Universal constants

3 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lmale's picture
Universal constants

Ive been getting the same argument from a bunch of creationist nujobs lately. Im assuming they saw the bill nye ken ham debate.they say we werent hear in the past how do we know the universal CONSTANTS were not different.
Ive yet to come across any evidence that its possible no math formulas nothing.
Seems the only people in the whole wide world that think its possible are creationists.
Why? Because they argue every single dating method we have is based on constants so if they changed our dates would be wrong.
They even deny the 9960 year old tree saying we didnt watch it grow. And the hundreds of thousands of ice layers that go winter summer cycle for them to be right bill said wed have had to have over 100 winter and summer cycles every single year for the last 6000 years lol.
Now i know a few scoentists think light may travel faster in a vacuum (emphasis on may) than the speed max we know.
This is being used as a proven fact that constants change by some cheeky creationists despite 1 its a bare hypothesis not evidence based theory. 2 even if correct the constant didnt change just our math so the universe may be 12.7 bill instead of 13.7 bill its still a bit more than 6000.
Theres another point to consider space is not a true vacuum theres still negative energy and particles. So the change may not apply at all.
These creationists dont grasp the difference between 6000 and 13,7 bill so think this proves them right.
They never consider even if the fossil records dates changes its still going to be in the same order.
And would not disprove evolution.
Creationism is just genesis and the flood rolled together they failed to provide and evidence the cannot make predictions or observations and the cheated the peer review the whole world knows that. So creationism is staying an unsupported hypothesis no matter what happens in am biogenesis the fossil record and evolutionary theory.
If they some how did suceed in disproving them creationism would still NOT BE A THEORY and not taught in a respectable school.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

mysticrose's picture
That's why creationism is

That's why creationism is only taught in religion subjects. It's not a theory based information but rather mythical and can't be included in other major subjects. Some schools and countries choose not to include religion on their curriculum.

MikeSmith1's picture
The discussion about

The discussion about universal constants and the arguments from creationists following the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate is quite riveting and thought-provoking! It's intriguing how the debate spirals into the validity of various dating methods and the possibility of constants having been different in the past. The skepticism towards scientific methods and data, like the age of the tree and the ice layers, reflects a fascinating intersection between science and belief systems. I'm currently working on a research paper exploring the impact of scientific debates in online forums and considering using a writing aid service to ensure my paper is well-structured and polished. Have you encountered any other scientific concepts that are often misinterpreted or challenged in similar debates?

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.