiometric dating. The age of the universe. The fossil record. That's a start. Of course common design is only a possible explanation if one can prove that the designer actually exists. I'm not willing to assume that personally. It's not proper to claim a designer made all DNA the same before proving the designer actually exists.

[Still small]

[Replying to post 100 by brunumb]

You appear to be of the mindset that if science can't explain everything, therefore God

Not necessarily, I believe I'm more of the mindset that just because it is called 'science', that doesn't make it fact or truth.

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."- hmmm . . . maybe that's where God got the matter to produce light. . . . do ya think!

So just how did God use that matter to create light?

To be honest, I couldn't really say. He doesn't elaborate on the 'hows', just on the 'whys'. (Maybe you could think of it as 'a good Magician never reveals his secrets'.)

When was Earth formed after the Big Bang? The cosmic microwave background that science has observed is the radiation left over from an early stage of the universe. Try and connect the two if you want to make a case for it sustaining life.

I don't believe there is a need to, as God went on to create the Sun, etc to fulfil the need. Though, if He'd chosen to, I'm sure there would be a simple connection available to uncover.

No one has claimed that sunlight created life. It does, however, sustain life. Block out the sun and plant life would quickly die followed by most other life dependant on plants. The sun does not appear to be an efficient destroyer of life given how it has thrived for billions of years.

True, sunlight is vital for sustaining life but left unprotected, solar radiation causes great damage to life and matter. Type into Google 'solar radiation' and note the number of references to destructive effects. Then again, just leave something out in the sun and see what happens to it over time.

They are not just reference points. The day-night cycle is determined by the rotation of the earth. A year is defined as the time it takes for one revolution of the earth around the sun. If he Sun and Moon were created after the earth, how was the structure of the solar system established, particularly with the inclusion of the other planets and objects? Science offers an explanation. The Bible is silent, but by default relies on God-magic.

True, they are not 'just reference points' but that was their original purpose. All else is a secondary benefit. As to the establishment of the structure of the Solar System, again we are not told but why should the prior creation of Earth be a problem?

The explanations, as always, are based on current knowledge and are refined as technology allows us to gain more and more information. What is the biblical explanation for the phenomena you have quoted that seem to defy scientific expectation? In what way is God specifically involved? If you can't answer that, why fault science for not having current answers?

If you are proposing a naturalistic explanation for an event, the natural laws, through the use of the scientific method must be capable of explaining it. If the events were brought about via means beyond the natural, the natural laws and scientific method are incapable of describing them. It, again, comes back to the matter of whether one believes and accepts the existence of a higher being, in this case, the God as described in the Bible. (Again, something which cannot be proven or falsified by natural laws and the scientific method.) If such a being exists, then He is capable of doing that which He claims.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Still small]

[Replying to post 101 by DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 99 by Still small]

Yes, studies have shown that dust will accrete due to gravity but only to about one metre in diameter before smashing apart again.

One metre? Do you have a reference to such a study? It wouldn't surprise me if someone concluded that, but we can observe clouds of gas and dust that are light years across, and in various stages of condensation including eventually star formation where the nuclear reactions occurring in the core trying to blow the star apart are balanced by the force of gravity trying to compress the system (this balance is what allows a start to be stable). There is a minimum mass required to form a stable star, so maybe you are referring to some situation where there isn't enough mass?

"Considerations of dust-gas interactions show that collision velocities for particles not too different in surface-to-mass ratio remain limited up to sizes about 1m, and growth seems to be guaranteed to reach these sizes quickly and easily. For meter sizes, coupling to nebula turbulence makes destructive processes more likely." (Emphasis added) - Link

In our own Solar System, they have trouble explaining why planets still have magnetic fields after supposedly 4.5 billion years.

