Explaining the God particle

[Jamin4422]

Oh. Well maybe they evolved from birds real fast. Who knows?

They believe that God created them hundreds of millions of years ago and that the earth has been around for hundreds of billions of years.

 

[dad]

They believe that God created them hundreds of millions of years ago and that the earth has been around for hundreds of billions of years.

I understand what unbelievers believe.

 

[Tiberius]

I think my issue with your comment has more to do with the general "religion" being opposed to the general "science" than anything. It sounds like the conflict theory, where religion and science are two great titans gridlocked in a battle between the darkness of ignorance and the glorious light of reason.

Most of the scientific conflict in the U.S. is pretty isolated as far as the developed world is concerned. It's a very parochial attitude to see religion and science as warriors locked in combat because of that. I think that it's why the conflict theory has so much staying power here in America, but I also think that it's a narrow view.

When we have two different ideas that claim to provide explanations for the same thing, then one of them must be wrong. Science and religion both attempt to explain how the universe works, where life came from, etc. And they are very contradictory accounts.

 

[Tiberius]

There is no question as to whether Persia existed, or the king who issued the decree. There is no question how many years later Jesus existed. This means we have a predicted event from a certain point in time. It is a fool's game to be in denial.

No question as to how many years later the Jesus existed? Please provide non-Biblical sources that show when Jesus was born.

 

[Tiberius]

Right, so the story is known to be just entertainment, and not meant to be gospel. It is good in that it is realistic, and based on some reality and history. Obviously the comparison to the creation of God is merely an impish and dishonest attempt to brush off the issues.

Of course, people in 2000 years might think it was actually a record of what happened, not just entertainment, mightn't they?

 

[Tiberius]

Not to the extent that we are talking about here. To the extend that laws and forces would not be as they now are. To the extent that continents could move fast with no great heat for example. Or to the extent that trees could grow in weeks, or man live 1000 years. It is not an in box tweak of a change we are looking at.

But, yes you are tight, that they have to invoke changes to make their fable seem plausible!

And you invoke greater changes because your fable is more implausible.

 

[Tiberius]

Start posting some and we will see.

Excuse me, I do believe that GlobalWolf was asking YOU to provide the points.

If your only argument is to turn things back on the asker and say, "You can't prove I'm wrong, therefore I'm right," then it's a very weak argument.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

When we have two different ideas that claim to provide explanations for the same thing, then one of them must be wrong. Science and religion both attempt to explain how the universe works, where life came from, etc. And they are very contradictory accounts.

No offense, but this is what I was referring to earlier. Creationism isn't the dominant position within Christianity, at least not globally. I pretty well just accept that science is a valid part of the human endeavor, and that it can speak to the natural history of the Universe. This is the dominant position within Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (the two largest branches of Christianity, with one having over a billion adherents and the other having several hundred million), at least in developed parts of the world where this is really a debate that "matters". Evangelical Protestantism, which is a minority on the global scale, is the only branch of Christianity with a strong creationist current within itself. It's just that, here in the U.S., it happens to be the dominant branch, at least as far as conservative Christians are concerned.

Anyway:

Sorry. I tried to answer these earlier, but the window in my web browser went crazy and I had to kill it. Here goes.

What is non coding now may not have been the same long ago. Again you rely on present state physics.

Present state biochemistry is necessary for DNA to function as it does, and changes in the code would be necessary for pseudogenes (junk DNA, basically) to produce proteins. While those pseudogenes did look different in the past and did produce proteins, if they all did at once, you would have an extreme increase in the number of proteins in the cell. Some of them would fulfill the same purposes as one another, some of them would do nothing in a human cell, and the ill-effects could be extreme. The strain on the machinery of the cell would be a disaster for it, too, and it would have to have a drastic increase in its intake to keep up with the production of new proteins.

If I build a house in the desert and one in a swamp there would be similarities. So? We live on the same planet. We had the same designer.

I've heard this argument for coding DNA, which is why I chose to focus on the non-coding. Variations in coding DNA can make their own arguments for evolution, but non-coding DNA makes a stronger case because it generally isn't necessary and hasn't been in the past, for the reasons I just listed. Similarities in non-coding DNA suggest that unnecessary parts of the genetic code are almost entirely identical. This would be the same as two houses, one built on a desert and the other built in a swamp, having the same foundation with the same hand prints pressed in the cement while it was wet, and the same name written in the same way above those hand prints. If we look around the house in the swamp, discover that there is archaeological evidence that some civilization made the strange decision to irrigate a desert, and that the house is apparently built around the rubble of a previous house, then we can safely assume that they are built on the same foundation and are successors of one another.

Maybe post flood men were perverts. Maybe genes transferred another way...who knows? Not you. Your tactt is to assume all things happened in the days of the fathers as teyy happen now.

