Strong Nuclear Force

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by seebs
It doesn't try to.

It's a question of scope. If I'm studying an alleged murder, I don't need to solve the question of "how are guns made" or "who invented the revolver" to solve crimes - I just need to know the general properties of guns.

You're right, but investigators need to know the basics of guns. Forensics and ballistics specialists can tell from how far and what angle the bullet was fired. This requires you to know guns. Otherwise, the case you will have won't be airtight.

The Catholic Church learned this lesson. Once upon a time, they were pretty hostile to people who claimed that the earth orbited the sun. This has hurt the faith a lot; now, the Catholic Church carefully disclaims a teaching on scientific matters, observing that these are not part of the scope of Christian teaching. The Church, for instance, does not care whether you believe that life arose through evolution, as long as you believe that God creates a soul specially for each person.

I don't want to dig up dirt on the Catholic Church, but they have killed people in the past who believed in the Bible. John Hus was burned at the stake in 1415 for believing that salvation can't be bought, for instance. There are some other examples, but not all Christians comply with every view of the Pope.

 

 

[Morat]

  Souljah, as I wasn't the only one that corrected Alex on this matter, why exactly did you call me a tool, and not Seebs?

  Given that I didn't even respond until after Alex had been corrected on the term by Seebs (and then used it again), and followed it up a bit later by claiming that cosmology was a part of evolution, I don't think I was being anything other than on-topic to correct him.

   He is, in fact, still conflation cosmology and evolution. So how was I wrong to comment on it?

 

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by s0uljah
I took offense to your treatment of alex. You seemed to be treating him like an idiot because he used "evolution" to talk about natural laws. You made a comment about martial arts and heart surgery, as if he was a little kid or something.

Thanks, brother. I really appreciate your actions. I wish there were more Creation-minded people here.

God bless you, S0uljah!

 

[Morat]

Morat: Now why didn't you tell her that the nick-name for Higgs is the God particle?

  Because it's the Holy Grail of modern physics? Because it is the particle that all others come from? Because it is, basically, the universe and everything?

Alex:

You're right, but investigators need to know the basics of guns. Forensics and ballistics specialists can tell from how far and what angle the bullet was fired. This requires you to know guns. Otherwise, the case you will have won't be airtight.

   But does that mean forensics scientists are all chemists, physicists, and metallurgists? After all, you need physics to do ballistics, chemistry and metallurgy to make guns and bullets...

  So does that mean if a tenet of ballistics is wrong, then physics is?

   Chemistry, after all, is just applied physics. But does that mean physics is chemistry?

 

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Morat
Given that I didn't even respond until after Alex had been corrected on the term by Seebs (and then used it again), and followed it up a bit later by claiming that cosmology was a part of evolution, I don't think I was being anything other than on-topic to correct him.

Morat, i don't want to sound like a scratched record, but under "evolution," the first definition says:

An unfolding, opening out, or working out; process of development, as from a simple to a complex form, or of a gradual, progressive change, as in a social and economic structure

That's from Webster's New World Dictionary of American English. It seems using the word "evolve" in reference to a language, idea, law, or anything non-living is fine. I don't get your and Seebs' objection.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
  Souljah, as I wasn't the only one that corrected Alex on this matter, why exactly did you call me a tool, and not Seebs?

  Given that I didn't even respond until after Alex had been corrected on the term by Seebs (and then used it again), and followed it up a bit later by claiming that cosmology was a part of evolution, I don't think I was being anything other than on-topic to correct him.

   He is, in fact, still conflation cosmology and evolution. So how was I wrong to comment on it?

 

Conflation or not... He is using the term evolution in a general sense of things changing over time...improving...its pretty clear, and he even said so himself.

I didn't tell seebs to stop being a tool because he doesn't have a track record of treating people like idiots.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat


  Because it's the Holy Grail of modern physics? Because it is the particle that all others come from? Because it is, basically, the universe and everything?  

