Starlight and Time

[dad1]

Does science know what time, specifically time in the distant universe is? If you claim it does, then be prepared to support that claim.

If science does not know that time exists out there in a way we know it here, then one implication is that no distances are knowable to distant stars.

Why? Because distances depend on the uniform existence of time. If time (in this example 4 billion light years from earth) did not exist the same as time near earth, then what might take a billion years (of time as we know it here) for light to travel a certain distance in space might, for all we know, take minutes weeks or seconds of time as it exists out THERE!

So what methods does science have to measure time there? I am not aware of any. Movements observed at a great distance and observed from OUR time and space would not qualify. Such observations would only tell us how much time as seen here it would take if time were the same there.

How this relates to religion is that a six day creation thousands of years ago cannot be questioned using cosmology if it really did not take light that reaches us on earth and area a lot of time to get here.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #172]

It is a law...

No it isn't. Biogenesis simply invalidates the idea of spontaneous generation. It says nothing about how life may have formed from nonliving molecules in the distant past, or over millions of years. But creationists love to claim it is a "law" ... especially when arguing against evolution or abiogenesis.

By observation life comes from living matter, by observation life is never arises from dead matter.

By observation a brick when released falls to the earth, by observation a brick when released never remains where it is.

Wkipedia

Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.

On what basis do you argue that biogenesis is not a law when it meets the definition of a law?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #181]

On what basis do you argue that biogenesis is not a law when it meets the definition of a law?

Because it does not describe or predict (or even allow for) abiogenesis, which is a leading hypothesis for how life originated. Describe the repeated experiments and observations that show abiogenesis is not possible and therefore biogenesis can be considered a "law."

We have not yet observed abiogenesis, but we've also never observed any creator being producing life by magic or miracles or simply poofing it into existence from nothing. So that mechanism is no more or less valid as an option than abiogenesis (and I'd argue less so because god beings of any kind have yet to be demonstrated to exist ... only inferred or postulated).

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #181]

On what basis do you argue that biogenesis is not a law when it meets the definition of a law?

Because it does not describe or predict (or even allow for) abiogenesis, which is a leading hypothesis for how life originated.

But that's nothing to do with the definition of a law.

Describe the repeated experiments and observations that show abiogenesis is not possible and therefore biogenesis can be considered a "law."

Again this has nothing to do with what defines a law, nobody argues that there is no law of gravitation because we can't show that antigravity is not possible do they.

We have not yet observed abiogenesis, but we've also never observed any creator being producing life by magic or miracles or simply poofing it into existence from nothing. So that mechanism is no more or less valid as an option than abiogenesis (and I'd argue less so because god beings of any kind have yet to be demonstrated to exist ... only inferred or postulated).

We have not yet observed antigravity so what?

Consider:

Scientific laws do not try to explain 'why' the observed event happens, but only that the event actually occurs the same way over and over.

Biogenesis meets this definition.

A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.

Biogenesis meets this definition.

These are all examples, easily found, of definitions of scientific law - why do you think it does not meet such definition'?

[Jose Fly]

I've never really understood the point of this particular creationist argument (which is another one that's been done to death). What exactly are they expecting to come from it? Do they think if they say "there's a Law of Biogenesis", origins researchers are going to be like, "Oh, well then I guess we'll just shut all our labs down and go find other work"?

[Jose Fly]

Also, again I have to note how fascinating it is to watch creationists' behaviors. Their ability to completely ignore inconvenient information, counter arguments, and questions is truly a sight to behold. I can't think of any other group of people I've ever encountered who so regularly engage in this behavior.

But then, when it comes to creationists/conservative Christians, I always come back to one thing....the persistence of televangelists.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #183]

Biogenesis meets this definition.

Henry Charlton Bastian (or others attribute it to Rudolf Virchow) coined the term biogenesis when spontaneous generation was shown to be wrong, and used it as the principle that life only comes from life and does not quickly just "appear" like maggots on a dead animal. This is an observation but is not a scientific "law" because it requires an unjustified assumption.

