Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Tips on debating Young Earth Creationism

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 11:08:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Young earth creationism (YEC) is the belief that the earth was created around 6000 years ago, and that no new species have been created by evolution. As a scientific theory it is dead, but there is a substantial public following so the topic comes up regularly on DDO. This thread is not about whether the theory is true or not. If you want to argue about that, please go start another thread. This thread is for discussion of the methods for debating against YEC.

If young earth creationism is so obviously wrong, why is it so difficult to debate the subject? It is because there is so little common ground to build upon. If one starts from the premise that all of established science conspires to perpetuate a fraud and that magic is just a good an explanation as a scientific one, then what evidence can you possibly offer that's convincing? The answer is that there is none.

1. That leads to Rule 1. Don't think of trying to convince your opponent. It's not possible. Magic can explain everything perfectly, while science always has unanswered questions. There are two million scientists in the world, and each one of them is working on unanswered questions. The purpose of the debate is to show an unbiased reader the logic behind the scientific conclusions. View it as an opportunity to teach some science to the reader. Don't get frustrated that your opponent is not seeing the obvious. Use the opportunity to explain the science to people who have never heard the explanation.

Do not descend into name calling and sarcasm. That provides an excuse for readers to dismiss you. The debate is an opportunity to practice patience. This is difficult, and I don't claim complete success. Also, people can have really bad ideas on one subject, but still know a lot more than you do on another subject. Comedian Larry the Cable Guy has the line, "People think us rednecks are stupid, until they need us to start their car." Civility in debate is a good habit. You never know when the tables will be turned.

2. Rule 2 is to be prepared for the standard YEC arguments. For example, there is an argument that since entropy always increases, it's not possible for evolution to have happened because that would decrease entropy. (If the argument were true it would also be impossible to build so much as a garage, since that too decreases entropy.) There is no need to invent the replies to the standard arguments that have been demolished a thousand times before. A comprehensive treatment of them is given on
talkorigins.org http://www.talkorigins.org... They include examples of new species evolving in modern times and many other useful facts. The talkorigins.org site has a list of reference books, useful for a live debate. http://www.talkorigins.org... The Counter-Creationism Handbook contains the talkorigins material plus some updates in book form. http://www.amazon.com...

3. Rule 3 is to try to narrow the topic and try to keep your opponent on a few issues. The standard rebuttals are to dismiss whatever you claim and start a new argument on a different subject. Be careful to never drop an argument and to repeatedly point out that your opponent has not addressed the science that you have cited.

Other tips

It's useful to cite the statistic that only 0.14% of earth and life scientists deny the theory of evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org... Your opponent will point out that opinions don't establish truth, but scientists are experts, so their opinions count more and their opinion is so lopsided as to put creationism is in the same category as flat earth theories. Many readers new to the subject are under the impression it's around a 50-50 split, and are surprised there is virtually no scientific support for creationism.

If some detail is not known, readily admit that science cannot explain everything. Magic can.

It does no harm to admit at the outset that the world could have been created last week or 6000 years ago, together with all the memories of the people and all the evidence of an older earth. The concept of evidence of an older earth having been created is called "God the Trickster." Modern theologians strongly reject it.

Creationists rely heavily on articles published on creationist sites. If you criticize them, they reply that anything by scientists is biased too, so it is just the same. The distinction is that scientists have to establish patterns using evidence. Creationist only cite individual cases of some scientific procedure producing a wrong answer and then they claim that invalidates the whole methodology. I compare this to finding a broken wristwatch and then claiming that proves wristwatches are a worthless method for keeping time. Stress the need for statistics to show how frequent the errors are compared to good results. Creationists never do experiments and keep statistics.

Some past debates

Here are some of my past debates on the subject. You may get something from reading them over:

Radiometric Dating is Accurate This debate was mainly about whether the errors in radiometric dating are so typical as to make the method useless. http://www.debate.org... Another on the same subject. http://www.debate.org...

I thought it would be interesting to present twenty different independent methods for determining that the earth is old. http://www.debate.org...

The argument that evolution is impossible because it decreases entropy is in The Undeniable Proof That Evolution Didn't Happen debate
http://www.debate.org...
It also covers the argument that evolution is too improbable to have happened.

Another debate using science arguments http://www.debate.org... And more similar http://www.debate.org...

