Where gravity and forces come from..!

[Delphiki]

Hell, why not even show me from the bible where it says God sprinkled fossils about and set everything at specific levels of decay just to mess with our heads?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

It's kinda difficult for people who cover their ears and go "LALALALALALALALA!!! I win." during science class.

The most interesting part is that he's not even making an attempt at a discussion. I know someone is out of their depth when the only response they make is snark and "no". But without a background in the evidence it's going to be remarkably difficult for him to offer any kind of argument.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

No. You assume that all known animals were there on the ark.

I made no such assumption, since there is no evidence that an ark ever existed.

There is a little thing called hyper evolution.

No, actually there isn't. The mutation/selection rates have been fairly well studied and the "hyper evolution" that creationists require is physically impossible; you cannot increase the mutation rate enough without killing the gene pool.

You see, in the former state, it appears that evolving happened very fast.

We have no evidence that mass hyper evolution occurred.

Also, your 6000 years of disturbance shows a wrong preconception.

It's your claim; you need to show me why it's wrong. Given the Biblical chronologies, 6000 is about the maximum age the Bible claims for the earth.

It seems that a state change, that is a change in forces and laws occurred after the flood, likely in the days of Peleg, when the earth was 'divided'.

Sorry, but there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing took place, and if it did, the radioactive meltdown would vaporize the crust.

That is somewhere, likely about a century and change after the flood year.

There is no evidence that a global flood occurred, and all the available evidence (and I do mean all) shows that it did not, since the necessary geological layer does not exist.

Mountain building, and rapid continental separation, and ice age, and other events may well have occurred around this time.

The rapid continental movement rate is impossible, since the energy involved would have boiled the oceans and produce a massive deposition of igneous rock. No such evidence exists.

The disturbance that matters, therefore is not the 6000 years, but that few months, or weeks, or days, or hours when this change came down.

Would you like to work through the kinetic energy equations required for that? The planet would most likely be melted down to the bedrock.

Ho hum.. Have you tested whether there was any decay at all yet? You assume a decay state existed, and is responsible for all we see. No. I highly doubt that, and it cannot be proven.

Decay rates are extremely well tested - I've done many myself. The physics is sound - otherwise every nuclear plant on the planet would fail to work.

You know squat about the science that applies in the future.

Did I say anything about the future?

You need a present state for your science to apply.

No, actually, I don't. Evidence of past occurrences can be found and used to extrapolate past activities.

Can you therefore prove a present state existed in the far past? No.

Since I don't need to, this is irrelevant.

So I guess you don't know all you thought you knew.

I know a great deal more than you do - even about the Bible.

Right, if you had grasped the concept, you would not be talking old school strawmen physical only science here.

So far you haven't presented any counter-evidence at all. The science is sound.

OK. So, our present state is governed by our present laws and forces. Can you prove that these were in place and even existed pre flood?

Actually, yes. We can.

No. That has merely been assumed.

This is false. We have shown that decay rates and nuclear activity has not changed significantly in the past.

You do not even know what gravity or the weak and strong nuclear forces or time or etc ARE!!!

The four forces are particle interchanges on a mass scale.

How could you then, possibly apply them to the far future or past!!!!!??

It's called science. Surely you've heard of it? It built the computer you're typing on. It built the medicines that keep you alive. It built the car you drive; the roads you drive on; the power plants and electrical grid that keeps you lit and warm.

It's called science. It works. Religion? Not so much.

There was no fantasy universe stuffed in a little hot soup.

False; the evidence for the Big Bang is quite sound. CMB, galactic redshift, etc.

That is a fable. Nothing can support that, but religion. The belief system that our present earth rules have existed and applied always, and even before creation!

It's not based on belief. It's based on evidence. And extrapolation. Do you have any evidence to support your position?

Didn't think so.

Referring to Mickey Mouse telling stories to kids was no accident, that is what modern education IS.

I see. So all those engineers who built cars, ships, dams, computers, the internet, etc. They learned all that from Mickey Mouse cartoons?

Getting that sinking feeling yet? Don't fear it. After you realize that all you thought you knew is out the window, there is hope to start afresh, and get it right this time.