This isn't a mystery either, at least concerning Earth and its magnetic field. The outer core is liquid and composed of mostly iron and nickel, and this liquid is responsible for the Earth's magnetic field. From Wikipedia:

"The magnetic field is generated by electric currents due to the motion of convection currents of molten iron in the Earth's outer core driven by heat escaping from the core, a natural process called a geodynamo."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

Interesting theory but there have been, over the years, a number of problems raised about the 'geodynamo' idea where the required assumptions have not matched up to evidence. For example, a couple of papers outlining some problems are -
Remarks on some typical assumptions in dynamo theory

Constraints on Dynamo Action & Planetary Dynamos chapters
Here is an older paper which includes a number of problems, not all of which have been addressed successfully - The Dynamo Problem

I was wondering if you have or would consider this paper by Dr Russell Humphreys -
The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields - which includes a number of successful predictions, much to the amazement of a number of secular astrophysicists.

Radiogenic heat (due mainly to Uranium-238 and Thorium-232 decay) accounts for a little more than 50% of the internal heat budget, with frictional heating and cooling from initial formation of the earth accounting for the remainder.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... s-core-so/

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/07/ ... ginal-heat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s ... eat_budget

This heat is what maintains the liquid state of the outer core, and hence the magnetic field of the Earth. As long as the outer core remains liquid, we'll have a magnetic field, and there has been enough heat available since formation of the Earth 4.6 billion years ago to maintain that liquid state. Jupiter may have a similar situation and I'm sure some Google searches would offer reasonable explanations why it isn't "stone cold "by now.

Such as articles like - The source of up to half of the Earth’s internal heat is completely unknown – here’s how to hunt for it. Being forensic science, not relying upon empirical evidence, I would contend that many of the assumptions included in the theories, (and there are many assumptions) are based on the a priori that the Earth and the Solar System are 4.5 billion years old. This would be an example of 'begging the question'.

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 104 by Still small]

"Considerations of dust-gas interactions show that collision velocities for particles not too different in surface-to-mass ratio remain limited up to sizes about 1m, and growth seems to be guaranteed to reach these sizes quickly and easily. For meter sizes, coupling to nebula turbulence makes destructive processes more likely."

That paper is about planetary formation, not star formation. They are addressing the issue of planetary or large body formation via particle collisions and "sticking" within an accretion disk. This is very different from the collapse of a large cloud of gas and dust in star formation where gravitational forces are sufficient to "crunch" the material into a mass having sufficient pressure and temperature at the core to initiate nuclear fusion. Completely different phenomena and physical scales.

I was wondering if you have or would consider this paper by Dr Russell Humphreys

Russell Humphreys ... seriously? I wouldn't consider anything put out from the Creation "Research" Society to have any legitimacy at all. Here is a comment from the Humphreys paper you linked:

I have done "back of the envelope" calculations for white dwarf stars, which have the strongest magnetic fields yet observed in nature.

Neutron stars can have magnetic fields some five orders of magnitude larger than a white dwarf star (white dwarfs in the 10^6 to 10^9 G range, neutron stars in the range 10^14 to 10^15G).

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/ ... 15/1158157

but maybe this wasn't known as quantitatively in 1984. In any case, the Creation Research Society, like Answers in Genesis, repeatedly fail miserably in their attempts to try and debunk any science that is at odds with their creationist beliefs, and this paper is just another example of that. Here is another even more egregious example:

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... chondrite/

They present a comprehensive table of measurements of meteorite ages that shows incredible consistency and agreement in the dates, then following the table attempt to explain it all away with mumbo-jumbo to justify a 6000 year old earth. These organizations simply have no credibility when it comes to science issues, and of course their views are in the huge minority, fortunately.

... are based on the a priori that the Earth and the Solar System are 4.5 billion years old.

The age of the solar system and planets is well established via measurements such as those in the Answers in Genesis article linked about (despite their attempt to explain them away). It is anything but an a priori assumption. But didn't you accept this age in post 99 when saying that science couldn't explain why the earth still had a magnetic field after (supposedly) 4.5 billion years? Or was using the word "supposedly" a dodge?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 103 by Still small]

Not necessarily, I believe I'm more of the mindset that just because it is called 'science', that doesn't make it fact or truth.

Somewhat ironic when you readily accept as true the ancient and anonymous writings collected as the Bible and which has no supporting evidence.

