Strong Nuclear Force

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Morat
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.

As you wish. For the sake of the people reading this thread, it's my fault. I confused this, and now we can move on. 

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

Oh, OK. I got mixed up.

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.

*SIGH* Another link to talkorigins.org. Just because some determined darwinists are "putting in a lot of work" doesn't mean that they will achieve what they want to achieve and prove abiogenesis.

I'm glad for these people -- they are getting paid to prove something that will never be proven. They aren't very honest, but they're good con-men.

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.

Morat, throught the course of this argument, i have tried to not use dogmatic statements like "God did it." I meant this thread for Christians to discuss. But still, you say things like "natural selection does it." If you think that's a good substitute for "God did it," knock yourself out. Just don't assume your beliefs are right while telling me mine aren't good.

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.

See below for an explanation.

Really? Do tell. How so?

Your eyes apply this principle when you look at an object not very far away. Your eyes cross slightly, and your brain does some quick math to estimate how far the object is. But when you see two planes in the sky flying near each other, at times it's hard to tell which one is nearer to you and which is farther. That's because your eyes aren't crossing almost, since they are focusing on an object too far away. This ability is amazingly useful -- ever try catching a ball with one eye closed?

The diameter of the earth is 12756.2 km (equator). If you set up a telescope on opposite sides, both scopes trained on a star 10^13 km (1 light year) away (the closest star is Alpha Centauri, 4.35 light years away), a triangle would be formed. This is simple trigonometry. This way, our triangle would be almost one straight line.

The base would be 6756.2 km, and the height ~100000000000000 km. The ratio here is 1.48^10 to 1. To solve a general problem like this, you use trig. The difficulty is getting a good angle measurement from the telescopes. You have to admit -- they're almost parallel to each other.

I'm not an eloquent speaker, but i think you all understand what i mean. See, Morat, you need laser-precise methods for measuring the angle of the telescopes to get a real result. I'm not exaggerating when i say that most of the distances are estimates.

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.

Funny, i didn't notice the universe zooming away from me. Did you, Morat?

You're thinking in the right direction, and i like that. But the problem is that everyone gives scientific measurements and reports the benefit of doubt. We (the public) can't know for sure what the truth is regarding the "flow." How many of us here have measured the distance to Betelgeuse by our own instruments?

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.

I said let's drop it, and i told you what i believe. But if you want a perpetual argument, i guess i can do that. Here we go:

Evolution uses abiogenesis for one leg and the BB for another. Without these, it will fall apart. If people lost their silly faith in abiogenesis and the BB, evolution couldn't continue.

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.

You think math doesn't involve experimentation? Ask Seebs. He's a programmer, he'll tell you that when you write a program, it involves a lot of numbers. One way to test it is to assign different values to variables and see if the answer comes out the same.

Same in algebra: y=ax+b.  Before you can find x-intercept, you will need to know the x and y, and the slope of the line.

Science isn't always goggles and Erlenmeyer flasks.

Why? It's your question.

I asked: 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?

You responded with: During the Big Bang? Or before it?

Don't back out. Answer for before and after, if you can please.

Why does there need to be a who?

Something doesn't happen by itself. Like someone said above -- it's cause-effect. For something to take place, there needs to be a cause. This even works in physics. For something to move, for example, something causes it to move.

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?

Why not? One reason -- because it is a foolish belief. Why do i presuppose God? Same reason you presuppose evolution -- because i believe in God.

 

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Morat
No it doesn't. Matter stays the same. You're just confusing the arrangement of matter (how many of each type) with actually change.

What do you think is matter? I thought that it is everything that is made of particles. Light, animals, ammonium perchlorate, etc. If you think a car doesn't change when it goes under a semi trailer, i'd like to sell you one. Matter changes -- elemenary physics students know of states of matter. It's not a constant.

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?

No need to apologize. Except for the bad example. Matter doesn't imply molecules or atoms.

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.

So you think that in the elements we have now are the same as those in the BB? I don't think they've changed either, but i don't believe in the BB.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by humblejoe
It depends on your definition of Creation.

