Real Science Friday: What technologies needed Darwin or an old earth?

[DavisBJ]

* Wild Claim #2: Young earth creation, "requires one to regard virtually all of modern science as fundamentally mistaken... about most of the... principles that have made modern technologies possible." … In this following list of major inventions and technologies since 1860, please identify which ones were enabled by Darwinian insight or belief in an old earth? Countless technologies and inventions were enabled by Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Bacon, Pascal, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, the Wright Brothers, and Carver. But they're all on OUR list.

Once again, for perhaps the tenth time now, I see Enyart shanghaiing Lord Kelvin into the YEC camp. He just can’t admit that Kelvin strongly argued for an earth that was tens of millions of years old.

 

[Jukia]

I haven't got a problem with the math. It's the values arbitrarily plugged into the equations that I question.

You aren't suggesting that the values are made up are you?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

You aren't suggesting that the values are made up are you?

I'm suggesting some values are assumed without necessarily being warranted.

 

[Jukia]

I'm suggesting some values are assumed without necessarily being warranted.

Any specific values?

 

[some other dude]

:rotfl:

If evolution theory was correct, bread would have evolved the ability to slice itself by now.

 

[Jukia]

* Wild Claim #2[/b]: Young earth creation, "requires one to regard virtually all of modern science as fundamentally mistaken... about most of the... principles that have made modern technologies possible." Whorton and Roberts have this in common with evolutionists Dobzhansky, and Alate_One from TheologyOnLine.com? Theodosius Dobzhansky claimed that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." And TOL's Alate_One claimed on the Bob Enyart Live Forum that, "Mainstream science is the only science that actually works." So Real Science Friday has a question for A_O, Whorton and Roberts. In this following list of major inventions and technologies since 1860, please identify which ones were enabled by Darwinian insight or belief in an old earth? Countless technologies and inventions were enabled by Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Bacon, Pascal, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, the Wright Brothers, and Carver. But they're all on OUR list. QUOTE]

Implicit in the objection to Wild Claim #2 is that Kepler (died 1630), Galileo (1642), Newton (1727) Bacon (1626), Pascal (1662) and Dalton (1844), all very bright, and willing to investigate the real world and all died before the 1859 publication of Origin, would have dismissed Darwin because of their Biblical beliefs. That is really Pastor Bob's Wild Claim. And an irrational and ignorant one it is. Color me surprised.

 

[Jukia]

If evolution theory was correct, bread would have evolved the ability to slice itself by now.

wow, you have bread that reproduces itself? Get it from trading the cow for magic grain?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Any specific values?

Initial parent-daughter ratios.

 

[GuySmiley]

Implicit in the objection to Wild Claim #2 is that Kepler (died 1630), Galileo (1642), Newton (1727) Bacon (1626), Pascal (1662) and Dalton (1844), all very bright, and willing to investigate the real world and all died before the 1859 publication of Origin, would have dismissed Darwin because of their Biblical beliefs. That is really Pastor Bob's Wild Claim. And an irrational and ignorant one it is. Color me surprised.

So none of those guys ever saw Origin . . . hmmm, you are the last person I'd expect to make Bob's point for him, but good work.

 

[Jukia]

So none of those guys ever saw Origin . . . hmmm, you are the last person I'd expect to make Bob's point for him, but good work.

Sorry, Pastor Bob drags all these dead guys out to suggest that their belief in his god would require them to throw out evolution. I just don't think that would be true. I don't think any of them would be so ignorant of the evidence and so cognitively dissonant to ignore the real world. But hey, Pastor Bob does so he must expect others to do so as well.

 

[GuySmiley]

Sorry, Pastor Bob drags all these dead guys out to suggest that their belief in his god would require them to throw out evolution. I just don't think that would be true. I don't think any of them would be so ignorant of the evidence and so cognitively dissonant to ignore the real world. But hey, Pastor Bob does so he must expect others to do so as well.

Oh, I thought the thread was about technologies that didn't need Darwin or an old earth.

 

[GuySmiley]

Where are the people who've previously made fun of creationists for not believing in evolution, but still taking prescription drugs? I've seen that claim a few times on TOL.

 

[The Barbarian]

Clearly, if Darwin was wrong, there'd be no reason to take expensive new antibiotics or to use antibiotic protocols to prevent the evolution of resistance.

 

[The Barbarian]

Oh, I thought the thread was about technologies that didn't need Darwin or an old earth.

Any technology that uses physics would depend on an old Earth, since basic constants require and old Earth.

 

[Alate_One]

Any technology that uses physics would depend on an old Earth, since basic constants require and old Earth.

But you see YECs want to pick and choose the parts of science they like. Anything that disagrees with their preconceptions has just GOT to be wrong.

 

[Cricket]

Oh, I thought the thread was about technologies that didn't need Darwin or an old earth.

