Strong Nuclear Force

[seebs]

alex: You may want to check out a site like snopes.com, which discusses in more detail how you study an urban legend, and try to find out whether or not it was true.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Morat: I even know why hex is used (actually, at it's base, it's still binary).


alex: 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.

Alex, I think that any of us care understand base 16 versus base 2. The point Morat was trying to make is that base 16 converts easily to base 2 and vice versa... Using hexadecimal notation is just a kind of shorthand for the binary code that corresponds to a memory address or the data stored in a block of memory.

 

[Freodin]

Originally posted by alexgb00


Freodin, i have a question. Why is it that an unsupported 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

Well, "always" is a little exaggerated. Sometimes it happens, but here it is not the case.

The life of Galileo Galilei has become more important for the impact on the science/religion debate that for it´s historic truth.

This comes from the age of enlightenment, when philospophers sought for examples of the "anti-scientist" view of the catholic church.
The used Galileo as a weapon.

But since then, the original transcripts of the inquisitional process have been made availiable. Now we know that the "well-known story" is just a myth.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Well, AIG has an up to date list, that although not complete, does show that every scientist out there isn't an evolutionist.

So what? No one here is claiming that there aren't legitimate scientists who are creationists. Yet I have no knowledge of one who is a creationist for anything other than religious reasons. If the evidence didn’t support evolution, shouldn’t the people most familiar with it have realized that by now? No one expects biologists to be the first ones to realize the problems in theoretical physics. Why do people expect physicists to be the first to realize the problems in evolutionary theory?

As science is today, population biologists are the ones most professionally familiar with the evidence for evolution. Yet I know of not a single one, current or former, who considers special creation to be a correct explanation for the diversity of life.

explains why creationist articles don't recieve peer review, or even letters to the editor in scientific magazines from a creationist perspective are censored.

Ah yes, the censorship argument. It is only persuasive in that it relies on the conspiracy-theory mentality that is so popular now a days. Creationists want there to be a conspiracy against them because it means that they are not at fault for not presenting their case scientifically. Papers get rejected all the time, including “evolutionist” ones. That’s the nature of peer-review: reject the crap. Sure, we all think our work is good enough to be published and when it doesn’t it’s not because it wasn’t good enough but because the reviews were biased. But that is why the authors get the reviews back, so they can see why it was rejected. For creationists to truly make the claim that they were subject to bias, they need to produce the paper submitted to a journal, along with the reviews’ comments. Until such time, they are only Chicken Littles.

Now if you want to see how creationists receive challenges to their ideas, read Glenn Morton’s story: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gstory.htm.

 

[Morat]

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."

  *shrug*. I expected you to be able to find things on your own. However, if I must hold your hand. Speciation events. More Speciation Events. Peppered Moths.

  I'd read the peppered moth thing if I was you. Calling it a hoax reveals much of your education. And lack thereof. It, like Darwin's Finches, are excellent examples of natural selection (not speciation, but selection) in action.

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.

  That's interesting. First off, you can't explain ring species. But Evolution can, quite easily.

  Oh, and that horse/rocket thing. Good job there. It really reveals how out-of-depth you are. When people start saying things that ludicrous, you know they're screwed.

  Ring species are fascinating things, and I can understand why you don't want to discuss them.

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.

   Here you go. 26 different methods astronomers use. As for error rates, it depends entirely on the method and object being studied. Some objects, like NGC 4258 have been measured as 23.5 million light years, and the error rate is within 4%. (This star was measured with plain, old fashioned trig. The star is surrounded by a cloud of gas that has radio hot-spots. Kinda cool). Cepheid measurements generally have errors ranging from less than 10% to up to 40%. The Hubble flow itself has been calculated to within 10%.

   None of this is all that important to an expanding universe. Merely noting the redshift in everything but our own local group does it, as does noting that the further away the object is, the greater the redshift. Determing the exact value of the Hubble constant requires distance and redshift value. We have firm redshift values (it's called "looking"), and distance figures are down to within 10%.

See, <B>you</B> think evolutionists are infallible. I think they're liars. <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif" border=0> "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...

&nbsp; So? I can name several, as well as dozens of Christians. And a ton of Jesuits. They'd be most upset at being called liars. I find it amazing that you think thousands of scientists, representing all faiths and none, could miss something so obvious it's apparant to any fundamentalist Christian.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Not that it helps you any, because evolution wasn't always the dominant paradigm. You do remember that period between the writing of The Origin of Species and the New Synthesis, right?

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

&nbsp; You made the claim, not me. The only claim I made was that cosmology and evolution have nothing to do with each other (which is a negative claim, by the way). All it takes to prove me wrong is one textbook or paper where cosmology is used in biological evolution or vice versa.

&nbsp; You can't seem to provide one.

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

&nbsp; I don't expect you to quote it at all, because I'm rather certain it doesn't exist. However, if biological evolution and cosmology are so intertwined, it should be no problem to find papers or texts claiming this.

