| Line 39: |
Line 39: |
| | | | |
| | ::That's really an answer here? Changing laws of physics? C'mon.... Will gravity be back tomorrow? I sure hope so. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:08, 5 May 2007 (EDT) | | ::That's really an answer here? Changing laws of physics? C'mon.... Will gravity be back tomorrow? I sure hope so. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:08, 5 May 2007 (EDT) |
| − |
| |
| − | :::To quote the immortal ballad “Star Trekin’ ” :
| |
| − | ::::Engineer, Mr. Scott:
| |
| − | ::::Ye cannot change the laws of physics, laws of physics, laws of physics;
| |
| − | ::::ye cannot change the laws of physics, laws of physics, Jim.
| |
| − | :::For what its worth.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:07, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | | | |
| | == the 50,000 year mark == | | == the 50,000 year mark == |
| Line 53: |
Line 47: |
| | | | |
| | I notice that one of the references used to support some of the stronger claims on this page is Creationwiki. Is that really a good source? Does it really belong here? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT) | | I notice that one of the references used to support some of the stronger claims on this page is Creationwiki. Is that really a good source? Does it really belong here? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT) |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| | Well, where else can you get references in support of creationism? | | Well, where else can you get references in support of creationism? |
| | | | |
| | [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] | | [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] |
| | + | |
| | + | : Feel free to find more neutral sites. I'll do it myself eventually. Nothing there is controversial. The first criticism of it, in fact, was that it was too obvious to include. |
| | + | |
| | + | : As to the other comments above, they are criticizing logic more than anything. Yes, many physicists (including Dirac) feel (have felt) that the laws of physics are not invariant over time. I'll find more cites but instead of distracting me on the talk page, you could find sites too. Someone said that life couldn't function unless C-14's half-life is constant. Really, do you think we need a 5000-year half life of C-14 to have life? None can exist without that fundamental decay rate? Physicists think other constants that are more fundamental have changed, so I don't attach much significance to a claim that C-14's decay rate cannot possibly change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT) |