Where gravity and forces come from..!

[Exial]

There are still people who believe in Noah's ark? I grew out of believing that fairy tale when I was 8 along with Santa and the tooth fairy.

To answer the op, you assume god exists, which neither you or anybody has no evidence for so it is illogical to assume he created anything till you can prove his existence. You might as well say my left toe waved his magic wand and created the universe as the exactly the same amount of evidence exists for both, which is to say.. NONE!

 

[ug333]

Ha! Finally. The ark had the kinds on it. Not all kinds...created kinds. Hence, we would NOT expect any layer with all modern fossils in it. You are very wrong. Gotcha.


I mean that.

Are you meaning to imply that the ark had all animals on it, not just two of each species?

 

[Targ]

Why do you people even bother with dad threads? I just popped in to see what's going on and I now remember why I stopped reading this kind of thread. Absolute waste of time for all involved.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are still people who believe in Noah's ark?

Yup --

 

[AV1611VET]

I just popped in to see what's going on and I now remember why I stopped reading this kind of thread.

Well, thanks for dropping by and letting us know.

Keep us posted --

 

[JustMeSee]

Good question. Since the heavens will roll up like a scroll, how far could it be? I think the view from earth is a sort of linear view of something that is multi dimensional. The distance is gauged by what we would expect if it was what it appeared to us here. But it may not be anything of the sort. If it was 72.1165437 th of a light year unit, and the state was different there than here, it would appear much further than that to us, who assume a same state all the way.

Almost sounds like it could be a Christmas song....same state all the way...



Which light? Our light? I am not certain it travels that far. Are you? How?

What are the little bright dots you can see in the sky at night?

It is hard to miss them. If they don't produce or reflect light, how can you see them?

The 'state' we live in is this one. It seems to be very consistent. Science observes this one. If you have any evidence that the observations and conclusions about this 'state' are in error, please produce it.

 

[JustMeSee]

So called science. Yes. Real science knows what it is talking about.

Real science includes God, nit just the physical only nature that Satan would like to limit all things to. Talk about hell.

Where is this Real Science you speak of?
What observations and conclusions have these Real Scientists made?

 

[Nabobalis]

No one asked how they work. I ask what they are. Not just how it works.

Now, your qed claim on wiki...



"Confinement, which means that the force between quarks does not diminish as they are separated. Because of this, it would take an infinite amount of energy to separate two quarks; they are forever bound into hadrons such as the proton and the neutron. Although analytically unproven, confinement is widely believed to be true because it explains the consistent failure of free quark searches, and it is easy to demonstrate in lattice QCD."



So what you offer is unproven. Right at the first look.

The key word was the one you left unhighlighted. "analytically", many things are hard to prove analytically but can be proven numerically and then confirmed experimentally.

Now, it goes on


"
Bosons are a family of elementary particles, alongside quarks and leptons.
In particle physics, gauge bosons are bosonic particles that act as carriers of the fundamental forces of nature.[1][2] More specifically, elementary particles whose interactions are described by gauge theory exert forces on each other by the exchange of gauge bosons, usually as virtual particles."


Seems like all this is trying to describe in it's vague way, is that the forces which interact and exert forces on each other do so in a certain way.

It isn't vague; it is explained that these forces interact via these bosons. That is how it works. The intimate details are the ones they don't put on the page because they are detailed, too detailed for a Wikipedia article.

It is a Wikipedia article; they give nice overviews of subjects. They are not research papers or books.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Ha! Finally. The ark had the kinds on it. Not all kinds...created kinds. Hence, we would NOT expect any layer with all modern fossils in it. You are very wrong. Gotcha.


I mean that.

I didn't say modern fossils, dad. You might want to rethink that.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

The bible puts the 'scio' back in science.

Nope. The Bible is an amusing collection of myths, poetry, and really poor history - especially Genesis and Exodus.

Thanks for sharing your vivid dreams.

You keep offering the Bible; I think he was trying to be polite.

I observe that science does not know what state the future will be in. I also observe it makes predictions all over the place about the future.