While you addressed the points I made you did so in a somewhat dismissive manner that did not answer any of my questions head on. You are basically saying that it is all a product of God-magic and leaving it at that. The structure of the universe, the solar system and the earth make no sense in those terms. They do when you follow the science.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 103 by Still small]

True, sunlight is vital for sustaining life but left unprotected, solar radiation causes great damage to life and matter. Type into Google 'solar radiation' and note the number of references to destructive effects. Then again, just leave something out in the sun and see what happens to it over time.

The entire planet is out in the sun and has been for a very, very long time. Remove it and you will truly see the destructive effects of no sunlight.

You have still not managed to explain how plants thrived for millennia before God created the sun. Nor have you addressed the issue of creating the rest of the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy and all the other galaxies after the creation of Earth. If you are just going to rely on hand-waving and God-magic, forget it.

[Still small]

[Replying to post 102 by Kenisaw]

Firstly, my apologies for taking so long to respond but my schedule gets rather busy this time of year.

Except one can't consider something a "possibility" if it is pure speculation, can they? Perhaps you can think of specific empirical data that shows that magic is a real and can affect the universe? I'd think one would need to show magic exists before claiming that it was involved in a specific event.

But we are not talking about 'magic' or, at least I'm not. Though it does sadden me to see you continually attempt the denigrate the argument by the use of the term 'magic' for something which you obviously do not understand. As I stated and defined in post 75, I'm referring to the metaphysical or supernatural, not 'magic'.

Not trying to have it both ways. As I said, I've no idea what broke the balance, but since the balance isn't actually broken, that's a moot question.

It may not be broken as such but the 'contents' is changing which should be explained by one of two laws or maybe both -
- The principle of causality or the Law of Cause and Effect which states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause, or
- Newton's First Law states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. Newton's Laws

Our current understanding is that spacetime began at the Big Bang. Before that, there was no universe, no spacetime, and for that matter the laws of physics didn't exist either. Nothing existed as we know it, which naturally follows that cause-effect (among all the other things) didn't exist either. Unlike magic however, we do have evidences that point to the Big Bang theory, so we are not basing these statements on pure conjecture. Nor am I invoking extra dimensions or universes either.

Not true, what we have is evidence that the universe had a beginning. It may not necessarily be the Big Bang.

And since we are having an honest and valuable discussion, I will also point out a hypothesis that doesn't require for the laws of physics to break down, but instead it's the laws themselves that cause the universe to exist, yet the Big Bang would still be the start of spacetime. This "no boundary condition" uses imaginary time, and was proposed by Hawkins and others:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Which begs the question of where the laws of physics come from, naturally. Why would I show you something that might countermand my arguments? Because I want to be intellectually honest, and the truth is we don't actually know where the universe comes from, even if we can understand that it did have a start in the finite past. Maybe some day we will.

An interesting hypothesis put forward by Hawkings but I'm sure that you recognise that by the addition of 'imaginary time' that he is appealing to the metaphysical, being a dimension beyond the 4D spacetime of the natural or physical universe we observe and experience.

But any change in this universe affects everything else. In that way it most definitely not like a computer program. For instance, if a pillar of fire is created to block Egyptian chariots, that energy has to come from somewhere. Either it is created out of nothing, which breaks the conservation of energy laws in the universe, or the energy is taken from various atoms and molecules in the universe, which means that a thermal disequilibrium is created and energy from adjacent atoms and molecules has to be absorbed to correct it. Which means that atoms and molecules next to those atoms and molecules have to give up energy to balance that next round of equilibrium. So forth and so on. Now one could posit I suppose that the extra energy is removed from the universe after the pillar of fire goes out, or it is returned to the original atoms and molecules that it came from. That would of course require a god for which there is zero evidence for to use magic for which there is zero evidence for to temporary halt the conservation laws of the universe. There are too many baseless things in there to be taken seriously as a plausible explanation.

