Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Do You Believe in Evolution?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When someone asks “Do you believe in evolution?” they probably want a short answer, and don’t have the patience to listen to a 15-minute lecture on the different meanings of “evolution” and how you stand on each. So how do you answer this trick question?

Here’s a very short answer that works for me:

Yes, I believe in the evolution of life, and I believe in the evolution of automobiles.

Optionally, to make sure they get the point, you could add “but I don’t believe either could have happened without design.”

It is actually a pretty good analogy, see my April 2,2015 post at ENV, In Biology as in Technology, Similarities Do Not Prove Absence of Intelligent Design

Comments
That's not Goodbye, that's running away from fact that you tried to defend the erroneous work of Gerald Schroeder and failed miserably. Neither his target audience, nor we agree with his calculations. He is right in no one's book.Me_Think
April 27, 2016
April
04
Apr
27
27
2016
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
Thanks for trying RexTugwell. Great observations! And complete baloney, MT. Goodbye. -QQuerius
April 27, 2016
April
04
Apr
27
27
2016
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
Querius @ 89 The more evidence I give you about Gerald Schroeder's erroneous work, the more you double down. I am not able to figure out why. Is he from your country? That shouldn't be a reason to support him.Me_Think
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
RexTugwell, Once again, you're spot on. Rather than meeting your observations directly, Me_Think attacks your methods (Google searches), your sources (Prothero), and your logic (as in "I don't see the point you're making"). Me_Think still hasn't answered my direct questions, choosing instead to push them back on me. One begins to wonder why. Frankly, I suspected that Me_Think was using cut-and-paste for arguments without understanding them, unfortunately even in physics. Oh well. Thanks again for your posts. -QQuerius
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
RexTugwell @ 87
I was merely using Google to show the very narrow scope of your specialty which supports Prothero’s observation thank you very much. Apparently that point escaped you.
I am sure Prothero is important person for you. I am glad that you are gleeful that I some how proved his profound observation. Just tell him the narrower a research, the harder it is.
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Once again, you’ve helped me prove my point that you are indeed a one-trick pony. Lenin had some insight into useful people like yourself. AFAIK, the thread is entitled “Do You Believe in Evolution?” and AFAIK, Behe has a lot to say on the topic. You, however, have shown your ineptitude on all subjects non-physics related.
If you haven't noticed, We weren't discussing Behe. We were discussing relativity when you jumped in and started insulting me for no reason! I am sure Behe has a lot to say about the topic but I haven't discussed it, nor did you discuss it in this thread. I really don't see the point you are trying to make.Me_Think
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Me_Don't_Think @ 85
Hmmm, apparently the topic is not popular among philosophers. Thank God we don’t rely on Google for literature reviews.
I was merely using Google to show the very narrow scope of your specialty which supports Prothero's observation thank you very much. Apparently that point escaped you.
I think you are in the wrong thread.We are discussing Schroeder.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Once again, you've helped me prove my point that you are indeed a one-trick pony. Lenin had some insight into useful people like yourself. AFAIK, the thread is entitled "Do You Believe in Evolution?" and AFAIK, Behe has a lot to say on the topic. You, however, have shown your ineptitude on all subjects non-physics related.RexTugwell
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
Querius @ 84
Me_Think continues to evade my clearly stated questions.
I am sure given enough time and a calculator, you can work it out yourself
I’m not necessarily agreeing with Gerald Schroeder,...
I am glad you agree with me, at last.
I just think that disparaging statements need to be supported and not include misunderstandings of physics or other errors.
You haven't even seen the errors in the other book! Don't even get me started on gravitational time dilation errors. He is not even good with Torah. You can find a 105 page Torah related critique of his book at https://torahexplorer.com/genesis-and-the-big-bluff/ Here is a brilliant quote on string theory
On page 59 of Genesis and the Big Bang, Dr. Schroeder tells his readers that traditional Torah sources presaged String Theory: To form the universe, God chose from the infinite realm of the Divine, ten dimensions or aspects and relegated them to be held within the universe. These dimensions are hinted at in the ten repetitions of the statements "and God said…" used in the opening chapter of Genesis. The cabalists believed that only four of the ten dimensions are physically measurable within today's world. The other six contracted into submicroscopic dimensions during the six days of Genesis… With an amazing congruity, particle physicists now talk of the String Theory, a unified description of our universe in ten dimensions… These dimensions according to the physicists are the four that we know, length, width, height and time, plus six others. These six are contracted into a size far too tiny ever to be observed even by the best of microscopes…
Let us begin with the fact that Dr. Schroeder does not provide a source for this claim. It's just "The cabalists believed…" There are several such unsubstantiated claims made in Genesis and the Big Bang:...