Your ability to contradict yourself in the space of two sentences is fabulously funny.

Some conclusion. Some 'observing'!! Get serious.

We are serious. Your ignorance of science is not evidence. Your ignorance of the Bible is simply sad.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Yup --

And the Easter Bunny and Santa, I presume?

 

[dad]

I didn't say modern fossils, dad. You might want to rethink that.

I did. The issue is how fast the kinds evolved. If it was fast, then not all needed to be there. In no way would some very broad spectrum of animals need to be in a layer near the flood. I do think before I post, more often than not.

 

[dad]

That's not why I'm here. I'm here in hopes that I can educate someone on what science actually is, how useful it actually is, and how people like you take full advantage of it's benefits while preaching against it.

I'm here in hopes to begin to pull at least one idiot out of imagination land.

Try getting out of the rabbit hole before looking for an idiot.

 

[dad]

This is the scariest thread I have read through here!

Boo.

Science will always have questions to answer. ALWAYS.

You do understand that this is a prediction? The bible says otherwise. In no way does it indicate than men will be running around like hamsters on a wheel, ever learning, never able to come to a knowledge of the truth for all that long! The knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth, like the waters now cover the seas.

If M-Theory is proven true, then the question will be around what a "string" is. To say that science has failed because it doesn't know everything is to not understand how science works.

Nonsense. They keep stringing the hamsters along to keep em running. As long as men omit the spiritual and God, there is absolutely no chance they will get anywhere in the origins dept.

The success or failure of science isn't measured in our knowledge in absolute terms, but in the progress of our knowledge.

So you say that it is not what science knows, and doesn't know that matters, just how fast the wheel spins. OK. I'll put that down as a vote for Hamster Science.

 

[dad]

The problem with your position, dad, is that if you are consistent with it, then you've shot yourself in the foot.

Not at all. Only so called science is shot in the heart and face of their foundational beliefs.

If we cannot rely on the past not having been changed, then we cannot assume anything about the past - even the past of three minutes ago.

Ho hum. We can rely on what is known. Reasonable proof and evidence is fine. No one is saying we need to be unreasonable here. The thing is we do have plenty of evidence for last year, and century, and etc. We have NONE for a same state existing in the far past or future. I define the far past as anything approaching the flood time...say 4500+ years ago.

Which means that you're a servant of the Great Deceiver. Tsk, tsk.

Oh no, not me. The deceiver is the one that leads men away from the living God of the bible. The deceiver wants to claim that only the natural world and physical matter or exist, or ever have or will exist. That is where the deception lies.

 

[dad]

There are still people who believe in Noah's ark? I grew out of believing that fairy tale when I was 8 along with Santa and the tooth fairy.

Yes. There sure are.

To answer the op, you assume god exists, which neither you or anybody has no evidence for so it is illogical to assume he created anything till you can prove his existence.

The evidence for gravity is that it works, same with the other forces. Same with God. Same with time. That doesn't mean science can know why and exactly where, and how.

You have no evidence against God.

So, you can imagine a magic singularity appeared for no reason, and that life appeared by fluke, and that there is nothing but this physical universe and laws man knows on earth if you like. You have no evidence for any counter creation claim, and denying the known spiritual is required for your dream scenarios.

You might as well say my left toe waved his magic wand and created the universe as the exactly the same amount of evidence exists for both, which is to say.. NONE!

Man doesn't know the creation details by any ability he has. You may imagine whatever you like..it ain't knowledge or truth.

 

[dad]

Are you meaning to imply that the ark had all animals on it, not just two of each species?

I mean that it seems likely that God called the created kinds onto the ark, and they evolved after that.

 

[sandwiches]

The bible says otherwise.

Who cares? Reality wins. You lose.

 

[sandwiches]

I mean that it seems likely that God called the created kinds onto the ark, and they evolved after that.

There was never an ark or global flood. Sorry to break the news to you, dad.

 

[dad]

There was never an ark or global flood. Sorry to break the news to you, dad.

I see.