a question for creationists...

[Merlin]

I do find it interesting that you would have a problem with God creating something, but no problem with virtual particles popping into existance, and dismissing it as just the way reality is.

 

[Naraoia]

Well, it the case of the former, it attempts to provide a reason for species without GOD. In the case of the later, they only try to explain how they work. They do not attack the Creator. Evolution attacks both creation and the Creator, as unnecessary.

Your creator still has, and I think will always have, a place before the beginning of the world. And anyway, science doesn't really have anything to say about God, except that he probably didn't and doesn't do many of the things attributed to him in holy books.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I do find it interesting that you would have a problem with God creating something, but no problem with virtual particles popping into existance, and dismissing it as just the way reality is.

Did anyone say they had a "problem" with God creating something? I personally find no evidence for that event. If such evidence were provided surely you would show it?

You see, the vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles come about as a result of the mathematics. If the effect were not in some way verifiable as in the Casimir Effect or the spontaneous emission of a photon during the decay of an excited atom, then perhaps it would just be in the realm of a "maybe". Or a nifty thought experiment. I will gladly admit much of quantum is beyond my skills. However, I reap its benefits on a daily basis.

But Quantum Mechanics and the data underlying vacuum fluctuations has at least some imperative or reason to believe it exists.

God? Sure, if you can provide some data to suggest he likely exists, it can be assessed. The God Hypothesis currently is defined as pretty much unfalsifiable, and therefore can't really be reckoned in science.

The very second you folks on the religious side find a way to indepently verify God and a good model to allow us to test any assumption you make with the God Hypothesis, then everyone will be glad to consider it.

 

[Naraoia]

I do find it interesting that you would have a problem with God creating something, but no problem with virtual particles popping into existance, and dismissing it as just the way reality is.

I think the effects of virtual particles (or something that seemed to be the effect of virtual particles) has been demonstrated, but I'm sure the physicists know more about that than I do Virtual particles are a creepy concept, but if the evidence says they are there we have little choice but to accept their existence for the time being.

That's my reason why I have far less problem with virtual particles than I have with God or creation. The latter seem to have no demonstrable and clearly attributable effect on the world.

 

[Merlin]

Well, certainly, it is nice to hear things other than evolution that you argue against. Most creationists and the like tend to argue against evolution predicated not on any solid scientific stance but rather a dislike of what they think evolution says about them or their god.

Because, unlike renormalization in QED the fundamentals of evolution are pretty hard to argue against. It's a pretty solid model that explains almost all of the variability in the data using the minimum number of factors, all of which are verifiable and proven to do what they need to do (genetic drift, genetic changes, passive filter of natural selection, etc.)

Creationists and YEC tend to focus on these topics precisely because they think they can have a say on it without doing much if any actual learning before pontificating.

Now, granted, I have yet to see you actually discuss a scientific issue on this board but I'm sure I've not seen all your posts. I've seen you make claims of scientific knowledge which you will not carry further, but I am equally sure that my experience is not everything you have.

It would be nice if you would actually discuss the science of something to some greater depth than merely saying you are capable of it.

I think every scientist on this board would welcome an actual scientific discussion.

I have not 'argued against' evolution or any other theory.
I have merely stated I don't go along with the theory.
You may not have noticed, but this is not an agrue science theory forum.
I have no intention of having such a discussion, which by it's very nature would leave readers here unable to follow.

The theories are not provable anyway.
At best we can argue/discuss the usefulness of the model and how well the model predicts other useful data, but not absolutely prove.

 

[Merlin]

I think the effects of virtual particles (or something that seemed to be the effect of virtual particles) has been demonstrated, but I'm sure the physicists know more about that than I do Virtual particles are a creepy concept, but if the evidence says they are there we have little choice but to accept their existence for the time being.

That's my reason why I have far less problem with virtual particles than I have with God or creation. The latter seem to have no demonstrable and clearly attributable effect on the world.

It's never been shown such particles exist, only that the math allows them to exist..
That they do exist is taken on faith

 

[Merlin]

The very second you folks on the religious side find a way to indepently verify God and a good model to allow us to test any assumption you make with the God Hypothesis, then everyone will be glad to consider it.

That God does not fit in the current limited box of scientific study does not mean that there is no such thing.

It just means the current scientific methodology is limited.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, it the case of the former, it attempts to provide a reason for species without GOD.

The Germ Theory of Disease attempts to provide a reason for disease without God. The Theory of Gravity attempts to providea reason for the bending of spacetime without God. Why don't you have a problem with these other theories?

