How many of you creationists...

[calidog]

I pays to keep up on ever changing science dialogue.

seems the universe ages another few billion years every ten years. I wonder how old it is today.

 

[lemmings]

seems the universe ages another few billion years every ten years.

Looks like the Universe has a bad case of progeria.

 

[[serious]]

I pays to keep up on ever changing science dialogue.

seems the universe ages another few billion years every ten years. I wonder how old it is today.

One thing is for sure, it isn't getting any younger. Stuff like this is occationally used to argue for a young earth. That's pretty much like geusseing a man is 70 years old, being told by his daughter that he's 72, then finding a birth certificate that says he's 73 and determining that he must be 12 since they don't all agree exactly.

 

[USincognito]

I pays to keep up on ever changing science dialogue.

seems the universe ages another few billion years every ten years. I wonder how old it is today.

You mean as opposed to the rock solid consistency of Creationism which has morphed from:
- Fixity of the species
to
- New breeds within species
to
- New species within kinds
to
- Tens of thousands of species arising from a few thousand kind pairs brought on the Ark.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think there may be a few who hav read "introduction to..." or "general..." books, but I would be very suprised to find any that have read "modern..." or "Advanced..." text books.

Ya --- they change with the weather --- that's why they make good bargain books at Waldenbooks.

By the time you're done reading it, its either been modified or disproven.

Why do you think Scientific American and Popular Science can come out every month with something?

If you're going to learn Quantum Physics, you need two things:

• $175.00 textbook to learn in the classroom.
• Subscription to Catchup Monthly to stay informed.

 

[AV1611VET]

I pays to keep up on ever changing science dialogue.

seems the universe ages another few billion years every ten years. I wonder how old it is today.

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I pays to keep up on ever changing science dialogue.

seems the universe ages another few billion years every ten years. I wonder how old it is today.

This is a misconception. I think you are confusing estimates of the minimum age of the universe with estimate of the age of the universe. The current consensus of between 13 and 14 billion years hasn't really changed much in the last 10 years and the most recent WMAP measurements put the age at 13.7 billion years. There are some controversial data on the CNO cycle that indicate the age may be more like 15 billion years. Wikipedia has an article on the subject here. Meanwhile YEC estimates of the age of the universe range from 6,000 to more than 10,000 years, nearly a factor of 2.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Ya --- they change with the weather --- that's why they make good bargain books at Waldenbooks.

By the time you're done reading it, its either been modified or disproven.

Why do you think Scientific American and Popular Science can come out every month with something?

If you're going to learn Quantum Physics, you need two things:

• $175.00 textbook to learn in the classroom.
• Subscription to Catchup Monthly to stay informed.

Not necessarily, I still find the books on quatum mechanics, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics that I used long ago in graduate school to be quite useful for many purposes. My biochemistry and molecular biology books still have valid information in them, it is just that there is so much more information now that new books are required every few years and to really keep up with a specific field one needs to read the current literature.

F.B.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Ya --- they change with the weather --- that's why they make good bargain books at Waldenbooks.

By the time you're done reading it, its either been modified or disproven.

Would you mind sharing details about which book you read, and what the falsified part was?

Why do you think Scientific American and Popular Science can come out every month with something?

Perhaps it's because science actually advances? That's a novelty concept for most creationists, I know, but think about it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

One thing is for sure, it isn't getting any younger. Stuff like this is occationally used to argue for a young earth. That's pretty much like geusseing a man is 70 years old, being told by his daughter that he's 72, then finding a birth certificate that says he's 73 and determining that he must be 12 since they don't all agree exactly.

actually to be more accurate, if he is 70, YECists would say he is 70(actual age)*6,000(YECist age of the earth)/14,000,000,000(actual age of the earth in years)*365(days in a year)*24(hours in a day)*60(minutes in an hour)=15.77 MINUTES old.

the actual error is so grevious that it bears often repeating. YECists are not off just a little bit. They are essentially saying that a 70 years old man is just under 16minutes old.

thanks for the analogy/illustration, it is one even hard core YECists can understand.

