Strong Nuclear Force

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by alexgb00
The Bible isn't an anti-science book.

Yes... it's actually an a-science book.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by alexgb00
"Testable?" Biologists use flies, bacteria, to test natural selection. No matter if they go through 300000 generations, i've never heard of something developing that was different than the original creature. Have you?

I understand, but natural selection has its limits. You can breed a horse big and strong, but it will never reach the size and lift-capability of a Saturn-V. And you can breed horses with animals similar to it, but past a certain point, the offspring becomes sterile.

Yes, strange. Strange we don't have signs on stars that tell us how far away they are. I understand you have a better, more practical and simpler explanation.

That's scientific.

The other alternative is to follow them like blind sheep and not question anything they say. Take their every word for true and infallible.

It is. Why do you so want to hold onto your stupid claim, sir?

Any biology textbook i had in school always talks about biological evolution, using the BB and Miller & Urey to support it.

That is funny.   I don't know what you program (HTML doesn't count) but i've programmed in BASIC and a game engine called AGI (it looks a lot like Java), and both are fundamentally algebra. I don't know how you program. Is it some point-n-click thing?  

Yeah, you got it mixed up a little, too. When solving for the y-intercept, you neet to know one point on the line. It's not always the origin (0,0), unless the line goes throught the origin. If that's true, the y-intercept is simply 0. But in addition to a point, it's necessary to have the slope. 

That formula won't work for just any line, only a straight one. It won't work for a quadratic -- for that they use some other, y=a^x (can't remember). Anyway...

Morat, "plugging in" numbers wasn't heard of in 1950. You had to do it all by hand. That's some good mental exercise.

I see you're stalling. As a friendly gesture, i'll spare you and withdraw the question.

You're saying that the uranium isotope will decay? The matter changes? You're right, but below, you argue that matter is static.

What causes decay in atoms? Honestly, i don't know... But it could be when atoms decay they release energy (hence fuclear fission.) This would mean the second law of thermodynamics in action. Just like a hot cup of coffee will cool off, it's energy radiating into the air. Nothing causes an object to cool off.

That's a good question, though.

A communist party member in the [color=cc0000]CCCP[/color] once said to himself: "If God doesn't exist, why are we fighting against Him?" I know you know about the persecution of Christians there.

Isn't that a good question? If Santa Claus doesn't exist, nobody tries to convince people of that. Morat, why do you want to convince us little ignorant Creationists, if our view is null and void? Why spend your time here?

I know that God exists. It's hard to explain to a non-Christian.

Morat, like you said above, elements slowly decay into other elements. Uranium goes to lead, if i remember correctly. The concept of nuclear fusion is taking two isotopes of hydrogen (tritium and deuterium) colliding them together at a super-high temperature, forming a helium isotope and releasing energy.

Matter definitely changes, friend. Even on an atomic level.

There's even a field of "science" called chemical evolution. This is about how hydrogen slowly developed into the complex, heavy elements we have today. I don't believe in this, but it connects with biological evolution. I thought you knew, Morat.

But 7=3+1+3. Where'd the 2 go?

Matter:
Whatever occupies space and is perceptable to the senses in some way: in modern physics, matter and energy are regarded as equivalents, mutually convertible accotding to Einstein's fromula, E = mc^2...

You are, by definition, matter. The collective mass of particles. The keyboard on which you type is matter. It isn't just sub-atomic particles. How can you smell or see a quark?

Soup of quarks? more presuppositions there, big guy. What happened 15 byrs ago, we have no way of showing or testing. It is all hypothesis.

 

Dude... no offense, but I don't think you really listened to anything that Morat had to say. But that doesn't shock me, because it appears as though you hold absolutely no creedence in any branch of science whatsoever. Many of your posts appear quite antiscience in nature. And on the "soup of quarks" concept, that's elementary cosmological physics. I mean, Morat hasn't presented a single mathematical model yet, but that's only because you most likely wouldn't understand it. That said, who are you to say it is incorrect?

 

[Morat]

Quark Soup (also know as quark-gluon plasma). Heat universe to 10 trillion degrees, then serve.

