Rymmie1981

I once studied physics in a misguided attempt to please everyone around me with my intelligence. I'm pretty smart, but I hate physics. Anyways, the general trend with theories in physics is that the more you have to add and change a theory in order to make it fit the facts, the more likely that it is wrong.

Newton's laws: Freaking simple, still used today when not calculating objects moving at reletavistic speeds

Relativity: Freaking simple, so far, it has yet to be disproved, has accurately predicted so many astronomical phenomena that people are starting to use "law" of relativity. Einstein's only goof was taking out his cosmological constant.

Quantum physics: Hopelessly complex, but explains sub-atomic structure really well. Constantly being added to in order to keep in line with observation. Generally held to be something to get us by until we figure what really goes on in the universe.

At least, that's how I remember it. Quantum physics was what made me realize I hated physics, so my review maybe slightly biased. There are more theories and laws than this, but I simply intend to show examples, not expound on absolute truths.

Endymion83

I think one of biggest problems in understanding Quantum Mechanics is that it defies common sense. The subatomic wolrd is a strange place indeed...

Kosh

Very true. Saturday night I learned that even after 3 glasses of Merlot followed by a shot (sipped) of 15 year old Glenfidich (if it ain't Scottish, it's Crrrrrap!), I could still argue circles around our thiest friend who made the mistake of asking me if I believed the crucifiction had taken place...

Was good to hear "Well clearly you're like a computer and I'm not prepared to debate you..."

Rymmie1981

Yes, it does, endymion.

The point of the previous post was to make the case that, since creationists have to keep making changes and additions in order to fit with observed evidence, their theories are, most likely, wrong according to how the world usually works. Their theories are definitely wrong according to the evidence, but, without the evidence, they would likely be wrong due to the growing complexity of the theories to make them fit. The scientific theories that have stood the test of time mostly come from direct observation rather than ad hoc assumptions that must be warped around reality in order to work, making less sense with each twist or addition.

In normal science, there have been many theories that were based on scientific observation; e.g., Copernicus' sun-centered universe. But, the sun-centered universe required so many additions and changes in order to explain the movements of the planets as seen from Earth that it became unwieldy. Newton simplified everything with his equations and opened up the universe as not necessarily centered on us or the sun, by extension. Galileo could have come close to Newton's work, if the Catholic Church hadn't silenced him.

One doesn't need to change Newton's equations to find out where the planets will be, in relation to the sun and each other, a million years from now. One doesn't need to change relativity to find out how much energy it takes move a rocket from here to Alpha Centari in a ten year voyage. But, the flood, the days of creation, what was created when, and so on, all have to changed and affixed with disclaimers and provisos in order to keep with the greater knowledge of the workings of the universe.

There I feel better now. Take this as you wish. Though, I would like a creationist viewpoint on this idea.

Mageth

In normal science, there have been many theories that were based on scientific observation; e.g., Copernicus' sun-centered universe. But, the sun-centered universe required so many additions and changes in order to explain the movements of the planets as seen from Earth that it became unwieldy.

Don't forget that Copernicus' heliocentric model replaced the even more unwieldy and ad-hoc Ptolemic geocentric model.

Ehud

From the book of Job, chapter 40,


Some say that this is an elephant or hippo, but niether has a tail like a cedar. Sounds like a big ol critter to me.

Also, animals were placed in the ark according to their kind. Would he need every single type of cow on the ark? No, especially when you consider that many of the modern varieties of cow you see today are the result of selective breeding over the last few hundred years. Same with dogs, cats, etc.....

Also, if you consider what makes the sea salty, you will find a bit of a quandry that my evolutionist friends cannot answer. Maybe one of you can...

Rains, rivers, and such erode salts and minerals from the land and carry them to the ocean. As the water evaporates from the ocean, the salts and minerals are left behind and are concentrated. If my memory is correct, the ocean is about 4% salt solution and growing. Last figure I read was that the ocean is gaining in salt content at the rate of 1% per 1000 years (give or take).

If these figures are accurate, then why is the ocean not higher in salt content? Over millions of years, the salt and minerals eroding onto the ocean would have made the concentration so high that nothing could survive. Perhaps the waters were fresh at one point and have been slowly gaining in slt content over the last 4500 years? If you take a freshwater fish and slooowly increase the salt content of the water over a number of generations, the animals will adapt to the enviornment. All fish have the genetic ability to live in fresh or salt water. Just a matter of dominant genes.