With the Bible? It's a tissue of lies, nonsense, interesting poetry, and myth. There is nothing in it to help in our modern world.

That's what its all about.

It's about truth. I have some; you have none.

You're REALLY not very good at this, are you?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Yes, you are beat. But let's be honest here, the issue is how you have been looking at them ol dead bones and stuff. You have been looking at em as if they were always in this present state and laws. That is belief. Nothing more.

Do you have any counter-evidence?

Didn't think so.

Sorry Dad, but you've lost this one.

 

[JustMeSee]

Anyone know what causes gravity? Exactly? How about the strong or weak nuclear forces? How about atomic spin? Where do the forces in our universe, or part of it, come from? How did they get there, according to science? Why must they be as they are?

For Christians, the answer is obvious. God created it, and set it up that way. Intelligently designed, and set in motion.


Science knows somewhat about how physical laws work, but not what they are!

This is one reason we may not assume our laws will be here till the universe dies from them. Or that they were here at creation.

Gravitons R.I.P.


So, laws here in our physical world, and environs are set up for here and now. Not forever.

The Extraterrestrials set up these forces before they traveled back to The Other Dimension.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

The Extraterrestrials set up these forces before they traveled back to The Other Dimension.

No, no. After. They travel in time too, you know.

 

[dad]

Once again you must show us the evidence that it’s changed in the past.

The only pre science evience we have is man's records. That works for me.

I did about twice. Once again you seem to only read what you want to see.

False. The strong nuclear force you did not explain. Why not just face it?

I just answered the question you asked explaining why you don't see any free quarks and you've justed asked once again why we have never seen free quarks?

Look, if God has quarks huddle together in particles or whatever, that works for me. Have you some free quark of interest here? Why keep mentioning this??

Quarks are always in hadrons, by definition a hadron is a composite particle that is made up of quarks and is held together by the strong force.

That says a lot. Wait...it says nothing. So what is the strong force and why do quarks congregate in hadrons?

4th flavour of neutrino? Can I have a link? The point is that you brought up the flavours as some sort of problem to you and I wanted you to tell me why but now you just said that you don't care.

Not really. I just do not see flavors a a problem. Vive la differenace.


Fourth flavor of neutrino? Physics experiment suggests existence of new elementary particle

You know time travellers who have told you the future?

John was taken there and wrote revelations.

Do you even have any evidence that stars are spiritual and are not made of purely physical material?

No one has science for anything like that that I am aware of. The bible suggests a spiritual connection.

It was even in the article you quoted, via cosmic rays that hit the earth.

Again, that doesn't mean that is the only way they can be produced.

I agree but I don't fill that gap with whatever I please.

No. You just leave it as not knowing. OK.

You brought it up in the first place. You wondered why they bothered adding facts to a Wikipedia article.

No, I wondered why off topic so called facts were harped on by certain posters.

We have evidence and that evidence has lead us to the current theories and conclusions. We then wait to get more evidence to then move on.

Evidence for....what?

God's word is not evidence. You can have your belief and I'll stick with reality.

Then you will need more than belief to formm some alternate reality.

 

[dad]

So prove it wrong, already.

What is "it"?

 

[dad]

Additionally, as we can all see, there's probably no way around the stupidity in thinking that a book could be wrong is far less likely than the universe just having different laws of physics, chemistry, and electromagnetism a few thousand years ago.

Likely is not in the dictionary of the informed.

Show me this evidence that the laws of nature were different at any time in the past.

Show me this evidence that the laws of nature were the same at any time in the far past. Until then, welcome to belief.

 

[dad]

Hell, why not even show me from the bible where it says God sprinkled fossils about and set everything at specific levels of decay just to mess with our heads?

Fossils are from dead things. Any mess is in your head.

 

[dad]

I made no such assumption, since there is no evidence that an ark ever existed.

Well, if you claim all creatures need to be represented at the flood time, you do make an assumption that they were there.

No, actually there isn't. The mutation/selection rates have been fairly well studied and the "hyper evolution" that creationists require is physically impossible; you cannot increase the mutation rate enough without killing the gene pool.

