Re: WingNutDaily columnist asks: Speed of light slowing down?

From: Jaxtraw (jaxtraw_at_nospamnobigfoot.com)
Date: 07/31/04 

Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 22:30:58 +0100

"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:mlimg0pi4jj1gsqc3p10j46krj85uu336u@4ax.com...
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------
> By Chris Bennett
> © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
>
>
> The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons
> ... billions and billions of years.
>
> Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex
> biochemicals such as hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the
> primordial goo. But to those of us who question the process, the
> answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can grasp -
> timespans so vast that anything is possible, even chance combinations
> of random chemicals to form the stunning complexities of reproducing
> life.
>
> Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into
> confusion virtually all of the accepted temporal paradigms of
> 20th-century science, including the age of the universe and the
> billions of years necessary for evolution. Further, it raises the
> distinct possibility that scientific validation exists for a (gasp)
> literal interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis. Goodbye
> Scopes trial.
>

I know I shouldn't answer this, but...

Even if all our known science regarding the early universe is wrong, there
can never be a scientific validation for Genesis for two reasons.

1) It describes things which are utterly impossible. Talking snakes. Magic
trees. A thermodynamically impossible flood from which one family saved
themselves by hiding in a giant box full of animals. An earth where the sun
is not the source of daylight. And so on. If these things happened, they
happened under a completely different set of physical laws, for magical
reasons, and thus cannot be "scientifically validated".

2) The Genesis stories must be wrong, since they are internally
self-contradictory. Two different creations are given for mankind, for
instance.

IOW, even if all of current science were somehow wrong, that would still not
be proof that the Bible is *right*. That would require positive evidence in
favour of it; of which there is none and which, indeed, there cannot be.

One way a bad idea can generally be spotted is that, when its proponents are
asked for proof, they can only offer the possibility that the orthodoxy
might be wrong.

Ian

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Discussion of von Rads _Genesis: A Commentary_
    ... I provided this example to show that non-literal readings of Genesis ... began long before evolution came on the scene, ... Can science deflect interest in spiritually beneficial things? ... one interpretation of a claim was faulty; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Quite an Impressive List.
    ... Common sense tells us that Genesis is not a science text. ... processes that cause evolution still occur. ... and it changed over time to produce humans, atheists (and non-atheist ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Both Creation and evolution
    ... chapter of Genesis. ... structure and established his laws into structure, the universe ... evolved by it's self by a path of evolution. ... I have found that science has made some ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question for the Evolutionist
    ... > The alleged evidence of evolution does not support the God hypothesis. ... > Christian evolutionists are deluded buffoons or confused. ... Christians who accept evolution do so because it's good science, ... >> didn't ask their priests and pastors to reconcile Genesis with Sagan's ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Activist judge declares that Intelligent Design is not science
    ... Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design. ... The idea in its current form appeared in the 1980s, and Johnson adopted and developed it after Darwinian evolution came up short, in his view, in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. ... In this interview, hear why he feels that such evidence is "somewhere between weak and nonexistent," why he feels intelligent design is a testable science, and why he thought the Dover trial was a train wreck waiting to happen. ...
    (alt.politics)