What you say? A creationist admitting that animals can adapt to thier envornment over time? Yes. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is when you claim that one kind of animal can change into another. You can selectivly breed Bulldogs and eventually get a German Shepard, but you cannot breed Bull dogs and get a cat.

Postcard73

Welcome to the IIDB Ehud. I don't want to see this thread derailed by replies to your comment, so I strongly encourage you to spend time reading some of the threads in the Evolution/Creationism forum.

Mageth

Originally posted by Ehud
From the book of Job, chapter 40,

40:15 “Look now at Behemoth, which I made as I made you;
it eats grass like the ox.
40:16 Look at its strength in its loins,
and its power in the muscles of its belly.
40:17 It makes its tail stiff like a cedar,
the sinews of its thighs are tightly wound.
40:18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like bars of iron

Some say that this is an elephant or hippo, but niether has a tail like a cedar. Sounds like a big ol critter to me.

The problem is, the reference to "tail" was a euphemism for "penis", and the "sinews of its thighs" was a euphemism for its testicles. And notice that neither elephants, hippos, or dinos have (or had) bronze bones.

IIRC, dinosaurs didn't have external penises. Have you ever seen an elephant's penis?

Also, animals were placed in the ark according to their kind.

Define "kind".

Would he need every single type of cow on the ark? No, especially when you consider that many of the modern varieties of cow you see today are the result of selective breeding over the last few hundred years. Same with dogs, cats, etc.....

The last few hundred years? There are varieties of domestic cows that go back thousands of years; the same is true for cats and dogs. We began domesticating cows at least 6000 years ago. In any case, no one would claim that varieties of domesticated bovines, dogs, and cats that have been selectively bred over the last few hundred years were on the ark.

And it always amazes me when someone who does not believe in evolution over the last 4 billion years to generate the species that we have today (not to mention the many more extinct species) will posit that 4000 or so years of, what, evolution from a few base kinds could produce the huge number of species we have today.

Also, if you consider what makes the sea salty, you will find a bit of a quandry that my evolutionist friends cannot answer. Maybe one of you can...

Rains, rivers, and such erode salts and minerals from the land and carry them to the ocean. As the water evaporates from the ocean, the salts and minerals are left behind and are concentrated. If my memory is correct, the ocean is about 4% salt solution and growing. Last figure I read was that the ocean is gaining in salt content at the rate of 1% per 1000 years (give or take).

If these figures are accurate, then why is the ocean not higher in salt content? Over millions of years, the salt and minerals eroding onto the ocean would have made the concentration so high that nothing could survive. Perhaps the waters were fresh at one point and have been slowly gaining in slt content over the last 4500 years? If you take a freshwater fish and slooowly increase the salt content of the water over a number of generations, the animals will adapt to the enviornment. All fish have the genetic ability to live in fresh or salt water. Just a matter of dominant genes.

Quite simply, there are mechanisms removing salts from the oceans approximately as fast as they are being added; thus, the salinity of the ocean is in an approximate equilibrium.

From the following link (emphasis mine):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovi...good-yea2.html

Also see the following:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovi...a.html#proof13
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...rth.html#ocean

What you say? A creationist admitting that animals can adapt to thier envornment over time? Yes. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is when you claim that one kind of animal can change into another.

That, my friend, is merely an extension of what you agree with already. Species adapt to their environment; over time, this produces new species, and so on, and so on...you start out with one or a few species, and eventually you end up with the species we have today, in all their various genuses, families, orders, classes, phyla/divisions, and kingdoms.

You can selectivly breed Bulldogs and eventually get a German Shepard, but you cannot breed Bull dogs and get a cat.

And indeed, no one said you could. And I'd also question whether one could succesfully breed bulldogs to get German Shepherds.

However, you can start from an ancestral species that is neither cat nor dog and eventually wind up with cats (in all their varieties) and canids (with all their varieties), just like you can start out with a canid that is neither a german shepherd nor a bulldog and eventually wind up with german shepherds and bulldogs. It's exactly the same process.

Mageth

Whoops, sorry. I will say no more.

Matrioshka_Brain

Yeah, there are some statements that have so many errors that you can't grasp all of them at once.

-------------------------------

As to Ehud's bible quotes, there's what Mageth pointed out, and the fact that the passage is mistranslated in the KJV.

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com has a little blurb and a reference on it.