Biogenesis is the opposite of abiogenesis, and so is a claim that life can only come from life, with no exceptions. But we don't know that to be the case because we don't yet know what mechanisms created the first life forms, which had to come into existence by some means. Biogenesis allows for only one origin of life mechanism which is "creation" out of nothing, and we've never observed that kind of event, or a creator who could have done such a thing.

No humans were around to observe the first life forms and how they came about, but that isn't necessary to know that the event did happen, and biogenesis does not apply to that fundamental event or even allow it to happen (outside of a supernatural god being of some sort).

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #183]

Biogenesis meets this definition.

Henry Charlton Bastian (or others attribute it to Rudolf Virchow) coined the term biogenesis when spontaneous generation was shown to be wrong, and used it as the principle that life only comes from life and does not quickly just "appear" like maggots on a dead animal. This is an observation but is not a scientific "law" because it requires an unjustified assumption.

Biogenesis is the opposite of abiogenesis, and so is a claim that life can only come from life, with no exceptions. But we don't know that to be the case because we don't yet know what mechanisms created the first life forms, which had to come into existence by some means. Biogenesis allows for only one origin of life mechanism which is "creation" out of nothing, and we've never observed that kind of event, or a creator who could have done such a thing.

No humans were around to observe the first life forms and how they came about, but that isn't necessary to know that the event did happen, and biogenesis does not apply to that fundamental event or even allow it to happen (outside of a supernatural god being of some sort).

Yes I agree "we don't know that to be the case" just we don't know it to be he case that mass/energy really is conserved, laws in science are never "known" they are adopted on the basis of repeated confirmation by observation and no violation ever being observed.

The law of biogenesis is as much a law as any other empirically established law, but it is - if we adhere to the scientific definition - a law.

Until you can demonstrate under repeatable laboratory conditions that living material can arise from non living material without any participation or reliance on living material, the law must stand just as is done for all laws in science.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #0]

That's not only not true, it's a completely bizarre claim (especially given our previous exchanges at ToL). I mean, Dobzhansky was demonstrating speciation in the lab back in the 1930's for Pete's sake!

Well, in this experiment that was designed to test evolution there were no new species made.

How are you defining and measuring "genetic information"?

And please, please just answer the question this time, either with a "I don't know" or a definition and quantifiable metric. No more of the stereotypical creationist dodging until you eventually claim to have already answered.

First, I did not define (it was actually only 11) mutations but Lenski did and they are described in post 179.

No, the problem here is with your lack of understanding, not with the science. For example, each human is born with 100-200 mutations that were not present in either parent.

Ok, when did the last beneficial mutation become fixed in the human genome?
Are you trying to say that there are some humans more evolved than others?

Marget Sanger believed that there were some more evolved than others. Edwin Black used Sanger's arguments in support of eugenics.

"The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. . . . Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded." Sanger quoted in Edwin Black, War against the Weak pp 131

And she believed that abortion was the answer.

“Birth control, which has been criticized as negative and destructive, is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method, and its adoption as part of the program of Eugenics would immediately give a concrete and realistic power to their science. As a matter of fact, Birth Control has been accepted by the most clear thinking and far seeing of the Eugenicists themselves as the most constructive and necessary of the means to racial health.” Sanger quoted in Edwin Black, War against the Weak, p. 129

How could there not be some humans more evolved than others?

For your "evolution" to take place it would mean that out of that 116 of the 100-200 would have to become fixed in the population. That is not possible. In what population are all of these mutations becoming fixed? The liberal population?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #180]

But you had claimed that "the math" shows that evolution doesn't happen. The short video doesn't have to get into the type of mutation or how many there were ... its point was to show that mutations do happen and the bacteria evolved to survive the successive barriers they faced. If there is math that shows this can't happen, it clearly must be wrong.

This is not a natural environment. This is an extinction event taking place. I never said and no creationist believes that adaptation does not happen. That is what this created event is. It is just a simple adaptation within a limited range. Put increasing bleach in the same event and see if the same thing happens.

What will happen is that all the bacteria will die. Adaptation is always within a limited range.

[brunumb]

How could there not be some humans more evolved than others?

Because being more evolved is a meaningless term. Evolution has no direction and there are no levels.