"and God said" used 10 times represents 10 dimensions of universe? Do you still want to defend him? Me_Think
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT
RexTugwell @ 83
Hmmm, Google comes up with ~30 unique hits on that topic.
Hmmm, apparently the topic is not popular among philosophers. Thank God we don't rely on Google for literature reviews.
Me_Think expose themselves for what they really are, one-trick ponies who rely on their advanced degrees to expound authoritatively on just about everything else for which they have no degree
I have never mentioned my credentials anywhere on UD except this thread, and that was because Querius brought up Schroeder's authority in an attempt to defend him :
....especially when you’re criticizing a physicist with a PhD from MIT who happens to be an orthodox Jew.
.
Utterly clueless about Behe and he offers only hostile reviews in return; never bothering to grasp Behe’s true argument
I think you are in the wrong thread.We are discussing Schroeder. In any case, AFAIK , Behe hasn't said anything on relativity.
I’m sure we’re all impressed with your expertise in disordered waveguide lattice but it’s difficult to take you seriously on most other things.
Thank you for the first part of your sentence.Me_Think
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT
RexTugwell, Thank you. Brilliantly articulated! Me_Think continues to evade my clearly stated questions. I'm not necessarily agreeing with Gerald Schroeder, but I just think that disparaging statements need to be supported and not include misunderstandings of physics or other errors. -QQuerius
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT
Me_Think declares:
I have a Ph.D.in Disordered waveguide lattice
Hmmm, Google comes up with ~30 unique hits on that topic. Usually if one is patient enough, those like Me_Think expose themselves for what they really are, one-trick ponies who rely on their advanced degrees to expound authoritatively on just about everything else for which they have no degree. If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Alas, a Ph.D. in physics but a kindergartner in logic, philosophy and biology as is evident in this thread and elsewhere. Following one non sequitur with another and conveniently creating his own definitions hoping that will settle the matter. Utterly clueless about Behe and he offers only hostile reviews in return; never bothering to grasp Behe's true argument. I must agree with Dr. Donald Prothero when he states:
[Y]ou don't need a Ph.D. to do good science, and not all people who have Ph.D.s are good scientists either. As those of us who have gone through the ordeal know, a Ph.D. only proves that you can survive a grueling test of endurance in doing research and writing a dissertation on a very narrow topic. It doesn't prove that you are smarter than anyone else or more qualified to render an opinion than anyone else. (Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, p. 16)
BTW, the above quote is found under the heading "Arguments From Authority and Credential Mongering" I'm sure we're all impressed with your expertise in disordered waveguide lattice but it's difficult to take you seriously on most other things.RexTugwell
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Querius @ 81 SIGH!
You confuse squared with double in the equation for kinetic energy (which you later “clarified”) and you accuse him of not knowing the difference between mass and weight.
From comment #80 He describes mass of particle as mass or weight. As you probably know,rest mass is intrinsic to the particle and does not depend on reference frame , weight depends on gravity and relativistic mass depends on velocity of particle and both depend on reference frame All three are different. From # 78, again repeated from # 80 3 times velocity is irrelevant for the speeds we are talking about, not just because 3 x 0.99999999999999c is FTL and is impossible (at least scientifically)- but because for relativistic velocity, we use a different formula: KE = m*c^2 - m0*c^2 , where m0 is rest mass and m is relativistic mass.
You criticize my comment on time being relative to velocity—Dr. Schroeder’s point–yet you didn’t do the math for converting your days into the estimate I provided for years.