Artificial selection is a great tool used in computer programming and certain design situations.

But that did not require Darwinism or an old Earth. Likely the former encouraged its application.

..from tapatalk and nexus s..

 

[GuySmiley]

But you see YECs want to pick and choose the parts of science they like. Anything that disagrees with their preconceptions has just GOT to be wrong.

Its nice to have real scientists around to show us how science works.

I want to make sure I have this right, because I love to learn about real science. So its wrong to pick and choose parts of science to disagree with right? If a scientist were to make a new discovery, changing the way we think about something, we must throw out everything and start in the stone age? Ok.

 

[some other dude]

Any technology that uses physics would depend on an old Earth, since basic constants require and old Earth.

Perhaps Barbie could show us how each of these require an old Earth?

Reference Tables for Physical Setting/ PHYSICS 2006 Edition List of Physical Constants

Name Symbol Value

Universal gravitational constant G 6.67× 10–11 N•m2/kg2
Acceleration due to gravity g 9.81 m/s2
Speed of light in a vacuum c 3.00× 108 m/s
Speed of sound in air at STP 3.31× 102 m/s
Mass of Earth 5.98× 1024 kg
Mass of the Moon 7.35× 1022 kg
Mean radius of Earth 6.37× 106 m
Mean radius of the Moon 1.74× 106 m
Mean distance—Earth to the Moon 3.84× 108 m
Mean distance—Earth to the Sun 1.50× 1011 m
Electrostatic constant k 8.99× 109 N•m2/C2
1 elementary charge e 1.60× 10–19 C
1 coulomb (C) 6.25× 1018 elementary charges
1 electronvolt (eV) 1.60× 10–19 J
Planck’s constant h 6.63× 10–34 J•s
1 universal mass unit (u) 9.31× 102 MeV
Rest mass of the electron me 9.11× 10–31 kg
Rest mass of the proton mp 1.67× 10–27 kg
Rest mass of the neutron mn 1.67× 10–27 kg

 

[The Barbarian]

Its nice to have real scientists around to show us how science works.

Knowing what one is talking about is helpful, yes.

I want to make sure I have this right, because I love to learn about real science. So its wrong to pick and choose parts of science to disagree with right?

It's wrong to accept the parts of physics you think supports your new religion, while rejecting the parts you think do not.

If a scientist were to make a new discovery, changing the way we think about something, we must throw out everything and start in the stone age?

Someone said that? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out they didn't. You must have been mistaken.

Oh wait. You're a creationist. Just doing what creationists do, I suppose. O.K.

On the other hand, if someone could show that the speed of light in a vacuum could increase significantly without frying all living things on Earth, then we'd have to start over. Everything from sunlight to butterflies would become impossible.

But so far, nothing like that happens. Stuff like "oh, wait, something we didn't know about neutrinos explains why they're hard to find" is quite common. But none of that undermines biology or chemistry.

I think I know why.

 

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps Barbie could show us how each of these require an old Earth?

Universal gravitational constant G 6.67× 10–11 N•m2/kg2
Acceleration due to gravity g 9.81 m/s2
Speed of light in a vacuum c 3.00× 108 m/s

I mentioned one above. Since radioactive decay is tied to the speed of light, then a significantly faster speed of light (required for the observed case of distant galaxies) would have meant a much greater rate of background radiation, which would have killed all living things on Earth.

The gravitational constant?
The speed of gravitational waves in the general theory of relativity is equal to the speed of light in vacuum, c.[1] Within the theory of special relativity, the constant c is not exclusively about light; instead it is the highest possible speed for any physical interaction in nature. Formally, c is a conversion factor for changing the unit of time to the unit of space.[2] This makes it the only speed which does not depend either on the motion of an observer or a source of light and/or gravity. Thus, the speed of "light" is also the speed of gravitational waves and any massless particle. So far, the only candidates for massless particles in physics are the photons that light waves consist of, and also the theoretical gravitons which make up the associated field particles of gravity, if a quantum mechanical theory for gravity is ever successfully constructed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Sorry if I don't derive that for you. Someone once showed me how it works out, and my head hurt for a day.

Speed of sound in air at STP 3.31× 102 m/s

This is a function of the inertia of mass...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37216056/Inertial-and-Gravitational-Mass-in-Quantum-Mechanics

Mass of Earth 5.98× 1024 kg

Turns out that for a star the size of our sun, simulations show small rocky planets form close to the star. Gravity and inertia again, which is tied to...

You guessed it.

Mean radius of Earth 6.37× 106 m
See above. The composition of the Earth, relates the mass to it's radius.

Mean distance—Earth to the Sun 1.50× 1011 m

See above

And so on. Been a long time since I finished with physics courses, and we know a lot more now, but last time I looked, it was all tied together.