Darwinists A Question About Natural Selection

[rapbeats]

@The_Real

1. Introduction. The natural laws are traditionally characterized as ‘eternal’, ‘fixed’, and ‘immutable’.1
Is the laws’ unchanging character a metaphysical necessity? If so, then in any possible world, there are exactly the
same laws at all times (though presumably there are different laws in
different possible worlds).2
That there actually are exactly the same laws
at all times is then a consequence of what it is for a truth to be a law of
nature. On the other hand, if the laws’ unchanging character is not a
metaphysical necessity, then even if in fact there have always been and
will always be exactly the same laws, this fact is metaphysically contingent.

To ask whether the laws of nature could change is not to ask whether
a given fact m, which is actually a law of nature, could instead have been
an accident. Rather, my question is whether it follows with metaphysical
necessity, from the fact that m is now a law, that m always was and always
will be a law. One way to judge among various proposed philosophical
analyses of natural law is first to figure out whether or not the laws must
be immutable and then to examine how well each proposed analysis explains why this is so. This is the project I try to pursue in this paper.
Occasionally, one encounters articles with provocative titles such as
“Anything Can Change, Even an Immutable Law of Nature” (New York
Times, August 15, 2001) and “Are the Laws of Nature Changing with
Time?” (Physics World, April 2003). These articles generally concern
whether certain physical parameters heretofore believed constant may in
fact be slowly changing. Despite the sensationalistic titles of these articles,
such changes need not threaten the laws’ immutability. The laws at every
moment may still be the same—identifying the same function of time (or
of some other factor) as giving the physical parameter’s value at every
moment.
Likewise, in articles about cosmology or elementary particle physics, one
sometimes reads that as the universe cooled after the Big Bang, symmetries
were spontaneously broken, ‘phase transitions’ took place, and discontinuous changes occurred in the values of various physical parameters
(e.g., in the strength of certain fundamental interactions, or in the masses
of certain species of particle). These changes are sometimes described as
involving changes in the laws of nature. Here is a typical remark:
One usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply
[in the period immediately following the Big Bang]. They took hold
only after the density of the universe dropped below the so-called
Planck density, which equals 1094 grams per cubic centimeter. . . .
[T]he same theory may have different ‘vacuum states’, corresponding
to different types of symmetry breaking between fundamental interactions and, as a result, to different laws of low-energy physics. (Linde
1994, 48, 55)
However, perhaps this ‘change’ in the laws of nature as the universe cooled
and expanded is better understood as involving unchanging laws such as
(to give a very simple example)
(1) Between any two electrons that have been at rest, separated by r
centimeters, for at leastr/c seconds, there is an electrostatic repulsion
of F dynes, if the universe is no more than 10
10 seconds old, and
f dynes ( ) otherwise.

.....

read it

http://philosophy.unc.edu/people/faculty/marc-lange/587823.pdf

i'm reading it little by little now.

 

[Propaganda]

i didnt say i think we have a young earth or 6k earth. my answer is I DONT KNOW. but i sure as heck am not about to agree and says its 100 of thousands of years old, or will i say its billions of years old. cause there is no way for us to tell if thats true or not. we dont have anything to compare that too since we all admit humans have only been on earth for x thousands of years. not 100's of thousands of years or millions or billions of years.

to me thats an extreme number to jump to even using certain dating techniques. all the math we use to find out this stuff is based on PATTERNS. read above and you will see what i'm talking about. we do a lot of assuming in math/science when it comes to this stuff. sometimes we assume right. sometimes we are incorrect. the problem with being incorrect, is that we can actually be WAYYYY off. but we would have no way of knowing since humans didnt exist that many years ago. we assume the patterns that we can see must be the same even if you throw the equation out a bit further like millions of years further or billions. etc.

we use dating techniques of things we do know, how long does it take for lets say a tree to grow to its tallest height . how long does it take for particular types of rocks to be embedded underneath other types of rocks.. we can only figure things out in the range of how long human's have been here. and not a moment sooner. anything else beyond that is a nice guestimation at best and an assumption based on a small sample size of patterns that we can see. lets say the earth is 100k years old. for us to ever find out if our theories are true about that figure. we would have to wait until the human species have been on earth for 100k years. then that era of humans would study our theories and put them to the test. did the patterns they found for dating end up being truth. does this batch of rocks = x amt of years? if the answer is yes. then they were correct. if the answer is no. then they were wrong.

i was talking about the guy you were quoting.

 

[Slang]

I mean that when we look into the distant past, we can see that what seem like fixed laws to us now actually evolved over time into seemingly concrete forms, the same way that animals do.

 

[The Real]

We look into the distant past all the time. Scientists are currently investigating a time in the universe before the existence of our own species- we can actually see it, thanks to the Hubble Telescope. The question of universal laws is more a question of modeling, logic, etc, but this plays a role in it, too.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

Atheists' theories and theists' theories are equally absurd.

Theists say "God did it" and atheists say "That's crazy!" but then proceed to tell you "Nothing did it."

Why can't we all respect each other's beliefs? Nobody knows for sure but in the mean time both sides usually end up sounding like idiots.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Atheists' theories and theists' theories are equally absurd.

Theists say "God did it" and atheists say "That's crazy!" but then proceed to tell you "Nothing did it."

Why can't we all respect each other's beliefs? Nobody knows for sure but in the mean time both sides usually end up sounding like idiots.

That isn't what atheists say.

 

[Propaganda]

Atheists' theories and theists' theories are equally absurd.

Theists say "God did it" and atheists say "That's crazy!" but then proceed to tell you "Nothing did it."

Why can't we all respect each other's beliefs? Nobody knows for sure but in the mean time both sides usually end up sounding like idiots.

http://images.*****.org/wsg/src/1362285561276.gif

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

That isn't what atheists say.

What do atheists say? How do atheists explain the existence of the universe?