I realize where I made a mistake in how I put that. I don't mean that the chromosomes are chimp chromosomes in a human being. They are the same in the sense that they are as similar as all human chromosomes are to chimp chromosomes (which is very similar). It's just that our chromosome two looks like a combination of two chimp chromosomes, and has every marker that you would expect from two chromosomes that have combined.

No. Name one? Why make stuff up? Slow change? Based on...??

As a sophomore in biology, I did a report on tetrapod evolution. Basically, lung fish which would appear (I say this for the sake of argument, since I'll have to clarify later why it's not just an appearance) to be earlier in the fossil record are closer to fish, and lung fish which appear later are closer to land vertebrates. These can reasonably be inferred to be transitional forms. They become closer to land vertebrates slowly, and with a lot of detours, but over time they do get closer.

You can see the same thing with whales (land mammals repeated the amphibian process but in reserve, and whales now have vestigial limbs for walking on land), horses (the evolution of which many young Earth creationists accept), and birds (feathers first on dinosaurs, followed by gliding wings, followed by actual flight).

No. The assumption of present state decay being responsible for ratios in the far past is religion. Noo real dating is possible, just faith based evo dating.

I'm not a physicist, so I can't spell out exactly what would happen. Still, I know that with carbon 14 specifically, that would require an enormous increase in power of the weak nuclear force. To get the kind of decay rate that you would need for decay that rapid, it would probably have to be several orders of magnitude stronger. This would mean that most heavier isotopes would decay extremely rapidly, and the energy released would result in serious heating of the Universe. I know that the Institute for Creation Research did a study on this, and were unable to figure out a way for the effect to not be very destructive.

Migration rates and everything else are largely based off of various types of dating. If the dating is correct, then it would be much more likely that they were migrating from an origin point over a long time period. I would argue that it would be impossible for physical laws to change in the way that would be required for radio-isotope dating (which is not the only form) to be altered.

 

[dad]

No question as to how many years later the Jesus existed? Please provide non-Biblical sources that show when Jesus was born.

"Jesus (

/ˈdʒiːzəs/; Latin: Iesus; Hebrew: ישוע; Arabic: عيسى‎ Isa or يَسُوعَ Yasū‘ Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iēsous; 7-2 BC/BCE to 30–36 AD/CE), "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

 

[dad]

And you invoke greater changes because your fable is more implausible.

Far greater.

 

[dad]

Excuse me, I do believe that GlobalWolf was asking YOU to provide the points.

When he said this..."I can crack out science just as well as poetry " one assumes he meant that he could put some science out. You stand corrected.

 

[Tiberius]

When he said this..."I can crack out science just as well as poetry " one assumes he meant that he could put some science out. You stand corrected.

No.

Global Wolf said:

Do you have any particular points where you disagree with me when it comes to scientific ideas?

And you responded:

Start posting some and we will see.

GW was asking you to provide points. You failed to do that, and instead asked GW to post some. You did not do as he requested. So you stand corrected.

 

[dad]

No offense, but this is what I was referring to earlier. Creationism isn't the dominant position within Christianity, at least not globally...

It was among the people of the bible! Jesus also.

Present state biochemistry is necessary for DNA to function as it does, and changes in the code would be necessary for pseudogenes (junk DNA, basically) to produce proteins.

Well then, what exactly was necessary? One assumes some forces or laws would be at work!

While those pseudogenes did look different in the past and did produce proteins, if they all did at once, you would have an extreme increase in the number of proteins in the cell. Some of them would fulfill the same purposes as one another, some of them would do nothing in a human cell, and the ill-effects could be extreme. The strain on the machinery of the cell would be a disaster for it, too, and it would have to have a drastic increase in its intake to keep up with the production of new proteins.

Strawman. Who says all of anything would have to do something in the past?? How would you know what purposes each part of the whole would have when they were all operating under different laws?

I've heard this argument for coding DNA, which is why I chose to focus on the non-coding. Variations in coding DNA can make their own arguments for evolution, but non-coding DNA makes a stronger case because it generally isn't necessary and hasn't been in the past, for the reasons I just listed.

No. I am not talking about different parts of a cell coding. First of all, can you start by proving ANY coding went on?

Similarities in non-coding DNA suggest that unnecessary parts of the genetic code are almost entirely identical.

Suggest? Vague.

This would be the same as two houses, one built on a desert and the other built in a swamp, having the same foundation with the same hand prints pressed in the cement while it was wet, and the same name written in the same way above those hand prints. If we look around the house in the swamp, discover that there is archaeological evidence that some civilization made the strange decision to irrigate a desert, and that the house is apparently built around the rubble of a previous house, then we can safely assume that they are built on the same foundation and are successors of one another.

Apparently?

