Of course, light is only a SMALL part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which also consists of infrared (heat), microwaves, radio waves, X-rays, etc, most of which we need special equipment to "see." A change in the actual speed of light would necessarily affect ALL these things.

For instance, things that depend upon the frequency of particular electromagnetic waves, such as microwaves, X-Ray machines, and radios and televisions, would be useless if the frequency of their waves were to be changed.

That there is no effect belies the falsity of the "change of speed" hypothesis. Also, an EXTREMELY radical change in the speed of light would be neded to explain how things that are only 6000 years old can seem to be 10,000,000,000 years or more away. Minor variations couldn't account for this in any case.

It is vastly more likely that the perceived changes come rather from our ability to become gradually more exact in our measurements.

------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.

Well, there ARE only two ways the universe could be created, RC and intelligent design. All theories are just subssets of these two. If I can show that the universe could not come about by random chance BY ANY MEANS, then I have prooven that God created the universe.

Tom:

It's not a minor shift. At this rate, the speed of light would have been billions of times what it is now, just several thousand years ago. Some have theorized that c was infinite before the fall, but that's unproovable.

Sol:

Steady-state doesn't constitute creation, IIRC. Just existance.

1of2:

As I said, experimental error is far from sufficient to explain the decrease. And if the speed decreases, and the wavelength decreases, then the frequency can remain the same. There's only been a .1% decrease in the last three centuries, but several curves fit the data points we have.

But steady state IS a theory of origins. It says there are none. It's even backed up by a few religions.

But I feel I must note that the idea of a decreasing speed of light has been dropped by the Institute of Creation Research as of 1988. (Acts and Facts, G. Aardsma, June 1988) The alleged curve it was based on was manipulated to fit the desired outcome, in this case an original date of 4040 BC. Not only was the math wrong and in some cases nonexistant, the two datapoints most important to the hypothesis came from measurements made in the 17th and 18th century.

------------------
"I see you have the ring. And that your Schwartz is as big as mine!
-Dark Helmet, Spaceballs

------------------
"It's good and well to leave the government in the hands of the perfect man but what happens when the perfect man gets a bellyache?" - Belgarath the Sorceror by David Eddings

I don't care if they've dropped the claim. The data still stands, including the same scientists measuring c with the same equipment years later and getting a decrease greater than experimental error could account for, in seven seperate cases. Several mathematical curves fit the data points (or rather, zones, as you have to account for experimental error). I do withdraw the claim of billions of times higher, though. Without more accurate measurements of the rate of decrease, there's no way to how much higher c would have been whenever the universe was created.

Strawman?

1701:

I can't proove that there is no such thing as random chance. Quantum mechanics guarentees that there is (or at least that there's no way to take everything into account, so it may as well be random). But I can proove that the universe (or, more specifically, life) could not have come about by random chance.

Holst:

I think that the top five or so "scientific" theories of origins should be taught AS THEORY alongside the statement that some believe the universe to have been created by an omnipotent being, then giving all evidence for AND against each theory, and let the student decide what to believe. Only math should be taught as absolute fact.

There was a hole in my logic. Here's my revised tree:

The universe either does or does not exist. I think we all agree that the universe exists, so...
The universe either was or was not created.
If it was created, it was either created by an intelligent design, or by random chance.
If it wasn't created, then it has always existed.

Thus the three possibilities are steady-state, RC, and designed. If one eliminates the possibility of two of the three happening, then whatever remains must be the truth.

I'm pretty sure that steady-state has been disprooven for some time, but if I'm wrong, please tell me. If SS can not be true, then the universe was created. If it was created, it comes down to RC vs. design again.

Are there any other holes I should be made aware of?

Given Sol's statement, I doubt it can truly be said that "the data still stands." To me, it looks as though "the data" has been misrepresented at best, and falsified at worst. Of course, given my experiences with creation "science," I find this hardly surprising.

But that's ok, really, because there isn't much left to say. In these sorts of arguments, scientists are handicapped, for several reasons.

1.) Evolution, as a scientific premise, is dependant upon and linked to almost every branch of science. Astronomy, physics, geology, anthropology, paleontology, biology, genetics, etc, etc. To adequately defend and define it, one has to delve into elements from ALL of these. Unfortunately, to attack it, one need only ignore all of the supporting evidence from every other branch of science, and concentrate on one or two relatively minor points. Arguments in favor of evolution then, are destined to be more complex and harder to understand, especially to those with little background in science.

2.) The fundamental strength of science is its ability to change and evolve. But this strength is also a handicap against those whose beliefs are based in faith rather than observation. There is literally nothing I can say to change Omega's mind. I can only hope to refute any claim that is of a spurious nature.

On the other hand, a scientist, at least a reputable one, is going to be open to new evidence and new interpretations. That's the basis of the scientific process. But this can be a weakness when arguing against those whose basis is in faith and unchanging monolithic belief systems. To that mindset, healthy discussion and change is viewed as evidence of scientific failure, when in fact it is exactly the opposite.