&nbsp; your stuff about computers

&nbsp; Your claim was "programming is basically algebra". It was a stupid claim. You're now trying to show that "programmers often use algebra", a claim I have no problem with.

&nbsp; Note: AI tends to use weighted neural nets, which isn't exactly algebra, or red-black trees, which isn't algebra at all.

&nbsp; Nor is math the basis of electronics. Electronics are based on current flow. Math, specifically boolean logic, is an excellent way to describe electronics. Which is, as I've said, because math is an excellent and descriptive language.

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

&nbsp; Allow me to quote you:

Same in algebra: y=ax+b. &nbsp;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.

&nbsp; Page 9 of this thread, first post.

I've clarified it <I>twice</I>. Are you slow?&nbsp;I'll do it again. If you can't answer it, say so.

&nbsp; You used "during" and "before" interchangably. I asked, quite understandble, which one you meant. You seemed to resist answering. I can't imagine why.

[bI have never heard of evidence that suggests that anything was around&nbsp;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&nbsp;want to, go ahead.

&nbsp; Space and time are products of this universe. So, therefore, they weren't there before. What was before is a matter of some debate, debate that won't be settled until a GUT is achieved, at the very least. I'm rather partial to the Standard Model explanation, that prior to the universe existed only the primordial Higgs.

&nbsp; But that's a mere hypothesis, although it does explain inflation rather nicely, and inflation is quite well-supported.

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

&nbsp;&nbsp; You claim matter changes all the time, as "evidence" that the physical laws of the universe could be changing.

&nbsp; I pointed out that the properties you were discussing were all properties of collections of subatomic particles, and that merely changing the number and arrangement of these particles lead to a different "collective" property.

&nbsp; But that the properties of these subatomic particles never changed.

&nbsp; Your argument is akin to saying the properties of iron change, because obviously a sphere of iron is a different shape, volume and mass&nbsp;than a cube of iron.

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 <B>do</B> agree on -- we can't stand lies. That's good.

&nbsp;

&nbsp; First off, I speak as I please. My salvation, damnation, or whatnot is my business. I rather doubt God is as thin-skinned, given (if he exists) that he has to deal with mass-murderers and the like. I somehow doubt he's got a problem with my words.

&nbsp; Secondly, "I believe in Jesus Christ" is a religious statement, and you do belong to a religion. *shrug*.

&nbsp; As for not standing lies: You certainly seem to have no problem making incorrect and slanderous accusations (all evolutionists are liars). I don't think you have a problem with lies at all.

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

&nbsp; Very good. So we're in agreement that while the properties of lead and uranium are very different, it is not do to changes in the property of matter.

Your definition of <I>matter</I> 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.

&nbsp;&nbsp; You seem to have forgotten your statement that started this. You claimed physical laws didn't have to be unchanging, because matter was unchanging.

&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm sorry I have to complicate your world by pointing out that matter is unchanging, at the base level, and any change you see is merely due to differences in the number and type of matter.

&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.

&nbsp; You really don't know anything about this, do you? The hexadecimal numbering system is a representation of 4 bit binary. 16 "digits" (0 through F), corresponding to the 16 possible combinations of 4 binary bits. 0000 = 0, 1111 = F. 1010 = A.

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

&nbsp; Let me quote you your claim again:

Page 13:

That <I>is</I> funny. <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif" border=0>&nbsp; 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 <I>both</I>&nbsp;are fundamentally algebra. I don't know&nbsp;how you program. Is it some point-n-click thing?&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp; You didn't say they used math. You said they were both fundamentally algebra. You're utterly wrong.

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

&nbsp; No, I'm not a federal employee. The federal government employs my company. And I make quite good money. I never seem to want for it.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

 

[Morat]

Rufus: The "censorship" claim was made in the McLean case, and subsequent questioning found that none of them had actually submitted works.

&nbsp;

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Morat
Rufus: The "censorship" claim was made in the McLean case, and subsequent questioning found that none of them had actually submitted works.

Well if that isn't censorship, I don't know what is.

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; You'd think, with all the journals rejecting their work right and left, that they'd happily post the rejection letters. It's not like laymen are really capable of assesing the usual standards for rejection.

&nbsp;&nbsp;

 

[Lanakila]

Did you guys read the article I posted about censorship or do you just like to flame. AIG did a good job of providing actual evidence of actual censorship, but if you didn't read the article I will post it again for you.

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

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Did you guys read the article I posted about censorship or do you just like to flame. AIG did a good job of providing actual evidence of actual censorship, but if you didn't read the article I will post it again for you.

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

Thanks for the link!! I enjoyed this part of the article:

Based on those proportions and knowing the membership of the Creation Research Society, it's probably a conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 practising scientists who are biblical creationists.' ('Creation in the Physics Lab', Creation Ex Nihilo 15(3):20–23).