Absurd short sightedness. You assume present state evolving.

We have no evidence that mass hyper evolution occurred.

We have no evidence that mass hyper evolution did not occur.

It's your claim; you need to show me why it's wrong. Given the Biblical chronologies, 6000 is about the maximum age the Bible claims for the earth.

The time frame is not what I meant was wrong. As I explained, the sudden change time is the time that matters.

Sorry, but there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing took place, and if it did, the radioactive meltdown would vaporize the crust.

Absurd. You assume some change IN decay rates. No. If there was no decay, no meltdown is expected.

There is no evidence that a global flood occurred, and all the available evidence (and I do mean all) shows that it did not, since the necessary geological layer does not exist.

There is no evidence that physical only, present state science is aware of for the flood. Since it involved more than the present state, can you see why?!

The rapid continental movement rate is impossible, since the energy involved would have boiled the oceans and produce a massive deposition of igneous rock. No such evidence exists.

No. Thermodynamics is something in this present state. No great heat was generated in the different state past. Like in creation week. Land and waters were separated...no great heat.

Decay rates are extremely well tested - I've done many myself. The physics is sound - otherwise every nuclear plant on the planet would fail to work.

Decay rates only matter where decay exists.

Did I say anything about the future?

Science does. You have to wear it.

No, actually, I don't. Evidence of past occurrences can be found and used to extrapolate past activities.

False! Not unless the states are the same.

I know a great deal more than you do - even about the Bible.

Like a pat on the back?

So far you haven't presented any counter-evidence at all. The science is sound.

..To.....what?

Actually, yes. We can.

Nope.

This is false. We have shown that decay rates and nuclear activity has not changed significantly in the past.

In no way is that true. Why not be honest? Where do you think you have shown that??

The four forces are particle interchanges on a mass scale.

Meaningless. Just be honest.

It's called science. Surely you've heard of it? It built the computer you're typing on. It built the medicines that keep you alive. It built the car you drive; the roads you drive on; the power plants and electrical grid that keeps you lit and warm.

All kneel.

False; the evidence for the Big Bang is quite sound. CMB, galactic redshift, etc.

CMB is a state change remnant, or creation remnant. Redshift need not be caused as it is here in our state, on earth. That is merely a projection of a belief that all things must be the same way out there. No.

It's not based on belief. It's based on evidence. And extrapolation. Do you have any evidence to support your position?

Nope. Pure 100% uncut belief. The extrapolations are based on that same state belief.

I see. So all those engineers who built cars, ships, dams, computers, the internet, etc. They learned all that from Mickey Mouse cartoons?

They didn't build ships to Eden, or creation, or heaven, or the far past, or future. Build me all the bridges you like, just realize that they do not involve the creation debate.

With the Bible? It's a tissue of lies, nonsense, interesting poetry, and myth. There is nothing in it to help in our modern world.

Nonsense. It points to the only hope and salvation of men.

You're REALLY not very good at this, are you?

[/QUOTE]

I don't need to be. Consider the opposition.

 

[dad]

The Extraterrestrials set up these forces before they traveled back to The Other Dimension.

So this is your explanation of forces. OK.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Well, if you claim all creatures need to be represented at the flood time, you do make an assumption that they were there.

I made no such assumption.

Absurd short sightedness. You assume present state evolving.

No, actually I don't. I'm talking about the physical ability of DNA to mutate. There are limits on the rate.

We have no evidence that mass hyper evolution did not occur.

Sorry. I'm looking for evidence; claiming that "well, you can't prove it DIDN'T occur" isn't evidence. It's a cop out from someone who has no evidence.

The time frame is not what I meant was wrong. As I explained, the sudden change time is the time that matters.

You have no evidence the sudden change happened, and we have lots of evidence (geological and astronomical, predominantly) that it didn't.

Absurd. You assume some change IN decay rates. No. If there was no decay, no meltdown is expected.

Radioactive elements decay. Period. No known mechanism can change the rate, slow them down, or stop them. If no decay happened, the the Oklo reactor couldn't have happened. And we know it happened longer than 6000 years ago, since the trace radiation would be detectable.