Thermal disequilibriums can occur naturally without the entire universe coming to a halt (like here, herehere[/url] and here) so what is the drama? God creating a pillar of fire could be as simple as converting one form of energy into another. He may not be adding anything to the universe but rather, just utilising that which is already here. One might note that in Genesis, as in other parts of scripture, God sometimes 'creates' as out of nothing, i.e. the heavens and the Earth, and sometimes He merely converts one form of matter into another , such as 'bringing forth', He 'made' or He 'formed'. Sometimes, He combines both.

If a god created even one atom of matter and stuck it in this universe, it would have a gravitational affect (albeit a small one) on all the other matter around it. Everything affects everything in this universe...

And who is to say that the miracles God performed didn't affect everything in the universe. The instances where God has performed miracles, He has done so, in order to affect a change, that being the purpose.

Yes they are, but something (a godly sperm?) had to add the rest of the DNA and cause the egg to be fertilized. We are back to the creating mass/energy out of nothing scenario, or the taking mass from elsewhere in the universe scenario, neither of which is logically supported. Let's not forget that Jesus body (mass) was taken into the supernatural as well, another slap in the face of conservation laws of the universe...

Again, it may simply be a conversion of existing matter. In the case of Jesus' body, it may have been a temporary suspension of the laws of conservation, that being until the Holy Spirit descended on the Day of Pentecost, one form of mass/energy for another.

Not 'naturally', at least but again, we are talking of the possibilities beyond the natural.

Yes we are, for which there is zero evidence for, and therefore no reason to think it has any plausibility whatsoever.

Well, there is no scientific evidence but that is due only to the fact that the scientific method can only 'measure' the natural/physical and not the supernatural/metaphyśical. Just as the scientific method cannot test whether Shakespeare was an excellent playwright. What's that saying , "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

You need sugars and yeast to make wine. It doesn't just appear from water. It is not simply a rearranging of atoms and molecules. There are atoms in wine that would not be present in plain water. Which means that carbon had to be pulled from somewhere and inserted into the water. So a god just pulls carbon from other molecules, eh? You think that doesn't have any affect on anything else?

All the 'atoms and molecules' consist of baryonic matter and electrons arranged in specific order. A winemaker simply uses the 'pre-made' ingredients and time to produce his wine. God starts His process a step or two earlier and removes the time-factor, (as He is not bound by it). And does it have an affect on anything else ? It certainly does, . . . it produces wine. Though God reserves these types of acts for specific occasions and for specific purposes.

This is the problem with magic think. It ignores the reality of what happens to everything else when gods supposedly intervene with the universe...

How do you know? The future may have changed being the specific purpose the intervention (not magic) was made. Just like in the movie 'Sliding Doors'.

As the laws of nature cannot explain it, it must, therefore, fall into the category of that 'beyond the natural', being 'supernatural'.

I didn't say it didn't have a natural explanation, I said humans may not ever able to answer those questions in the context of naturalism.. Our ability or inability to answer something doesn't automatically make "magic" more plausible. In other words, the failure of finding the answer scientifically doesn't make magic the winner. Each hypothesis must succeed or fail on its own merits.

As it is beyond the known scientific laws of nature, it is currently beyond the nature of which we are aware. Your having no answer, currently, may well be and most probably due to your paradoxical insistence for scientific evidence for something which science is incapable of determining.

Prove a god creature exists, and prove it uses magic to make these things happen. Prove the supernatural explanation. That's the responsibility of the person claiming that is the right answer.

And in reply to your continual request, I ask again, "What evidence for God would you accept?"

There are clear and established line of evidences that point to a universe with an age of about 14.6 billion years old. All this data points to that conclusion. The conclusion does not include "other possible views" because the data does not support those other possible views. The conclusion doesn't include "steady state theory" because the evidence does not support it. The conclusion does not support geocentric models because the evidence does not support it. And the conclusion doesn't support magic because the evidence does not support it.

The main difference between your worldview and mine is scales of evidence. Mine is supported by empirical data, and yours is not.

