Replies

Someone posted earlier that anything that cannot be disproved is by defintion not science. You cannot prove or disprove the constancy of lightspeed using the scientific method given limiations of the human lifespan. In fact, the only hard data available seems to indicate it is decreasing slightly though we are certainly free to question the methodologies used for the various tests over the centuries.. Regardless: Its constancy is assumed a priori and then used as the basis for "millions of years", "billions of years", etc. THEREFORE... in that sense, evolutionary belief is faith-based and quasireligious in nature.

Furthermore much the data you've mentioned is therefore suspect. I am hoping, given your personal background, that you do not take any of this discussion personally given its implications. You've been a very good sport, and I appreciate you humoring me with this debate.

Evolutionary theory must make certain assumptions. I've offered a few examples. Without these assumptions the data could not be interpreted to indicate x, y, or z.

Creationism also makes certain assumptions. Only Creationism, however, gives a rational basis for them. In evolutionary theory the assumptions must stand on their own.

You cannot prove or disprove the constancy of lightspeed using the scientific method given limiations of the human lifespan. In fact, the only hard data available seems to indicate it is decreasing slightly though we are certainly free to question the methodologies used for the various tests over the centuries..

Its late and I haven't shaved, so I will address only this small part of your post.

Science does not prove things; it is in the business of trying to disprove things. As for the speed of light, nobody is trying to "prove" it, rather the efforts are at measuring it more and more accurately. It it turns out to be a declining variable, so be it. But, at this point there is no good evidence that is the case.

I think you will find that most of us on the evolution side are quite patient with reasonable discourse, but we tend to go ballistic when we see the same nonsense presented uncritically for the thousandth time.

I personally tend to go off when somebody quotemines a creationist website for some absolute drivel on radiocarbon dating, as that is something I do a lot of and have a lot of experience with. I just don't have patience for some neophyte who thinks he can go to some creationist website, load up on nonsense, and trump 35 years of study.

Good night. We will discuss these issues again I am sure.

"Someone posted earlier that anything that cannot be disproved is by defintion not science. You cannot prove or disprove the constancy of lightspeed using the scientific method given limiations of the human lifespan. In fact, the only hard data available seems to indicate it is decreasing slightly though we are certainly free to question the methodologies used for the various tests over the centuries.. Regardless: Its constancy is assumed a priori and then used as the basis for 'millions of years', "billions of years", etc. THEREFORE... in that sense, evolutionary belief is faith-based and quasireligious in nature."

Who said that the constancy of the speed of light was non-falsifiable? Relativity anyone?

Also, you mentioned c-decay; see here

"Furthermore much the data you've mentioned is therefore suspect. I am hoping, given your personal background, that you do not take any of this discussion personally given its implications. You've been a very good sport, and I appreciate you humoring me with this debate."

What data is suspect? Could you please specify? Thanks.

Evolutionary theory must make certain assumptions. I've offered a few examples. Without these assumptions the data could not be interpreted to indicate x, y, or z.

You offered that evolution a) does not hold itself to an absolute truth and b) is atheistic. B is false; otherwise, methodological naturalism is violated. A is true for evolution and all of science. This ensures the ability for science to be self-correcting and to change.

"Creationism also makes certain assumptions. Only Creationism, however, gives a rational basis for them. In evolutionary theory the assumptions must stand on their own."

Creationism isn't science though. It isn't falsifiable, tentative, naturalistic, parsimonious, accurate, encompassing, nor supported.

"Creationism also makes certain assumptions. Only Creationism, however, gives a rational basis for them. In evolutionary theory the assumptions must stand on their own."

Actually, Creationists assume they can read the mind of God - That the seven days of creation are actually seven days in human terms, and then it all comes to an end.

To me, the infinite and eternal God has no limits and is still creating. What we call evolution is a manifestation of His handiwork.

Also, you assume that that evolution's "assumptions" must stand on their own, when in fact, evolution is supported by hard evidence like stratigraphy and radiometric dating. These are based on the laws of physics. Since God created everything in the universe, He created the laws of physics as well. To deny evolution is to deny the existence of God.