Natural Laws and natural processes different over time?

[shunyadragon]

In a thread Brahman and Monotheism. This post is a separate topic and drifted off topic and is best here.

What do you believe about the origin of the earth? As a Christian I believe by faith the creation account since I was not their. I think you can make some argument about different things but ultimately as you said I do not have enough verifiable evidence because I was not an eyewitness. How do you reconcile this concept of seeing firsthand with your belief of origins.

You're asking my view of this based on comparative beliefs of your beliefs and the facts of science. Yes this line of dialogue is marginal in the previous thread of the forum, and has been addressed many times in more appropriate sections of the forum, but nonetheless my response nor the facts of science will not change regardless where and when I respond, as a comparison to your beliefs. As far as beliefs go the view of my belief in the Baha'i Faith is the harmony and consistency between science and religious beliefs.

The objections of not being there is not coherent simply based the nature of objective verifiable evidence.

Nothing in science is first hand except for an experiment done in the now, and the experiments and observations in the history of humanity can simply be repeated and the results are always basically the same. We are not there in any way beyond the present moment. Science is based on predictability of processes in the past, and the future, and at present all the evidence known based on consistent and predictive success of the methods of science.

For example: The tree stumps and roots, mud cracks, leaf impressions,worm tracks, and raindrop marks found in the lamella layers in repeated layers of shale found hundreds of feet below the surface of the earth sis not form any different than those observed forming in musd today.

Another important observation throughout the history of the earth is weathering and deposition of the rocks of the earth. We can directly observe this gradual weathering and breakdown over time today as mountains gradually break down and the sediments from these mountains form the river, lake, and ocean deposits gradually over time. We can see evidence of the same gradual weathering and depositions in the rocks for many thousands of feet of cyclic deposits, as well as vast limestone deposits that cannot be formed any other way but gradual carbonate deposition in shallow seas like we observe in seas like around Bermuda, ocean islands and the Great Barrier Reef.

There is absolutely no evidence of any significant change in these natural processes nor time itself are different now than in the past billions of years of earth's history.

You may refer to one of the many threads that have addressed this question in the past, or start a thread to further discuss this.

The subject of this thread is Brahman and monotheism. Second thought I will cut and past this post, and start a thread in Science and Religion, since it is a more appropriate place for this dialogue

 

[MNoBody]

There is absolutely no evidence of any significant change in these natural processes nor time itself are different now than in the past billions of years of earth's history.

just an observation:
...yet the geological rift in Africa has overturned that steady state idea by doing in a short time span what geology has long held to take hundreds of thousands of years, thus the theory has been called into question.
as all human theories, we know so little from our brief time spent on this rock, yet we talk so knowledgeably as if we were some kind of authorities on these matters.
curious tendency, isn't it?

 

[PureX]

There is absolutely no evidence of any significant change in these natural processes nor time itself are different now than in the past billions of years of earth's history.

So, what conclusion is being drawn from this observation, if any?

 

[Sunstone]

Weren't there quite a few changes in the first few nanoseconds of the Big Bang? Of course, that was not the proximal cause of the earth.

 

[MNoBody]

big bang always elicits an image of a cosmic orgasm resulting in pregnancy.....
keep banging that drum m8

 

[Ponder This]

In a thread Brahman and Monotheism. This post is a separate topic and drifted off topic and is best here.



You're asking my view of this based on comparative beliefs of your beliefs and the facts of science. Yes this line of dialogue is marginal in the previous thread of the forum, and has been addressed many times in more appropriate sections of the forum, but nonetheless my response nor the facts of science will not change regardless where and when I respond, as a comparison to your beliefs. As far as beliefs go the view of my belief in the Baha'i Faith is the harmony and consistency between science and religious beliefs.

The objections of not being there is not coherent simply based the nature of objective verifiable evidence.

Nothing in science is first hand except for an experiment done in the now, and the experiments and observations in the history of humanity can simply be repeated and the results are always basically the same. We are not there in any way beyond the present moment. Science is based on predictability of processes in the past, and the future, and at present all the evidence known based on consistent and predictive success of the methods of science.

