• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Strong Nuclear Force

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by alexgb00, Jul 24, 2002.

  1. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
      I think you gave the wrong link. There is not a single bit of biology in that, much less any "Theory of Evolution". There's no mutation, no selection, no differential reproduction, no drift, no inheritance, no nothing.

       It's all cosmology. In fact, nothing about the universe changed but it's distribution of matter, unless you count the decoupling events in the early moments of the Big Bang (which led to matter in the first place).

      There is, as I stated, no biology in cosmology, and no cosmology in biology. They have nothing to do with each other.

     
     
  2. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
      As to your last, concerning their origins: There are some preliminary ideas, consistant with current cosmology, that offer possibilities. Lacking a GUT, however, it's not much more than the crudest speculation, and any testablity is minimal.

       Offhand, I believe at least one form of string theory indicates that the particular constants and laws of this universe are the only self-consistant set, for instance.

     
     
  3. Freodin

    Freodin Devout believer in a theologically different God

    +3,524
    Atheist
    Well, I´m not so knowledgeable about the theories of the Big Bang, but I think I can remember reading that the laws of physics as we know them now were indeed different in the first few microseconds. Is this right?

    But for the question"Where do they come from, if not from a law giver?":

    This is a problem of semantics, not physics.

    Stuff (my simple expression for matter, energy and all existance) has certain attributes.

    These can be expressed by "simple" concepts like "colour" or "density" or "potential".

    Other attributes are more difficult to decribe: they relate to behaviour of "stuff". These attributes can be called laws.

    And as the mentioned simple concepts, they are inherent to "stuff".

    So it is wrong to imagine a "law giver" who saw matter and then thought "Hm, and now what should we do with this. LET THERE BE GRAVITY!".
     
  4. alexgb00

    alexgb00 Senior Member

    649
    +24
    Pentecostal
    Single
    Really? Could you please cite that? It seems hard to believe that anything might develop in space.

    I understand that the darwinian theory involves life specifically. But many astronomers believe in that the astral bodies which are present today have evolved. But, you're right about the other things.

    Yes, not the "Theory of Evolution" as stated a couple posts back. 

    What is the "ID crowd," Morat?

    I wouldn't call Creation abiogenesis, since it was a supernatural act. I would think abiogenesis implies naturally created life. By the way, there is no evidence that that ever took place, is there? 

    Morat, do you think Creation wouldn't explain diversity? I think it does.

    Hmm... The Hubble Flow and CMB. I don't know about that, but when i learned about the BB theory, these things weren't mentioned. Is it something new?

    Morat, if evolution was falsified tomorrow, there would be no need to teach the BB theory. I think its only purpose is to secure and protect evolution.

    All sciences (Mathematics, chemistry, physics, geology, biology) and their "subdivisions" are related. Chemistry is taught as a prerequisite to physics. 

    OK. I meant the adjective comment as a joke. :sorry:

    Is it possible to get some evidence to back up this statement? I'm not totally stupid, but i've never heard of evidence that suggests that anything was around during the BB. Was there space? Time? Was it the 4-dimensional world in which we live, or another one?

    From your words i understand you believe physical laws existed at the time of the BB. So the BB theory doesn't explain the origin of the universe. If in the 21st century we still don't know where time, space, matter and physical laws came from, maybe the BB theory doesn't help much. What do you think?
     
  5. alexgb00

    alexgb00 Senior Member

    649
    +24
    Pentecostal
    Single
    No, no, no. That site talks about the supposed origin of the world on an astronomical level, not biology. Sorry, i should've explained.
     
  6. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,468
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    Yes and no. I believe the ultimate origin of all things is God, but I don't consider this a scientific theory or explanation. I really don't have much of an opinion about it. I certainly don't see any need for people to accept any particular belief system before they can usefully make progress in understanding physics.

    So... I have no scientific theory. I happen to have a belief, but I'm not basing it on any kind of observation or evidence; it's just a belief about the underlying structure of things. If twenty years from now, everyone "knows" that the strong force is a natural side-effect of the Big Wazoo Constant, then I'll assume that the BWC is, ultimately, as it is because God said so; you can explain as far back as you want, and the question always stays open.

    Some might wonder why I would bother putting God in there only until we find a "better" explanation, but this misses the point; I don't particularly think that the strong force is a *direct* result of God's interaction with the world; I think that God is an *ultimate* cause, not a proximate cause.