Please contribute to this thread if you have other debate tips, debate examples, good sources, or questions on debate tactics.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 12:25:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I was reading one of your debates with guitargod and as you stated, he used the second law to explain how evolution was illogical. The second law is "an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.." http://en.wikipedia.org... and is often applied to the universe to imply that entropy cannot increase and therefore, if I am correct, variations among populations cannot increase.

That itself is another common habit, though it is easily dismissed if one proves that the universe is not a closed system. In addition, there are other arguments, one of which deal with the Cambrian explosion, the "the relatively rapid (over a period of many millions of years) appearance, around 530 million years ago, of most major phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record, accompanied by major diversification of other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes"http://en.wikipedia.org..., which they argue cannot be explained by the current knowledge of evolution. However, a counter to this can easily lie in the proof of what is called punctuated equilibrium, which is where variations among living species proceed due to a sudden change in its environment....

Basically, the sole tip that I might give, even if I am not an experienced member who has discussed or debated on 'young earth creationism', is to out-research your opponent. It is clear that several arguments made by creationists are fallacious, and an easy way to prove them wrong is to show step by step how pseudo-scientific they are.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 12:40:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Excellent post, roy!
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 1:19:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have never heard of a coherent response to this:

Agree to the following:
1. The light we see in the sky has traveled at one light-year per year from its source to our eyes.
2. Light must have a source. That is, rays of light do not appear in the middle of space for no reason (beyond the occasional quantum particle).
3. You would have to travel more than 6,000 light years away to find the furthest visible star we have in the sky.

The result is:

At least some light traveled for over 6,000 years in order to reach our eyes. Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to be 6,000 years old or less.

The Creationist must deny 1, 2, or 3.

YEC arguments must go from "oh, we don't think biology is right" to "oh, all of astronomy, biology, and/or physics is wrong."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 2:11:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sam Harris at the 3 min mark onwards.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 3:43:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 1:19:37 AM, Wnope wrote:
I have never heard of a coherent response to this:

Agree to the following:
1. The light we see in the sky has traveled at one light-year per year from its source to our eyes.
2. Light must have a source. That is, rays of light do not appear in the middle of space for no reason (beyond the occasional quantum particle).
3. You would have to travel more than 6,000 light years away to find the furthest visible star we have in the sky.

The result is:

At least some light traveled for over 6,000 years in order to reach our eyes. Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to be 6,000 years old or less.

The Creationist must deny 1, 2, or 3.

YEC arguments must go from "oh, we don't think biology is right" to "oh, all of astronomy, biology, and/or physics is wrong."

I've heard two responses:

a. There is nothing more than 6000 light years away: celestial objects just get smaller the further away they are so it appears that way to astronomers.

b. God sent light rays already travelling towards the earth when he created it.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 5:59:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 1:19:37 AM, Wnope wrote:
I have never heard of a coherent response to this:

Agree to the following:
1. The light we see in the sky has traveled at one light-year per year from its source to our eyes.
2. Light must have a source. That is, rays of light do not appear in the middle of space for no reason (beyond the occasional quantum particle).
3. You would have to travel more than 6,000 light years away to find the furthest visible star we have in the sky.

The result is:

At least some light traveled for over 6,000 years in order to reach our eyes. Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to be 6,000 years old or less.

The Creationist must deny 1, 2, or 3.

YEC arguments must go from "oh, we don't think biology is right" to "oh, all of astronomy, biology, and/or physics is wrong."

To argue that it is not so would ultimately defy several laws of astronomy, biology, and or physics, as well as other established fields of science.

Truthfully, if they believe that that the earth is young, and deny the result of 1, 2, and 3, they must give evidence for challenging biology or even fixed laws and views of science--'extraordinary' evidence.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 8:51:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
In one of my debates, my opponent claimed that the speed of light was not constant so it had traveled longer distances in earlier times. He cited some article in which some scientists had claimed to have detected variations in the speed of light. There are many problems with a varying speed of light. One is that the distance to relatively nearby stars can be measured using parallax, with the angle to the star measured from opposite points in the earth's orbit around the sun. That verifies the speed of light being consistent with objects too distant to have been recently formed. In any case, the claimed variations in the speed of light are too small to allow a 6000 year old earth.

Another argument is that while the earth was formed 6000 years ago, that the universe is much older. I'd take that as a concession that helps my case, and move on to the many ways of determining the earth is old.

The universe is traditionally considered to be an isolated system. The expansion of the universe increases the total entropy and the stars are radiating energy increasing their entropy. However, the universe as a whole being closed in no way prevents local increases. Energy from stars warms planets, which allows life to form, garages to be built, and cakes to bake -- all local decreases in entropy.