To the contrary, what you have is evidence that the universe had a beginning. By extrapolation according to the Uniformitarian adage, 'the present interprets the past', the assumption is made for an age of 14.6 billion years. The same would probably occur if someone were to meet Adam on Day 8 of Genesis. They would assume he was a mature male due the fact that he can walk and talk, feed and fend for himself and survive without assistance. Yet, in truth, he would only be 2 days old. Go figure!
Now before you go off on the usual accusation about God therefore being deceptive by making everything look older, God has never stated that the universe was 14.6 billion years old. Instead, He has clearly expressed how long it took and by derivation one can estimate how long ago. It is only when one rejects God's clear statements that one is mislead. That is not deception on God's part.

Serious question: Have you ever considered other mythologies' claims for how the universe started? In not, why not? They have just as much evidence for their claims (that is to say - none) as the one you happen to favor. Why limit yourself to the one you were raised with? There are thousands of possibilities out there, and all with the same level of substantiation.

Serious answer: yes, I have looked at other claims and all appear to fall short of the known facts (as opposed to assumptions, extrapolations, speculations or 'don't know, hope so', however derived). A vast number have no 'creation-type' events, whereas others have cosmologies consisting of such things as 'a flat Earth sitting on the backs of four elephants which, in turn, are standing on the back of a giant turtle swimming through the cosmos'. Easily dismissed, wouldn't you say!

There is not a gap at all, that is the point. The water in the atmosphere and the water on Earth are in the same "gap". The Bible speaks of separating water from water "in the midst of the waters", and having it "divide the waters from the waters". Obviously the atmosphere and ground waters aren't separate, as they constantly exchange water molecules all the time.

I believe you are being pedantic, purposefully, over a description given in less than fifty words purely for be sake of being argumentative. I believe the passage is clear as to its meaning and intent whether you are able to comprehend it or not. That would be your shortcoming.

I think it's plausible that the blue sky seemed like a layer of water to the ancient people that wrote this stuff, and they felt a need to explain it. Just like they felt a need to talk about the wind coming out of "storehouses", and clouds arising from the "ends of the Earth", and containers of snow and hail, etc. They had no clue about this stuff, and that is the best they could come up with back in the day.

If that be the case, that 'they felt a need to explain it', where is their explanation for this 'water' either disappearing or turn black at night. Let's be consistent here.

"Just say'n", there is water above the surface of the Earth, separated by an expanse.

There's rocks too. I wonder why there is no mention of the firmament that separated the rocks from the rocks. How odd...

Considering that this entire event, the separation of the waters, is described in just three verses, one may consider it as just an abstract or summary rather than an entire scientific research paper.

One may consider it that way I suppose. I'm inclined to disagree.

You are free to disagree as much as you like, that doesn't make you right.

There would be some disagreement about the accuracy of radio metric dating methods. For example -Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative by the RATE team.

A lot has been written since that ICR document came out in 2000.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

And a lot said in reply.

Which was also covered in my link you've quoted above. I know the article at my link is exhaustively long (and overly technical which doesn't make it exciting to say the least), but it truly hammers Humphreys work, which a thorough read will adequately demonstrate.

Did you actually read Humphreys' paper thoroughly?

The order of appearance according to location of the fossils determining the age can be misleading. For example, if there were a situation where insects, dinos and 'protobirds' existed at the same time and location which was subjected to a catastrophic flood, involving massive sedimentation, which would be buried first? Obviously, the non-flying insects, then dinos which may escape for a short period and then the flying species as their higher perches eventually disappear. Same order, different time scale. One relies upon uniformitarianism, the other on catastrophism.

The "firsts" in question were found in different rock layers. For example the first flying insects were found in younger rocks than the first insects. The first insects were found in the early Ordovician Era. Here's a link that breaks down some of the layers of rock in different areas of the world (under Subdivisions). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician
The first flying insects are found in the Devonian Era.
But I appreciate your skepticism and you raised a valid question

A clear example of SEDI (Same Evidence, Different Interpretation).

Except the first flying insects were buried BEFORE the first dinosaurs, which were buried before the first flying dinosaurs, which were buried before the first dinosaurs with feathers, which were buried before the first birds, which were buried before the first apes.

But by how much 'before'?