Converting into days matters ?!! You think converting units is going to reconcile Biblical days with 13.8 billion years of Universe ?! Is that why you keep insisting on calculating it- just like you kept insisting on tripling velocity in non-relativistic formula?
You apparently assumed that the Greek letter nu in Planck’s law was a v for velocity and asserted that Dr. Schroeder didn’t know about the (non-existent) velocity of a (unspecified, non-existent) particle in an interaction involving black body radiation.
No. 'nu' was neither used by me nor Schroeder- we both used hf (f instead of nu). There is no scope for confusion with 'v'. Again from #78 and #80 NOTE: Black body Equation is Planck’s E=hf equation Coming to the black body equation, E represents the energy of photon. The nu in your comment (f in my comment) is the frequency of the particle and depends on particle’s momentum. It is not a constant and not equal to rest energy represented by the other equation. You can’t equate a variable with a constant.
Personally, I don’t mind if you don’t know about something, but it’s unethical to pretend that you do, especially when you’re criticizing a physicist with a PhD from MIT who happens to be an orthodox Jew.
:-) I have a Ph.D.in Disordered waveguide lattice, and no, sloppily not using the right word- squared- doesn't disqualify me! Schroeder is not the only one I have criticized. I have criticized Frank Tipler for his Omega point theory, Brian Cox for his silly 'rubbing diamond affects every particle in the universe', 'moon phases are shadows, etc. Then there are crackpots like Peratt,Alfven,Vranjes, Miles etc. BTW, since you think argument from authority is valid, what is your qualification in physics?Me_Think
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
Me_Think,
????I don’t know what you are trying to prove.
Simple---it's that while you launched into an attack against Gerald Schroeder, you yourself don't understand what you're claiming against him. You confuse squared with double in the equation for kinetic energy (which you later "clarified") and you accuse him of not knowing the difference between mass and weight. You criticize my comment on time being relative to velocity---Dr. Schroeder's point--yet you didn't do the math for converting your days into the estimate I provided for years. You apparently assumed that the Greek letter nu in Planck's law was a v for velocity and asserted that Dr. Schroeder didn't know about the (non-existent) velocity of a (unspecified, non-existent) particle in an interaction involving blackbody radiation. Personally, I don't mind if you don't know about something, but it's unethical to pretend that you do, especially when you're criticizing a physicist with a PhD from MIT who happens to be an orthodox Jew. And then you accuse me of not being constructive. Just think about your behavior on this forum, OK? -QQuerius
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Querius @ 79 ????I don't know what you are trying to prove. Aren't you able to calculate these yourself? If not, I don't think you will understand what we are trying to discuss.
– How does Dr. Schroeder confuse weight and mass in the book pages you referred to?
He describes mass of particle as mass or weight. As you probably know,rest mass is intrinsic to the particle and does not depend on reference frame , weight depends on gravity and relativistic mass depends on velocity of particle and both depend on reference frame All three are different. I have already answered other questions in comment # 78:
3 times velocity is irrelevant for the speeds we are talking about, not just because 3 x 0.99999999999999c is FTL and is impossible (at least scientifically)- but because for relativistic velocity, we use a different formula: KE = m*c^2 - m0*c^2 where m0 is rest mass and m is relativistic mass.
NOTE: Black body Equation is Planck's E=hf equation
Coming to the black body equation, E represents the energy of photon. The nu in your comment (f in my comment) is the frequency of the particle and depends on particle’s momentum. It is not a constant and not equal to rest energy represented by the other equation. You can’t equate a variable with a constant.
Please use a calculator for the left out questionsMe_Think
April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
Me_Think,
My calculations are correct.
Well then, why don't you actually give the answers to my questions in 75? You're still evading my questions. You originally wrote:
He didn’t know ( or ignored) the difference between mass and weight, ignored that KE is proportional to twice the velocity. The funniest mistake was equating the variable energy of moving particle in Planck’s black body equation to the rest mass energy!
- How does Dr. Schroeder confuse weight and mass in the book pages you referred to? - How many years are the days that you computed (7.0739*10^6 days)? - what happens to kinetic energy when the velocity triples? - Where is the velocity and the particle that you referred to in Planck's law? -QQuerius
April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT
Querius @ 77
I’d like Me_Think to do the math as an opportunity to see where he/she went wrong.