There is current thinking that the universe is gaining vacuum energy as it expands, so maybe it isn't a closed system. That really doesn't matter because what happens to the universe as a whole does not effect the decreasing entropy on planets.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 11:16:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
While I think that this is mostly good. I think that citing 0.14% of scientists disagree with evolution is not the best option. As pointed out, the object is to have a few good arguments. It is better to have 3 arguments and all 3 solid arguements than 10 arguments with 7 being refutable and 3 being solid. We can all point out that the 0.14% is a fallacy (people will likely point to that people once believed the earth was flat, though geocentric beliefs would be a better example).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 11:18:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 8:51:31 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
In one of my debates, my opponent claimed that the speed of light was not constant so it had traveled longer distances in earlier times. He cited some article in which some scientists had claimed to have detected variations in the speed of light. There are many problems with a varying speed of light. One is that the distance to relatively nearby stars can be measured using parallax, with the angle to the star measured from opposite points in the earth's orbit around the sun. That verifies the speed of light being consistent with objects too distant to have been recently formed. In any case, the claimed variations in the speed of light are too small to allow a 6000 year old earth.

Another argument is that while the earth was formed 6000 years ago, that the universe is much older. I'd take that as a concession that helps my case, and move on to the many ways of determining the earth is old.

The universe is traditionally considered to be an isolated system. The expansion of the universe increases the total entropy and the stars are radiating energy increasing their entropy. However, the universe as a whole being closed in no way prevents local increases. Energy from stars warms planets, which allows life to form, garages to be built, and cakes to bake -- all local decreases in entropy.

There is current thinking that the universe is gaining vacuum energy as it expands, so maybe it isn't a closed system. That really doesn't matter because what happens to the universe as a whole does not effect the decreasing entropy on planets.

I was once talking to a guy and told him that water cannot have come before there was light, since oxygen had to be produced in the stars over generations of them.

He argued saying how was I sure that the oxygen in that water is the same as oxygen is now.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 11:23:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 1:19:37 AM, Wnope wrote:
I have never heard of a coherent response to this:

Agree to the following:
1. The light we see in the sky has traveled at one light-year per year from its source to our eyes.
2. Light must have a source. That is, rays of light do not appear in the middle of space for no reason (beyond the occasional quantum particle).
3. You would have to travel more than 6,000 light years away to find the furthest visible star we have in the sky.

The result is:

At least some light traveled for over 6,000 years in order to reach our eyes. Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to be 6,000 years old or less.

The Creationist must deny 1, 2, or 3.

YEC arguments must go from "oh, we don't think biology is right" to "oh, all of astronomy, biology, and/or physics is wrong."

Okay here is a coherent (if absurd response)

6000 years ago light was created "ENROUTE" to our eyes on earth. That is to say the light was created and laid down in a path.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 11:30:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 11:23:49 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/25/2011 1:19:37 AM, Wnope wrote:
I have never heard of a coherent response to this:

Agree to the following:
1. The light we see in the sky has traveled at one light-year per year from its source to our eyes.
2. Light must have a source. That is, rays of light do not appear in the middle of space for no reason (beyond the occasional quantum particle).
3. You would have to travel more than 6,000 light years away to find the furthest visible star we have in the sky.

The result is:

At least some light traveled for over 6,000 years in order to reach our eyes. Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to be 6,000 years old or less.

The Creationist must deny 1, 2, or 3.

YEC arguments must go from "oh, we don't think biology is right" to "oh, all of astronomy, biology, and/or physics is wrong."

Okay here is a coherent (if absurd response)

6000 years ago light was created "ENROUTE" to our eyes on earth. That is to say the light was created and laid down in a path.

Or...

There is some kind of ether that fills the space between solar system that allows light to travel faster through it than through a vacuum. So the actual distance is not truely restricted to 6000 LYs.

They could then also argue that this ether is all the dark matter that scientists think must be out there somewhere (since the universe is suppose to be more massive than we observe).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:21:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 11:23:49 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
6000 years ago light was created "ENROUTE" to our eyes on earth. That is to say the light was created and laid down in a path.