So you really believe that flying insects died in the great flood first, followed by dinosaurs, followed by pterosaurs (flying reptiles), followed by dinosaurs with feathers, followed by birds, followed by apes? Because that's how they are laid out in the geological record. It's amazing that dinosaurs and apes could survive longer than soaring, gliding animals like pterosaurs during a worldwide flood, eh?

Why are you amazed?

Fossilization doesn't require rapid burial, to be technical about it. Lack of oxygen (anaerobic conditions), lack of water (desert environs), or extreme cold can also preserve something until such time as it is covered up. But I would agree that the majority of fossils are a result of a rapid burial.

And it would be 'the majority of fossils' to which we are referring.

I view geological layers having differences in time because we can accurately date the layers and prove that they were formed during different times. Your interpretation requires completely ignoring the mathematical certainty that is radiometric dating. It requires one to ignore Stokes Law, it requires one to ignore hydraulics, it requires one to ignore thermodynamics, it requires one to ignore the entire field of genetics.

Perhaps you are not fully aware of just how much one has to ignore in order to think that a conclusion that the planet is young and suffered a global flood. The amount of empirical data is staggering, Smalls. Creationist claims don't "interpret" the data, they simply ignore it.

"mathematical certainty that is radiometric dating"!!! "Certainty"!!!!
Ignore Stokes law and hydraulics!!! Papers such as this have given rise for some to doubt Stokes Law for determining Paleogeology.
Ignore Thermodynamics!!! Why?
Ignore genetics!! How so?

For instance, to think that geologic sediment layers are different "niches" brought together by a massive event is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. You can't get conglomerates or breccia under this scenario, yet they exist. You can't get hundreds of sediment layers from one flood, yet they exist. You can't get layers of fine material under layers of course material, yet they exist. You can't get chalk layers made up of so many creatures that there wouldn't be any food or oxygen left over for anything else in the ocean, yet they exist. You can't get salt domes under sediment layers, yet they exist. On and on and on...

Why not? Why not? Why not? Etc, etc, etc. Have you ever considered the massive turbulence etc involved in a global flood? Here is a link page to a series of papers describing such an event. (Please limit your critique to the contents of the papers, as opposed to ad hominem attempts at the author or source. Please supply references, of a similar level, i.e. Geophysicists, to any points of disagreement.)

I'm sorry Smalls, but it's not interpretation of the data, it's ignoring the data that is going on...

So you claim but there are a number of experts in these various fields that, rather than tow the 'consensus line' would beg to differ.

There is also no reason why some ungulates would need an odd number of toes and other ones an even number for example, . . . .

Adaptability to various ecological niches otherwise why did they evolve? Also, remember that the terminology 'ungulate' is a man-made grouping definition rather than a name on an attached label.

I agree that the terminology, and classifications, of living things are arbitrary division points. That's a result of us humans wanting to organize things into groups. Our brains are wired to see order. That has little to do, however, with pointing out that your claim of a "common designer, common design" makes no sense when some even toed and odd toed ungulates are found in the same environs, yet are more distantly related to each other than zebras and tapirs are.

What! God cannot be a God of variety? Besides, the descendants of original kind can develop different traits as adaption without going outside of the "after their own kind" mandate.

Human design is closer to chimp design than the other apes. Also one needs to realise that despite the similarity in DNA between humans and chimps (actually % is disputed) that there is a vast difference in ability and capability.

Define "vast". Chimps play. They use tools. They smile and laugh (that is they find things funny). They are able to reflect on their own thoughts, and can therefore make intelligent decisions. They have morals, and are social. They can count. They also wage war and murder unfortunately, just like us.

