Creationism - good or bad?

[crawfish]

Most of so-called "nature" is not known at all. You can't predict the weather, so you know very little about it. Knowing so little, you have no idea where the boundary between "natural" and "supernatural" should lie.

You don't even know whether there is a supernatural reason why you weren't hit by an asteroid why you slept. You have no idead. So why pretend to know the difference between natural and supernatural?

We can predict the weather earlier and more accurately than we could 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. Just because we do not yet have perfect understanding does NOT mean that one day we will not be able to predict it with near-perfect reliability. And it definitely does not mean we should not continue to learn.

I believe that, to God, there is no real distinction between "natural" and "supernatural". All are "natural" to Him. However, there are things we can learn, grow and depend on. Actions and reactions that occur consistently. There is also no question that God works in ways that are NOT repeatable - these are what are generally considered miracles. We cannot test miracles, we cannot test for them in the laboratory, we cannot use them to base theory on. They are aberrations to the normal functioning of the universe.

Personally, I see no need in trying to find scientific justification for miracles. I see great value in learning and utilizing the consistent laws of nature. And I see God's hand in both.

 

[busterdog]

We can predict the weather earlier and more accurately than we could 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. Just because we do not yet have perfect understanding does NOT mean that one day we will not be able to predict it with near-perfect reliability. And it definitely does not mean we should not continue to learn.

Excuse me. Lets be responsive.

The fact that some days you get better doesn't mean that you are ever going to solve the big problems. You are extrapolating.

How about Bell's theorem? That suggests the future of science might be as good as "supernatural." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Why must we avoid the obvious, day in and day out here? If we are extrapolating, just say it. No one doubts weather science has had some success.

I believe that, to God, there is no real distinction between "natural" and "supernatural". All are "natural" to Him. However, there are things we can learn, grow and depend on. Actions and reactions that occur consistently. There is also no question that God works in ways that are NOT repeatable - these are what are generally considered miracles.

OK for God. My problem is that people pretend to make distinctions between natural and supernatural, or at a minimum, pretend to know where that boundary lies.

We cannot test miracles, we cannot test for them in the laboratory, we cannot use them to base theory on. They are aberrations to the normal functioning of the universe.

No. Scientists can and do test for miracles all the time. Sometimes they are in evidence, sometimes not. Duke is famous for this kind of thing. You may not like to test for it because it is prone to crackpots, but that doesn't mean you can't test for it.

Go back to Bell's theorem. Tell me that isn't science testing for miracles.

Personally, I see no need in trying to find scientific justification for miracles. I see great value in learning and utilizing the consistent laws of nature. And I see God's hand in both.

The point is that there aren't completely consistent rules for nature that men can perceive. This is about man's limited knowledge. This is about the inevitability of supernatural problems because we don't have the brains to get on in this life by our our means.

 

[Paul365]

How about Bell's theorem? That suggests the future of science might be as good as "supernatural." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Who told you that? Bell's theorem is a simple consequence of Quantum Mechanics. It is no more "supernatural" than Newton's gravity law.

My problem is that people pretend to make distinctions between natural and supernatural, or at a minimum, pretend to know where that boundary lies.

Why do you think that there is a boundary? Science does not place boundaries between the natural and the supernatural, it just places boundaries between what we know and what we don't know. And those boundaries are moving quickly.

Sure, science hasn't yet discovered all nature laws that God made to govern the world. This might take another 100 years or maybe we'll never find a final theory of everything. But that does certainly not mean everything that science does not yet know is "supernatural".

Science goes ahead and our knowledge about nature grows from year to year. This would leave less and less room for your supernatural demons. So far, with all telescopes and microscopes and other instruments of science, never ever a demonical force was observed. Should that not tell you that there might be something wrong with your belief in those forces?

 

[busterdog]

Who told you that? Bell's theorem is a simple consequence of Quantum Mechanics. It is no more "supernatural" than Newton's gravity law.

Except not you and not anyone else knows how "gravitons" work or why gravity is different that strong/weak nuclear forces.

Bell's theorem is an attempt to explain bizarre phenomena. It is the barest grasp on what is happening at that level.

Don't be such a chicken. Its not a real difficult point.

 

[shernren]

Wow. You just got pwned, shern. You must be devastated.

Indeed, Mallon; my heart is break.

Why is more the use of more words better?

Shernren knows that there isn't a conclusive unified field theory. There are lots of idea, but we just aren't there. This is OBVIOUS. So obvious that it is rather obtuse to posit that we do understand what holds an atom together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory

This is not even discussing the nature of theorized particles that comprise these other constituents of the atom. That is, theorized, but not proven, not predictable and not understood.