I realize where I made a mistake in how I put that. I don't mean that the chromosomes are chimp chromosomes in a human being. They are the same in the sense that they are as similar as all human chromosomes are to chimp chromosomes (which is very similar). It's just that our chromosome two looks like a combination of two chimp chromosomes, and has every marker that you would expect from two chromosomes that have combined.

Name one marker. Let's see if a marker is a marker.

As a sophomore in biology, I did a report on tetrapod evolution. Basically, lung fish which would appear (I say this for the sake of argument, since I'll have to clarify later why it's not just an appearance) to be earlier in the fossil record are closer to fish, and lung fish which appear later are closer to land vertebrates. These can reasonably be inferred to be transitional forms. They become closer to land vertebrates slowly, and with a lot of detours, but over time they do get closer.

No. One cannot infer what you infer at all. It is not reasonable. Can you give us some reason that God would not have created lungfish also as well as fish?

You can see the same thing with whales (land mammals repeated the amphibian process but in reserve, and whales now have vestigial limbs for walking on land),

In a different state, whales may have used land or shallow water areas. So?

horses (the evolution of which many young Earth creationists accept),

No. I question the evolution of horses. For example, if, after the flood, the first horses to fossilize at the onset of this present state were small, that doesn't mean that the original kind was.

and birds (feathers first on dinosaurs, followed by gliding wings, followed by actual flight).

False. All that followed anything is based on the fossil record, which is incomplete. Birds would not fossilize when the dinos would, I assume.

I'm not a physicist, so I can't spell out exactly what would happen. Still, I know that with carbon 14 specifically, that would require an enormous increase in power of the weak nuclear force. To get the kind of decay rate that you would need for decay that rapid, it would probably have to be several orders of magnitude stronger.

No. Nothing like that. You envision a change within our state. Our state is the result of the change.

Migration rates and everything else are largely based off of various types of dating. If the dating is correct, then it would be much more likely that they were migrating from an origin point over a long time period.

The dates are not correct. So much for that.

I would argue that it would be impossible for physical laws to change in the way that would be required for radio-isotope dating (which is not the only form) to be altered.

What the former state was is not 'physical' laws as we think of them. Perhaps a better name would be 'physical only' laws. The physical only state and it's laws are the change.

 

[dad]

No.

Global Wolf said:



And you responded:



GW was asking you to provide points. You failed to do that, and instead asked GW to post some. You did not do as he requested. So you stand corrected.

No you do..nya nya. You see how could I disagree with any science points until he posts them!?

 

[Metal Minister]

In a different state, whales may have used land or shallow water areas. So?

I was gonna leave this alone, but this whale leg lie gets me going every time. The bones that they try to pass off as vestigial legs is a crock. Anyone who knows even a small amount of whale biology knows that those bones are there to aid in procreation. They aren't even attached to the spine! Several "scientists" have claimed "proof" of a transition in these bones, and they've been shown to be wrong, or to be making massive leaps from next to no information. Such as a whale with one of these bones being slightly longer than normal was touted as airtight proof, even though that would mean that evolution had gone slightly backwards...

"Everything is possible for him who believes."

 

[dad]

I was gonna leave this alone, but this whale leg lie gets me going every time. The bones that they try to pass off as vestigial legs is a crock. Anyone who knows even a small amount of whale biology knows that those bones are there to aid in procreation. They aren't even attached to the spine! Several "scientists" have claimed "proof" of a transition in these bones, and they've been shown to be wrong, or to be making massive leaps from next to no information. Such as a whale with one of these bones being slightly longer than normal was touted as airtight proof, even though that would mean that evolution had gone slightly backwards...

"Everything is possible for him who believes."

Hey, even if you are right, I have no problem if whales used to come up and waddle over to Adam for a chat! The thing is we don't know. With rapid evolution a possibility, it doesn't matter any more!

 

[Tiberius]

No you do..nya nya. You see how could I disagree with any science points until he posts them!?

Of course, this only makes sense if you've never bothered to look at ANY points from science in your life.

Considering the arguments you've made in this thread, this actually doesn't surprise me. You've certainly never looked at any of the scientific points I've made.

 

[dad]

Of course, this only makes sense if you've never bothered to look at ANY points from science in your life.

Considering the arguments you've made in this thread, this actually doesn't surprise me. You've certainly never looked at any of the scientific points I've made.

Not in any way. Of course I have looked at what Mother Goose and Aesop and science have to say. If some poor soul still is under the illusion that science can oppose the word of God, I say to them...step forward and meet your fate.

 

[Trogool]

Not in any way. Of course I have looked at what Mother Goose and Aesop and science have to say. If some poor soul still is under the illusion that science can oppose the word of God, I say to them...step forward and meet your fate.

I find it disturbing that you think your home-made pseudoscience is actually the word of God.

 

[dad]

I find it disturbing that you think your home-made pseudoscience is actually the word of God.

Great so do show us how I am wrong? You accept creation as Jesus did? Or do you just like to sound ominous?