    To put it into another analogy, if I find out that someone died, and I know someone else was planning to kill him, I may believe that he was killed by that other person... as police gradually reconstruct the details of the death, they may find other elements along the way (a car accident, damage to a car, etcetera), but my explanation may well continue to be the correct one. We're not "reducing" the size of God's contribution; we're expanding the intermediate area as we understand it.
     
  7. alexgb00

    alexgb00 Senior Member

    649
    +24
    Pentecostal
    Single
    Freodin, i couldn't tell you. And neither can any scientist. First off, nobody can be sure the BB took place, and secondly, there would be no way to test this today.

    Yeah. :) Well, the Bible doesn't say that, but gravity isn't like light, for example. Light, i heard, is a tiny particle travelling in a wave. Gravity is a force between matter. Things are always attracted to each other, not just to the earth.

    I don't know a good way to exlain it. Physical laws are so exact. Custom-tailored to our universe. The cause of these could's be chance.
     
  8. alexgb00

    alexgb00 Senior Member

    649
    +24
    Pentecostal
    Single
    I understand what you mean, Seebs.

    Doesn't it boggle the mind, that if only the strong force didn't exist, there would be no universe? It's amazing, when you think about it. One invisible, tiny force, made up of no matter, with a very short range, holds the world together.  

    God bless you, man.
     
  9. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
    Sure and here as well.

     

       As in "changed" in a way that has nothing to do with biological evolution? Sure, that's common knowledge.

      Intelligent design. Most of them readily accept common descent (like Behe, for instance).

      What, abiogenesis? Depends on what you mean by "Evidence". It's not like chemicals fossilize. It's cutting edge biochem research right now. Give it a decade or two to mature. :)

      Creation explains everything. "God did it" explains everything in a totally useless, untestable way. "Why do bacteria become anti-biotic resistant? God did it". Thanks, that helps.

      No. Hubble Flow. CMD

      Why not? What on earth does evolution have to do with the Big Bang?

      And what in the name of Pete do you think would happen if evolution was falsified tommorow?

       Really? Why? I learned physics first. I needed Calculus, but mathematics is not a science. I used no chemistry in physics, and no physics in chemistry, although you can model chemistry with physics if you want.

     

      During the Big Bang? Or before it?

      The physical laws of our universe were set at the moment of the Big Bang. Our universe began with the Big Bang. The Big Bang, quite nicely, explains the origins of our universe.

      Are you asking what comes before?

     

     
     
  10. Freodin

    Freodin Devout believer in a theologically different God

    +3,524
    Atheist
    A slight misunderstanding. I did not ask whether the laws really WERE different, but whether there were theories claiming that.


    Well, colour is also "so exact", as is weight. Isn´t it amazing that a kilogramm weights exactly 1000 gramm? That could not coincidence. There had to be a divine ruler that decreed that.

    You get what I mean? All these nifty laws that deal with behaviour of "stuff" don´t decree what stuff has to do, but only describe what we see.
    They are inherent.
     
  11. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,468
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    It doesn't surprise me much, really. If I'm here to observe it, it must be so. If it weren't, I wouldn't be observing it.

    I have no idea what the alternatives are, so I can't evaluate the chances, so I can't talk about how likely or unlikely this is. It has been this way in every universe I've ever seen, and so far as I know, I've seen all of them.
     
  12. Caedmon

    Caedmon kawaii Supporter

    +538
    Catholic
    US-Others
    Actually, light is particle and wave, not a particle in a wave. And the similarity between light and gravity is closer than you think. See, there's these things called force-carrier particles, and... well that's another thread. ;)
     
  13. alexgb00

    alexgb00 Senior Member

    649
    +24
    Pentecostal
    Single
    I just noticed. Sprechen Sie deutsch, Freodin? Sie weissen englisch sehr gut! Ich lehrne deutsch als zwei Jahren. Ich weisse ein kleinen Bischen von Ihre Sprache.

    As for your question, i'm not the person to ask. Try Morat.

    We're talking physical laws, not physical properties. And neither color nor weight are physical laws. But yes, mass affects planets a big deal.

    No, physical laws don't affect what we see. They specifically affect the objects' movements, etc.

    Freodin, glauben Sie nach Gott?
     
  14. alexgb00

    alexgb00 Senior Member

    649
    +24
    Pentecostal
    Single
    OK. Let's talk about that sometime, Joe. I'd like to learn about that. I have a question -- do you believe in Creation?