 

[arunma]

Ya --- they change with the weather --- that's why they make good bargain books at Waldenbooks.

By the time you're done reading it, its either been modified or disproven.

Why do you think Scientific American and Popular Science can come out every month with something?

If you're going to learn Quantum Physics, you need two things:

• $175.00 textbook to learn in the classroom.
• Subscription to Catchup Monthly to stay informed.

It is generally considered a good thing that science advances regularly. But actually, quantum mechanics is really not an active field of physics. As far as I know, it hasn't changed much since the 30's.

 

[Contracelsus]

Hey AV1611VET, I just ran across this wee gem. It is attributed to GEORGE ABBOT, one of the members of the Oxford group responsible for developing the portion of the King James Bible. They were responsible for the first drafts of the translation of the Gospels, Acts and Revelation.

Abbot became Archibishop of Canterbury. He had this little "proto-evolutionary thought" which is kind of interesting (in a commentary on Africa):

"Often times new and strange shapes of beasts are brought forth there: the reason whereof is, that the country being hot and full of wildernesses, which have in them little water, the beasts of all sorts are enforced to meet at those few watering places that be, where often times contrary kinds have conjunction the one with the other: so that there ariseth new kinds of species, which taketh part of both"

While this is hardy "evolution" as we know it today and it shows a certain denial of Creationism by one of the more conservative members of the KJV translators in the 17th century!

As the author of "God' Secretaries" (Adam Nicolson) points out it has all the parts of the recipe: changes introducing new species coming from response to environmnental factors, sex and genetics as driving forces.

It really is kinda neat! And to think that such potentially flawed men could have written the perfect word of God that Creationists can use today to deny evolution! It is a miracle.

 

[TheDreadedAtheist]

It is generally considered a good thing that science advances regularly. But actually, quantum mechanics is really not an active field of physics. As far as I know, it hasn't changed much since the 30's.

You must have missed the following then:
1942 Enrico Fermi makes the first controlled nuclear chain reaction
1942 Ernst Stueckelberg introduces the propagator to positron theory and interprets positrons as negative energy electrons moving backwards through spacetime
1943 Sin-Itiro Tomonaga publishes his paper on the basic physical principles of quantum electrodynamics
1947 Willis Lamb and Robert Retheford measure the Lamb-Retheford shift
1947 Cecil Powell, César Lattes, and Giuseppe Occhialini discover the pi-meson by studying cosmic ray tracks
1947 Richard Feynman presents his propagator approach to quantum electrodynamics
1948 Hendrik Casimir predicts a rudimentary attractive Casimir force on a parallel plate capacitor
1951 Martin Deutsch discovers positronium
1952 David Bohm propose his interpretation of quantum mechanics
1953 Robert Wilson observes Delbruck scattering of 1.33 MeV gamma-rays by the electric fields of lead nuclei
1954 Chen Ning Yang and Robert Mills investigate a theory of hadronicisospin by demanding local gauge invariance under isotopic spin space rotations---first non-Abelian gauge theory
1955 Owen Chamberlain, Emilio Segre, Clyde Wiegand, and Thomas Ypsilantis discover the antiproton
1956 Frederick Reines and Clyde Cowan detect antineutrino
1956 Chen Ning Yang and Tsung Lee propose parity violation by the weak nuclear force
1956 Chien Shiung Wu discovers parity violation by the weak force in decaying cobalt
1957 Gerhart Luders proves the CPT theorem
1957 Richard Feynman, Murray Gell-Mann, Robert Marshak, and Ennackel Sudarshan propose a variational approximation (VA) Lagrangian for weak interactions
1958 Marcus Sparnaay experimentally confirms the Casimir effect
1959 Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm predict the Aharonov-Bohm effect
1960 R.G. Chambers experimentally confirms the Aharonov-Bohm effect
1961 Murray Gell-Mann and Yuval Ne'eman discover the Eightfold Way patterns---SU(3) group
1961 Jeffrey Goldstone considers the breaking of global phase symmetry
1962 Leon Lederman shows that the electron neutrino is distinct from the muon neutrino