 

Particles get their mass from the Higgs...true...where did the Higgs get its existence?

 

[Morat]

  Yes, that's the most frequent use of it, since laymen (IE, non-biologists) use it to mean "things changing" far more often in daily conversation then to refer to the "Theory of Evolution".

  So? This forum is devoted to the Theory of Evolution, and people linking the Theory of Evolution with the Big Bang or abiogenesis is quite common, and quite wrong.

   Your, yourself, attempted to do so when you claimed cosmology had something to do with evolution. If you're going to use "evolution" as a noun in this forum, the general understanding is going to be "The Theory of Evolution" and not "oh, just some generalized change that has nothing to do with biology or the theory of Evolution".

  Your own words from the first page indicate you were using evolution in the "Theory of Evolution" sense.

I understand the darwinian theory (reasonably well, not completey) but it fails to explain how we have such a wisely-assembled universe. I can't believe that the strong nuclear force could've developed or evolved over time.

   Given that you used "Darwinian Theory" (which could only be taken to be "Theory of Evolution" since that's pretty much Darwin's whole work there) and then asked how it could explain cosmology, I think it's very fair to say you meant evolution not as "change" but as "Theory of Evolution".

  If you did not, then why the reference to "darwinian theory"?

 

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Morat
But does that mean forensics scientists are all chemists, physicists, and metallurgists? After all, you need physics to do ballistics, chemistry and metallurgy to make guns and bullets...

No sir, the specialist doesn't need to be a chemist, metallurgist, or physicist. But he definitely needs to know more than just basic physics and chemistry. Metallurgy here isn't necessary, since he's not reproducing a copy of the weapon.

Chemistry, algebra, trigonometry and physics are some things that the ballistics or forensics specialist can't do without.

Chemistry, after all, is just applied physics. But does that mean physics is chemistry?

Nope, they are separate sciences, but still linked together.

 

[Morat]

Conflation or not... <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif" border=0> He is using the term evolution in a general sense of things changing over time...improving...its pretty clear, and he even said so himself.

I didn't tell seebs to stop being a tool because he doesn't have a track record of treating people like idiots.

&nbsp; Alex stated well before I mentioned anything about evolution:

I understand the <B>darwinian theory</B> (reasonably well, not completey) but it&nbsp;fails to&nbsp;explain how we have such a wisely-assembled universe. I can't believe that the strong nuclear force could've developed or evolved over time.

&nbsp;&nbsp; How is that clear he is using it to mean generalized change when he used the phrase darwinian theory?

Oh, if you want to discuss the Higgs, start another thread. It's offtopic here.

&nbsp;

 

[Morat]

So, Alex..what part of cosmology does evolution use? What part of evolution does cosmology use?

 

[Stormy]

You guys are becoming a bore. Winner is the first one that drops it!

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I can see how you were confused then, so I apologize. For whatever reason, I took his meaning to be the general evolution, not Darwinian.

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; Thanks. I'll try to tone down my words when it comes to you. I keep dragging residual irritation into my conversation with you. Regardless, this was an interesting thread before it got side-tracked, so I'm hoping it wanders back.

&nbsp;

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I love you too Morat. Hugs to you...or are you a guy? In that case, just a handshake.

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; I was, last I checked, quite male.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Morat
&nbsp; Yes, that's the most frequent use of it, since laymen (IE, non-biologists) use it to mean "things changing" far more often in daily conversation then to refer to the "Theory of Evolution".&nbsp;

Morat, you make it sound like a biologist can't be an astronomer. I don't believe in evolution, but the word also can be applied to astronomy and geology, right? That's what i'm trying to say. But anyway, this is a thechnicality, and we shouldn't split hairs over it.

So? This forum is devoted to the Theory of Evolution, and people linking the Theory of Evolution with the Big Bang or abiogenesis is quite common, and quite wrong.