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

Well, i always kind of thought of Creation as the Bible account. I myself believe that God created the universe in six 24-hour days and rested on the seventh. I also believe that the Flood happened about 1500 years after the creation.

What about you, Joe?

Your brother in Christ,
Alex

 

[Jerry Smith]

Excuse me for butting in, but I can't just let something like this pass:

I'm glad for these people -- they are getting paid to prove something that will never be proven. They aren't very honest, but they're good con-men.

Its true these people are making at least part of their living teasing out bits of esoteric theory about how abiogenesis could happen. Strictly speaking, they aren't being payed to prove it happen, but to find some reasonable ideas about how it could have happened, that will stand up to experimental scrutiny. ONLY when these folks, who are something like pioneers in the field, have constructed an experimentally viable theory of how abiogenesis could take place, will there be any hope of applying that theory to life history in a way that it can be confirmed or falsified as the origin of life on Earth. Peering, as we do, through a glass darkly - the final hope of having one theory strongly supported as a model of the actual origin of life on Earth seems rather remote. But, many prospects seemed remote to people one hundred years ago that now are a part of everyday understanding and/or technology?

To defame these fine scientists as "con-men" is libelous slander.

If you want the real truth of the matter: many of them are deriving their salary from teaching currently accepted theories in their fields of expertise to the next generation of scientists (who are by and large paying out the nose to get taught). The facilities and time allotted them to do research can almost be looked at as one of the "benefits" of their profession, though the real benefit belongs to the whole scientific community who will have access to their results and findings - and to people at large, who will benefit less directly by the advances of science, but just as surely.

[/rant]

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
To defame these fine scientists as "con-men" is libelous slander

That statement is repetitively redundant.

Yeah, i know what you're saying, Jerry. But the fact that they get paid so much and help society so little makes you think. Policemen, doctors, janitors all serve a purpose. The majority of modern "scientists" haven't discovered anything. But, Jerry, if your hard-earned penny was collected and allotted to people whose purpose is to destroy your personal belief, you wouldn't be very happy either.

 

[Jerry Smith]

That statement is repetative and redundant.

I had a feeling that might come up. I was ranting when I said it, else I would have pointed it out myself. My first thought for a reply is "yes, but not repetitive and redundant enough".

Policemen, doctors, janitors all serve a purpose.

What about CEO's and Accountants, etc...? I don't really think scientists are overpaid, but I do think policemen and firemen are underpaid.

The majority of modern "scientists" haven't discovered anything.

One doesn't necessarily have to make a huge new discovery to make a contribution. And you would be suprised at what scientists do manage to squeeze out of nature. And if you had been aware 100 years ago that Earnest Rutherford had discovered that atoms had positively charged nuclei, you probably would have been very skeptical about how a discovery concerning something so remotely removed from everyday human experience could have an impact on all of our lives.

But, Jerry, if your hard-earned penny was collected and allotted to people whose purpose is to destroy your personal belief, you wouldn't be very happy either.

No one is out to destroy your belief. They are doing scientific research in order to increase human understanding. I don't know how many of your hard earned tenth's of a penny have wound up in the pocket of a researcher in any field of science, but you need not begrudge them that half cent on account of your beliefs. They don't take your beliefs into consideration when they do medical research that may someday save your life (even if your belief is that demons cause illness, and that "scientific" explanations are a ploy by the devil). Don't expect them to skip whole fields of research just because you think that if they find something you have to change your religion. Chances are you wouldn't have to even if they did find something out about our earliest origins.

 

[alexgb00]

Executives and accountants are overpaid, i think. They don't think so themselves, of course. As for scientists... In the 1960s, America was in a space race. Money was divided for a set purpose -- to put an American on the moon. Not only that, but there was a time limit.

Today, there is no real purpose. Money is given to different categories, but i think it is misused. As for discoveries, would i get a $500000 bonus for inventing mint-flavored earplugs?

I think Rutherford was alive in the 20th century. He and a student of his created the Geiger counter in the 50's, right?

I don't know who believes that all illnesses are caused by demons. Some might be, and as a matter of fact, science doesn't offer cures for some diseases. On the other hand, many doctors are good Christians (even Luke in the Bible).