 

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by alexgb00
Logic is built on mathematics.

LOL!

I'm afraid it's the other way around, friend. :o

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Morat
Actually, that's "speciation", of which talk.origins has two large lists of.

Natural selection is somewhat simpler. It's merely enviromental pressures changing allele frequences. Peppered moths are an excellent and simple example.

Ahh, the old peppered moths. You and i both know that was a hoax, conducted by a darwinist desperate for some evidence. So i don't get an answer from you. Just "talkorigins explains it."

Really? Why? And what's that got to do with speciation? For instance, how do you explain ring species?

I don't know why. I just know the fact. If you want to explain using your brilliant theory, have at it. But if you think a horse can be as big and strong as a rocket, i'll try to not laugh at you.

To measure the distance to stars? Astronomers have several methods besides parallax. Look here for some. Why do you think they're limited to the methods you can come up with?

I read that. But they don't say how accurately the distance can be measured. To the nearest two AUs? That's a huge distance.

You're the one whose "response" to an expanding universe was you didn't notice it. You don't notice the earth zipping along through space, either.

It was a rather pointed comment on your response.

There is no surefire way to tell that all galaxies are moving apart. I'm not saying they're not, however. They very well may be, but what conclusions can we draw?

These are verses that say "God stretched out the heavens."

-- Isaiah 42:5
-- Isaiah 44:24
-- Isaiah 45:12
-- Isaiah 51:13 
-- Jeremiah 10:12
-- Jeremiah 51:15

If this means that He put greater distance between the galaxies, then i believe that the galaxies are moving apart.

Oh, I see. They're either infallible or liars. Goodness. And here I thought peer-review existed just to deal with that problem. You know, there are a great many Christian scientists in every field. And atheist ones, and Hindu ones, and Buddhist ones....

See, you think evolutionists are infallible. I think they're liars. "Peer review" won't help if all of them have been taught the same thing -- darwinism. As for Hindi and Buddist ones, i couldn't name any...

You're the one that made the claim that falsifying evolution would somehow get rid of teh Big Bang. You've yet to support it. I'm still waiting.

I have to support mine, yet you (who spoke first) don't need any support for your idea that the BB will somehow survive without evolution.

Really? You're going to have to quote it. And reference it. Because I have a nice college text right in front of me, and it doesn't mention the Big Bang, or anything about astronomy or cosmology at all. It does mention Miller and Urey, but in the section entitled "Abiogenesis", under "Early abiogenesis research".

Nowhere in the text on evolution is it mentioned at all.

I don't have my that book with me now. How do you expect me to quote a book that i don't have?

Well, it's called "C++" and "Java". Now, I took courses in how to perform math operations with computers. It was a lot about precision, and how computer store numbers, and algorithms to let you do continuus math (as opposed to discrete math).

But, I've got to say, that Object Oriented programming is, in fact, not, fundamentally algebra.

So, I'm going to have to ask you for some examples here. As I've got a degree in this field, and work in it, I'm really lost on this, and would appreciate you setting me straight.

Example 1: The Macintosh was the first computer with a graphical user interface (GUI). Today, your computer works with a GUI. Before that, there was Windows DOS, in which (i know you remember) you had to type commands at a propmt to change different folders, open programs, and copy files. In a GUI, the mouse points to things and you click. There are coordinates that the computer reads that let it draw the pointer on the screen (the mouse doesn't plug into the monitor).

In addition, every character on the keyboard has its special ASCII code (a=65, b=66, c=67, A=89, B=90, C=91... ).

Example 2: In a computer game, there is usually a human player. In some cases, there is a computer-controlled player. This is called Artificial Intelligence. Where the AI character goes, what it does, and what it "decides" is specifically algebraic functions and the concept of probability.

Morat, i know that Java works a lot with variables. I haven't done C++, but i really want to try it. There must be simpler programs in which you can program without any knowledge of anything. But what good are those? I'm trying to say that math is the basis on which electronics are founded. Don't you agree?