I wouldn't go that far, since we are guests&nbsp;here.&nbsp;And this is really a Christian board, dedicated to Christ.

But&nbsp;how do you expect someone to believe in evolution if they don't believe in abiogenesis? And&nbsp;if&nbsp;you don't&nbsp;believe in evo, what is the purpose of the BB theory? None, it loks like. It is, actually, all&nbsp;linked.

Your, yourself, attempted to do so when you claimed cosmology had something to do with evolution. If you're going to use "evolution" as a noun in this forum, the general understanding is going to be "The Theory of Evolution" and not "oh, just some generalized change that has nothing to do with biology or the theory of Evolution".

Is there a way to&nbsp;use&nbsp;"evolution" as an adjective?

OK, i'll pose the question again, with your&nbsp;preferred&nbsp;vocabulary:

[glow=ff0000]Does anybody believe that the&nbsp;laws of physics could've slowly developed&nbsp;into what&nbsp;we have today?[/glow]

&nbsp;

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Morat
So, Alex..what part of cosmology does evolution use? What part of evolution does cosmology use?

Here, man.

http://fisica.usac.edu.gt/public/curccaf_proc/borganihtml/borgani.html

Click on "The standard cosmological model."

I know you've heard that the universe slowly evolved into what it is today. You don't need to play dumb since i know you know what i mean.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Morat
&nbsp; Thanks. I'll try to tone down my words when it comes to you. I keep dragging residual irritation into my conversation with you. Regardless, this was an interesting thread before it got side-tracked, so I'm hoping it wanders back.&nbsp;

Let's wander back. Where were we before we started fighting over little technicalities...

Morat and Seebs, do you have a theory about the origin of physical laws and things like the strong force?

 

[Morat]

Morat, you make it sound like a biologist can't be an astronomer. I don't believe in evolution, but the word also can be applied to astronomy and geology, right? That's what i'm trying to say. But anyway, this is a thechnicality, and we shouldn't split hairs over it.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd imagine there are very few people with advanced degrees in both astronomy and biology. There is some overlap, of course. Did you know amino acids form rather readily in space?

&nbsp; My point is quite simple: The Theory of Evolution is a biological theory that applies to life. No astronomer would use it in astronomy, or a cosmologist in cosmology. The closest you might get is either analogies, or the occasionally shared minor concept.

I wouldn't go that far, since we are guests&nbsp;here.&nbsp;And this is really a Christian board, dedicated to Christ.

&nbsp;This forum, not this board, which is entitled "Science, Creation, and Evolution" and is devoted pretty much exclusivly to the Creation/Evolution debate.

But&nbsp;how do you expect someone to believe in evolution if they don't believe in abiogenesis?

&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; Rather easily. Panspermiests do it all the time. Heck, some of the ID crowd does. It is immaterial with the first proto-lifeform came from. Abiogenesis, aliens, or *poofed* there by God.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Evolution would still work on it, and would nicely lead to the diversity you see today.

&nbsp;And&nbsp;if&nbsp;you don't&nbsp;believe in evo, what is the purpose of the BB theory?

&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; It explains the origins of the universe, the Hubble Flow, the CMB, and some rather nifty things about the structure of the universe?

&nbsp;&nbsp; Evolution could be falsified tommorow, and it wouldn't change the Big Bang theory a whit. Why should it?

&nbsp;None, it loks like. It is, actually, all&nbsp;linked.

&nbsp;&nbsp; No, it's not, except in the sense that they're all scientific concepts. They're no more linked than Kepler's Law is with game theory.

Is there a way to&nbsp;use&nbsp;"evolution" as an adjective?

&nbsp; No, but you can as a verb.

OK, i'll pose the question again, with your&nbsp;preferred&nbsp;vocabulary:

&nbsp;&nbsp; Could they have changed over time? Possible. Highly unlikely, as all the available evidence indicates that they were set in the first instants of the Big Bang. And it's pretty darn strong evidence too.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;