Would you agree that there is a vast difference between a chimp using a stick to get grubs out of a tree and man developing the Large Hadron Collider? Or swinging between tree limbs and the building of A380 to fly between continents? Would you agree that there is a vast difference between a chimp smiling or laughing and men developing the complete series of 'Jerry Seinfeld' and broadcasting it on TVs, etc. Would you agree that there is a vast difference between 'reflecting on their own thoughts' (however that may have been verified) and the development of a complex written language to be used to record one's thoughts and to publish them in hard copy books and/or digital codes on a computer, transmit them via radio waves around the globe and even to outer space? Would you agree that there is a vast difference between the morals and social aspects of chimps and the complex legal codes and laws, constitutions and codes of ethics, etc and the complex social structures of humans? Have chimps developed their own form of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc, for building and extending their social profiles? If similarity of DNA is a measure of evolutionary ancestry as opposed to just biological (physical) development, the small percentage difference between humans a chimps must certainly have a massive effect.

But like you said, fossils are a fact. Radioactive decay is a fact. Genetics is a fact. A common designer? We never get evidence for that, do we. That starting point never seems to be proven by anyone...

What evidence would you accept?

Throw whatever you have at me. I'm not picky.

Response in the next post.

Metaphysical beings that have interacted with the universe in just about every way conceivable. There should be evidence all over the place. Gods have become human or animal form, they apparently perform miracles on a daily basis judging from what I read on Twitter any given day. With all this magic being used all over the Earth for thousands of years, there ought to be something that someone could ring forth I imagine.

Well, I don't know about "Gods have become human or animal form, they apparently perform miracles on a daily basis judging from what I read on Twitter any given day." but then I wouldn't believe everything one reads on Twitter. Any appearance of God in human form in the past would be an historical event and probably not subject to scientific testing, especially if the feats performed were of a metaphysical nature. Therefore, one can only go by eyewitness testimony and historians recordings and weigh up the evidence.

Nice picture but it is the same imaginary 'tree' viewed from above rather than side on. Though, many of the connecting lines should be dotted, denoting speculation based upon an evolutional paradigm rather than upon actual data.

That's why I mentioned "plenty of genetic data". There is abundant evidence. No need for dotted lines.

Though, as papers such as this one point out, there is still a lot of 'estimation' and 'inference' regarding the lineages. In layman's language that would be expressed as 'guesstimation', 'assumption' and 'don't know, hope so'. While certainly not implying that researchers would be dishonest, it is quite probable that, having a naturalistic or evolutionary worldview, their 'estimations' and 'inferences' would have a certain amount of confirmation bias.

For example, Lenski's long term experiment has clearly shown that evolutionary change is limited to within the Family level. His bacteria, though slightly modified in certain cases, is still bacteria.

You are assigning limitations to it that do not exist. The purpose of the experiment (as stated in the original document) was: To examine the dynamics of evolution, including the rate of evolutionary change, to examine the repeatability of evolution, and to better understand the relationship between change on the phenotypic and genotypic levels.

It was not attempting to create a crocoduck or some other nonsense.

But the limitations do exist, we just don't know how they 'work'. Lenski's long term experiment shows that. As you said, Lenski's purpose was to examine the dynamics of evolution, (being evolution with a small 'e' rather than Evolution with a big 'E' as in ToE). His experiment has shown that minor changes occur in DNA but that it doesn't or hasn't changed the Family level. Some may claim that it is due to the fact that we haven't observed enough generations for enough changes to accumulate but Lenski's experiment being long term has produced thousands of generations but no change at the Family level. For example and comparison, Lenski used Escherichia coli which "can divide every 20 minutes. This means that in just 7 hours one bacterium can generate 2,097,152 bacteria.� ( “Bacteria� (2016), Microbiology Online). Bacteria, therefore, would be ideal candidates for studying asexual evolution. After one century of studying bacteria, scientists have seen over 2,600,000 generations of bacteria produced—the equivalent of over 78,000,000 years of human evolution (assuming a 30 year human generation). According to evolutionary timescales, that is the timespan between the appearance of the first primates up to modern humans. In spite of all of that generational time for evolution, bacteria are still bacteria. Just like 'dogs are still producing dogs' and 'sheep are still producing sheep'.
Another example is Drosophila melanogaster: the fruit fly. Scientists have been studying them for over a hundred years. Fruit flies take about a week to mature from egg to adult and reproduce, laying up to 500 eggs in a lifetime, thus, producing 50 generations in a year (link). Over the 100 years of study, since published in Science magazine in 1910, some 5000 generations have been observed. (Try calculating the number of actual fruit fly @ 500 per generation - 500x500x500 . . . . or 5x10⁵⁰⁰⁰). Yet, what have we observed over this period? They have observed multiple mutations . . . . yet, they are still fruit flies. Even by careful selective breeding of various mutations and keeping them alive, they have produced offspring with 4 legs instead of 6; 2 pairs of wings, 1 functional, 1 not; no eyes; 4 eyes; all manner of configurations, most of which needed to be nursed in ordered to survive to maturity, but they are still fruit flies. Also, these mutations were just variations of the existing fruit fly genome, no new information.