My calculations are correct. There is simply no way to equate Universe's age to Biblical days using SR or GR. Also, our universe is 13.8 billion years old. Gerald Schroeder didn't revise his calculation to take this into account.The point is, even his target audience doesn't agree with his results. 3 times velocity is irrelevant for the speeds we are talking about, not just because 3 x 0.99999999999999c is FTL and is impossible (at least scientifically)- but because for relativistic velocity, we use a different formula: KE=m*c^2 - m0*c^2 where m0 is rest mass and m is relativistic mass. Coming to the black body equation, E represents the energy of photon. The nu in your comment (f in my comment) is the frequency of the particle and depends on particle's momentum. It is not a constant and not equal to rest energy represented by the other equation. You can't equate a variable with a constant.Me_Think
April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
ellazimm, My questions are directed at Me_Think. I'd like Me_Think to do the math as an opportunity to see where he/she went wrong. -QQuerius
April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
Querius #75
And how many years is that?
Just divide by 365!!
What happens to kinetic energy when the velocity triples?
I'm trying to figure out why you're asking such elementary questions. It's easy enough to figure out given the formula.
And where is the velocity that you referred to in E=hv?
That would be the 'v'.
All Gerald Schroeder was saying is that the exterally observed time that elapses in a day is different depending on the velocity relative to the speed of light—that one day and 14.8 billion years could both be correct. The only new thing is that Dr. Schroeder is exploring the implications in Genesis 1.
Genesis contains the root of relativity?ellazimm
April 22, 2016
April
04
Apr
22
22
2016
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Me_Think,
Refer Schroeder’s book Pages 161 -164 “Shrinking of time”.
Since you have the book, would you mind quoting or summarizing the part where Dr. Schroeder confuses weight and mass?
. . . we get 7.0739*10^6 days!
And how many years is that?
However, the actual answer is 5.475, meaning that we have not yet completed the sixth day.
Haha! You've never taken a course in astrophysics, have you? If you get within a few orders of magnitude for some calculations, it's considered close. Considering that the inflation factors he chose had only one significant digit, 5.475 days is in the same order of magnitude as 7, and your objection collapses.
Of course that’s correct formula.
But you evaded my question. What happens to kinetic energy when the velocity triples?
However, the E in Equation 1 denotes the variable energy of a moving particle . . . etc.
And what might that particle be? And where is the velocity that you referred to in E=hv? Obviously the reviewer in Creation magazine assumes that a day is a fixed unit of time. All Gerald Schroeder was saying is that the exterally observed time that elapses in a day is different depending on the velocity relative to the speed of light—that one day and 14.8 billion years could both be correct. The only new thing is that Dr. Schroeder is exploring the implications in Genesis 1.
However, since the atmosphere was merely translucent, it could not be visibly discerned from the earth until the atmosphere became transparent on Day Four.
Yes, I know some people take that position. Considering that we now believe that light existed before stars formed, the “greater lamp” on day four is not as farfetched as it once was considered. Other people believe that the first part of Genesis is a polemic. The sun and moon are simply lamps, not glorious gods to be worshipped. To me, it seems reasonable that this is why the sun and moon are not named.
However Tuval-Cain made tools not only of copper or bronze, but also of iron, then we can place his lifetime at a much later date than Schroeder wants us to believe.
I'm not that familiar with archaeological classification, but it's my understanding that the three-age system is somewhat arbitrary and varied depending on region, culture, and resources available. Dr. Schroeder's PhD is in physics, not archaeology. Imposing an object-based classification system invented in 1837 on Biblical text is unwise. I'm glad to hear that it wasn't your intention to slime Dr. Schroeder. There's too much vitriol on the web as it is. -QQuerius
April 22, 2016
April
04
Apr
22
22
2016
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
Querius @ 72
What are you talking about?
Refer Schroeder's book Pages 161 -164 "Shrinking of time". According to STR, photons always move with the same speed in every frame of reference. If a frame of reference in which photons are at rest existed, time would stop in such a frame. No such frames of reference is possible hence Schroeder's concept is meaningless.
