Is this it for creationism?

[Jose Fly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #49]

You are saying that resonance is achieved because of the outgoing pulse interacting with the return pulse. There may be some other better solution than the one I am going to give you. But there is the time it takes for the vibrating electrons to produce the light. I don't know and I am not going to take the time to find a better solution.

The fringes (constructive and destructive interferences as the laser wavelength is tuned) are the result of a standing wave being set up in the cavity. If the laser runs CW (continuous wave, not pulsed) you see the same standing wave in equilibrium with the losses so you get a stable scope trace of the fringes. There are no electrons involved except in the generation of the laser light itself (using a semiconductor DFB laser like those used in telecom). Once the beam is emitted and collimated it is directed into the etalon where the standing wave is established (provided the pulse width is large enough for the light to make at least one round trip). The only things inside the cavity are air (or some other gas, or a vacuum), the two mirror surfaces, and the photons from the laser. The light is produced entirely outside of the cavity.

The only way the fringes can disappear with sufficiently short pulses (less than the round trip light time), at specific pulse widths (in time), is if the speed of light is what we think it is. If it were different then we'd see two things. One, the pulse widths that stop the fringes (ie. those at less than the round trip light time)) would be different than what we observe. And two, the relationship between the pulse width that stops the fringe pattern and the mirror spacing would be different than we observe. But these are both consistent, and yield the known speed of light. If there were some interaction with the light and the mirrors themselves that was responisble for the observed delays, and the speed of light was infinite, then there would be no dependence on the mirror spacing but there is (and it is exactly as prediced by the known speed of light in the medium ... related to the index of refraction in the medium).

That is Early. How long do you think it takes for large galaxies to form? Large galaxies are caused by colliding smaller galaxies. The Milky Way and Andromeda will not collide for another 4.5 billion years. There would not be enough time for large galaxies to form that soon after the BB.

One reason Webb was built was to get more information on times earlier than Hubble or ground-based telescopes can see. We've never seen such distant things before so don't know a lot about those times for lack of observations. And the preliminary observations are not yet confirmed to be galaxies. It is way too early to draw any conclusions about what the implications of the Webb images are at this point. No need to leap to unwarranted conclusions that they somehow support creationism.

[Inquirer]

They make no difference to me whatsoever.

Yes they do else you wouldn't spend time discussing them in a forum dedicated to debating christianity.

Putting aside the other fluff that amounted to nothing more than science denial required to prop up religious belief, imaginary gods make no difference to my life.

I want to press you on this specious accusation of "science denial". This accusation is a recurring tactic in many debates here, yet is a vague, made up, unscientific term.

I disagree with certain claims made in the name of science but that isn't to be described as "science denial" it's a meaningless term IMHO.

So please define what you mean by "science denial" for all we know you might be doing it too!

[Inquirer]

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

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

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

[EarthScienceguy]

Although information does travel instantaneously with entangled particles no matter what the distance.

And this demonstrates exactly the point I was making.

By the same logic you're relying on to question the measurements of the speed of light, there's no way to show that entangled particles transmit information instantaneously. The verification that information has been transmitted instantly requires a round trip to verify, which cannot be performed faster than c. The particles must begin together to be entangled, then travel to whatever "distance" is desired, and then a return trip must be made to verify the information. It's the identical problem.

It is not the same logic. It is a different question that has to be asked in this instance. Are the entangled particles transferring information? All the equations say that the "information" or whatever it is people want to call it is transmitted instantaneously. But the idea is that the particles are not transmitting information the observation is simply collapsing the waveform.

But my point of this line of thought is this. There are many that believe that the theory of quantum mechanics is not wrong but just incomplete. And because it is incomplete I believe that there can be basic physical properties of space and time that are yet unknown. And I believe that the observations of the James Webb telescope are showing physicists some of these areas. One of these areas is the speed of electromagnetic radiation.

It started with inflation. And even now there is still those that do not believe it is an internally consistent theory.

The simplest inflationary models,
including those described in
standard textbooks, are strongly
disfavored by observations. Of
course, theorists rapidly rushed to
patch the inflationary picture but at
the cost of making arcane models. https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf

(I have never been convinced that inflation can give the smoothness of temperature that we see in cosmic background radiation.)

Objects not looking larger at the edge of the universe

Hubble's deep field showing a smooth old universe and not a chaotic young universe

And now James Webb has shown the same thing.

Researchers are starting to ask what is with the speed of light, especially with the James Webb observations.

Either the James Webb observations have to be refuted or there will have to be major changes to the big bang theory or changes to the speed of light as far as I understand the situation.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #51]

The fringes (constructive and destructive interferences as the laser wavelength is tuned) are the result of a standing wave being set up in the cavity. If the laser runs CW (continuous wave, not pulsed) you see the same standing wave in equilibrium with the losses so you get a stable scope trace of the fringes. There are no electrons involved except in the generation of the laser light itself (using a semiconductor DFB laser like those used in telecom). Once the beam is emitted and collimated it is directed into the etalon where the standing wave is established (provided the pulse width is large enough for the light to make at least one round trip). The only things inside the cavity are air (or some other gas, or a vacuum), the two mirror surfaces, and the photons from the laser. The light is produced entirely outside of the cavity.