Oh, and varves prove the flood never happened. Just thought I'd mention it.

There is no evidence that physical only, present state science is aware of for the flood. Since it involved more than the present state, can you see why?!

There is no evidence that it occurred. There is no evidence that any state change occurred.

You keep having this little problem called, "lack of evidence." When you couple that to the wishful thinking / mythology compendium you call the Bible, you've got a recipe for disaster.

No. Thermodynamics is something in this present state. No great heat was generated in the different state past. Like in creation week. Land and waters were separated...no great heat.

How? Without leaving evidence? Prove that this 'state change' occurred.

You can't, can you. You're really not very good at this, are you?

Decay rates only matter where decay exists.

Decay rates have existed since the end of the Inflation epoch.

Science does. You have to wear it.

I have to address what I've said - not something you made up.

False! Not unless the states are the same.

But we can prove that the states have not changed.

And that's the kicker, daddy: we can demonstrate that no significant variation in radioactive decay, speed of light, etc. has occurred in millions of years.

You just keep claiming that "something changed". You can't explain what changed, you can't explain when it changed, you can't explain how it changed, and you can't even show that it DID change.

Major fail on your part.

Like a pat on the back?

You were the one bragging. I was just pointing out that you don't know all that much - given your comments.

..To.....what?

Science is coherent, cohesive, and self-correcting. Religion is not.

Nope.

Endless denial is not convincing. Where are your facts? Your evidence?

In no way is that true. Why not be honest? Where do you think you have shown that??

It is true, and I am being honest. Are you even capable of understanding the math if I point you to the papers?

Meaningless. Just be honest.

Your inability to understand something doesn't make it wrong. And I am being perfectly honest: you're not very good at this; you simply don't understand enough science to hold a meaningful discussion.

All kneel.

You shouldn't; it might hurt your knees.

CMB is a state change remnant, or creation remnant.

Nope. It's a big bang remnant. The math is sound. If you disagree, take the challenge:

show us HOW CMB is a state change remnant. Prove it.

Good luck.

Redshift need not be caused as it is here in our state, on earth. That is merely a projection of a belief that all things must be the same way out there. No.

We can prove they're the same.

Evidence. Give us this evidence that things have changed. Just asserting it won't work.

Nope. Pure 100% uncut belief. The extrapolations are based on that same state belief.

Excellent. You agree that you have no evidence at all to support your beliefs. Good to know.

They didn't build ships to Eden, or creation, or heaven, or the far past, or future. Build me all the bridges you like, just realize that they do not involve the creation debate.

Are you planning to start debating sometime soon? Y'know, present actual arguments supported by evidence? I'm doing all the work here.

Nonsense. It points to the only hope and salvation of men.

Prove it.

I don't need to be. Consider the opposition.

You're the opposition. And I repeat: you're really, really bad at this.

 

[Delphiki]

Likely is not in the dictionary of the informed.

Show me this evidence that the laws of nature were the same at any time in the far past. Until then, welcome to belief.

No, you're making the positive claim. You prove it. That's how it works.

If I actually go through the whole rigamarole of explaining how positive claims bare the burden of proof are you actually going to listen?

There is NO reason to believe the laws of gravity and forces have ever changed. It's the default position. It's just not automatically assumed that the laws of physics or nature have ever been different... ever.

To suggest anything different is a positive claim, which you have to prove. You would have to have had SOME kind of indication that it was so. Positive claims bare the burden of proof. Do you understand this?

I'm absolutely certain that you have no evidence. This is why you are failing miserably. In fact, I notice your flawless record of intentionally ignoring any and all requests for evidence of any kind.

You really really ARE horrible at this -- you're just ignorant and stubborn, is all.

 

[dad]

I made no such assumption.

So, were present creatures there or not in your world?

No, actually I don't. I'm talking about the physical ability of DNA to mutate. There are limits on the rate.

I am talking about the previous state abilities. There were no present limits.

Sorry. I'm looking for evidence; claiming that "well, you can't prove it DIDN'T occur" isn't evidence. It's a cop out from someone who has no evidence.

