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?

[Bust Nak]

Do you also blaming 'evolution' for a person drowning because they can no longer breathe underwater like a fish. Often injuries occur, especially back strains when one goes beyond that for which they were designed to perform or by doing it incorrectly. Not all farmers or construction workers suffer from back problems.

The point was, had our back bone not been bent backwards into an S shape, we wouldn't be so prone to back problems.

OK, what specifically about back pain that I haven't already mentioned?

That it is due mainly to the "good enough" nature of natural selection; or alternatively bad design.

[Kenisaw]

Limiting our examples to just the stuff in Genesis 1, plants didn't come before light,

Oh? You know this...how?

Seriously, you need this explained to you?

you cannot have a canopy of water over the Earth

, Gen 1 says nothing of that.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

flying creatures didn't come before land animals,

Yes. They did.

Well dear readers, here we see daddy-o's favorite method of argument. Disagree. Don't actually present any argument backed with data or evidence, or even make a logical assertion. Just disagree, as if that is useful in a discussion.

The fossil record clearly shows land animals came first, which only makes sense because land animals came from sea animals. Since you seem to think otherwise, let's see your evidence...

the iron laden Earth didn't come before iron-producing stars

, You have not been probably ten miles down, and you want to tell us what is down there?

I've probably not even been 1/2 mile down actually. But you don't have to go any further than the surface of the Earth to see iron. All that red Georgia clay? The red is iron oxides. You can pick up iron ore all over the state of Minnesota (among many other Great Lake states). When volcanoes erupt, they spew material from much further down that 10 miles, and it has iron alloys in it. The Earth has a little thing known as a magnetic field around the entire planet, which can only come from a geodynamo. Wave propagation through the Earth from things like earthquakes show what materials exist deep in the Earth.

Even if there were lots of stuff on earth that is also in stars, that doesn't mean anything. Why not? Jesus created both.

Prove Jesus created the Earth and the stars.

But you do not know how big stars are or how far, since we would need to know time exists in deep space to do that. So, for all we know, many stars could fall to earth, they are so small!

This was already explained to you, and you failed to provide any counter argument or set of data points that refuted what was written. So this chicanery about time in deep space is ignored as nothing more than a rehash of debunked nonsense.

If stars were small they couldn't produce the force needed to fuse elements together. Your scientific illiteracy is rather wide ranging I'm sad to say.

the moon does emit light (it reflects it)....

What verse says the moon emitted light? Ha.

To quote your own holy book back to you a second time in this post...

16 And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

[benchwarmer]

you cannot have a canopy of water over the Earth

, Gen 1 says nothing of that.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

flying creatures didn't come before land animals,

Yes. They did.

Well dear readers, here we see daddy-o's favorite method of argument. Disagree. Don't actually present any argument backed with data or evidence, or even make a logical assertion. Just disagree, as if that is useful in a discussion.

The fossil record clearly shows land animals came first, which only makes sense because land animals came from sea animals. Since you seem to think otherwise, let's see your evidence...

Well said all around Kenisaw.

What I find both amusing and sad is that someone who is professing the Bible to be such a great source of information is clearly not even familiar it.

When the non theists have to point out Biblical mistakes as well as scientific ones, it's starts to become an odd state of affairs. Given the complete lack of any evidence for any of the claims by dad so far - not even correct attempts at using the Bible, this entire endeavor feels more like Random Ramblings than any sort of scientific discussion.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 43 by benchwarmer]

dad's entire methodology is based around making gut responses due to a compulsion to flat out reject anything he does not already consider a presupposition of his beliefs. It behaves as a knee-jerk reaction with only the barest hint of a connecting thread between sweeping assertion and asinine gloating/well poisoning. He's not arguing in good faith, he's getting a pseudo-intellectual satisfaction through the act of opposing "secularists." He's not leading to any valid conclusion, he's certainly diverging from any scriptural or scientific basis, but he feels comfortable with his scorched earth policy of "I can make all science meaningless, and to boot show my personal interpretation of these ancient texts is compatible with reality!" I don't see any real effort on his part.