A day at 0.99999999999999 C is nearly 20,000 years for an observer at rest. The value continues to increase dramatically as velocity further approaches C. I think the point he was trying to make was that the passage of time depends on the velocity of the observer. So what was God’s velocity for the first six days? We can assume that God was at rest on the seventh day
The formula for Time Dilation is t0/Sqrt[1-(v^2/c^2)], where t0 is proper time, substituting 0.99999999999999 C in v and t0 as 1 day, we get 7.0739*10^6 days! As God's speed (Notice we are not talking about photons any more ) approaches light speed c, time dilation will be infinite! Notice that even at far more reduced speed, Schroeder’s implicit calculation for equating Biblical days with Proper time Tn = 1.6 x 10^10/2n, where n =1 for the First day of creation, n=2 for the Second day, etc., and Tn is the duration of the day of creation number n on our time scale, expressed in the number of conventional years. does not gel with actual Lorentz transform. Even if we take his simplistic calculation, as shown in creation.com -
Moreover, Dr Schroeder’s arbitrary numbers are not consistent with each other. He chooses to divide the 15 billion years by the degree of expansion of the universe, which he defines as a million million (1,000,000,000,000), and then multiplying that by 365 for the number of days in a year. He states that the answer is approximately 6, proving his theory. However, the actual answer is 5.475, meaning that we have not yet completed the sixth day. Therefore, according to his theory, animals and humans should not be around.
When did Gerald Schroeder ever confuse mass with weight? That’s a ridiculous charge!
Page 37 and Page 40 of Genesis and the Big Bang, The discovery of the harmony between modern science and the Bible.
Gosh, and I thought KE=1/2 mv^2. What happens to KE when I triple the velocity?
Of course that's correct formula. As you see KE proportional to v^2 and not v as claimed by Schroeder in page 37 -"It acquires velocity and in so doing acquires kinetic energy proportional to the velocity." Then with reference to Centrifugal force in Page 117: "The centrifugal force of the spin flattened the cloud into a disk.". Centrifugal force is fictional force in Physics. The real force in this case is centripetal force caused by gravitation.
A moving particle in Planck’s Law? Ohhh, you must be confusing the Greek letter nu with v.
No. The formula used by Schroeder is hf=mc^2. This may seem correct since it can be derived from E=hf - Equation1 (Planck's quantum of energy emitted by a black body formula) . and E=mc^2 - Equation2. However, the E in Equation 1 denotes the variable energy of a moving particle, related to that particle's momentum, whereas E in equation2 is a constant for a given particle and denotes the rest energy. He actually equated a variable with a constant!! Also note he doesn't mean total relativistic mass and energy, which could have made the equation correct!
How did Gerald Schroeder “mess up” with the “Biblical story line” and why should anyone be “livid” with him? You do know that he’s an Orthodox Jew, don’t you?
I will just quote from creation.com :
He does not rest this choice of variable “day” lengths on any discernible scientific reasoning, nor does he offer any biblical basis for such a division. We are merely supposed to accept his re-definition of the word “day” and ignore all the biblical evidence (such as Genesis 1:5 and Exodus 20:8–11) that each creation day was essentially the same length of time as an ordinary day of the week today.
However, the actual answer is 5.475, meaning that we have not yet completed the sixth day. Therefore, according to his theory, animals and humans should not be around.
Dr. Schroeder continues by saying that because we are in the “sixth day” of creation, the Sabbath Day, the seventh day of rest, has not yet occurred. However, Genesis 2:1–2 clearly states that God “ended his work”, “he rested”, and “he blessed it and sanctified it because in it he rested.” All of these statements are made in the past tense. How could this be if we are still in the sixth day as Dr. Schroeder claims?
In Dr Schroeder’s creation scenario, the sun was actually created on Day Two. However, since the atmosphere was merely translucent, it could not be visibly discerned from the earth until the atmosphere became transparent on Day Four. In contrast, Genesis 1:14–19 clearly states that the sun and moon were made on Day Four and placed in the firmament. This is another standard claim of the old “day-age” theory, a claim which evaporates upon examination of the passages involved. For example, the biblical account does not use the Hebrew word for “appear” to say the sun and moon “appeared” on the fourth day. Instead, Genesis 1:16 says he “made” them then.
