For a bot, you sure did grow beyond your programming.
(Sorry; presuming.)There is always a better way. Assigning particle status to energy is jumping to conclusions and therefore unscientific.
Posted on 10/01/2012 11:16:12 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious—the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe—can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.
Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there's good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever. …
Another role for God is as a raison d'être for the universe. Even if cosmologists manage to explain how the universe began, and why it seems so fine-tuned for life, the question might remain why there is something as opposed to nothing. To many people, the answer to the question is God. According to Carroll, this answer pales under scrutiny. There can be no answer to such a question, he says. …
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Science can only chip away at a primitive notion of a god of the gaps. For the one whose name is I AM, science merely shows the majesty of HIS creation! For the heavens proclaim the glory of God.
They are detectable as forces.
Yes, but attempting to guess the nature of those forces is a bit presumptive. Scientists are new to presumptuousness, unless they are real scientists.
You claim that evolution has actually been observed?
Look up more info on the subject.
I see your point, but I was referring to Creationism that promotes that the earth is only a few thousand years old. However, I think the distinction is probably intelligent design would allow for evolutionary processes. So yes, if there is a creator, then everything would be creationism.
Whenever someone tells me there is no God, I ask them why is this year 2012? No honest person cam deny that this year is based on a time relationship to the birth of Jesus Christ.
And that B.C. thing means before Christ. Must mean that even secular historians recognize that Jesus was a historical figure who has to be so special that all of recorded history used his birth as its reference point.
Even the secular historians of the time acknowledge the death and resurrection of Christ.
Is there anything wrong with that? Is there a better way? Aren't you being presumptive by assuming I'm a real person at the other end of your Internet connection?
As long as they don't burn me at the stake I'll be fine.
(Sorry; presuming.)Labeling people? That’s what libs do. (Never mind the fact that aught associated with evolution per se was being discussed here.)
For my part, anything that comes out of a human’s mouth on such subjects is what is suspect.
We have humans that have adapted to just about every surface conditions on the planet, save the most extreme. Nobody’s changed into something that isn’t human as a consequence.
Who created the science?
Science is blind.
Look at the turn of the 19th to 20th Century Physcists were saying ‘All had been discovered!’. There was really nothing to left to do but maybe calculate physical constants out to a few more decimal places.
Then BOOM!
The ultraviolet catastrophe, physics as was understood had severe problems and was collapsing in contradiction. Then came Bohr, Planck, Schrodinger, etc and Quantum Mechanics. There are still real problems with current physical theory. (Read Lee Smolin’s book ‘The Trouble With Physics’ & Peter Woit’s book ‘Not Even Wrong!’)
This Carroll guy would be well to remember the past, the Universe has a way of making such arrogant smugness look foolish.
Even "real" particles are theorized and can't be observed directly. Is that jumping to conclusions too?
The same can be said about your senses and what you experience. Is that also jumping to conclusions?
And assigning particle status to energy isn't what scientists are doing. You're jumping to conclusions, making things up, or just plain ignorant. I'm not sure which one, but I'm pretty sure you're an unreliable source for judging science.
Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there's good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever. …
Yes, atomic theory is still just theory. That which a scanning tunneling microscope observes may indeed not actually fit the theory.
BTW, if you could not trust your senses, you would not be able to maneuver in your environment. So don’t try claim that what we experience as real is wholly theoretical, nor jumping to conclusion.
If a virtual particle so-called is not (as I described) assigning (or ascribing) particle status to energy, then how come it is that you cannot tell me what it is?
Where is the environment that you experience?
If a virtual particle so-called is not (as I described) assigning (or ascribing) particle status to energy, then how come it is that you cannot tell me what it is?
A virtual particle, just as a real one, is defined by science. The defining quality of a virtual particle is that its properties don't exceed the limits placed on it by the Uncertainty Principle.
Go ahead and crash your car into a telephone pole (especially in a city), and see if nothing observable results. You can pretend that nothing that just happened is real all you wish, but consequences will come whether you want them to or not.
Where is the environment that you experience?
Circular explanations. How does science “define” anything? How does the uncertainty principle (itself uncertain) define anything either? Science is supposed to be a record of observations, in its purest sense; if the energy interactions are what is observed, then inserting “virtual particles” to fudge the numbers is specious.
A virtual particle, just as a real one, is defined by science. The defining quality of a virtual particle is that its properties don’t exceed the limits placed on it by the Uncertainty Principle
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.