[dad]

Seriously, you need this explained to you?

The light that was here was not sunlight or any light from stars. If you don't get it yet, ask.

Well dear readers, here we see daddy-o's favorite method of argument. Disagree. Don't actually present any argument backed with data or evidence, or even make a logical assertion. Just disagree, as if that is useful in a discussion.

The bible says birds were here. Science cannot say they were or were not. You see man and birds and most animals did not likely leave fossilized remains in that former nature. Yes there were birds here from the very start.

The fossil record clearly shows land animals came first, which only makes sense because land animals came from sea animals. Since you seem to think otherwise, let's see your evidence...

The fossil record is only a very very very very partial record of some types of life on earth in the far past. If you could prove the present nature existed at the time, then you could claim that all life should/could have left remains. Until then, you can not. The fossil record should not have birds in it early on since they could not leave remains.

I've probably not even been 1/2 mile down actually. But you don't have to go any further than the surface of the Earth to see iron. All that red Georgia clay? The red is iron oxides. You can pick up iron ore all over the state of Minnesota (among many other Great Lake states). When volcanoes erupt, they spew material from much further down that 10 miles, and it has iron alloys in it. The Earth has a little thing known as a magnetic field around the entire planet, which can only come from a geodynamo. Wave propagation through the Earth from things like earthquakes show what materials exist deep in the Earth.

Yes, there is iron on the surface. No, that does not mean it wafted in from the stars!

As for what the seismic waves tell us, that does not include what rocks or gems or whatever that may be deep in the center of the earth. Go ahead, try to show us what exact metal or rock or whatever is 2200 miles down?

Prove Jesus created the Earth and the stars.

Science can't say either way. Just don't claim it was created of itself.

This was already explained to you, and you failed to provide any counter argument or set of data points that refuted what was written. So this chicanery about time in deep space is ignored as nothing more than a rehash of debunked nonsense.

You may not explain using the unsupported belief that time exists in deep space as it does here. That means you have no distances. It means that any waves coming in here do not mean what you thought..etc. That also means that there can be no billions of years ago based on the speed you think light took to get here.

If stars were small they couldn't produce the force needed to fuse elements together. Your scientific illiteracy is rather wide ranging I'm sad to say.

Baloney. They would not work or be formed the way you thought, but that is a given anyhow, they don't!

To quote your own holy book back to you a second time in this post...

16 And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

The reason the moon is a light was not discussed or given. Gong!

[dad]

[Replying to post 43 by benchwarmer]

dad's entire methodology is based around making gut responses due to a compulsion to flat out reject anything he does not already consider a presupposition of his beliefs. It behaves as a knee-jerk reaction with only the barest hint of a connecting thread between sweeping assertion and asinine gloating/well poisoning. He's not arguing in good faith, he's getting a pseudo-intellectual satisfaction through the act of opposing "secularists." He's not leading to any valid conclusion, he's certainly diverging from any scriptural or scientific basis, but he feels comfortable with his scorched earth policy of "I can make all science meaningless, and to boot show my personal interpretation of these ancient texts is compatible with reality!" I don't see any real effort on his part.

One should not expect others to give unearned credence and value to a totally bogus belief based sack of fables falsely called science.

[Still small]

[Replying to post 20 by Kenisaw]

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

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

Limiting our examples to just the stuff in Genesis 1, plants didn't come before light, . . .

True, 'light' was first mentioned in Genesis 1:3 which was Day 1, whereas plants were first mentioned in Genesis 1:11-12, Day 3.

. . . you cannot have a canopy of water over the Earth,. . .

Firstly, where does Genesis 1 specifically mention 'a canopy'? Mind you, as I sit here looking out of my window, I see water suspended, as clouds, above a a body of water, the Pacific Ocean, separated by a firmament, the sky. Also, from my studies, I believe that the Oort Cloud, which encircles the Solar system as a form of a canopy, is supposedly made up of water in the form of ice particle.

. . . flying creatures didn't come before land animals,. . .

According to which facts? Or are you,again, just going by naturalistic 'long-ages' and evolutionary speculations, assumptions and extrapolations?

