## Re: [creat] Re: THE MUTATION RATE PARADOX.

Expand Messages
• ... Einstein showed that relative time can change depending on differences in the the force of gravity and relative velocity of two bodies. The classic example
Message 1 of 168 , May 1 7:01 AM
• 0 Attachment
>>> vgiovianni: hey, here's a question you will avoid,
>>> is it possible that time is not steady?

>> Randy: The reason that I, and probably most
>> of the other evolutionists, will avoid
>> a hypothetical question with no evidence
>> to support it.
>>
>> Show us some evidence, or at least a mechanism,
>> and we can talk about it.

> vgiovianni: On the Nature of Time
> [snip - discussion of time cut and pasted from
> the web site http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/time.htm%5d

Einstein showed that relative time can change depending on differences in
the the force of gravity and relative velocity of two bodies.

The classic example used is sending one of a pair of twin brothers on a
trip in a space ship moving at a speed close to the speed of light and
leaving the other brother on Earth. When the space ship returns to Earth,
the brother on the space ship will have aged less.

But note that there is a RELATIVE difference in speeds between the two
brothers. If the brothers had been triplets and two of them had gone on
the space ship they would have aged the same amount, both less than the
brother left on Earth.

You are trying to argue, presumably, that time on Earth has changed. You
are asking if the measured age of 4.5 billion years couldn't actually be
something less. The answer to that question is NO! If the Earth was
moving substantially faster in the past, which could have slowed down time,
it would have slowed down time for EVERYTHING on Earth, including the
radioactive decay of the rocks used to determine this age. There are no
relative differences.

Randy

NOTICE � This message and any attachment(s) are for authorized use by the intended recipient(s) only and may contain privileged or confidential information. Unless you are an intended recipient, you may not use, copy, retain, or disclose to anyone any information contained in this message and any attachment(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please immediately contact the sender and delete this message and any attachment(s).
• ... This is from a post that is a few weeks old. I wanted to expand on the answer that I gave at that time. Vince clearly feels that these things are evidence
Message 168 of 168 , May 15 11:17 AM
• 0 Attachment
>> vgiovianni: look,

>> 1. we are the only known intelligent force in the universe.
>> 2. we have absolute proof of adaptation.
>> 3. we know we will keep advancing intellectually.
>> 4. intelligent design does exist we use it everyday.
>> 5. we will travel into space beyond our solar system.
>> 6. we currently are working on or have already acheived
>> the creation of life.
>> [snip - similar items]

This is from a post that is a few weeks old. I wanted to expand on the
answer that I gave at that time.

Vince clearly feels that these things are evidence that his idea that
humans will design the universe and all life on Earth. In actuality, they
aren't.

These things are all requirements for his ideas to be true. But they do
not provide evidence that his ideas are true because he doesn't tie them
together and relate them directly to his claims.

Let me give an example to make my point. I have previously mentioned a
couple of times this admittedly ridiculous suggestion:

Winged pink monkeys will fly out of Saddam Hussein's anatomy if he is
executed for his crimes against humanity.

But, using Vince's techniques of argument, I could argue in favor of that
idea by providing this list:

1. Monkeys exist
2. The color pink exists
3. Winged creaturs exist
4. Most winged creatures can fly
6. Saddam Hussein has an anatomy
7. The possibility exists that Saddam Hussein will be executed for crimes
against humanity.

So each part of my claim can be shown to exist. But so what? I haven't
tied them all together. I haven't even demonstrated that there are "winged
pink monkeys". So I haven't provided ANY real evidence that any such
monkeys will be doing any flying any time soon.

That's precisely the problem with vgovianni's "logic". He says that humans
are capable of designing things. That's accurate. But he hasn't tied that
piece of information to his overall claim that humans have somehow been
able to design the universe and all life on Earth. So that particular
piece of data doesn't really provide ANY evidence supporting his claim.

So I will continue to say that he has not provided the smallest shred of
evidence supporting his claims.

Randy

NOTICE � This message and any attachment(s) are for authorized use by the intended recipient(s) only and may contain privileged or confidential information. Unless you are an intended recipient, you may not use, copy, retain, or disclose to anyone any information contained in this message and any attachment(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please immediately contact the sender and delete this message and any attachment(s).
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.