Claiming it did is in the same boat. Either you know or not. Otherwise, I'll take God's word, thanks.

You have no evidence the sudden change happened, and we have lots of evidence (geological and astronomical, predominantly) that it didn't.

Show us this evidence it didn't. You actually don't have any. Why pretend?

Radioactive elements decay. Period. No known mechanism can change the rate, slow them down, or stop them.

No one asked what happens now. That is known. No one said we could change it. The issue is what happened in the far past. You can't change that by looking only at the present.

If no decay happened, the the Oklo reactor couldn't have happened.

False. Your version of what happened, based on fantasy would merely be wrong. It is.

And we know it happened longer than 6000 years ago, since the trace radiation would be detectable.

False. If there was no decay, where would one get some trace radiation???

Oh, and varves prove the flood never happened. Just thought I'd mention it.

No. They show that layers happened. So?

There is no evidence that it occurred. There is no evidence that any state change occurred.

No evidence a stats change did not occur. Since science was not around yet, history and the bible can be looked at. They agree with me. Fancy that.

You keep having this little problem called, "lack of evidence." When you couple that to the wishful thinking / mythology compendium you call the Bible, you've got a recipe for disaster.

It it not I that have a lack of evidence for a same state past. That would be you. As anyone that can read can see here. Where is it? Hiding?

How? Without leaving evidence? Prove that this 'state change' occurred.

How would God change laws and forces? Well, since you don't even so much as know what forces are, why ask you? We are the evidence. Our state was left like this. You just read it wrong.

Decay rates have existed since the end of the Inflation epoch.

Never happened, that is religious imagination. I would like to use stronger language here, but can't.

But we can prove that the states have not changed.

You are sadly and totally mistaken. You sure can't. Lurkers, watch her fail here.

And that's the kicker, daddy: we can demonstrate that no significant variation in radioactive decay, speed of light, etc. has occurred in millions of years.

That kicks squat. I do not say some variation IN decay happened. Strawman.

You just keep claiming that "something changed". You can't explain what changed, you can't explain when it changed, you can't explain how it changed, and you can't even show that it DID change.

The bible and history record many stark differences. The spiritual is involved. Taking that away is not something science would know about.

Science is coherent, cohesive, and self-correcting. Religion is not.

I am not defending 'religion'. Science is limited in what it can deal with, and can correct.

It is true, and I am being honest. Are you even capable of understanding the math if I point you to the papers?

Math can't help you. No more than paper airplanes can.

Nope. It's a big bang remnant. The math is sound. If you disagree, take the challenge:

Not at all. You just run numbers on selective things. Meaningless. 'gee, if the universe sailed out of a tiny speck o soup, there would be a less than uniform temperature expected' Whoopee do. If a big toad passed gas, and the universe came sailing out, we might say the same thing. Run the math on that.

show us HOW CMB is a state change remnant. Prove it.

Educated guess.

We can prove they're the same.

Excellent. So get on with it then. Time is a tickin. Who knows, some newbie lurker might think you have something! Let's see what you got.

Evidence. Give us this evidence that things have changed. Just asserting it won't work.

Observations of people that lived and God's word are all we have. Not like science was here.

Are you planning to start debating sometime soon? Y'know, present actual arguments supported by evidence? I'm doing all the work here.

Since you are defeating yourself, you save me work.

Prove it.

Jesus did that. Look at a calendar. 2010 years ago, was the closest they could set things to. It refers to Jesus. Not a spaghetti monster.

You're the opposition.

That depends on your perspective. Like the 2 blondes on a different side of the river calling out...the one was waving and yelling, 'come to the other side, come to the other side'. The other blonde would yell once in awhile as she waved.. 'I am on the other side, I am on the other side'.

 

[Delphiki]

We have no evidence that mass hyper evolution did not occur.

Ok, now I know you are of Gump-level intelligence.

You can't have evidence for ANY negative.
Only a LACK of evidence for a positive assertion, thereby defaulting to negative.

Can I have evidence that I don't have a piece of toast? No. Only a lack of evidence that I have toast. Therefore I have no toast.

"You can't prove that I can't levitate on my magic carpet, so I can."... see how idiotic that sounds?