. . . the iron laden Earth didn't come before iron-producing stars, . .

Again, according to which facts? Then again, Henry Ford made his first motor vehicle in 1896, three years before his first automotive manufacturing plant in 1899. He produced both, just as Genesis 1 claims that God produced both the Earth and the stars, by which one can probably imply that He also made the process which produces 'iron'.

the moon does emit light (it reflects it)....

Nor does Genesis 1 say that the moon produces light but it does glow, reflecting light which enables us to see in the night.

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

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

The same facts that make the claims of the Bible simply not true.

Oh, no they don't, (according to Hitchen's Razor).
Have a good day!
Still small

[Kenisaw]

Seriously, you need this explained to you?

The light that was here was not sunlight or any light from stars. If you don't get it yet, ask.

Great, prove that there was light in the universe before stars. You made the assertion, now prove it is true.

Well dear readers, here we see daddy-o's favorite method of argument. Disagree. Don't actually present any argument backed with data or evidence, or even make a logical assertion. Just disagree, as if that is useful in a discussion.

The bible says birds were here. Science cannot say they were or were not. You see man and birds and most animals did not likely leave fossilized remains in that former nature. Yes there were birds here from the very start.

Prove that a former nature existed before the universal laws. Prove that birds existed before land animals.

The fossil record clearly shows land animals came first, which only makes sense because land animals came from sea animals. Since you seem to think otherwise, let's see your evidence...

The fossil record is only a very very very very partial record of some types of life on earth in the far past. If you could prove the present nature existed at the time, then you could claim that all life should/could have left remains. Until then, you can not. The fossil record should not have birds in it early on since they could not leave remains.

Don't dodge direct questions please. You were asked specifically for your evidence supporting your claim. When can we expect that evidence?

I've already explained previously to you how it is mathematically impossible for the laws of the universe to have been anything other than what they are right now. There is no way radiometric dating could line up over hundreds of millions of years if the univese had a different set of rules in the past. It's clearly proven that the universal laws have not changed. Your continued belief that the universe was different before the fall of man (i.e. the garden of Eden) is unproven claptrap.

Here's another direct question for you: Please explain to us, with detailed values for all the rules in your former nature, what would have made it impossible for birds to leave remains?

I've probably not even been 1/2 mile down actually. But you don't have to go any further than the surface of the Earth to see iron. All that red Georgia clay? The red is iron oxides. You can pick up iron ore all over the state of Minnesota (among many other Great Lake states). When volcanoes erupt, they spew material from much further down that 10 miles, and it has iron alloys in it. The Earth has a little thing known as a magnetic field around the entire planet, which can only come from a geodynamo. Wave propagation through the Earth from things like earthquakes show what materials exist deep in the Earth.

Yes, there is iron on the surface. No, that does not mean it wafted in from the stars!

Not just on the surface, but in the planet as well. The reason that stars are the only things that produce heavier elements (iron included) is because they are the only things that produce enough force (via fusion of supernova explosions) to overcome the Coulomb force of protons and allow elements to merge together to create a heavier element. There can't be iron on Earth if there weren't stars around beforehand to make the iron. This is true for the carbon, oxygen, nitrogen....pretty much everything that isn't hydrogen and helium

As for what the seismic waves tell us, that does not include what rocks or gems or whatever that may be deep in the center of the earth. Go ahead, try to show us what exact metal or rock or whatever is 2200 miles down?

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2618
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150814 ... e-of-earth
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... s-core-so/

Prove Jesus created the Earth and the stars.

Science can't say either way. Just don't claim it was created of itself.

Don't dodge direct questions please. You were asked to prove your specific claim that Jesus created the Earth and the stars. It would be appreciated if you would do so

This was already explained to you, and you failed to provide any counter argument or set of data points that refuted what was written. So this chicanery about time in deep space is ignored as nothing more than a rehash of debunked nonsense.

You may not explain using the unsupported belief that time exists in deep space as it does here. That means you have no distances. It means that any waves coming in here do not mean what you thought..etc. That also means that there can be no billions of years ago based on the speed you think light took to get here.