For example: The tree stumps and roots, mud cracks, leaf impressions,worm tracks, and raindrop marks found in the lamella layers in repeated layers of shale found hundreds of feet below the surface of the earth sis not form any different than those observed forming in musd today.

Another important observation throughout the history of the earth is weathering and deposition of the rocks of the earth. We can directly observe this gradual weathering and breakdown over time today as mountains gradually break down and the sediments from these mountains form the river, lake, and ocean deposits gradually over time. We can see evidence of the same gradual weathering and depositions in the rocks for many thousands of feet of cyclic deposits, as well as vast limestone deposits that cannot be formed any other way but gradual carbonate deposition in shallow seas like we observe in seas like around Bermuda, ocean islands and the Great Barrier Reef.

There is absolutely no evidence of any significant change in these natural processes nor time itself are different now than in the past billions of years of earth's history.

You may refer to one of the many threads that have addressed this question in the past, or start a thread to further discuss this.

The subject of this thread is Brahman and monotheism. Second thought I will cut and past this post, and start a thread in Science and Religion, since it is a more appropriate place for this dialogue

An interesting question... but
If natural laws and natural processes were to change over time , then what evidence would we expect there to be of it?

 

[shunyadragon]

An interesting question... but
If natural laws and natural processes were to change over time , then what evidence would we expect there to be of it?

You would have some sort of marked disruption or change that would be detectable. There are some gradual predictable changes that can be observed with time based on our relationship with the sun and the moon. We can observe these gradual changes today as the change in the distance to the sun and the moon. These changes can be measured today and observed in the sediments of the rocks over millions of years. I do not remember the exact measurements, but I can get references for this if you want.

The point here is that the changes we observe in the relationship between the sun, earth, and the moon over time today, and what we see in the geologic record is consistent with the natural laws and processes over time not changing over time.

 

[shunyadragon]

View attachment 38668




just an observation:
...yet the geological rift in Africa has overturned that steady state idea by doing in a short time span what geology has long held to take hundreds of thousands of years, thus the theory has been called into question.
as all human theories, we know so little from our brief time spent on this rock, yet we talk so knowledgeably as if we were some kind of authorities on these matters.
curious tendency, isn't it?

Yes our knowledge of the earth and cosmos has changed and improved over time, which is how science works. We have a great deal of knowledge of our earth an cosmos, and it is not dependent on our brief period on earth. It is based on the objective verifiable evidence. Yes, not all questions have been answered, if it were science would end. Even Einstein believed in a static universe at first, but our knowledge changes over time, and we know believe in a dynamic expanding universe, and the possibility of multiverses beyond our own.

No, the hypothesis of continental drift is not called into question, The evidence of continental drift is very very slow and recorded in the rocks over billions of years based on uniform Natural Laws and natural processes.

The proposition of science and this thread is that the natural laws and natural processes do not change over time. The consistence and predictability of our physical existence is the basis of all the theories and hypothesis of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Weren't there quite a few changes in the first few nanoseconds of the Big Bang? Of course, that was not the proximal cause of the earth.

Changes in what? Not the fundamental natural laws that underlie the nature of our universe. If there were changes than the cosmology and physics of Quantum Mechanics would defy predictability. Quantum Mechanics may be chaotic in behavior, but its potential unpredictability is predictable behavior.

The nature of the possible singularity are predictable and consistent with our knowledge of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, what conclusion is being drawn from this observation, if any?

It is not a conclusion based on one observation. It is the consistency and predictability of the nature of our universe that over the history of science that leads to the falsifiability of theories and hypothesis that are the foundation of science.

 

[PureX]

It is not a conclusion based on one observation. It is the consistency and predictability of the nature of our universe that over the history of science that leads to the falsifiability of theories and hypothesis that are the foundation of science.

Well, it is the perceived consistency and predictability of physical function as we humans experience it.

But you still have not told me the conclusion that you're drawing from this.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, it is the perceived consistency and predictability of physical function as we humans experience it.