This is fundamentally the "God the Trickster" argument, which is that if the earth is young then God must have created all the evidence that it is old in order to have tricked us into thinking it is old. Theologians reject "God the Trickster" uniformly, but it is possible. It's in the same category as the possibility that the world was created last week along with all the evidence that it is much older. It's a complete rejection of science in favor of religion.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:26:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 11:16:06 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
While I think that this is mostly good. I think that citing 0.14% of scientists disagree with evolution is not the best option. As pointed out, the object is to have a few good arguments. It is better to have 3 arguments and all 3 solid arguements than 10 arguments with 7 being refutable and 3 being solid. We can all point out that the 0.14% is a fallacy (people will likely point to that people once believed the earth was flat, though geocentric beliefs would be a better example).

Are all arguments from authority false? I don't think so. It's fair to say that arguments from authority are not conclusive, but it's still worth establishing that creationism is an extraordinary belief that therefore requires extraordinary proof.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:31:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 6:26:14 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/25/2011 11:16:06 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
While I think that this is mostly good. I think that citing 0.14% of scientists disagree with evolution is not the best option. As pointed out, the object is to have a few good arguments. It is better to have 3 arguments and all 3 solid arguements than 10 arguments with 7 being refutable and 3 being solid. We can all point out that the 0.14% is a fallacy (people will likely point to that people once believed the earth was flat, though geocentric beliefs would be a better example).

Are all arguments from authority false? I don't think so. It's fair to say that arguments from authority are not conclusive, but it's still worth establishing that creationism is an extraordinary belief that therefore requires extraordinary proof.

That I can agree with. It just seemed like from your OP that you were saying that 99.86% of scientists agree, and plus their scientists so they have extra power. Just when debating YEC, make sure to include that this doesn't prove, nor work as evidence against YEC, but only indicates that YEC needs to have MAJOR evidence to shake the well established understanding.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:32:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 11:30:56 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
They could then also argue that this ether is all the dark matter that scientists think must be out there somewhere (since the universe is suppose to be more massive than we observe).

Dark matter is composed of Weakly Interactive Massive Particles (WIMPs). Weakly interactive means that it has little interaction with photons, which means that it's interaction is by gravity. Dark matter bends light via gravity, but it doesn't make it go faster.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:33:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Any counter on the "space between solar systems is filled with a substance that makes light go faster" argument? Even though I completely made it up, I kinda like it, since it fits in with other unknowns in astronomy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:33:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 6:33:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Any counter on the "space between solar systems is filled with a substance that makes light go faster" argument? Even though I completely made it up, I kinda like it, since it fits in with other unknowns in astronomy.

nevermind, I was 48 seconds impatiant.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:39:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 6:32:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/25/2011 11:30:56 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
They could then also argue that this ether is all the dark matter that scientists think must be out there somewhere (since the universe is suppose to be more massive than we observe).

Dark matter is composed of Weakly Interactive Massive Particles (WIMPs). Weakly interactive means that it has little interaction with photons, which means that it's interaction is by gravity. Dark matter bends light via gravity, but it doesn't make it go faster.

Normally, I'd argue that since we don't truely know what dark matter is, such a statement is no more than speculation and theory. But this is easily countered by saying "just because we don't fully understand something, does not mean it can be anything."

Since there are some things we know about dark matter, namely that it has no effect on light (apart from standard gravitational effects) [1].

[1] http://arxiv.org...

Or they try to imply dark energy or some other form of science that isn't well understood, on the strategy of "if it isn't well known, it can be anything we want it to be."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 11:44:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 6:39:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Or they try to imply dark energy or some other form of science that isn't well understood, on the strategy of "if it isn't well known, it can be anything we want it to be."

It's true that magic an accomplish anything. The problem comes in trying to make magic consistent with science, and that's not possible. Take a look at my debate on the twenty independent methods for verifying that the earth is old. Many of the methods cross-check. For example, dating by sediment columns, tree rings, coral growth, ice cores, and radiometry all agree. So if they are all wrong, one must explain why they are all wrong in the same way so they cross-check.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 8:47:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 11:44:41 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/25/2011 6:39:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Or they try to imply dark energy or some other form of science that isn't well understood, on the strategy of "if it isn't well known, it can be anything we want it to be."

It's true that magic an accomplish anything. The problem comes in trying to make magic consistent with science, and that's not possible. Take a look at my debate on the twenty independent methods for verifying that the earth is old. Many of the methods cross-check. For example, dating by sediment columns, tree rings, coral growth, ice cores, and radiometry all agree. So if they are all wrong, one must explain why they are all wrong in the same way so they cross-check.

They usually give me some God the Trickster crap (btw, God the Trickster being rejected by modern theologists is very useful) or the "radiometric dating went faster 3000 years ago" which is even worse.