The only way the fringes can disappear with sufficiently short pulses (less than the round trip light time), at specific pulse widths (in time), is if the speed of light is what we think it is. If it were different then we'd see two things. One, the pulse widths that stop the fringes (ie. those at less than the round trip light time)) would be different than what we observe. And two, the relationship between the pulse width that stops the fringe pattern and the mirror spacing would be different than we observe. But these are both consistent, and yield the known speed of light. If there were some interaction with the light and the mirrors themselves that was responisble for the observed delays, and the speed of light was infinite, then there would be no dependence on the mirror spacing but there is (and it is exactly as prediced by the known speed of light in the medium ... related to the index of refraction in the medium).

No, actually I do not believe that this would work. You are still measuring the two-way speed of light. If the one-way speed of light is instantaneous the bouncing off of the mirror and back would meet the next incoming beam. Because the beam after the reflection would be 1/2 c. I am not saying that this is true but if it were then I would think it would be a quantum effect of needing something to break the wave function.

It is way too early to draw any conclusions about what the implications of the Webb images are at this point. No need to leap to unwarranted conclusions that they somehow support creationism.

The observations do not match BB. Neither did Hubble's this is not a new thing. This is a confirmation of what Hubble already observed.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #55]

No, actually I do not believe that this would work. You are still measuring the two-way speed of light. If the one-way speed of light is instantaneous the bouncing off of the mirror and back would meet the next incoming beam. Because the beam after the reflection would be 1/2 c. I am not saying that this is true but if it were then I would think it would be a quantum effect of needing something to break the wave function.

It does work and is easily done in a lab with some basic equipment. Again, I'm not talking about the 2-way speed of light (or 1-way), but about setting up a standing wave between two mirrors configured as an etalon to show that the speed of light cannot be infinite. For a plane parallel etalon with length L (mirror separation), the spacing between the fringe peaks to first order is called the free spectral range, FSR:

FSR = c / (2*n*L)

where c is the speed of light, and n is the index of refraction of the medium between the mirrors. For air, n ~ 1. The closer the mirrors are together, the farther apart the fringe peaks (the larger FSR is). If the speed of light were infinite, then changing L would not change FSR (which would be infinite itself if c = infinity ... there would be no fringes at all). But if you actually do this you'll see that FSR follows the above relationship precisely as L is changed for a given laser wavelength. If L is fixed, and FSR is measured (n known), then you have a value for c (= FSR * 2 * n * L). It all works precisely. The fanciest etalons ever made (by far) are the mirror sets used in the LIGO instruments ... amazing engineering that works.

A pulsed laser just proves further that the speed of light cannot be infinite. If it was interaction of the light with the mirrors that was causing a time delay between the light reflecting off of one mirror and then the other, then there would be no relationship between L and the pulse width needed to kill the fringes (ie. a pulse width smaller than the round trip light travel time between the mirrors). This pulse width cutoff would be completely independent of L, but it isn't if you actually measure it. It is directly proportional to L as expected, with the absolute value equalling the value calculated using the known value for c. So any delay cannot be due to interactions at the mirror surfaces alone with infinite light speed, purely from the observed dependence of pulse width cutoff vs L using the same mirrors.

[Clownboat]

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

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

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

No one suggested that it needed to be replaced and yet you imagine that I want it replaced because of some problem I'm trying to solve. Please check your imagination as it has gotten carried away here.

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

[Inquirer]

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

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

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

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

So why did you bring up questions about replacing it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Difflugia]

It is not the same logic. It is a different question that has to be asked in this instance. Are the entangled particles transferring information? All the equations say that the "information" or whatever it is people want to call it is transmitted instantaneously. But the idea is that the particles are not transmitting information the observation is simply collapsing the waveform.

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

[Jose Fly]

So overall, I'd say the question posed in the OP has been answered....creationists really don't have anything new and whatever remains of this "debate" is effectively dead.

It's pretty much the same in many of the online sites that are dedicated to arguing about creationism....fewer than half a dozen creationists who even bother anymore, with most of them not really even trying (e.g., one creationist here who refuses to debate while simultaneously trash talking like a 5 year old, another who habitually ignores posts), and a lineup of science defenders who just can't seem to let it go.

Given that, I'd say the fascinating aspect of all this has shifted from "just how goofy will creationists get" to "how long will the same tiny group people beat the same dead horses over and over". At what point do the science advocates realize that this is no different than arguing with flat-earthers (in that it's a "debate" about something that's not at all scientifically relevant and is only advocated by a handful of true believers)?

I'm reminded of the Twain quote....Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. That puts me in mind of something I used to say to justify not arguing with certain types of folks....Who's crazier, the person on the street corner yelling at fire hydrants, or the person who tries to debate him?

Anyways....just rambling a bit, so feel free to ignore this post.