But you still have not told me the conclusion that you're drawing from this.

The scientific methods that are the basis of all theories and hypothesis are based on the uniformity of our physical existence. If our physical existence is not predicable and consistent than science cannot work. A hypothesis or theory makes predictions of nature, and if the hypothesis or theory fails the test it fails the hypothesis or theory is false.

The conclusion are the theories and hypothesis that are successful and define the scientific knowledge. Most theories and hypothesis are not static, but may change and evolve as they are tested over time.

 

[PureX]

The scientific methods that are the basis of all theories and hypothesis are based on the uniformity of our physical existence. If our physical existence is not predicable and consistent than science cannot work. A hypothesis or theory makes predictions of nature, and if the hypothesis or theory fails the test it fails the hypothesis or theory is false.

The conclusion are the theories and hypothesis that are successful and define the scientific knowledge. Most theories and hypothesis are not static, but may change and evolve as they are tested over time.

What does this lead you to conclude about the nature of (your/our) existence? If anything?

I would note several things for consideration, here. One is that science does not reach a state of conclusion. It's simply an ongoing exploration of perceived possibilities. And these are interactive physical possibilities, only. The other is that for anything to exist, requires order. Existence cannot happen randomly. Even if it could logically occur, randomly, it couldn't sustain itself randomly.

 

[shunyadragon]

What does this lead you to conclude about the nature of (your/our) existence? If anything?

Not sure here of your point. Science is descriptive of nature: first for the purpose acquiring knowledge which is useful in technology and human advantage, Second which is a bit abstract and that is the desire to understand our physical existence for the shire desire to understand nature.

I would note several things for consideration, here. One is that science does not reach a state of conclusion.

True

It's simply an ongoing exploration of perceived possibilities. And these are interactive physical possibilities, only.

This wording is not clear. Science by its nature is descriptive based on the consistency and predictability of the nature of our physical existence.

The other is that for anything to exist, requires order,.Existence cannot happen randomly. Even if it could logically occur, randomly, it couldn't sustain itself randomly.

True nature does not happen randomly, ie without consistent and predictable cause and effect. First, by the definition randomness has not been observed in nature except for the outcome of individual events within the range allowed by natural laws. The chains of events in nature a fractal within the ranges allowed by the laws of nature.

I am not sure where we disagree. It may be the terms you are using are not the same use as mine.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

All the evidence we have is that the Laws of Nature have existed unchanged since the Big Bang. This is also the default position. To posit differently, you would have to have strong evidence.

The speed of the African rift does not go against Plate tectonics. Some of its actions are slow, others are comparatively fast. The Andes are growing almost an inch a year. The Himalayas are growing 2.4 inches!!! Other processes are incredibly slow or not moving at all, i.e. earthquake faults that no longer move or mountains that no longer rise (but in fact are now being worn down into hills).

 

[shunyadragon]

All the evidence we have is that the Laws of Nature have existed unchanged since the Big Bang. This is also the default position. To posit differently, you would have to have strong evidence.

The speed of the African rift does not go against Plate tectonics. Some of its actions are slow, others are comparatively fast. The Andes are growing almost an inch a year. The Himalayas are growing 2.4 inches!!! Other processes are incredibly slow or not moving at all, i.e. earthquake faults that no longer move or mountains that no longer rise (but in fact are now being worn down into hills).

The rate of movement of rift valleys around the world from very slow to very rapid The Mid-Atlantic Rift zone is among the fastest.

Understanding plate motions [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]

The consequences of plate movement are easy to see around Krafla Volcano, in the northeastern part of Iceland. Here, existing ground cracks have widened and new ones appear every few months. From 1975 to 1984, numerous episodes of rifting (surface cracking) took place along the Krafla fissure zone. Some of these rifting events were accompanied by volcanic activity; the ground would gradually rise 1-2 m before abruptly dropping, signalling an impending eruption. Between 1975 and 1984, the displacements caused by rifting totalled about 7 m.