The second option is blatantly false for two reasons: a) It ignores everything else, and you would have to make up more speculation to make tree rings, sediment, etc all synch with that (which is extremely absurd) and b) there would of had to have been a separate and natural cause that made every single radiometric dating method speed up or slow down for a while so they all exactly synched up.

Example: Something causes carbon to decay at 2x (but not 1.5x or 2.5x) the normal rate and something causes boron to decay and 100x the normal rate (but not 99x or 101x) and on and on and on for every single decaying element at an exact and temporary change. The odds are astronomical.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 9:58:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 11:44:41 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/25/2011 6:39:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Or they try to imply dark energy or some other form of science that isn't well understood, on the strategy of "if it isn't well known, it can be anything we want it to be."

It's true that magic an accomplish anything. The problem comes in trying to make magic consistent with science, and that's not possible. Take a look at my debate on the twenty independent methods for verifying that the earth is old. Many of the methods cross-check. For example, dating by sediment columns, tree rings, coral growth, ice cores, and radiometry all agree. So if they are all wrong, one must explain why they are all wrong in the same way so they cross-check.

It's not really saying that "magic" can accomplish anything, but that the "unknown" can be anything. In this case, using unknown science to make it seem like science (when it isn't).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 1:11:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/26/2011 9:58:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
It's not really saying that "magic" can accomplish anything, but that the "unknown" can be anything. In this case, using unknown science to make it seem like science (when it isn't).

There is a distinction between "magic" and "unknown" science. Unknown science is required to be consistent with existing science. For example, a material that causes light to speed up beyond its speed in a vacuum means the Theory of Relativity is wrong. There are many experimental proofs of Relativity, so all those proofs must be explained as to why they show Relativity to be correct when in fact it is wrong.

The way that this happens in ordinary science is that the theory is tested beyond it's prior domain of applicability. So Newton's laws are found to not apply at speeds approaching the speed of light. Relativity as been thoroughly tested at long distances, so an exception cannot be fit to be consistent with the established theory, and such exceptions are "magic."

(It's quite interesting, I think, that the existence of vacuum energy is consistent with general relativity. Calculus fans will recognize the appearance of a constant of integration. Einstein recognized and noted the possibility.)

Ah, but perhaps not just Relativity is wrong, but the rest of science including rates of radioactive decay, computations of star distance from parallax, and so forth. that's possible, even though we cannot explain how that could happen. We are then back in the universe of God the Trickster, which is not logically impossible ... it is in the domain of faith, however, and not science.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 1:31:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But relativity has not been tested in all cases. And it is possible, that while it is accurate in most cases, it could be inaccurate in others.

Much like with Newton. His numbers appeared correct to any testing that he could have done, but he couldn't test everything. He couldn't test extremely fast speeds (not today's standards of fast, anyway), and so he though he had it down perfectly.

It reminds me of the Taylor series for sin(x), trying to hand write it out. You can get through the first 20 terms, and realize that for -10<x<10, it works perfectly, but once you get outside that range, it falls apart. What if, our limited knowledge, is only letting us test in the -10<x<10 range? We'll keep showing that the numbers match up. But this "ether" is outside of our range to test, and so it might require a different equation. One that accomidates what we currently know, and what we find out there (which may be the Taylor series through 100 terms).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 3:19:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/26/2011 1:31:51 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
But relativity has not been tested in all cases. And it is possible, that while it is accurate in most cases, it could be inaccurate in others.

Sure, but you have to do more than just say that, you have to explain exactly what domain has not tested, and how the results in that domain could support young earth. Relativity has been tested at the long distances of astronomy, so that out is not available.

You also have to square it with all the other measurements of time and distance. If you have a theory that does that, write directly to Physics Review. The Nobel Prize awaits.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 3:34:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/26/2011 3:19:47 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/26/2011 1:31:51 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
But relativity has not been tested in all cases. And it is possible, that while it is accurate in most cases, it could be inaccurate in others.

Sure, but you have to do more than just say that, you have to explain exactly what domain has not tested, and how the results in that domain could support young earth. Relativity has been tested at the long distances of astronomy, so that out is not available.

You also have to square it with all the other measurements of time and distance. If you have a theory that does that, write directly to Physics Review. The Nobel Prize awaits.

If there is an ether outside of the solar system, that has not been tested, because we've never been there.

We can test in vacuums created here on Earth, or go into orbit and run tests there, or we can put a clock on a plane and have it fly around the world and then check the time. But we can't test what is outside our system.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"