You asked for the x intercept, not the y. When solving for the y intercept, x is zero.

An x or y intercept is the point on the line that crosses the x or y axis. The y axis is the line "x=0", and the x-axis is the line "y =0".

You need only a and b. One of the variables will be zero, when solving for the intercept, and the other is what you are solving for.
Perhaps you were confused when you wrote it originally.

I asked for the y-intercept. That's insignificant, though.

Yes, it works only for straight lines. I'm quite aware of that. This sort of thing was vaguely covered in all those upper-level math courses I had to take.

   "Plugging in numbers" means simply assigning a value to the slope and the offset (+b). In other words, make a specific line, as opposed to a generic "y = ax +b".

  It's not a computer thing, unless you're stating that "y=2x + 3" was not somethign anyone understood until 1950.

When someone says "plug in," i think "calculators and computers." The way you put it, of course you could do it by hand.

Because clarifying it would hurt? *shrug*. Up to you. If you're too lazy to clarify a question, you must not have really wanted an answer.

I've clarified it twice. Are you slow? I'll do it again. If you can't answer it, say so.

[bI have never heard of evidence that suggests that anything was around before the big bang. Was there space? Time? Was it the 4-dimensional world in which we live, or another one? Did the physical laws exist at that point?[/b]

Morat, if you can't answer, say it then. We won't think less of you. But if you stubbornly want to, go ahead.

You should read up on decay. You've got some odd notions. Strangely, none of the physical properties of the subatomic particles changes, which was your initial claim.

Don't put your words in my mouth! I said matter changes. You have the strange notion that only subatomic particles can be passed off as matter. You've got a strange belief.

Alex, if it wasn't for the fact that you're trying to pawn your grubby little religion off on my kids, I wouldn't even be here.

  I don't care what you believe about God. Believe he's Michael Jackson in a Tutu for all I care.

   However, when you start trying to pawn it off as science, and have it taught to my kids as science, when it most evidently is not, then I get involved.

  Admittedly, I'd also step in if I saw you telling obvious untruths, but that's just because I hate to see lies go unchecked.

First off, i have no religion. I have Jesus Christ. Secondly, don't ever call God what you called Him above. You don't know this, but in the end, we will all stand before Him. To some He will be a Glorious Lord, to others, a Judge. I really want you and as many people as possible to come to Him while there is still time.

Missionaries' work isn't easy. They leave the comfort of home and go tell people the Gospel -- not because it's easy or it benefits the missionaries, but because they care about people.

Morat, as a matter of fact, i believe evolution is a pseudoscience. What can you do? We believe opposite things.

This is one point we do agree on -- we can't stand lies. That's good.

Do you know what the atomic difference is between Uranium and lead? The number of protons and electrons. Period.

  The difference between hydrogen and helium is one proton. As in "hydrogen as one, and helium has two".

   The protons don't change. The electrons don't change. More importantly, their properties do not change.

Uranium has 92 protons and usually 142 neurtons. Lead has 82 protons and 125 neutrons. The difference is in protons (naturally, electrons too) and neutrons.

Your initial claim was that the properties of matter were mutable. I pointed out that it only appeared that way, because what you consider "matter" is merely a collection of particles whose properties <I>do not change</I>.

I'm not sure why you're arguing it. Do you think the properties of a proton change?

Your definition of matter is flawed, simply said. We're talking about different things. Most likely, quarks can't change. But matter definitely changes.

Saying that matter doesn't ever change is like saying that no change took place in regard to the WTC towers on September 11th. Stupid, in other words.

Sure we do. Just because you don't know how, doesn't mean no one knows how.

What are you talking about? What do you? What don't i know? Maybe you're hearing things.

It's a simple matter of pumping up the energy densities to that level.

Again, point me to where you get this. Did i ask something about this? I thought i said that we can't see what would've happened in the BB.

Or do you claim that process of ice forming in my freezer results in different ice than water freezing in the arctic?

Well, besides the fact that you've got some frozen chicken in there that will&nbsp;make the ice taste funky, no.