There has to be time in deep space, because there is space. Spacetime is one thing, not two things. As the song goes daddy-o, you can't have one without the other. This has been explained to you previously by the way, but apparently it didn't stick.

Part of the problem is that you have a layman's understanding of time I think. This article might help:
https://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientist ... nsion.html

If stars were small they couldn't produce the force needed to fuse elements together. Your scientific illiteracy is rather wide ranging I'm sad to say.

Baloney. They would not work or be formed the way you thought, but that is a given anyhow, they don't!

Well dear readers, here we see daddy-o's favorite method of argument. Disagree. Don't actually present any argument backed with data or evidence, or even make a logical assertion. Just disagree, as if that is useful in a discussion.

Prove your assertions. (You've certainly made some work for yourself, making all these claims and not yet providing the evidence.)

To quote your own holy book back to you a second time in this post...

16 And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

The reason the moon is a light was not discussed or given. Gong!

Gong what? You completely failed to explain what the Bible says, now that you ACTUALLY know that it indeed said it after denying it in your previous post. Your holy book claims it is a light daddy-o. This is the same book for your inspiration about a former nature I believe....

[dad]

Don't dodge direct questions please. You were asked specifically for your evidence supporting your claim. When can we expect that evidence?

Ready for a bible case finally, then? Or do you need another cup of 'science doesn't know either way' first?

I've already explained previously to you how it is mathematically impossible for the laws of the universe to have been anything other than what they are right now.

You were wrong.

There is no way radiometric dating could line up over hundreds of millions of years if the univese had a different set of rules in the past.

Yes there is.
No dating lines up, ratios line up. Most of the ratios were here already probably before decay started. So the stuff ratios are made of for the most part did not come to exist in our nature.

It's clearly proven that the universal laws have not changed.

No. You have done nothing of the sort.

Here's another direct question for you: Please explain to us, with detailed values for all the rules in your former nature, what would have made it impossible for birds to leave remains?

Easy to do. We don't know! How would we know about some other set of forces and laws when all we ever knew was the current ones? Now I can do what science does, and speculate. I suspect that there were more creatures that disposed of remains in the former nature. Today we have the snot worm for example that disposes of certain whale remains.

Not just on the surface, but in the planet as well. The reason that stars are the only things that produce heavier elements (iron included) is because they are the only things that produce enough force (via fusion of supernova explosions) to overcome the Coulomb force of protons and allow elements to merge together to create a heavier element.

Nope.

We don't really know how they work out there, your idea is a guess, based on earth rules.

There can't be iron on Earth if there weren't stars around beforehand to make the iron. This is true for the carbon, oxygen, nitrogen....pretty much everything that isn't hydrogen and helium

That says nothing except Godcouldn'tdunnit. Total speculation. The One who made the stars made earth also, and did so before the stars were here.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2618
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150814 ... e-of-earth
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... s-core-so/

From your link

""The density of the material at the Earth's surface is much lower than the average density of the whole Earth, so that tells us there's something much denser," says Redfern. "That's the first thing.""

Wrong! The first thing is speculation and belief based only. We cannot look at all the earth most of which is unknown, and assume it is all just physical material. Sorry. In fact the bible says that the spiritual is very much a part of things down there.

Don't dodge direct questions please. You were asked to prove your specific claim that Jesus created the Earth and the stars.

Ready for a bible case finally, then? Or do you need another cup of 'science doesn't know either way' first?

There has to be time in deep space, because there is space.

You really must be kidding!!!!!? The mere existence of space of some sort does not mean that time as we know it has to be interwoven with it.

Spacetime is one thing, not two things.

It is a theory. A concept. An attempt at explaining the fishbowl of the space and time we know here. The way it is woven together HERE may be one 'thing' to you, but that thing is not known to be the same far far far beyond where you ever have been or know about.

You are in no position to tell us we cannot have one without the other either. You do not even know what either ARE!

Part of the problem is that you have a layman's understanding of time I think. This article might help:
https://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientist ... nsion.html

Your link talks bout time as some method of measurement.

".. time as a way to measure the duration of events.."

