Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Misconceptions about the Big Bang
Scientific American ^ | March 2005 | Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis

Posted on 02/24/2005 3:54:37 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-223 next last
To: PatrickHenry; Junior

What causes virtual particles to appear?


151 posted on 02/25/2005 8:18:53 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

That line always makes me laugh. I wonder what the mass and weight of nothing is when compressed, spun and blown up. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.. gotta have somethin.. lol


152 posted on 02/25/2005 8:29:30 PM PST by Havoc (Reagan was right and so was McKinley. Down with free trade. Hang the traitors high)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Physicist; RadioAstronomer; longshadow; Junior
Nevertheless, even for non-accelerating frames of reference that are in motion with respect to each other, the Lorentz transformation applies to observed differences in time, length, etc. Or so I've always understood. That's how the two frames can make sense of their otherwise incompatible observations

A fun discussion, gentlemen. This stuff blows my mind.

I pity the poor Creationists and ID'ers, I really do. They will never enjoy any of this. They will be stuck in the prosaic and mundane view that ignores the majesty of God's great creation.

153 posted on 02/25/2005 10:41:08 PM PST by 2ndreconmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; PatrickHenry; Junior
What causes virtual particles to appear?

Short answer: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

The Uncertainty Principle is not well understood and is generally taught improperly. The formulation is taken to mean that the position and momentum of a particle cannot be KNOWN to better than h-bar (h-bar is Planck's Constant divided by 2 pi).

delta X times delta P = h-bar

However, what the Uncertainty Principle really means is that a particle does not HAVE a momentum and a position to better than h-bar.

The difference is significant.

Consider a simple hydrogen atom with an electron around the nucleus. What keeps the negatively charged electron from spiraling in to the nucleus and combining with the proton??? It is a classic General Exam question. Indeed, if you calculate the answer from classical electrodynamics, the electron does spiral into the nucleus in something like 10^-31 seconds. The reason that it doesn't is that if the electron got too close to the nucleus, its position would be very small and therefore it would have to have a higher momentum. The momentum shoots the electron away from the nucleus.

It is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that keeps the electrons in atoms from collapsing into the nucleus.

A reformulation of the HUP is delta Energy times delta Time = h-bar.
delta E * delta t <= h-bar

In a similar fashion, this formulation means that, for sufficiently short periods of time, the vacuum field (not vacuum space) must have signficant energies. And, if these energies are greater than the mass of a particle and its anti-particle, then the particles are formed. However, they recombine immediately and return the energy to the field, because this can only occur on time scales that are very short. That is why they are called virtual particles.

154 posted on 02/25/2005 11:15:22 PM PST by 2ndreconmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
I wonder what the mass and weight of nothing is when compressed, spun and blown up.

This makes me think of something. It's not the mass and weight of matter and where it came from more than it is the INFORMATION that HAD to be introduced to form it.

Where does the information come from?

155 posted on 02/26/2005 3:37:26 AM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine
I pity the poor Creationists and ID'ers, I really do. They will never enjoy any of this. They will be stuck in the prosaic and mundane view that ignores the majesty of God's great creation.

What am I missing here?

156 posted on 02/26/2005 3:39:25 AM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

Yeah, that's a little tough to explain too. If I close my fist and there's nothing in my hand, I'd be shocked if it just blew up and a Zebra was sitting on my fingers.. And the odds of that happening are far better than what they describe. On the other hand, I'd love a universe like the fantasy they presume to sell. I could empty my closets and every so often open the door to find a pile of stuff that just appears and forms itself out of nothing. Some would argue 'it doesn't happen that way'. How can they say that - they don't know it happened that way once or what governs it, frequency, etc. Just kills me. It's like that quote from Fright Night "You have to have faith for that to work.." LOL


157 posted on 02/26/2005 3:46:26 AM PST by Havoc (Reagan was right and so was McKinley. Down with free trade. Hang the traitors high)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

We know what makes up the human machine.

We know the genes, the stuff in the genes. Scientists say it was a primordial ooze that was the crock pot.

I say get all the ingredients together and lets see if we can grow a human.

For all the right stuff to be in the right place at exactly the right time? Can't see it happening.

As Thomas Jefferson (the Atheists most admired) said:

"I hold, that when we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.

The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal forces, the structure of our earth itself with its distribution of lands and waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable and bodies, examined all in the minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses; it is impossible I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms.

