It's funny when people say things like this. ID does not demand that we sit on our butts and accept what we see - humans obviously have minds and the desire to "know". We were created with that desire and there is nothing in what we know of God to indicate he wants to keep us in the dark. In fact, it's just the opposite - a proper understanding of the nature of God leads one to the conclusion that He does speak, He does reveal himself and it is a perfectly logical conclusion to realize that we can hear His voice. There is nothing hidden from us - we just have to go out and find it.
Evolution has numerous practical technological applications, including vaccine development.
I'm no scientist so I'd be curious to know - what are the practical applications of evolution?
To explain where liberals came from.
Yes I can envision the next generation, home schooled, or schooled in ID junk science, directing America technology.
The net result of such thinking leads to hiding in caves and praying to god for deliverance from your enemies’ smart bombs, as we have seen in Afghanistan.
Get yourself a copy of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"...
Please deal with any precieved sophistry objectively and refrain from it yourselves.
I wonder what can be said about the implications of non-constant light speed to evolotionist philosophy. From what I know, it throws a big wrench into the monkey-works. In fact that concept (borne out by empirical evidence almost destroys evolutionary theory). As I've indicted, my source material is the Setterfield Report (with Credible sources for what I just said can be sited.
Lets talk about it. I don't believe that 99% of you can answer appropriately without resorting to monkey-trained response and conditioning wholly whithout influence of reason. Yack, yack, yack and yack. The real empirical evidence is never mentioned.
Shall I discuss the flagrant frauds that are promulgated in the textbooks? Perhaps a good one to bring up would be the myth of the moth (or the pictures of the evolutionary transition in the womb) sited in text books.
The Nobel Prize will be yours - guarenteed - if you can refute what I have to say and can back it up with evidence. Lets get on with it. I'll start first.
I'll be citing the Norman-Setterfield Report. It was attacked from both sides of the evolution-creation controversy for different reasons. Nevertheless, statistician Alan Montgomery and others came to its defence publicly. Montgomery's math and statistical defence was later published in Galilean Electrodynamics with co-author Lambert Dolphin, the SRI physicist who initially invited the Report. Montgomery presented an updated defence at the International Creation Conference in 1994, which has never been refuted (I'm sure this must be a political issue).
The cult of scientism is so great in present culture, that people who claim to be objective are subjective to the various indocrtinations they've been subjected to. This most likely clouds their thinking greatly. It is with extreme skepticism that I would state that anybody on this planet is truly objective. All people have their agenda's and axes to grind. However, I will publish my sources, and y'all can review them and come to your own conclusions. Perhaps those that actually have some sort of academic discipline, training and some measure of objectivity could make use of that information in some manner (most likely to ridicule me about my spelling). Why do I focus on physics? Because the implications of non-constant light speed affect the theory of evolution so as to render it absolutely untenable.
So lets get on with it no?
Australian astronomer (if you being ad hominem now we're done) Barry Setterfield suggests that all "constants" which carry units of "per second" have been decreasing since the beginning of the universe. Constants with dimensions of "seconds" have been increasing inversely. This is born out with some degree of statistical confidence by studying the available measurements of all the constants over time. The case for the velocity of light decreasing is better established than changes in any other constants because more data over longer time periods is available for c.
Measurements on constants of physics which do not carry dimensions of time (seconds or 1/seconds; or powers thereof) are found to be truly fixed and invariant. The variability of one set of constants does not lead to an unstable universe, nor to readily observable happenings in the physical world. The principle consequence is a decreasing run rate for atomic clocks as compared to dynamical clocks. The latter clocks depend on gravity and Newton's Laws of Motion.
In the first thorough statistical study of all the available data on the velocity of light in recent decades, presented in Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman's 1987 report The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, the authors also analyzed (in addition to values of c), measurements of the charge on the electron, e, the specific charge, e/mc, the Rydberg constant, R, the gyromagnetic ratio, the quantum Hall resistance, h/e2, 2e/h, and h/e, various radioactive decay constants, and Newton's gravitational constant G.
Three of these quantities found to be truly fixed constants, namely e, R, and G. These constants are either independent of time or independent of atomic processes. The other five quantities, which are related to atomic phenomena and which involve time in their units of measurement, were found to trend, with the exception of the quantum Hall resistance.
Montgomery and Dolphin re-analyzed these data, carefully excluding outliers. Their results differed from Norman and Setterfield's only for the Rydberg constant where Montgomery and Dolphin obtained rejection of constancy at the 95% confidence level for the run test (but not the MSSD). The available measurements of radioactive decay constants, they found, do not have enough precision to be useful. Montgomery's latest work answers his critics and used statistical weighting.
Norman and Setterfield also believe that photon energy, (hf), remains constant over time even as c varies. This forces the value of (hc) to be constant in agreement with astronomical observations. What is measured astronomically are light wavelengths, not frequency. The consequence of this is that h must vary inversely with c and therefore the trend in the constants containing h are restricted as to their direction. The Fine Structure constant is invariant. An increasing value of h over time affects such things as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Montgomery and Dolphin calculated the least-squares straight line for all the c-related constants and found no violation of this restriction. In all cases the trends in "h constants" are in the appropriate direction. In addition, a least squares line was plotted for c, the gyromagnetic ratio, q/mc, and h/e for the years 1945-80. The slopes continued to remain statistically significant, and in the appropriate direction. Furthermore the percentage rate of change varied by only one order of magnitude---very close, considering how small some of the cells are. By contrast, the t test results on the slopes of the other three constants (e, R, and G) were not statistically significant.
The Bohr Magnetron, gas constant R(0), Avagadro's number, N(0), Zeeman Displacement/gauss, the Schrodinger constant (fixed nucleus), Compton wavelengths, the Fine Structure Constant, deBroglie wavelengths, the Faraday and the Volt (hf/2e) all can be shown to be c-independent. The gravitational constant G, actually more properly speaking Gm, appears to be a fixed constant. So what does any of that have to do with anything? I suppose its for everybody to review the evidence and form an opinion. Is that how science works? Since I'm going to be getting into Maxwell's Equations and the correspsonding mathematics, I believe that it is time to draw things to a close for today. Y'all have a great Holiday O.K.?