 

[Lanakila]

A few pages back in this thread a list of Creationists who have contributed to scientific knowledge was given, and picked on because all those on the list are pre-Darwin and dead. Well, AIG has an up to date list, that although not complete, does show that every scientist out there isn't an evolutionist, and explains why creationist articles don't recieve peer review, or even letters to the editor in scientific magazines from a creationist perspective are censored.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by s0uljah
I havent read those books, since I heard they were anti-catholic.&nbsp; I am catholic....are we still friends? LOL

I&nbsp;read those books and they're not anti-Catholic.

We're more than friends --&nbsp; brothers in Christ! You can't have too many friends here, though. They're in short supply.

 

[alexgb00]

Thank you, Lanakila. That helps.

God bless you!

 

[alexgb00]

humblejoe said:
So I'm a "non-believer" again, eh? It's quite sinful to judge another's salvation.

Joe, he isn't talking about you, even thought he's replying to your post. I don't know how your relationship with God is, but i hope it's good. Could you pray for me, too? I want to serve God more.

God bless you, Joe!

Your brother,
Alex

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Morat
Quark Soup (also know as quark-gluon plasma). Heat universe&nbsp;to 10 trillion degrees, then serve.

Morat, the owner of that site has no way of this&nbsp;knowing for sure. It's&nbsp;not just you. It's anybody who claims to know what happened 600 quadrillion mega-years ago. It's all bee-ess.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by humblejoe
LOL!

I'm afraid it's the other way around, friend. :o

Are you sure, Joe? A lawyer said that the two things that helped get him ready for being a lawyer were reading (you have to read a lot as a lawyer)&nbsp;and mathematics (it exercises your logical abilities).

Are you sure&nbsp;logic was around before math?

 

[Freodin]

Originally posted by 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.

These were not his last words. Alledgedly, he said them in his inquisition trial - but that also is only a myth. He never said these words. He was never actually threatened with death - and his clash with the Church came not from his proposal of a heliocentric system, but for his stubborn refusal to acknowledge that the Copernicean theory was not the ultimate thruth, but just a (badly) working hypothesis.

Galileo did more harm then good for the heliocentric system. His triumphs lay in the field of experimental science.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

It is rather frustrating observing alex sidestepping, dodging and weaving around morat's questions and examples. A classic case of moving the goal posts. I am begining to think that you are deliberatly wasting his time. Very unsporting of you.

Oh, BTW, I am actually not suprised that you did not answer my questions to you earlier in this thread. I am suprised that you ignored them totally. I had expected you to respond (react?) to them by attacking me.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Morat
I even know why hex is used (actually, at it's base, it's still binary).&nbsp;

No, it's hexadecimal -- 16. The digits go in this order:

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F.

class moving_van {
protected:
&nbsp;&nbsp; float payload;
&nbsp;&nbsp; float gross_weight;
&nbsp;&nbsp; float mpg;
public:
&nbsp;&nbsp; void initialize(float pl, float gw, float in_mpg) {
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; payload = pl;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; gross_weight = gw;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; mpg = in_mpg; };
&nbsp;&nbsp; float efficiency(void) {
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; return(payload / (payload + gross_weight)); };
&nbsp;&nbsp; float cost_per_ton(float fuel_cost) {
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; return(fuel_cost / (payload / 2000.0)); };
};

class driver {
protected:
&nbsp;&nbsp; float hourly_pay;
public:
&nbsp;&nbsp; void initialize(float pay) {hourly_pay = pay; };
&nbsp;&nbsp; float cost_per_mile(void) {return(hourly_pay / 55.0); } ;
};

class driven_truck : public moving_van, public driver {
public:
&nbsp;&nbsp; void initialize_all(float pl, float gw, float in_mpg, float pay)
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; { payload = pl;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; gross_weight = gw;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; mpg = in_mpg;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; hourly_pay = pay; };
&nbsp;&nbsp; float cost_per_full_day(float cost_of_gas) {
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; return(8.0 * hourly_pay +
8.0 * cost_of_gas * 55.0 / mpg); };
};

main()
{
driven_truck chuck_ford;