Proceeding with this argument nonetheless, Dr. Schroeder asserts that this shows the universe started with the chaos of the big bang and was later ordered by God. Does this then mean that each “day” started with chaos and ended with order? Did things go through a six “day” cycle of chaos-to-order-to-chaos-to-order?
Since Dr Schroeder offers no details supporting his alleged Hebrew word relationships, readers should not take him seriously on this point. (In any case, even if there were a root word relationship, there are logical fallacies and dangers involved in using word roots to interpret the Bible, which have led people astray on many issues.
You can read more at: http://creation.com/gerald-schroeder-and-his-new-variation-on-the-day-age-theory-part-1 http://creation.com/gerald-schroeder-and-a-new-variation-on-the-day-age-theory-part-2
How did Gerald Schroeder change the bronze age to suit his narrative making which archaeologists unhappy?
Schroeder says (refering to Genesis 4:22.)that Tuval-Cain, according to the Bible, was the inventor of bronze. Hence, according to Schroeder the Bronze age started about 4400 years ago.However Tuval-Cain made tools not only of copper or bronze, but also of iron, then we can place his lifetime at a much later date than Schroeder wants us to believe. The use of iron started, roughly, some fifteen centuries after that of bronze. Hence, just one word omitted by Schroeder in his reference to the biblical text makes his chronological exercise ingloriously collapse. In the second book , the onset of the Bronze age is said to have happened about 5000 years ago, i.e. about 600 years earlier than in the first book Furthermore, on page 130 of Schroeder maintains that the time interval between Adam and Tuval-Cain was 700 years, instead of the 1350 years he indicated in 1st Book. Since in the second book the lifetime of Tuval-Cain is shifted back by some 900 years, it makes it even farther in time from the iron age as determined by archeology. This completely undermines Schroeder's chronological exercise.
If you’re going to slime someone, at least provide some evidence for your claims.
No, that wasn't my intention. Everything quoted here can be found with more vitriol on the webMe_Think
April 22, 2016
April
04
Apr
22
22
2016
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
The speed of God to create equales the speed of His thought or will, I assume. That appears to be instant, but can vary at will, considering the many reported miracles. It seems, some believe, that is why it took God six days to create with a blessed rest; created for humans, not for God. In the Flesh, that is in Jesus, the Sinai law He fulfilled. If God fulfilled a lie, a gross elastication of truth. Then the Judaeo-Christian faith would be useless, from the top down. Creation could have been instant, if God willed. Proof? Well, we have the proof of reported witnesses at Sinai. We have witness statements. Meaning, we had the proof of His recorded word. Basically an oath on stone by Yahweh. Whether we believe or not in the existence of Almighty power, Personal, is not the issues under the terms of such a Creator. Then we have Uncle Charlie, who tore up a nations miraculous history in pursuit of his degrading theory. Who shredded scripture. Who intellectually crucified Jesus in favour of his pet whale-bear. His imaginary toy later confiscated by his publisher. The theory we get we deserve.mw
April 22, 2016
April
04
Apr
22
22
2016
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT
Me_Think, What are you talking about? A day at 0.99999999999999 C is nearly 20,000 years for an observer at rest. The value continues to increase dramatically as velocity further approaches C. I think the point he was trying to make was that the passage of time depends on the velocity of the observer. So what was God's velocity for the first six days? We can assume that God was at rest on the seventh day. ;-) When did Gerald Schroeder ever confuse mass with weight? That's a ridiculous charge! Gosh, and I thought KE=1/2 mv^2. What happens to KE when I triple the velocity? A moving particle in Planck's Law? Ohhh, you must be confusing the Greek letter nu with v. How did Gerald Schroeder "mess up" with the "Biblical story line" and why should anyone be "livid" with him? You do know that he's an Orthodox Jew, don't you? How did Gerald Schroeder change the bronze age to suit his narrative making which archaeologists unhappy? If you're going to slime someone, at least provide some evidence for your claims. -QQuerius
April 21, 2016
April
04
Apr
21
21
2016
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
Querius @ 66
MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder computed that for a photon traveling at the speed of light, the universe is only about a week old.
