Explaining the God particle

[Trogool]

Great so do show us how I am wrong?

I've down that literally dozens of times. You always become insulting and ignore any attempt at rational adult discussion, so I don't bother. In this very thread are a number of people making that effort, though.

You accept creation as Jesus did?

Of course, I'm sure omniscience God is aware of evolution, since it was how he created life.

Or do you just like to sound ominous?

No, I just remember Matthew 7:15 when I talk to people, who, like you have, describe their opinions as the word of a deity.

 

[dad]

I've down that literally dozens of times.

Let's focus on your latest little claim. You claimed it was somehow wrong that I consider my position biblical. Want to recant?

You always become insulting and ignore any attempt at rational adult discussion, so I don't bother.

Ha. Throw a hissy without putting the goods on the table.

In this very thread are a number of people making that effort, though.

Ah...so others are what we should look to...not you. OK. Hard to argue with that.

Of course, I'm sure omniscience God is aware of evolution, since it was how he created life.

So now you are buds with God and have inside info. OK.

No, I just remember Matthew 7:15 when I talk to people, who, like you have, describe their opinions as the word of a deity.

Does it say God never really created??

 

[Tiberius]

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.

The fact that you are spouting nonsense is proven by the fact that science produces useable results.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism isn't the dominant position within Christianity, at least not globally.

I disagree ... even Theistic Evolutionists are creationists:

Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is ...

SOURCE

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Dad,

I need to understand more about your view on the past to answer your objections to evolution. Your idea of a different-state past involves the laws of physics behaving in a way that has fundamentally changed, and so I really need to understand what you believe.

I disagree ... even Theistic Evolutionists are creationists:



SOURCE

I understand that theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are sometimes used as synonyms (not always, but sometimes). Creationism can also be used to refer to the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the special creation of each human soul, as opposed to traducianism, and to refer to Christian beliefs regarding the origin of life which don't appeal to evolution in any form. The meaning was clear from the context, since I used the term and set it in direct opposition to theistic evolution. The more obscure use of the term to refer to all views wherein the world is created by a deity or deities, either with evolution or without, was opposed by the context.

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand that theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are sometimes used as synonyms (not always, but sometimes). Creationism can also be used to refer to the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the special creation of each human soul, as opposed to traducianism, and to refer to Christian beliefs regarding the origin of life which don't appeal to evolution in any form. The meaning was clear from the context, since I used the term and set it in direct opposition to theistic evolution. The more obscure use of the term to refer to all views wherein the world is created by a deity or deities, either with evolution or without, was opposed by the context.

Driving a wedge between the terms theistic evolution and evolutionary creation in order to make this doosey of a statement:

Creationism isn't the dominant position within Christianity, at least not globally.

... deserves to be challenged.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Driving a wedge between the terms theistic evolution and evolutionary creation in order to make this doosey of a statement.

According to the Oxford English dictionary, creationism is:

2.) The belief that mankind and all kinds of living organism, or, more widely, the earth and the physical universe generally, originated in specific acts of divine creation as related in the Bible or other sacred book rather than by natural processes as described by science, in particular evolution.

Definition one is special creation of the human soul, as opposed to traducianism. The definition given by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which doesn't set itself directly in opposition to evolution in the definition itself and could thus be understood as allowing for it, is not included, although I would agree that it could be.

This definition, however, is a meaning attached to "creationism" and is, in fact, the most common one. Given the context, it was clear that this definition is the one that I was going for.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you disagree that creationism can be understood in the way that I described it above?

I don't know ... I'm not Catholic, and I don't think like an evolutionist.

I'm somewhat familiar with traduceanism vs pelagianism; but for the record, your post sounded like Catholic belief.

I really don't want to discuss this any further, as I've made my point; and I fear you are going to try to drag me down into a scientific discussion, where I'll get [deservedly] vegomaticked.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I'm somewhat familiar with traduceanism vs pelagianism; but for the record, your post sounded like Catholic belief.

I'm Catholic, so it probably would, lol

vegomaticked.

Alright. I actually wasn't going to turn it to science because I understand enough about your view on embedded age to know that science isn't really relevant to that discussion. I also generally try to avoid creation vs. evolution arguments, because I know that those tend to get less than civil really quickly. I've been a real jerk about it in the past, so I don't frequent this section very much anymore.

Well, at any rate, thanks for teaching me the word "vegomaticked".

 

[Jamin4422]

According to the Oxford English dictionary, creationism is:

Just goes to show what I have been saying all along, that the devil has hijacked the dictionary in order to trick people into following him and taking the mark of the beast. "Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666."

 

[dad]

I've down that literally dozens of times. You always become insulting and ignore any attempt at rational adult discussion, so I don't bother. In this very thread are a number of people making that effort, though.