In any case - YES:
There is overwhelming evidence that evolution takes a very long time.
There is NO evidence of some "hyper-evolution".
Evolution takes a very long time.


I bet you get short-changed, like.. ALL THE TIME and don't know it.

 

[Delphiki]

Claiming it did is in the same boat. Either you know or not.

We DO know because WE HAVE EVIDENCE.

Seriously... do you have someone to wipe you when you doody?

 

[corvus_corax]

I made no such assumption, since there is no evidence that an ark ever existed.

Dadhoc says otherwise.
There is no arguing against dadhoc

No, actually there isn't.

According to dadhoc and many other Creationist guessworks, YES THERE IS! Period. End of story.

The mutation/selection rates have been fairly well studied and the "hyper evolution" that creationists require is physically impossible; you cannot increase the mutation rate enough without killing the gene pool.

Blah blah blah goddiditendofstoryjustbelieveafairytaledontquestiondadoranyothercreationist.

We have no evidence that mass hyper evolution occurred.

Dad interprets the bible. End of story.

It's your claim; you need to show me why it's wrong. Given the Biblical chronologies, 6000 is about the maximum age the Bible claims for the earth.

The claim of the bible, dontcha know? That's all the so-called 'evidence' dad needs, along with dadhoc explanations.

Sorry, but there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing took place, and if it did, the radioactive meltdown would vaporize the crust.

The dadhoc explanation of the bible says otherwise, dontcha know?
(Ahem, why are you debating with this guy?)

There is no evidence that a global flood occurred, and all the available evidence (and I do mean all) shows that it did not, since the necessary geological layer does not exist.

AHEM- The Bible says so, the Bible is evidence! The Bible TRUMPS actual physical evidence!!!!111one!!111 The Bible is THE ONE AND ONLY EVIDENCE needed by dad and his ilk.
Everything else can go to H*LL

The rapid continental movement rate is impossible, since the energy involved would have boiled the oceans and produce a massive deposition of igneous rock. No such evidence exists.

Geee RG, you missed it, didn't you? God can do ANYTHING, even create lying evidence for His creation, dontcha know? He can also send the floodwaters to Mars or Neptune (depending on the interpretation given by any Creationist)

Would you like to work through the kinetic energy equations required for that? The planet would most likely be melted down to the bedrock.

Equations? Creationists don't need no stinkin' equations.

Decay rates are extremely well tested - I've done many myself. The physics is sound - otherwise every nuclear plant on the planet would fail to work.

Y'know, except for God. And the Bible. And personal made up garbage.

Did I say anything about the future?

Well hey, the bible predicts the future, right? So the rest of us just LOSE.

No, actually, I don't. Evidence of past occurrences can be found and used to extrapolate past activities.

But gee, the Bible says otherwise.

Since I don't need to, this is irrelevant.

But don't you need to "prove" the scientific version of the past just like Creationists "prove" their versionS?

I know a great deal more than you do - even about the Bible.

Oh, just get ready for dadhoc, dispensation theology, GAP theory, etc etc etc

So far you haven't presented any counter-evidence at all. The science is sound.

Gee whiz, you just don't get it do you? EVERYTHING dad posts is PURELY based on his personal interpretation of "bible-evidence".
He, like other Creationists, does not need (as he calls it) "so-called science".

Actually, yes. We can.

His personal interpretation of the Bible is evidence that says otherwise. Dad's personal interpretation of the Bible is infallible.
Dad has his own evidence. You cannot convince him otherwise.

Ever.
From his POV, science=LOSE. And he's not the only Creationist on this board who has such an extreme view.

It's called science. Surely you've heard of it? It built the computer you're typing on. It built the medicines that keep you alive. It built the car you drive; the roads you drive on; the power plants and electrical grid that keeps you lit and warm.

It's called science. It works.

He calls it "so called science". Remember science=YOULOSE from his pov.

Religion? Not so much.[/quote}
TOTALLY works for him and many others on these forums.

False; the evidence for the Big Bang is quite sound. CMB, galactic redshift, etc.