In the case of the later, they only try to explain how they work. They do not attack the Creator.

Evolution explains how biodiversification works. How is that an attack on the supposed Creator?

This would make Germ theory an attack on disease causing demons and the Theory of Gravity an attack on gravity fairies.

Evolution attacks both creation and the Creator, as unnecessary.

Germ Theory and the Theory of Gravity do the same.

 

[gamespotter10]

It's never been shown such particles exist, only that the math allows them to exist..
That they do exist is taken on faith

umm, no. we most definitely have seen and measured virtual particles.
you can read more about it here

 

[Merlin]

umm, no. we most definitely have seen and measured virtual particles.
you can read more about it here

You can believe that if you wish
I don't mind.

 

[LittleNipper]

The Germ Theory of Disease attempts to provide a reason for disease without God. The Theory of Gravity attempts to providea reason for the bending of spacetime without God. Why don't you have a problem with these other theories?



Evolution explains how biodiversification works. How is that an attack on the supposed Creator?

This would make Germ theory an attack on disease causing demons and the Theory of Gravity an attack on gravity fairies.



Germ Theory and the Theory of Gravity do the same.

the theory of gravity does not try to tell people where gravity came into existance. It simply tries to explain how it works... The Germ Theory of Disease only really attempts to convey how illness is spread and why. Evolution is designed to show how a man developed from a worm. If evolution only attempted to show why man may act as one, no one would care.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can believe that if you wish
I don't mind.

What role does belief play? From the linked article in the post above:

Quarks are particles much like electrons, but different in that they also interact via the strong force. Two of the lighter quarks, the so-called "up" and "down" quarks, bind together to make up protons and neutrons. The "top" quark is the heaviest of the six types of quarks. In the early 1990s it had been predicted to exist but had not been directly seen in any experiment. At the LEP collider at the European particle physics laboratory CERN, millions of Z bosons--the particles that mediate neutral weak interactions--were produced and their mass was very accurately measured. The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the mass of the Z boson, but the measured value differed a little. This small difference could be explained in terms of the time the Z spent as a virtual top quark if such a top quark had a certain mass. When the top quark mass was directly measured a few years later at the Tevatron collider at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, the value agreed with that obtained from the virtual particle analysis, providing a dramatic test of our understanding of virtual particles.

Another very good test some readers may want to look up, which we do not have space to describe here, is the Casimir effect, where forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles.​

Scientists can measure them, so I guess they aren't that virtual anymore.

 

[LittleNipper]

Your creator still has, and I think will always have, a place before the beginning of the world. And anyway, science doesn't really have anything to say about God, except that he probably didn't and doesn't do many of the things attributed to him in holy books.

That means that GOD is NOT much of a god in "scientific terms...." I disagree. GOD created everything and without HIM there is not anything (time, matter, space) that would exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

the theory of gravity does not try to tell people where gravity came into existance. It simply tries to explain how it works...

The theory of evolution does not try to tell people where life came or where the mechanisms of evolution came from. It simply tries to explain how biodiversification works.

The Germ Theory of Disease only really attempts to convey how illness is spread and why.

And it does so without mentioning God.

Evolution is designed to show how a man developed from a worm. If evolution only attempted to show why man may act as one, no one would care.

Evolution does not state that man came from a worm. Where did you here this?

Anyway, why do you reject evolution because it does not mention God but accept other theories that do not mention God. Why the inconsistency?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I have not 'argued against' evolution or any other theory.
I have merely stated I don't go along with the theory.

My bad.

You may not have noticed, but this is not an agrue science theory forum.
I have no intention of having such a discussion, which by it's very nature would leave readers here unable to follow.

There you go again. You won't discuss it because we couldn't follow it. Your erudition must be amazing!

Too bad you almost never actually show more than a fleeting glimpse.

I gather from your other posts that you don't actually care about science per se, but "arguing" over theories you disagree with is precisely how solid theories are developed.

You simply seem to like to flit in and make a few vague statements, claim more knowledge than you present, and then wander away.

I had rather hoped you would have broken that particular cycle. Apparently I was wrong. I was kind of interested in your discussion of optics or QED, but you quashed that PDQ. So let's get back to evolution and creationism etc.

The theories are not provable anyway.
At best we can argue/discuss the usefulness of the model and how well the model predicts other useful data, but not absolutely prove.

So what's wrong with the model? Does any scientist ever claim "absolute proof"? None that I've met, certainly none who are doing their job correctly.