Sorry, that is not time. That may be a method of measuring duration in the fishbowl within your religion, that uses the word time but that does not tell us what time itself is!
formed the way you thought, but that is a given anyhow, they don't![/quote]

Gong what?

Gong, you did not show that the bible claims the light of the moon was in and of itself rather than reflective.

Your holy book claims it is a light daddy-o

It is a light...at night. Why it is a light is another matter. You thought that a highly reflective orb in the night sky that reflected light from the sun was not a light??

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 20 by Kenisaw]

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

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

Limiting our examples to just the stuff in Genesis 1, plants didn't come before light, . . .

True, 'light' was first mentioned in Genesis 1:3 which was Day 1, whereas plants were first mentioned in Genesis 1:11-12, Day 3.

Prove such a light existed. We know the Sun and stars exist, and they create photons as part of the fusion process. But the Bible claims these things came after plants. Plants couldn't have come before stars because the Earth couldn't have come before stars. The Earth has elements that are created by stars - oxygen, carbon, iron, nitrogen, etc. You can't have carbon based life forms without the carbon that stars create.

. . . you cannot have a canopy of water over the Earth,. . .

Firstly, where does Genesis 1 specifically mention 'a canopy'? Mind you, as I sit here looking out of my window, I see water suspended, as clouds, above a a body of water, the Pacific Ocean, separated by a firmament, the sky. Also, from my studies, I believe that the Oort Cloud, which encircles the Solar system as a form of a canopy, is supposedly made up of water in the form of ice particle.

6 And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.� 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

Synonyms for firmament: vault, lid, canopy.

I hope your google gets fixed soon.

As you look out your window, you see a denser material (liquid water) closer to the gravitational center of the Earth than a less dense material (the atmosphere). They aren't separated either, they are in contact with each other, just like the more dense rock is below the less dense water. Or are you going to tell us those rocks at the bottom of the ocean aren't wet?

During your studies, I hope someone explained to you that the Oort Cloud is almost entirely empty space. You could travel around in that area for light years and never see a single thing. I find it a poor rationalization to claim the Oort cloud is the water above the firmament...

. . . flying creatures didn't come before land animals,. . .

According to which facts? Or are you,again, just going by naturalistic 'long-ages' and evolutionary speculations, assumptions and extrapolations?

According to which facts? All of them, Smalls. And I do mean all. Literally every single piece of empirical data and evidence ever gathered by geology, paleontology, morphology, biology, genetics, and so on shows the Earth to be billions of years old and that flight didn't develop until after land creatures first crawled out of the sea.

. . . the iron laden Earth didn't come before iron-producing stars, . .

Again, according to which facts? Then again, Henry Ford made his first motor vehicle in 1896, three years before his first automotive manufacturing plant in 1899. He produced both, just as Genesis 1 claims that God produced both the Earth and the stars, by which one can probably imply that He also made the process which produces 'iron'.

Karl Benz made the first auto in 1885. So I guess we need to credit a different god for Earth in your example?

Again, what facts? All of them Smalls. The process that produces iron (and all the other elements outside hydrogen) is fission or supernovae. If that's the process your god made, then the Earth couldn't have existed before the stars. Not sure how a supposed omni-everything deity couldn't get that right in it's dictated book (or inspired book, depending on which believer you ask).

the moon does emit light (it reflects it)....

Nor does Genesis 1 say that the moon produces light but it does glow, reflecting light which enables us to see in the night.

Auto-correct got me here. I meant to type the moon does not emit light. The Bible calls the moon a lesser light, and the Sun a greater light. The moon doesn't emit squat.

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

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

The same facts that make the claims of the Bible simply not true.

Oh, no they don't, (according to Hitchen's Razor).
Have a good day!
Still small[/quote]

Your killing me, Smalls. I've asserted nothing without evidence. The fact that heavier elements are created by stars, the fact that land animals are older than winged creatures, the fact that the moon does not emit light, the fact that plants could not exist before the Sun and stars, is all empirical data. The fossil record is empirical data. Genetics is empirical data. Trying to use Hitchen's razor is merely cutting your own throat...