Because we don't have a conclusive unified field theory, we don't understand what holds an atom together?

Well, here's what reality looks like:

At a fundamental level, atoms are really just electrons orbiting around a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons, which are basically quarks held together by gluons. That's really it.

What are the fields involved in this model? There are three: the electromagnetic field, the strong nuclear field, and the weak nuclear field. The electromagnetic field keeps the electrons around the nucleus. The strong nuclear field keeps the nucleus together. The weak nuclear field - well that one just messes the individual quarks up once in a while to give us the interesting phenomenon of beta decay. And believe it or not, we have had a fairly complete description of each of them since about 1940; the most recent important developments with any of those independent fields was in the 70's with the discovery of CP symmetry violation by the weak nuclear force and experimental confirmation of quarks and gluons for the strong nuclear force.

Busterdog has ranted about unified field theories. Firstly, yes, as far as I know, there is no adequate field theory unifying gravity with the other three forces - however, gravity is not required in an atom. Gravity is an exceedingly weak force on anything other than solar-system scales. Not convinced? Stand up and jump in the air - you've just overcome the gravitational pull of an entire planet, if only for a second. The elementary particles that make up an atom have extremely low mass. Gravity is simply overwhelmed by every other force at work.

So what unified field theories are there for the three "atomic forces"? Surprisingly enough, we have a lot of ideas, mostly in the form of GUTs - Grand Unification Theories; we just haven't tested any of them yet. Do you know why? Because just about all the ones we have right now yield identical predictions within the energy range of any current supercolliders. In particular, none of them predict any difference at the atomic level from what we already knew about the forces before this. At the energy level where unified fields matter ... there are no atoms.

I don't have my book on quantum measurement with me right now - it's in transit with a friend from Melbourne, due to weight restrictions. But essentially, Bell's theorem is a statistical statement that allows us to distinguish between a hidden-variables approach to quantum mechanics and a true indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. In every experiment performed thus far Bell's theorem has checked out, leaving less and less margin for any hidden-variables formulation. Miracle? Hardly. Just good science at work.

Please, rest assured that we physicists know what we're doing.

 

[shernren]

Except not you and not anyone else knows how "gravitons" work or why gravity is different that strong/weak nuclear forces.

Bell's theorem is an attempt to explain bizarre phenomena. It is the barest grasp on what is happening at that level.

Don't be such a chicken. Its not a real difficult point.

What, precisely, is the "difficult point"?

If it is that we scientists still don't know some things, then by all means I accept that. If we knew absolutely everything there is to know about the universe, I'd be out of a job! I've quoted dark matter scientists as saying they don't know what dark matter is, and dark energy scientists as saying they don't know what dark energy is. There are chef-scientists out there who complain that they know less about the interior of a souffle than about the interior of a star. There's lots to learn. There's lots to discover. There's never been a better time to be a scientist.

If, instead, it is that we scientists still don't know anything, then I think you are sadly mistaken. If you think that our lack of knowledge in some areas somehow illegitimizes our claim to know certain things, then, well, you're simply being unreasonable. A mechanic can fix your car battery without knowing Nernst's equation. A doctor can fix your body without knowing the contents of your genome. And the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that we can be sure that whatever final theory of biology we discover, it will place humans as squarely with the apes as it does with mammals.

The simple fact of the matter is that any theory which claims to supersede another theory must first explain every single piece of data that the prior theory explained, and then be able to explain more than the previous theory did, as well as make different testable predictions compared to the previous theory. None of the fringe theorists you have supported thus far - whether it be Setterfield, Arp, or even the AiG folks - have been able to do that. None of your theorists have derived baryonic acoustic oscillations. Nor has redshift quantization been detected in the 2dF survey, using the exact same criteria that "detected" it earlier. Setterfield's theory predicts that the Earth during Adam's time didn't have an atmosphere.

And you think we scientists have problems?

 

[crawfish]

The point is that there aren't completely consistent rules for nature that men can perceive. This is about man's limited knowledge. This is about the inevitability of supernatural problems because we don't have the brains to get on in this life by our our means.

What I think is you have such a desire to keep God in the box you can comprehend you're willing to grasp at whatever straws you can find.

It's not about how ignorant we are, or how dependent we are on God. I have no problem agreeing that we know, relatively, very little. However, we know more today than we did yesterday, and will know more tomorrow. And each new bit of knowledge will reveal more about the glory of God.

 

[Paul365]

Except not you and not anyone else knows how "gravitons" work or why gravity is different that strong/weak nuclear forces.

Bell's theorem is an attempt to explain bizarre phenomena. It is the barest grasp on what is happening at that level.

Don't be such a chicken. Its not a real difficult point.

I suggest before posting slogans like "Bells Theorem", check it out first, for instance by reading the link that you've posted. Then you'll notice that Bells theorem has absolutely nothing to do with "gravitons" or the supernatural.

Just a suggestion that might save you some embarrassment.

Quantum theory can look bizarre at a first glance, but it's perfectly logical. God has carefully crafted the nature laws so that we can understand them.

 

[busterdog]

I suggest before posting slogans like "Bells Theorem", check it out first, for instance by reading the link that you've posted. Then you'll notice that Bells theorem has absolutely nothing to do with "gravitons" or the supernatural.

Just a suggestion that might save you some embarrassment.

Quantum theory can look bizarre at a first glance, but it's perfectly logical. God has carefully crafted the nature laws so that we can understand them.

Well, I guess we are done.

Like most evolutionists, you have no imagination or logic available for the reading of a YEC post. I never said that the link mentioned gravitons. Why does that matter? It doesn't except for obtuse posts like yours about straw men and recasting what others say so that you can belittle them.

 

[busterdog]

What, precisely, is the "difficult point"?

If it is that we scientists still don't know some things, then by all means I accept that. If we knew absolutely everything there is to know about the universe, I'd be out of a job! I've quoted dark matter scientists as saying they don't know what dark matter is, and dark energy scientists as saying they don't know what dark energy is. There are chef-scientists out there who complain that they know less about the interior of a souffle than about the interior of a star. There's lots to learn. There's lots to discover. There's never been a better time to be a scientist.

If, instead, it is that we scientists still don't know anything, then I think you are sadly mistaken. If you think that our lack of knowledge in some areas somehow illegitimizes our claim to know certain things, then, well, you're simply being unreasonable. A mechanic can fix your car battery without knowing Nernst's equation. A doctor can fix your body without knowing the contents of your genome. And the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that we can be sure that whatever final theory of biology we discover, it will place humans as squarely with the apes as it does with mammals.

The simple fact of the matter is that any theory which claims to supersede another theory must first explain every single piece of data that the prior theory explained, and then be able to explain more than the previous theory did, as well as make different testable predictions compared to the previous theory. None of the fringe theorists you have supported thus far - whether it be Setterfield, Arp, or even the AiG folks - have been able to do that. None of your theorists have derived baryonic acoustic oscillations. Nor has redshift quantization been detected in the 2dF survey, using the exact same criteria that "detected" it earlier. Setterfield's theory predicts that the Earth during Adam's time didn't have an atmosphere.

And you think we scientists have problems?

Good for you. Gee, I am really (not) surpised that you can list all the things you do know and ignore the things you don't.

No more fundamental problems in physics.

Put me down as a reference for your Nobel Prize candidacy.

 

[Dannager]

Not to be a downer or anything, but posts like the above two don't really contribute anything worthwhile to the thread, busterdog. If you want to do your position a favor, you should probably shy away from the whining and start defending it.

Because man, does it ever need defending.

 

[juvenissun]

The simple fact of the matter is that any theory which claims to supersede another theory must first explain every single piece of data that the prior theory explained, and then be able to explain more than the previous theory did, as well as make different testable predictions compared to the previous theory.

This is only a classroom talk. In reality, what you said never happen. Besides, if some scientist did what you said, then he or she would NEVER get anywhere throughout an entire life, no matter how hard he or she works.

A good science work makes "break through" and not to be bogged down by stupid existing data, which originated from stupid idea. (I am not saying those data are not useful, though.)

Sorry for the side-tracking. Could not resist by reading your comments.

 

[Paul365]

Well, I guess we are done.

Like most evolutionists, you have no imagination or logic available for the reading of a YEC post. I never said that the link mentioned gravitons. Why does that matter? It doesn't except for obtuse posts like yours about straw men and recasting what others say so that you can belittle them.

I see that you're becoming a little embittered. That was not my intention.

I didn't want to belittle you, I just could not follow you in your belief in supernatural demonical forces and in your claim that Bells Theorem is a proof of the supernatural. If you don't want to believe me, ask any physics student - it's a well known theorem of Quantum Mechanics and has nothing to do with the supernatural.

You're free to discuss the supernatural further and in fact I would like to learn what made you believe in supernatural forces.

 

[busterdog]

I see that you're becoming a little embittered. That was not my intention.

I didn't want to belittle you, I just could not follow you in your belief in supernatural demonical forces and in your claim that Bells Theorem is a proof of the supernatural. If you don't want to believe me, ask any physics student - it's a well known theorem of Quantum Mechanics and has nothing to do with the supernatural.

You're free to discuss the supernatural further and in fact I would like to learn what made you believe in supernatural forces.

Not becoming. Am embittered. Not elsewhere. Just here.

Why does a what a physics student's opinion mean anything?

It is an analogy. Its a functional equivalent of. Its practically the same as in some aspects. Disagreement is not disproof. Its all edgy and theoretical. Why is being creative a problem?

 

[shernren]

What, precisely, is the "difficult point"?

If it is that we scientists still don't know some things, then by all means I accept that. If we knew absolutely everything there is to know about the universe, I'd be out of a job! I've quoted dark matter scientists as saying they don't know what dark matter is, and dark energy scientists as saying they don't know what dark energy is. There are chef-scientists out there who complain that they know less about the interior of a souffle than about the interior of a star. There's lots to learn. There's lots to discover. There's never been a better time to be a scientist.

(emphases added)

Good for you. Gee, I am really (not) surpised that you can list all the things you do know and ignore the things you don't.

No more fundamental problems in physics.

Put me down as a reference for your Nobel Prize candidacy.

I can be accused of ignoring the things I don't know ... in direct response to a post where I quote dark matter scientists not knowing what dark matter is and dark energy scientists not knowing what dark energy is.

Why should I trust creationists to be literal with the Bible when they're liberal with everyone else?

As it is, the Nobel Prize for Physics as recently as 2006 went to the folks who discovered the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation - which is yet another piece of evidence for the Big Bang. Physicists (or anyone in Nobel Prize fields, for that matter) don't apply for the Prize, by the way; they are nominated and selected by a committee.

The discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy, of course, raised a whole lot of questions, a lot of them to do with dark matter and dark energy. But every answer that raises a thousand questions ... is still an answer. That's what you're not taking into account.

Anyway, if the universe seems to have a vendetta against fringe physicists, that really isn't my fault. Take it up with God.

 

[busterdog]

(emphases added)
I can be accused of ignoring the things I don't know ... in direct response to a post where I quote dark matter scientists not knowing what dark matter is and dark energy scientists not knowing what dark energy is.

Because we don't have a conclusive unified field theory, we don't understand what holds an atom together?

Well, here's what reality looks like:

At a fundamental level, atoms are really just electrons orbiting around a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons, which are basically quarks held together by gluons. That's really it.

So, do we know why an atom is held together or don't we?

You tell me where the really tough parts are and I will be happy to tie it in. That way, we won't have this moving target.

 

[shernren]

So, do we know why an atom is held together or don't we?

You tell me where the really tough parts are and I will be happy to tie it in. That way, we won't have this moving target.

Will you read the stuff I quote?

We know what holds an atom together.

We don't know what dark matter is. Even though we know a whole lot about what it does.

I fail to see how that can be so hard to grasp.

 

[busterdog]

Will you read the stuff I quote?

We know what holds an atom together.

We don't know what dark matter is. Even though we know a whole lot about what it does.

I fail to see how that can be so hard to grasp.

That's what I thought.

I read what you wrote, that's why I asked.

No you don't know what holds an atom together. You can write about gluons, etc. all you want. You don't know where they came from, why they exist and when they will cease to exist.

Why are hypothetical particles even proposed to explain the behavior of such things?

Now for one final length scale - still smaller. This is the length scale at which quantum gravity should become important - the Planck length l. On the scale of the Planck length, it's possible that the structure of spacetime becomes quite different from the four-dimensional manifold we know and love. Spacetime itself becomes a foam (according to Wheeler) or a bucket of dust (according to Wheeler) or a bubbling sea of virtual black holes (according to Hawking) or a weave of knots or tangles (according to Ashtekar, Rovelli, and Smolin). In short, it's weird, but beyond that nobody really knows. To be more precise, the Planck length is the length scale at which quantum mechanics, gravity and relativity all interact very strongly. Thus it depends on hbar, c, and Newton's gravitational constant G.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/lengths.html#planck_length

As for black matter/energy, they are essential to the equation that is "Big Bang" by which you derive much of the theoretical origins of things like gluons. In short, it shares a number of the attributes of a tautology.

Is it fair to always reduce your science to absurdities? Its just what logic dictates. You could have said there is just alot we don't know about where these things come from. Is that different from knowing what holds the atom together? Well, everyone knows that the baby is held right there in the Mommy's tummy. Until you know how it got there, what do you know? You might as well be talking about storks at that point or other aspects of the supernatural.

Particle physics is fun and facinating. But, the ultimate truth of "origins" (the point of this forum) retreats from the grasp of the physcist. Is this not so? ANd if not, why not? Because we have made p rogress, do we simply assume there will be more? That is rather supernatural isn't it? Consider that physics has lead us to the conclusion that 90% or so of energy and matter can't be seen and we know little about what it is.

I am all for nobel prizes for the geniuses who use enormous power to discover these things. These are true accomplishments, but they are clearly limited. What the geniuses should be saying is that it is remarkable that God remains not just a step ahead of them, but that the deeper they go the more mystery there is. God's great unknown is only getting larger, not smaller. Should Stephen Hawking not be saying more about that than the hawking the accomplishments of science? The ratio of what we know to what we seem unable to know seems to be decreasing.

And after laboring famously and valiantly to approach the planck length in these many discoveries, how exactly is pushing the boundary of infinite mystery creating less infinite mystery? My math says it it isn't creating less infinity at all.

How is the boundary of particle physics less mysterious now than it was 100 years ago? Its all well and good to know that we are not talking about little marbles sticking together to make atoms. But, we are in no better of a position to understand, refute or prove the following:

Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

If the light at the end of the tunnel is infinitely bright, how is the length of the tunnel and the amount of digging of any significance before that ultimate issue of origins? It remains supernatural.

 

[Paul365]

No you don't know what holds an atom together. You can write about gluons, etc. all you want. You don't know where they came from, why they exist and when they will cease to exist.

Why are hypothetical particles even proposed to explain the behavior of such things?

Because gluons are no hypothetical particles. They are as real as atoms and molecules. Their properties can be measured with accelerator experiments.

There are still many hypothetical particles, such as the Higgs boson, but gluons are not hypothetical.

As for black matter/energy, they are essential to the equation that is "Big Bang" by which you derive much of the theoretical origins of things like gluons.

Here you also have misunderstood something. Dark matter and energy are indeed still hypothetical, but they do not depend on the Big Bang. They are derived from our today's observations, like the rotational speed of galaxies or the red shift. They have nothing to do with gluons nor do we derive the properties of gluons from dark matter or energy.

If you want to discuss today's frontier of physics, it would be of advantage to know a little more about it. There are some excellent books that offer an introduction in that topic, like "Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene.

In short, you're basically right that science does not yet know anything and there are still large white areas on the science map. Only the examples you're quoting are mostly ill chosen for supporting your cause, which gives the impression that you don't know much about the issues you're discussing.

 

[busterdog]

Because gluons are no hypothetical particles. They are as real as atoms and molecules. Their properties can be measured with accelerator experiments.

There are still many hypothetical particles, such as the Higgs boson, but gluons are not hypothetical.

Never said gluons were hypothical. Read what I said. Google hypothetical particles so that you can understand their relationship to things like gluons.

As for gluons being, real, well, that is a bit beside the point and unncessary.

Here you also have misunderstood something. Dark matter and energy are indeed still hypothetical, but they do not depend on the Big Bang. They are derived from our today's observations, like the rotational speed of galaxies or the red shift. They have nothing to do with gluons nor do we derive the properties of gluons from dark matter or energy.

Dark stuff is quantified on the basis of Big Bang cosmology. I am arguing about it, not missing it.

Red shift and rotational speed is a a little bit of evidence on the point, which largely beg enormous questions and are merely presumed, theoretically, to answer this one. Don't bother presuming to dismiss words like "largely" or "enormous". They are arguments. We are talking about opinion and perspective, not fact.

If you want to discuss today's frontier of physics, it would be of advantage to know a little more about it. There are some excellent books that offer an introduction in that topic, like "Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene.[

Evidently I know more than you, but you have license to post on these matters. I like to be rather heavy handed with condescension. Sometimes it helps to shorten a discussion that is going nowhere.

In short, you're basically right that science does not yet know anything and there are still large white areas on the science map. Only the examples you're quoting are mostly ill chosen for supporting your cause, which gives the impression that you don't know much about the issues you're discussing.

That's why I compared the nature of what is known to what is not know. Because I was admitting the white area on the map. I note that you have nothing to say about the black area on the map.