I doubt you have much science background, but I could be wrong. As I've begged of you before, roll out the hard-core science. We'd all like to see it.

If you have it, state it.

I'll freely admit I'm not a quantum expert, but I'll gladly discuss geology and paleontology, and chemistry. These things have bearing here.

What are your limitations?

 

[thaumaturgy]

It's never been shown such particles exist, only that the math allows them to exist..
That they do exist is taken on faith

CALLING ALL PHYSICISTS: Can we get a rundown on the Casimir Effect from someone on here in the know?

we can't observe virtual particles directly. But the presence of virtual particles does have measurable consequences. One measurable effect is the Casimir effect, which will cause a weak force between very closely spaced plates(SOURCE)

For many years the Casimir effect was little more than a theoretical curiosity. But interest in the phenomenon has blossomed in recent years. Experimental physicists have realized that the Casimir force affects the workings of micromachined devices, while advances in instrumentation have enabled the force to be measured with ever-greater accuracy. (SOURCE)

The Casimir effect is a small attractive force which acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. It is due to quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field.(SOURCE)

 

[thaumaturgy]

That means that GOD is much of a god in "scientific terms...." I disagree. GOD created everything and without HIM there is not anything (time, matter, space) that would exist.

How would you know this? Is there any actual proof? Or is it because you were told this by the Bible?

That's the point. That's why Naraoia is right in saying science doesn't have much to say about God. It is like asking scientists to always keep in mind Gluflible Energy when they do their experiments.

Show us something compelling that will make it necessary that God be the creator.

And further, make it abundantly clear that YOUR PARTICULAR God is the obvious candidate for this role.

And that the requirements YOUR PARTICULAR God has are THE ONLY REAL REQUIREMENTS of a deity.

 

[Merlin]

My bad.

There you go again. You won't discuss it because we couldn't follow it. Your erudition must be amazing!

Too bad you almost never actually show more than a fleeting glimpse.

I gather from your other posts that you don't actually care about science per se, but "arguing" over theories you disagree with is precisely how solid theories are developed.

You simply seem to like to flit in and make a few vague statements, claim more knowledge than you present, and then wander away.

I had rather hoped you would have broken that particular cycle. Apparently I was wrong. I was kind of interested in your discussion of optics or QED, but you quashed that PDQ. So let's get back to evolution and creationism etc.



So what's wrong with the model? Does any scientist ever claim "absolute proof"? None that I've met, certainly none who are doing their job correctly.

I doubt you have much science background, but I could be wrong. As I've begged of you before, roll out the hard-core science. We'd all like to see it.

If you have it, state it.

I'll freely admit I'm not a quantum expert, but I'll gladly discuss geology and paleontology, and chemistry. These things have bearing here.

What are your limitations?

I do not mean to suggest you personally could not follow a discussion of QED, only of a gerality of readers here.

I don't claim the models are 'wrong' either. Just limited.
Models such as God created... are just as valid to me as any theory of evolution.
I take it on faith.
I know that.
Many here do not understand that they take their beliefs as fact. They deny they have a faith in their belief. It is fact to them.

I gather from your other posts that you don't actually care about science per se, but "arguing" over theories you disagree with is precisely how solid theories are developed.

While I agree, I do not consider this forum the approprite place for such arguments.

I doubt you have much science background, but I could be wrong. As I've begged of you before, roll out the hard-core science. We'd all like to see it.

As i've pointed out before,
everything does not fit in the current scientific paradigm box for testing.
I wish it did.

 

[gamespotter10]

I do not mean to suggest you personally could not follow a discussion of QED, only of a gerality of readers here.

I don't claim the models are 'wrong' either. Just limited.
Models such as God created... are just as valid to me as any theory of evolution.
I take it on faith.
I know that.
Many here do not understand that they take their beliefs as fact. They deny they have a faith in their belief. It is fact to them.


While I agree, I do not consider this forum the approprite place for such arguments.

As i've pointed out before,
everything does not fit in the current scientific paradigm box for testing.
I wish it did.

evolution is based on evidence gathered, NOT faith, no matter how much you would like to believe it to be.

and about virtual particles, this video made by KT45 describes the experiment which casimir used to discover virtual particles.

 

[Merlin]

evolution is based on evidence gathered, NOT faith, no matter how much you would like to believe it to be.

and about virtual particles, this video made by KT45 describes the experiment which casimir used to discover virtual particles.

You see how hard it is for one who takes science on faith to acknowledge the faith.