It does mean that the data has been misrepresented in the case mentioned. But just because it has been misrepresented doesn't mean that the data does not exist. The data still exists in the form stated earlier, and stands, as I said. The curve mentioned by Sol was an interpretation of the data, and the one claiming c's value at 4040 BC was incorrect, and intentionally so. I had no prior knowledge of said curve. The data zones are still accurate, and several mathematical curves still fit them, albeit with less dramatic results.

And you have yet to explain how, in seven seperate cases, the same scientists measured the speed of light using the same equipment years later measured a decrease greater than experimental error can account for.

Sol:

I say again: WHAT supporting evidence? Someone, somewhere, please, present some. My first post in this thread asked the question "What scientific evidence in favor of Evolution?". I have yet to be answered, and I've been on the offensive this whole time.

You're right that you can't change my mind, though. The only way I'd believe that God didn't exist is if God Himself told me so! You can, however, try to show that Evolution is possible, working out your own arguments in the process, so that if you run into someone else, you will be ready to present your evidence. I've known that I couldn't convince any of you since this argument began, but I'm still arguing, as I hope to learn from the argument!

And someone brought up the second law of thermodynamics (increase of entropy) a while back. How did you explain away the fact that Evolution contradicts that? I don't think I saw the explaination.

Cool. I got the hundreth post!

That's one of my favorite paradoxes. If God didn't exist, he couldn't tell you that he didn't exist, and thus you'd have no way of knowing that he didn't exist. Unless he told you he didn't exist, but he couldn't do that because he wouldn't exist. Etc.

EVERY SINGLE POST of mine has presented piles of the evidence you claim to seek. I wish I could cleverly discount all the stuff you post too, but I'm bound by this nagging little sense of morality at the back of my mind that suggests I should explain myself.

Of course, by your logic, I've already disproved creation, as I've refuted the points you've laid out here. Unfortunately, rational thought doesn't work that way.

But, since we've come this far, why not continue? To quote R.E.M. "I feel like a cartoon brick wall".

First of all, let us actually define evolution, something no one has bothered to do yet. From a biology textbook...

"...evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

This is fact, pure and undisputable. You can measure it yourself, with the proper training and techniques. This is why evolution is science. Evolutionary theory, then, does not concern itself with whether evolution exists, as that has been handily proven. It looks at the mechanisms that drive this evolution, and these are not well understood.

Many antievolutionists no longer argue against evolution based on these principles, then, since they can be shown to exist everywhere in nature. Instead, they argue that such changes are confined within species, and cannot affect change outside of them. But there is no scientific reason for this to be so.

Thermodynamics: I'm certain someone has already pointed this out, but the nature of this UBB keeps me from checking.

First of all, this law only applies to closed systems. The Earth isn't. Instead, it receives huge amounts of energy from the sun, and varying amounts of "stuff" from space.

Second of all, it only applies to the overall entropy of a system. Subsets of a system can 'steal' energy from other subsets, increasing their own energy while not changing the overall energy amount present within the system.

Er...third of all, thermodynamics neither states or implies that complexity cannot arise out of chaos. Indeed, we see examples of such complexity every day. The formation of crystals from the random motions of atoms, for instance. Or the growth of a seed into a plant.

------------------
"It's good and well to leave the government in the hands of the perfect man but what happens when the perfect man gets a bellyache?" - Belgarath the Sorceror by David Eddings

Yeah, I was hoping someone would like that. : )

Sol System:

"EVERY SINGLE POST of mine has presented piles of the evidence you claim to seek."

Such as? I've gone back through the entire thread, and have yet to find any evidence in favor of Evolution. I've seen evidence disprooving some (and only some) of my age points, but that is evidence that Evolution may be possible, not that it happened.

"I wish I could cleverly discount all the stuff you post too, but I'm bound by this nagging little sense of morality at the back of my mind that suggests I should explain myself."

Can't you do both?

"Of course, by your logic, I've already disproved creation, as I've refuted the points you've laid out here."

Well, by my logic, you'd have to proove Evolution to disproove creation, so by the definition of Evolution given in this post, sure. But that's not the evolution I'm talking about. The definition of Evolution that I've been using this whole thread is "a theory that the various types of plants and animals have their origins in other pre-existing types, and that thedistinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations". Your definition, unless I'm missing something, is quite different from this one.

It's also fact, pure and indisputable, that there's only a limited amount of genetic material available in any given cell. Any descendant or ancestor I may have has to be a reconfiguration of MY genes. Just the same thing in a different order. The only way new genetic material can show up is by mutation, and the chances of a useful mutation occuring, or even a non-useful one that isn't harmful, are rediculously slim, as over a century of experiments with fruit flies has shown.

By your theory, it would seem that, given enough time, different breeds of dogs in isolation would become unable to reproduce with other breeds, and therefore seperate species. But what could possibly cause this change? The same material is passed down from one generation to the next. No changes. Even under extreme circumstances, such as cold, where those with thicker coats would survive better, the genes for thick coats already exist. They are just more prevalent, as those without them die. I have yet to hear of a workable mechanism by which the change of one species into another could take place.

And you also have yet to explain how sexual reproduction came about. Or how that first cell could possibly have formed. Or how multi-cellular life came about. Or why there aren't any life-forms with between 6-20 cells.