I'm not against science. I'm against lies. There are some things in the Bible that were written at least 4000 years ago with which science is now catching up. I'll do a thread about that in the near future.

God bless you, Jerry. You're a good man.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Today, there is no real purpose. Money is given to different categories, but i think it is misused. As for discoveries, would i get a $500000 bonus for inventing mint-flavored earplugs?

LOL, try it & see?
Seriously.. to say there is no "real purpose" in continuing with scientific research is very presumptious. Someone might not have seen the "real purpose" in working out the periodic table of the elements (what on earth do we need that for?).

By the way, yes Rutherford lived on into the 20th century, and it was one of his colleagues (Hans Geiger) who invented the Geiger counter, but it was a little earlier than the 1950's. The usefulness of that device would most likely have been puzzling to the roaring twenties crowd. Still, they would have been wrong to say his contribution was worthless.

I don't know who believes that all illnesses are caused by demons. Some might be, and as a matter of fact, science doesn't offer cures for some diseases. On the other hand, many doctors are good Christians (even Luke in the Bible).

Many people believe demons (or in some cases God) create disease. My point is that even if someone discovers that germs do it, that isn't an effort to destroy such a person's belief. It is an effort to explain disease in terms that we can work with when looking for a cure. The people who believe spiritual beings are behind disease have every opportunity to go right on believing that instead of or even along with the natural explanations that science discovers.

I'm not against science. I'm against lies.

Just don't be too quick to judge a particular finding of science to be a "lie" - merely because it doesn't mesh well with your religious understanding of the world..

There are some things in the Bible that were written at least 4000 years ago with which science is now catching up. I'll do a thread about that in the near future.

I would be suprised. I don't think the Bible is a science book. I'll be interested to see your thread, but don't take it the wrong way if I disagree with your conclusions. Even if the Bible didn't get a 4,000 year jump on science, that doesn't mean that it is wrong in its message, or even that it wasn't inspired by God.

Your courtesy and kind words are appreciated. I look forward to more discussion with you.

 

[RufusAtticus]

I'm glad for these people -- they are getting paid to prove something that will never be proven. They aren't very honest, but they're good con-men.

Being one of those people, I have to ask you to retract your hateful and slanderous comments.

I guess it's understandable though. You are completly out matched by these scientists and are probably envious of them. It's no wonder why you have to resort to cheap name calling. That's about all you have left.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I seem to remember a poll a few months ago where people were asked their opinions about various professions. Scientists came out on top as far as respect and trustworthyness. I would have to say this is well earned. I do not know of any scientists who are overpaid. In fact, if you calculated what they earn per hour, based on the hours they work- they probably earn in the same range as some of their summer students working in the lab.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by alexgb00


Well, i always kind of thought of Creation as the Bible account. I myself believe that God created the universe in six 24-hour days and rested on the seventh. I also believe that the Flood happened about 1500 years after the creation.

What about you, Joe?

Your brother in Christ,
Alex

I believe God created the universe in an unknown timeframe, and that Genesis 1-11 are highly mythical in genre content, rendering them highly figurative. As of the moment, I do not take 6 day creation, Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve, Tower of Babel, or Universal Flood as literal.

 

[alexgb00]

Rufus, don't take any offense. I'm sure you're a very honest and trustworthy man. However, many scientists are not such good people. A long, long time ago, scientists were more interested in the truth than in money. Galileo put his life in danger for his scientific beliefs. Honestly, do you know any scientists where you work who would think about dying for what they are certain is true?

As for retracting my hate-speech, i'll do so without hesitation when the evolutionists on this board stop slandering Kent Hovind. (Yes, i think he's a good honest man)

 

[alexgb00]

"E pur si muove" are reported to be Galileo's last words. "And yet it [the earth] moves."

The popular belief at that time was that the earth was the universe's center, and everything moved around it while it stood still. Galileo challenged that, but the majority opinion forced him to keep quiet. He said those words in defiance to the opposition. And guess what? He was right, it seems.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by alexgb00
Well, i always kind of thought of Creation as the Bible account. I myself believe that God created the universe in six 24-hour days and rested on the seventh. I also believe that the Flood happened about 1500 years after the creation.