Yeah, that was funny.For a physicist, he didn't even know (or more likely ignored) the fact that photons travel at the same speed in all reference frames (which is the key to make Biblical days equivalent to actual age of universe). He didn't know ( or ignored) the difference between mass and weight, ignored that KE is proportional to twice the velocity. The funniest mistake was equating the variable energy of moving particle in Planck's black body equation to the rest mass energy! The saddest part in this sad story of Gerald L. Schroeder fall from grace is that the Creationists were livid that he messed up with Biblical story line! There were angry posts even in Creation Ministries International site (creation.com). Even archeologists - of all people - were not happy that he deliberately (or ignorantly) changed the bronze age to suit his narrative. In the end, he just made a fool of himself.Me_Think
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
Sorry but I disagree, Mung. We can all be jerks at times. When a person has been presented with information or logic contrary to their opinions or worldview, one of several common responses is a flurry of ad hominem attacks. A more mature, cultured response would be, "I can see your point. Let me think about it some more. Thanks." Among people who are less adept with verbal expression, a bar fight usually follows that's "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5) -QQuerius
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
Mung: "No, it just means that he’s a jerk." Finally, someone who understands me.:)Indiana Effigy
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
IE, I glanced in the recent comments and saw an exchange in a thread that I took no part in hitherto and do not own, which accuses me. Now, to my knowledge I have deleted no comments of yours (certainly in any fairly recent time), and I just don't know about leaving or not leaving placeholders for deleted comments. If there is a vulgar and abusive language problem in a thread I own, after warning I might close the thread or delete defiantly offensive posts but as a rule I will leave an explanation. At first level I would snip vulgarities, leaving usually that word in their place and a warning. I do not hold general moderator powers. BTW, IIRC you used a vulgarity in a thread I own very recently, but for the moment I do not have time just now to go through and sift the length of the thread to deal with what else may be wrong. Consider this a caution. KFkairosfocus
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
That you’ve resorted to an ad hominem attack against KF indicates that you’re conceding the argument. No, it just means that he's a jerk.Mung
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Me-Think,
Your fancy term doesn’t change the fact that universe is 13.8 billion years old, so if the creator did create the universe, He did wait for billions of years.
Interesting. From Einstein's theory of relativity, we know that time depends on velocity. For example, from the 1971 Hafele-Keating experiment, synchronized Cesium clocks aboard passenger jets and the ground diverged due to time dilation. MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder computed that for a photon traveling at the speed of light, the universe is only about a week old. So, can you please explain how it is a fact that the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years old, making the Creator wait billions of years? -QQuerius
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
IE @ 63, Oh, there you are! If you actually read 62, you would know that ID is a paradigm, not a theory. Do you know the difference? Regarding the perversities of trying to get a scientific paper published, you can see that I provided the links, plus the links where ID proponents' submissions were withdrawn for no other reason that the person was associated with ID. You never answered any of my questions. For example, what do you find objectionable in Dr. Meyers' paper linked above? That you've resorted to an ad hominem attack against KF indicates that you're conceding the argument. -QQuerius
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
RexTugwell @ 61
An eternal creator did not wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait. The eternal creator’s eternity is tota simul i.e. “all at once”.
Your fancy term doesn't change the fact that universe is 13.8 billion years old, so if the creator did create the universe, He did wait for billions of years.Me_Think
April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
Querius: "And apparently Indiana Effigy has tiptoed away." Then you must be blind and deaf. But I have had recent experience with KF deleting my comments without even leaving a placeholder, so forgive me if I question the desire of this site to actually have a discussion. Did I ever say that it wouldn't be more difficult for a paper to be published that went against the commonly held consensus? Of course it will. But ID presents that this only occurs with ID papers. Which is bullsh-t. The history of science is strewn with examples of valid theories that were not initially accepted. Darwin's theory amongst them. But history has shown that the theories that are supported by evidence eventually become accepted. ID has not even come close to this. Probably because their entire research involves poking holes in other theories rather than testing their own.Indiana Effigy
April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply