Posted by
michael
on from the close-only-counts-in-horseshoes dept.
DrBlake writes "New York Times has an article about a study of Einsteins theory of relativity that I found very interesting. Not only might the speed of light be relative under certain circumstances, the famous equation E=mc2 might not be entirely correct."
Re:And Dubya says
by
slickwillie
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
there is no global warming.
Go figure.
I must be a doofus...
by
JCMay
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Always read the links before you include them, and don't depend on Google to give you What You Meant, just What You Asked For.
Jeff
Re:You misunderstand completely
by
Tyreth
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
As I said just before:
I'm used to being ridiculed as a believer of fairy tales when the people who say it obviously don't understand what I am saying.
I'm tired of arguing with people who like to ridicule and insult first, and then start the argument. So forget it, I'm not going to answer for you.
Re:You misunderstand completely
by
Tyreth
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
You have misunderstood the creationist position. We acknowledge mutations occur like this. There is plenty of creationist literature talking about this topic. If you are genuinely interested you can find it yourself. If you can't work it out then e-mail the crew at www.answersingenesis.com and ask them why this doesn't prove evolution. Needless to say, this experiment of yours does not confirm evolution or deny creation.
Re:You misunderstand completely
by
Tyreth
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
I now understand that you really are very unfamiliar with the creationist position:) Mostly evidenced when you said "There simply isn't time for anything useful to have happened in that time." in reference to a 6000 year old earth. There is much you have to learn and understand about our position, but I am not surprised that you would say this.
As a summary then, trust me when I say that the acceptance of the creation model (6000 year old earth, etc) would not spell the end of science and physics as we know it. In fact there are many scientists who believe in creation as I do - a young earth. One recent example I was reading about is Richard Porter a human spine expert. He said that coming from a creationist position has helped him more than those coming from an evolutionary perspective. As he said:
Richard pointed out that evolutionary theory can be unproductive for research:
'For example, the curve of the lumbar spine towards the front - the lordosis - was thought by evolutionists to be a problem, the result of man having recently adopted an upright position. So, some researchers blamed back pain on this, saying the spine had not yet evolved satisfactorily. If therapists have the wrong starting assumption, then it's not surprising that treatments for lordosis are unhelpful. If a spine fracture causes a lumbar kyphosis (curvature in the opposite direction), that spine is significantly weakened.'
He added that the creationist perspective has always been foundational to his research:
'I start from quite a different position. From my understanding of human anatomy and physiology and my understanding of God, I say that the form of God's creation always matches its function. So you can be sure that the form of the spine is perfectly designed for its function. God has made a wonderful spine. If you start with that premise, it gives you a head start when trying to understand the mechanism of the spine.
When you start to examine the biomechanics of the curved spine, asking why it's that shape, and what's good about it, you find that the arch of the spine has a beautiful purpose. Like the arch of a bridge, it adds strength. Because of that arch in the lumbar spine, a person with a lumbar lordosis can lift proportionally more weight than a gorilla with its kyphotic (opposite curvature) spine! So it's not surprising that treating back pain with postures and exercises that restore the lordosis works exceedingly well'.
Couple of reasons I quoted this. First is to show you that the creationist position believes that all animals and humans were created complete and perfect only 6000 years ago. Since then genetic mutations have slowly entered the various creatures and caused each generation, slowly, to be weaker than its ancestors. So the first humans merely 6000 years ago were the strongest, most intelligent, and we are today the least intelligent and weakest (just because we discovered electricity and a few other things it may appear like we know more, but imagine that our ancestors could have achieved the same or more if they had discovered electricity too). So we do not believe that evolution from a single celled life to humans occurred in a short space of 6000 years. We beleive the creation was perfect at the first. There are thousands more words I could say on this, but instead I'll just encourage you to understand the creationist position properly if you are ever interested to know what we believe before you condemn it. Most people I argue with here know just enough of creationism to sound like they know what they are talking about but not enough to actually comprehend our position or successfully attack it.
The second reason why I wanted to mention this was to show you that coming from a creationist position makes science still possible - and even helps it make more sense. Consider that when you believe the universe is 4.5 billion years old and that evolution from a single cell to what we see today took place over that time - you have a view of the world you try to make the evidence fit. For example, you look at humans today as being superior to their ancestors, and inferior to the forms to come. This shapes your biases, where you look for answers, what sort of answers you expect to find. Just like Richard Porter said above, coming towards a problem from different positions results in different conclusions, sometimes harmful ones. Consider that if evolution is false that science will only be able to progress so far under that model.
I am of the view that discussions of origins - evolution, creation, etc are all philosophical. However, these philosophical arguments employ scientific evidence.
Just one thing to keep in mind, you certainly weren't lying I can tell when you said you haven't encountered the creationist position yet. It is clear that you don't know much about it. So my advice is that when you try to understand what we believe you may try to do it in the context of evolution, which is going to lead to confusion. I'll see if I can think of an analogy....I guess cultural differences are the best. When you go to a foreign country you may find it very very hard to fit in. Everything about this culture may be so foreign, and you will try to understand it in relation to your native culture - but this will only lead to confusion. Ok, maybe a bad example:) Either way, please understand our position first!
Go well.
(if you are interested about the spine expert, I read it in this magazine. - Standing upright for creation)
Slashdot Mirror
there is no global warming.
Go figure.
Always read the links before you include them, and don't depend on Google to give you What You Meant, just What You Asked For.
Jeff
I'm used to being ridiculed as a believer of fairy tales when the people who say it obviously don't understand what I am saying.
I'm tired of arguing with people who like to ridicule and insult first, and then start the argument. So forget it, I'm not going to answer for you.
You have misunderstood the creationist position. We acknowledge mutations occur like this. There is plenty of creationist literature talking about this topic. If you are genuinely interested you can find it yourself. If you can't work it out then e-mail the crew at www.answersingenesis.com and ask them why this doesn't prove evolution. Needless to say, this experiment of yours does not confirm evolution or deny creation.
As a summary then, trust me when I say that the acceptance of the creation model (6000 year old earth, etc) would not spell the end of science and physics as we know it. In fact there are many scientists who believe in creation as I do - a young earth. One recent example I was reading about is Richard Porter a human spine expert. He said that coming from a creationist position has helped him more than those coming from an evolutionary perspective. As he said:
Couple of reasons I quoted this. First is to show you that the creationist position believes that all animals and humans were created complete and perfect only 6000 years ago. Since then genetic mutations have slowly entered the various creatures and caused each generation, slowly, to be weaker than its ancestors. So the first humans merely 6000 years ago were the strongest, most intelligent, and we are today the least intelligent and weakest (just because we discovered electricity and a few other things it may appear like we know more, but imagine that our ancestors could have achieved the same or more if they had discovered electricity too). So we do not believe that evolution from a single celled life to humans occurred in a short space of 6000 years. We beleive the creation was perfect at the first. There are thousands more words I could say on this, but instead I'll just encourage you to understand the creationist position properly if you are ever interested to know what we believe before you condemn it. Most people I argue with here know just enough of creationism to sound like they know what they are talking about but not enough to actually comprehend our position or successfully attack it.
The second reason why I wanted to mention this was to show you that coming from a creationist position makes science still possible - and even helps it make more sense. Consider that when you believe the universe is 4.5 billion years old and that evolution from a single cell to what we see today took place over that time - you have a view of the world you try to make the evidence fit. For example, you look at humans today as being superior to their ancestors, and inferior to the forms to come. This shapes your biases, where you look for answers, what sort of answers you expect to find. Just like Richard Porter said above, coming towards a problem from different positions results in different conclusions, sometimes harmful ones. Consider that if evolution is false that science will only be able to progress so far under that model.
I am of the view that discussions of origins - evolution, creation, etc are all philosophical. However, these philosophical arguments employ scientific evidence.
Just one thing to keep in mind, you certainly weren't lying I can tell when you said you haven't encountered the creationist position yet. It is clear that you don't know much about it. So my advice is that when you try to understand what we believe you may try to do it in the context of evolution, which is going to lead to confusion. I'll see if I can think of an analogy....I guess cultural differences are the best. When you go to a foreign country you may find it very very hard to fit in. Everything about this culture may be so foreign, and you will try to understand it in relation to your native culture - but this will only lead to confusion. Ok, maybe a bad example :) Either way, please understand our position first!
Go well.
(if you are interested about the spine expert, I read it in this magazine. - Standing upright for creation)