Without that naturalistic 'beginning', ToE doesn't kick off.

Why? I know theists that claim their god being started life, and then it evolve however it evolved. That way they don't have to deny the mountains of evidence supporting evolution, yet still get to claim their creator god did it's thing.

Are you one of these 'theists'? If not, you, then, still need to come up with a naturalistic 'beginning'.

As for tackling the life from non-life thing, that's simple. Is there any atom in your body that is alive? No? Than you are clearly "life" from "non-life", are you not?

No, my 'life' came from the existing 'life' of my parents and their 'life' from their parents and . . . . . .

I'm not opposed to new or different ideas, but they need to explain the facts in existence, and common design can't do that.

You are entitled to hold any position you wish but what, in particular, does 'common design' not explain?

Radiometric dating. The age of the universe. The fossil record. That's a start. Of course common design is only a possible explanation if one can prove that the designer actually exists. I'm not willing to assume that personally. It's not proper to claim a designer made all DNA the same before proving the designer actually exists.

Have you not heard of or studied much of the teleological argument. In scripture it is written as -
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"  Rom 1:19-20 -
- but there are numerous non-scriptural links available.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Still small]

But like you said, fossils are a fact. Radioactive decay is a fact. Genetics is a fact. A common designer? We never get evidence for that, do we. That starting point never seems to be proven by anyone...

What evidence would you accept?

Throw whatever you have at me. I'm not picky.

You continually ask for proof of God, the Creator, the Intelligent Designer. So what sort of proof would convince you? For example, humour me and try this little thought experiment -

You decide, right at this moment, to get up and walk outside, crossing the street. Now, God forbid, you get hit by a bus. You see everyone rushing over to you and trying to assist you but you see them from above. You see the paramedics arrive and try to revive you whilst putting you in the ambulance and rushing you to the hospital, all from above the scene. Then, over your shoulder, you notice that infamous tunnel with a bright light at the end drawing you toward it. You see friends and relatives that you know are dead and they are talking to you and comforting and welcoming you. You sense the calm and peace plus a joy, not fun or happiness but real joy. You are lead to a large temple-style building where you see a large throne with many people around it. You see someone on the throne and you instinctively recognise Him to be God, the Creator. Rather than having a sense of fear, you feel love radiating from Him and you come to realise that everything that those Creos told you about the Father are true. You just know all this from being in His Presence. You also realise that honouring Him is brought about by a sense of awe and thankfulness and not by fear or threat. You have a real but unexplained desire to remain in His Presence and being thrilled to do anything He asks of you.
After being in His presence, He looks at you and says, in a loving tone, "Kenisaw, there is so much more you can do for Me. It is not your time, so I am going to send you back to be a witness for me."
You have a desire to remain but somehow knowing that this is the best thing to do, you farewell your friends and family. The next thing you are aware of, is being surrounded by shocked medical staff, shock at seeing you revived after being clinically dead.

Would this type of experience convince you? Would this be enough proof to satisfy you?

Think about it and let me know.

Have a good day!
Still small

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 109 by Still small]

Would this type of experience convince you? Would this be enough proof to satisfy you?

Nope. Not at all. None of the alleged accounts of such experiences necessitates the existence of a god or an afterlife.

Please describe the criteria you would use and how you would apply them that allow you to determine definitively that such an event is real rather than an experience generated within a brain under stress.