I hadn't noticed. But hey B for effort.

Of course, I'm sure omniscience God is aware of evolution, since it was how he created life.

False. I am certain that is not true. Myth.

No, I just remember Matthew 7:15 when I talk to people, who, like you have, describe their opinions as the word of a deity.

OK.

 

[dad]

The fact that you are spouting nonsense is proven by the fact that science produces useable results.

The fact that all usable results are in this present state proves that they are limited.

 

[dad]

Dad,

I need to understand more about your view on the past to answer your objections to evolution. Your idea of a different-state past involves the laws of physics behaving in a way that has fundamentally changed, and so I really need to understand what you believe.

http://splitmerge.webs.com/split.pdf

The former nature was changed....we are the result. So it was not a change in our nature.

 

[Tiberius]

The fact that all usable results are in this present state proves that they are limited.

What you said there is nonsense.

 

[dad]

What you said there is nonsense.

No. It is elementary. Sorry you missed it. You see, atomm bombs were not used on Noah...only here in this state. Same with TV, vaccines, etc.

 

[Tiberius]

Still nonsense.

 

[dad]

Still nonsense.

The fact that usable knowledge of man gets used right here in this present state is obvious.

The God particle and higgs field have not been used. So far it seems like they have just spent a lot of money smashing God's good little innocent particles to try to make it look like the result supports their whopper fables!

 

[Tiberius]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Really, dad, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[BobAliceEve]

But If people ever get any kind of control over these subatomic forces I wonder if that would mean they could temporarily remove the implication of mass from some objects so that for example light speed travel would then be possible or very large objects could be lifted into orbit for instance. Guess we are nowhere near that though and not sure it could be done without somehow disassembling those objects into something completely different.

Interesting question. In F=MA if we set M=0 then F becomes 0 no matter (pun intended) what A is. A becomes undefined because 0/0 (F/M) is undefined. Does that mean that a rocket of mass 0 can't be accelerated or does it mean that the rocket would be accelerated (to the speed of light?) by a force very near 0?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

The former nature was changed....we are the result. So it was not a change in our nature.

Alright. Now that I know what you're arguing for, I can maybe address it a little bit better. I'll be honest in saying that I'm not certain I can entirely address the theology of it, though.

From a scientific standpoint, I can really only pick the points that are falsifiable. Much of the idea is, by its nature, non-falsifiable since it doesn't make predictions that can be tested and proven to be correct or incorrect. The concept of a change in physical laws which leaves the older state undefined and which establishes a clear boundary which present physical laws do not cross cannot be disproved via the natural sciences. The natural sciences can strongly suggest against it (ie., we can see that the fossil record, radioisotope ratios, and cosmology all appear as they would if current natural phenomena had been standard throughout all of cosmological history), and we can approach certainty just from that regard that it is untrue, but the theory has contained within itself a way to adjust it with no real effort to fit any available scientific evidence. Namely, by not defining the attributes of the past physical state, it can say that all evidence we see just looks like it originated from present state physics extended into the distant past, while actually coming from an unobserved process. Science on its own can't disprove it, and I've decided not to go into the theology of it.

So, just with modern science, we can say that the idea is unlikely. Biblically, however, it becomes more problematic. The suggestion contained in the idea involves a split on an epic scale, with substantial and fundamental changes in the nature of reality. This goes unmentioned throughout the Biblical record. While Peleg's name does mean "split", the most logical assumption here, without any further details, would be that Peleg lived at the time of the Tower of Babel. Regardless, such a substantial change would have gotten more mention than this. The change involved in the "split/merge" idea involves an alteration of the fundamental nature of space-time, the laws of physics, and thermodynamics. There are many ways to unify science and Scripture which seem less unlikely to this. Many ancient readers did not read the days of Genesis as being 24 hour days, for instance (including St. Augustine on the Christian side and Philo on the Jewish side), so it is possible to view the text in that light in a natural way. It is much more difficult to read it naturally as suggesting a radical change in the laws governing the Universe.

So, from both a scientific and a Scriptural perspective, this idea seems extremely unlikely. I don't feel competent to go too far into the theological issues, and so I'll leave those to someone else. Still, I see many options as being more likely simply from the perspectives I've already mentioned.

Interesting question. In F=MA if we set M=0 then F becomes 0 no matter (pun intended) what A is. A becomes undefined because 0/0 (F/M) is undefined. Does that mean that a rocket of mass 0 can't be accelerated or does it mean that the rocket would be accelerated (to the speed of light?) by a force very near 0?

Massless particles must always move at the speed of light, so if you were to in some way negate the effect of the Higgs Field and make all particles massless, then all particles would move at a speed equal to that of light.