&nbsp;&nbsp; chuck_ford.initialize_all(20000.0, 12000.0, 5.2, 12.50);

&nbsp;&nbsp; cout &amp;lt;&amp;lt; "The efficiency of the Ford is " &amp;lt;&amp;lt;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; chuck_ford.efficiency() &amp;lt;&amp;lt; "\n";

&nbsp;&nbsp; cout &amp;lt;&amp;lt; "The cost per mile for Chuck to drive is " &amp;lt;&amp;lt;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; chuck_ford.cost_per_mile() &amp;lt;&amp;lt; "\n";

&nbsp;&nbsp; cout &amp;lt;&amp;lt; "The cost of Chuck driving the Ford for a day is " &amp;lt;&amp;lt;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; chuck_ford.cost_per_full_day(1.129) &amp;lt;&amp;lt; "\n";
}

Bad example. You know well that there is algebra in that. What are you trying to prove by giving evidence to support my claim?

Oh, and I've worked for NASA (actually a contractor) as a software engineer for the last 5 years.

That is impressive. Do they pay you fine? That makes you a federal employee, right?

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by alexgb00
I read that. But they don't say how accurately the distance can be measured.&nbsp;To the nearest two AUs? That's a huge distance.

So is two inches, on a quantum scale. Two AUs is tiny, relative to the size of the universe.

Don't put your words in my mouth! I said matter changes. You have the strange notion that only subatomic particles can be passed off as matter. You've got a strange belief.

Subatomic particles are matter. Matter is subatomic particles. It's very simple.

Your definition of matter is flawed, simply said. We're talking about different things. Most likely, quarks can't change. But matter definitely changes.

Saying that matter doesn't ever change is like saying that no change took place in regard to the WTC towers on September 11th. Stupid, in other words.

Physically, matter can "change" phase or size. Chemically, matter can "change" in molecular structure. But at the subatomic level, matter never changes.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
It is rather frustrating observing alex sidestepping, dodging and weaving around morat's questions and examples. A classic case of moving the goal posts. I am begining to think that you are deliberatly wasting his time. Very unsporting of you.

Oh, BTW, I am actually not suprised that you did not answer my questions to you earlier in this thread. I am suprised that you ignored them totally. I had expected you to respond (react?) to them by attacking me.

I understand i am your enemy, in your view. But Morat is sidestepping just as much as me. You can see very well, however how uneven the sides are. The darwinist always has more people supporting him.

The reason i don't answer every post is that then i will have more evolutionists bombing me with their time-wasting useless replies, so i again have to stay up until 4:30 in the morning answering. I hope you understand.

 

[alexgb00]

I appreciate the support, Joe.

I understand that matter can't change on a subatomic level. Morat just keeps insisting that matter can't change at all.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by alexgb00
Are you sure, Joe? A lawyer said that the two things that helped get him ready for being a lawyer were reading (you have to read a lot as a lawyer)&nbsp;and mathematics (it exercises your logical abilities).

Are you sure&nbsp;logic was around before math?

As sure as I am sure that either: the apple is red, or the apple is not red.

Just because logic is used in mathematics doesn't mean that mathematics came first. Surely, the axiom "a=a", as well as other properties, must come before you can start constructing mathematical/algebraic proofs.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Freodin
These were not his last words. Alledgedly, he said them in his inquisition trial - but that also is only a myth. He never said these words. He was never actually threatened with death - and his clash with the Church came not from his proposal of a heliocentric system, but for his stubborn refusal to acknowledge that the Copernicean theory was not the ultimate thruth, but just a (badly) working hypothesis.

Galileo did more harm then good for the heliocentric system. His triumphs lay in the field of experimental science.

Freodin, i have a question. Why is it that an unsupported&nbsp;statement isn't always taken seriously, but an unsupported disproving of that statement is believed?

I looked on the internet, and many sites said that this is reported to be his last phrase. How do you know it couldn't be his words? Did you read it on the internet, too?

Alex

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

"The darwinist always has more people supporting him. "

Actually, the Darwinist has evidence supporting him