    God bless you, brother!

    Alex
     
  15. Freodin

    Freodin Devout believer in a theologically different God

    +3,524
    Atheist
    Yes, you noticed right - I´m from Germany. Ich spreche Deutsch. I´ve been studing English for over twenty years now, and I´m sure with more practice and time your German will get much better. I understood what you meant - but don´t show this to your teacher.



    There is not much difference between these two things. It is an inherent fact that matter has a weight. It is also an inherent fact that matter attracts matter with a certain force.


    First, of course do physical laws affect what we see. We see via light and light and its properties are dealt with in Physics.

    Second, I didn´t say they AFFECT what we see. I said we DESCRIBE what we see by physical laws. (As we do with physical properties)

    Correction: Glauben Sie an Gott?

    Nein, ich glaube nicht an Gott. Ich bin ein Atheist.
     
  16. alexgb00

    alexgb00 Senior Member

    649
    +24
    Pentecostal
    Single
     
  17. alexgb00

    alexgb00 Senior Member

    649
    +24
    Pentecostal
    Single
    Jahowl. Ich bin ein guter Schuler nicht. Aber Sie schprechen sehr gut englisch.

    You're right in that statement. But while matter changes over time, and along with it change its properties (weight, make-up, shape and color) we've never seen a change in the laws of physics. Gravity, for example, has been in effect since before man walked the earth.

    I don't know. It doesn't seem right to do that.

    Ach, schade. Danke für den "correction." Wo wohnen Sie, Herr? Welche Stadt? Ich bleibe in Portland, OR. Ich möge deutsch sprechen. In deutsche-Klasse, meine Name ist "Gustav."

    Alex
     
  18. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
      Especially when you used the phrase "Darwinian theory" directly above it. Darwin was a biologist, and anything even remotely considered "Darwinian" would be towards biological evolution.

       You've really got only yourself to blame for the persistant confusion.

       Most intelligent design folks. Intelligent Design is not 7-day Creation. Completely different kettle of fish.

      A myth, really? A lot of biochemists are putting in a lot of work on it. Try here, where Talk.Origins has a Post of the Month on it, or better yet here for Tim Thompson's offhand list of 6 papers and abstracts, or just peruse the Journal of Molecular Biology.

       Darwin didn't do anything. He's somewhat dead, remember? Natural selection does it. Because of that, we know the sorts of things to do to minimize it, to deal with it. And even better, we can stick their DNA under the microscope and see it happen.

      "God did it" doesn't really explain anything, does it?

      You have to admit, it was a lame reply.

      No we're not. We're taking the measurements as accurate within the tolerances of the measuring devices, and further more, measuring it multiple different ways by different methods and different people.

      If you want to say they're wrong, please tell me how. Astronomers would love to know.

     

      Really? Do tell. How so?

       Oh, bollucks to that. That's easy to show. Think about it. If every part of the universe is visibly moving away from every other part of the universe, that's pretty much it right there.

      That's nice. Care to explain why, how, or even give a scenario for it? You know "i think this would happen, and then this, and then this?"

       Because, frankly, not only is it an unsupported claim, but rather a ridiculous one.

       You couldn't do it without a common language, either. Mathematics isn't the study of anything but itself, Alex. No study, no experimentation, no observation. Math is a symbolic language used to convey relationships.

      It's darn useful, and very powerful. But it's not science anymore than logic is.

      Why? It's your question.

      Why does there need to be a who?

       Why not? What's to stop them? Our physical laws might be the only possible set. There might be an infinite number of sets, and an infinite number of universes. *Shrug*. Why do you presuppose God?

     
     
  19. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
      No it doesn't. Matter stays the same. You're just confusing the arrangement of matter (how many of each type) with actually change.

       I'm sorry. If I have a box with 5 red marbles, and 5 green marbles, and add 3 white ones, have I changed the properties of the marbles, or merely the properties of the collection?

       Matter is made of protons, neutrons and electrons (which are made up of quarks). Matter is fundamental particles, and these particles have been just as constant as those physical laws.

     
     
  20. Caedmon

    Caedmon kawaii Supporter

    +538
    Catholic
    US-Others
    It depends on your definition of Creation. ;)

    I believe that God created the universe. I'll expand that when I hear your definition.
     
Loading...