What about you, Joe?

Your brother in Christ,
Alex

I believe the Bible account(Genesis 1-11) is a spiritual narrative, written in the genre and style of ancient Sumerian/Babylonian mythologies. I believe it is 100% spiritual truth, albeit figurative. I believe it to be ascientific and ahistorical.

I believe God created the universe in an indeterminate amount of time. I believe the Flood myth is also an echo of ancient Sumerian/Babylonian mythologies.

As a further statement, I believe God may or may not have used the Big Bang as a creation device.

Whoops, I guess I responded to this twice, lol. Sorry about that...
Well at least there's some different content in this post.

 

[alexgb00]

Joe,

So you believe in the "millions of years" moonshine? I want to make sure. There are too few Creationists here. Always outnumbered and outgunned.

  It's all right, though.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by alexgb00
Joe,

So you believe in the "millions of years" moonshine? I want to make sure. There are too few Creationists here. Always outnumbered and outgunned.

  It's all right, though.

Ummm, that depends on what you mean by "creationist". I believe God created the universe. I'm not sure what you mean by "millions of years", but I guess you're talking about the age of the universe. I believe the universe is approximately 11-14 Gyr, depending on the dating method.

 

[alexgb00]

Sorry Joe, i posted the above before i got to read this.

Originally posted by humblejoe
I believe the Bible account(Genesis 1-11) is a spiritual narrative, written in the genre and style of ancient Sumerian/Babylonian mythologies. I believe it is 100% spiritual truth, albeit figurative. I believe it to be ascientific and ahistorical.

Joe, i don't want to sound old-fasioned, but, see, when we pick-and-choose some things from the Bible (that some things are literal and some are figurative) then it makes us doubt more important doctrines (like "did God really perform miracles before the pharaoh," "was Christ really resurrected," and "are heaven and hell literal places"). Buddy, it makes me sad that you take the creation figuratively. It's your choice, though.

As a further statement, I believe God may or may not have used the Big Bang as a creation device.

God is Almighty, Joe. He could've used the BB, or He could've done it through His Word. He created light by speaking, He could do the same to the earth and everything on it and everything separate from it. Don't you think so?

Well, i think i should go to sleep soon. God bless you dearly, man.

Your brother in Christ, 

Alex

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by humblejoe
I believe the universe is approximately 11-14 Gyr, depending on the dating method.

Can you spell that out, please? I don't know what the "G" stands for. Thanks.

Oh yeah, i believe the earth is about 6000 years, if you trace the names and ages in Genesis 9.

 

[seebs]

"G" -> "giga", for billions.

I don't have a very strong opinion. I sort of think that the universe has probably been vaguely in a state like this for ~14-15 billion years, meaning, it's been that long since any significant changes to the laws of physics; I don't know if it is meaningful to have opinions about "before" that.

On the other hand, this is an opinion like my vague belief that "Wang" is a common family name in China; I believe it's true, I have some evidence, but I don't *know*, and if someone presented me with a better-supported alternative, that'd be fine with me.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by alexgb00
Rufus, don't take any offense. I'm sure you're a very honest and trustworthy man. However, many scientists are not such good people. A long, long time ago, scientists were more interested in the truth than in money.

They still are. No one goes into academia for the money. Statistically, every sememster closer I get to my PhD the less money I'll make.

Galileo put his life in danger for his scientific beliefs. Honestly, do you know any scientists where you work who would think about dying for what they are certain is true?

Yes. I know of many biologists who get death threats from "good Christians" after--say--they write a letter to the editor about the political controvecy that evolution stirs up. But, luckily, I don't know of anyone who has acted upon those threats.

As for retracting my hate-speech, i'll do so without hesitation when the evolutionists on this board stop slandering Kent Hovind. (Yes, i think he's a good honest man)

Your words were a blanket accusation against scientists, without any evidence to back it up. On the other hand, we have offered actual proof that Hovind misrepresents himself and the facts. I don't see how those are that comparable.