I wonder if any of them have masters degrees? Nah - according to the evolutionists here, that would be impossible.

 

[npetreley]

First off, you can't explain ring species. But Evolution can, quite easily.

I don't get your point. You can't extrapolate macroevolution from the fact that a salamander can evolve into a salamander, whether that example of microevolution takes the form of a ring or not. So why would that be a problem for creationists?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
"The darwinist always has more people supporting him. "

Actually, the Darwinist has evidence supporting him

Too bad he had to make it up.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by humblejoe
Actually, 14 Gyr is the approximate age of the universe, not the Earth.

I sit corrected, of course.

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

Huh? When did I ever say you are a non-believer? I generally avoid coming to any such conclusions since I cannot know the hearts of others as G~d can, but where did you get the idea that it is a sin to come to an opinion about someone else's salvation?

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by humblejoe
You seem to take all scripture literally. I was wondering if you could do something for me. Interpret the following scripture literally:

For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. - John 6:55, NASB

alex, I'm still curious about this...

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by npetreley
Huh? When did I ever say you are a non-believer? I generally avoid coming to any such conclusions since I cannot know the hearts of others as G~d can, but where did you get the idea that it is a sin to come to an opinion about someone else's salvation?

"By the way, I wonder if the non-believers here have any idea how much information contained in the geneologies starting with Genesis 9 is directly traceable to today (in other words, confirmed by our current state of knowledge). That's only 8 chapters away from the stuff they say is fairy tale."

In this passage, it appeared as though you were saying that people that believe in a mythological interpretation of Genesis 1-11 are automatically "non-believers". That is what provoked me.

And on judging salvation, I don't think it's possible for one person to absolutely know another person's eternal destiny, esp. using only the criterion of an amoral issue such as this. However, I do apologize if I misinterpreted or offended you at all with my statement.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Too bad he had to make it up.

Good news!! She didn't have to make any of it up!! I know that will be a load off your mind.

Of course they still have to dig it up, sequence it up, work it up, analyze it up, examine it up, critique it up, write it up, read it up, comprehend it up, but at least he doesn't have to make it up!!

(By the way, if you don't believe me, just go look through the journals and count the papers that use or refer to made up evidence! I bet you won't find any, although there have been some unscrupulous scientists in the past, like Robert Millikan who fudged their data, but that's why I'm a Spiritualist instead of a Chemicalist. Its mostly those evil, godless Chemicalists that refuse to acknowledge God's spiritual power in holding molecules together, in spite of all of the evidence for Spiritualism!)

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Good news!! She didn't have to make any of it up!! I know that will be a load off your mind.

Of course they still have to dig it up, sequence it up, work it up, analyze it up, examine it up, critique it up, write it up, read it up, comprehend it up, but at least he doesn't have to make it up!!

(By the way, if you don't believe me, just go look through the journals and count the papers that use or refer to made up evidence! I bet you won't find any, although there have been some unscrupulous scientists in the past, like Robert Millikan who fudged their data, but that's why I'm a Spiritualist instead of a Chemicalist. Its mostly those evil, godless Chemicalists that refuse to acknowledge God's spiritual power in holding molecules together, in spite of all of the evidence for Spiritualism!)

Ehhh??? Chemicalist? Spiritualist? What are those?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Oooh, humble.. looks like you have been indoctrinated by those evil chemicalists. You probably believe the chemicalist lie that water is made from hydrogen and oxygen. But did you know that hydrogen and oxygen make hydrogen peroxide? It's been proven in a lab! Yet the godless chemicalists still tell you that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen!!

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by humblejoe <B>"You seem to take all scripture literally. I was wondering if you could do something for me. Interpret the following scripture literally:

For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. - John 6:55, NASB"</B>



alex, I'm still curious about this...

Sorry it took so long for me. (I don't sit at the computer all day.) Joe, when Christ said these words, He broke bread and drank wine with His disciples. The next day, the Romans already had Him. We know that He didn't give the disciples His literal&nbsp;body to eat. To this day, Christians everywhere take "communion," which is eating bread representing Christ's body and drinking wine representing Christ's blood. The Bible says that those who do this will be raised on the last day (because they are part of Christ).

But i didn't say that the Bible is always literal. In some places, it is clear that it is figurative (i.e. the Babylonian king's dream, which Daniel interpreted). However, i can't understand how Noah building the ark and the flood covering the mountaintops is figurative. Can you help?

God bless you, Joe. Sorry i took so long.

 

[seebs]

I don't think it's *figurative*; I think it's a myth, which is a way of saying, it's a story, the facts of which are not necessarily true, which communicates our basic beliefs about the structure of the world. In other words, the message is "God made everything". To people to whom "everything" meant "this little chunk of land here surrounded by waters", that suggests language like "and the spirit of God moved upon the waters" - but the *POINT* is that everything exists because of God. The details aren't the message; they're a carrier, and they're a carrier written for people who knew essentially nothing about the physical structure of the world.