Well, you are dealing with dad and others who COMPLETELY conflate actual BBT with popular science intarweb sites that make serious mistakes regarding the BBT, such as the BB took place at a single point. Honestly, a lot of people misunderstand BBT. Heck, witness dad's statement regarding the "little hot soup" (not backed up by BBT at all, yet he and many others hold to it)

In the end, you CANNOT convince "earth has a huge diamond core" dad (who based his entire argument on an OCCULT, non-christian related site), you cannot change his mind, and even other (a bit more rational) Creationists would rather give him Reps and REFUSE to argue against him than agree with you.

Hun, Ive been here for a few years, and you can present whatever evidence you want, but dad will NEVER agree with actual science.


But on the other hand, ya gotta love putting "I'm just gonna make up reality" people on Ignore.

 

[Nabobalis]

The only pre science evience we have is man's records. That works for me.

So written accounts that cannot be verified independently?

False. The strong nuclear force you did not explain. Why not just face it?

I did not explain because I told you this several times and you won't listen.
The strong force is explained via QCD which is outside my field of knowledge and the only people who could explain that to you are either professors or a PhD student in particle physics.

Look, if God has quarks huddle together in particles or whatever, that works for me. Have you some free quark of interest here? Why keep mentioning this??

I keep mentioning this because YOU BROUGHT IT UP. You asked all these questions of a the Wikipedia page of quarks.

That says a lot. Wait...it says nothing. So what is the strong force and why do quarks congregate in hadrons?

Hadron is a manmade definition. It really doesn't serve any real purpose but is still used.

Not really. I just do not see flavors a a problem. Vive la differenace.


Fourth flavor of neutrino? Physics experiment suggests existence of new elementary particle

Ah thanks for the link, but I already knew about that and we will have to wait and see if they do exist.

John was taken there and wrote revelations.

Great, so we once again have a book as evidence of time travel. I wonder why no one takes it seriously.

No one has science for anything like that that I am aware of. The bible suggests a spiritual connection.

[FONT=&quot]You have a bible verse that says that stars are spiritual and therefore are made of spiritual matter[/FONT]

Again, that doesn't mean that is the only way they can be produced.

I have already said that isn't the only way they are produced but they are the only ways on earth that they are produced.

No. You just leave it as not knowing. OK.

Fine by me.

No, I wondered why off topic so called facts were harped on by certain posters.

What? No one harps on about it. You took issue with that line of text in a Wikipedia article saying, "so?”

Evidence for....what?

[FONT=&quot]Evidence for the big bang, the standard model of particle physics, evolution etc. etc. etc.[/FONT]

Then you will need more than belief to formm some alternate reality.

[FONT=&quot]I have evidence, you have belief and faith and you have formed an alternate reality.[/FONT]

 

[dad]

No, you're making the positive claim. You prove it. That's how it works.

If I actually go through the whole rigamarole of explaining how positive claims bare the burden of proof are you actually going to listen?

God already told us how it worked, and will work. Can't get any more positive than that. You have a science case built on a belief that the present is the key to the past and future. The claim is only as good as what it is built upon. If you cannot make your so called science claims more than beliefs, fine. Call it positive, or negative, or a tomato for all I care. The effect is the same, it renders them absolutely null and void.

No one needs to defend God's claims, because He takes care of business Himself. Any honest person realizes that history is awash with support for it. Not just the last 2010 years either.

I don't need to support beliefs. You do if you want to call them knowledge and tested, and science. That is how it works.

There is NO reason to believe the laws of gravity and forces have ever changed. It's the default position. It's just not automatically assumed that the laws of physics or nature have ever been different... ever.

I agree. But there is no reason to assume they existed either, as they now do.

If you don't know what they are, even now, how could you begin to know what was here, and how it worked!? The idea is not a change in our laws. The idea is more that our laws came to exist as the change from what was.

I'm absolutely certain that you have no evidence. This is why you are failing miserably. In fact, I notice your flawless record of intentionally ignoring any and all requests for evidence of any kind.

It is not I that ignore the bible, history, and the spiritual experiences of man here. It is not I that ignore that science is a player that came late in the game, and has demonstrable limits to it's scope and depth.