 

[TheDreadedAtheist]

1963 Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig propose the quark/aces model
1964 Peter Higgs considers the breaking of local phase symmetry
1964 John Stewart Bell shows that all local hidden variable theories must satisfy Bell's inequality
1964 Val Fitch and James Cronin observe CP violation by the weak force in the decay of K mesons
1967 Steven Weinberg puts forth his electroweak
model of leptons
1969 John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony and Richard Holt propose a polarization correlation test of Bell's inequality
1970 Sheldon Glashow, John Iliopoulos, and Luciano Maiani propose the charm quark
1971 Gerard 't Hooft shows that the Glashow-Salam-Weinberg electroweak model can be renormalized
1972 Stuart Freedman and John Clauser perform the first polarization correlation test of Bell's inequality
1973 David Politzer proposes the asymptotic freedom of quarks
1974 Burton Richter and Samuel Ting discover the psi meson implying the existence of the charm quark
1974 Robert J. Buenker and Sigrid D. Peyerimhoff introduce the multireference configuration interaction method.
1975 Martin Perl discovers the tau lepton
1977 Steve Herb finds the upsilon resonance implying the existence of the beauty/bottom quark
1982 Alain Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger perform a polarization correlation test of Bell's inequality that rules out conspiratorial polarizer communication
1983 Carlo Rubbia, Simon van der Meer, and the CERN UA-1 collaboration find the W and Z intermediate vector bosons
1989 The Z intermediate vector boson resonance width indicates three quark-lepton generations
1994 The CERNLEARCrystal Barrel Experiment
justifies the existence of glue-balls (exotic meson).
1995 after 18 years searching at Fermilab was discovered the top quark, it had very big mass
1998Super-Kamiokande (Japan) observes evidence for neutrino oscillations, implying that at least one neutrino has mass.
2001 The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (Canada) confirms the existence of neutrino oscillations.
2005 At the RHIC accelerator of Brookhaven National Laboratory they have created a quark-gluon liquid of very low viscosity, perhaps the quark-gluon plasma
2007 The Large Hadron Collider at CERN has a big chance to find the Higgs boson
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_microphysics"

Sorry that the list is a little sloppy

 

[arunma]

Actually DreadedAtheist, most of the results you stated would be considered advacements in other fields such as high energy physics. Quantum mechanics, as it is taught in most physics textbooks, is simply a formalism. And that formalism has remained mostly constant for quite awhile. In fact, these results show up in many different areas of physics. I once had to reference the CPT theorem (one of your 1957 results) while giving a presentation on baryogenesis, which is a topic in cosmology.

 

[TheDreadedAtheist]

Well idea of quarks was developed after the 1930's.

 

[arunma]

Well idea of quarks was developed after the 1930's.

Quarks also aren't a part of the formalism of quantum mechanics. QM is largely probability theory and linear algebra. Certainly it can be applied to high energy physics, and a good deal of other fields in physics. But as I said earlier, the formalism itself hasn't changed very much.

 

[TheDreadedAtheist]

Quarks also aren't a part of the formalism of quantum mechanics. QM is largely probability theory and linear algebra. Certainly it can be applied to high energy physics, and a good deal of other fields in physics. But as I said earlier, the formalism itself hasn't changed very much.

You are the graduate.

 

[arunma]

You are the graduate.

Be careful not to stroke my ego. Having just graduated a few weeks ago, I still get a kick out of saying that I have a physics degree. Hopefully it'll wear off soon.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Be careful not to stroke my ego. Having just graduated a few weeks ago, I still get a kick out of saying that I have a physics degree. Hopefully it'll wear off soon.

that's ok, get your verification anywhere you can.
neither job interviewers nor grad school acceptance officers will stroke your ego. unless of course you ARE the next great thing.