We see too, the evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power, to maintain the universe in its cause and order. So irresistable are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent, that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed through time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to unit, in the hypothesis of an external pre-existance of a Creator. Rather than that of a self existant universe."


Nuff said.


158 posted on 02/26/2005 4:15:30 AM PST by Michael121 (An old soldier knows truth. Only a Dead Soldier knows peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
I pity the poor Creationists and ID'ers, I really do. They will never enjoy any of this. They will be stuck in the prosaic and mundane view that ignores the majesty of God's great creation.

What am I missing here?

I don't know. Are you a creationist???

159 posted on 02/26/2005 6:34:03 AM PST by 2ndreconmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine
Are you a creationist??? Yes, and your statement seemed to be confusing:

I pity the poor Creationists and ID'ers, I really do. They will never enjoy any of this. They will be stuck in the prosaic and mundane view that ignores the majesty of God's great creation.

That's why I asked, "What did I miss?"

I am facinated by sciences discoveries of God's appearent creation...I don't discount any of sciences theories expect those that are perpetrated as FACT when they are nothing but conjecture or at best, just a guess.

160 posted on 02/26/2005 7:18:34 AM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

Well, I don't know you and I haven't followed your postings, so I don't know in detail what you believe.

Part of the issue is that many creationists (and I don't know if you are among them) deny the Big Bang explanation of the Universe as contrary to the Biblical interpretation of creation.

Part of the issue is that many creationists (and I don't know if you are among them) accuse scientists of being anti-God because we subscribe to the scientific explanations. I happen to be a Christian and this really is offensive to me.

Part of the issue is that many creationists (and I suspect you are among them) simply do not have a working knowledge of science or the definition of science. Ultimately, we talk past one another because the definitions we use for words and concepts are different.

Those of us who know what science is, and indeed are practicing researchers, know:

1. Science is not about truth. It is about fact. Science is defined not by outcome, but by process.

2. Science is minimalist. It does not try to explain what it does not have observation or first principle to address.

The fundamental argument I hear from the creationists and IDers is (my interpretation): "Evolution (or Big Bang) is a theory that is not completely correct and has problems. Moreover, scientits keep changing their view of it. Therefore, it is only a theory that they happen to believe; it is not truth. Creation is a belief supported by the bible and perhaps a few observations but it is something I believe. Well, the only difference is that we believe different things. There is no essential difference between Evolution (also Big Bang) and Creationism (or ID)."

The argument made by scientists is: "Big Bang and Evolution are science and I take them as science. Creationism and ID are not science, they are faith."

Note that the semantics of the two positions are different. We are talking different things. Creationists want to talk truth, scientists want to talk the scientific process. Evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories because they were developed by the scientific method. Creationism and ID are not science because they were not developed by that method. Truth has nothing to do with it.

Scientists don't claim to know the "truth", that is the province of faith. We do claim to know "facts", which are different than truth and which can be observed. Moreover, science is a process which includes as essential elements an unbiased estimation and a minimalist explanation of existing observatations. Sciece flat out does not answer "why?"

So, consider the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a scientific theory. It is consistent with a raft of observation that includes astronomy, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, atomic physics, gravitation,...the list goes on. The Big Bang theory will change as we learn more. It will evolve. Parts of it will be found to be incorrect. That, indeed, is the process of science.

However, it is a beautiful theory.

The Big Bang theory does not attempt to explain how or why the initial explosion originally took place. We simply don't know and can't possibly find out. Science doesn't address this question. It is the result of working backwards in time from present observations. The science stops when we can no longer extrapolate from existing physics or observations.

How did the Big Bang happen? That is not a question for science because science cannot answer it. It is a question of faith. As a matter of MY faith, separate from MY intellectual understanding of science, I happen to believe thatt the Big Bang was God's creation. But, that is a belief based on faith, not science.

As a matter of science, Big Bang and Evolution are science and Creationism and ID are not. As a matter of FAITH, not science, I happen to believe that Creationism and ID are bad faith as well. In my opinion, as a matter of Faith, God's creation is much more magnificent as described by the Big Bang and Evolution than it is in the Biblican description or ID.

As allegory, I would argue that when you and the other creationists and IDers go to heaven, and I believe you will because you are probably good people, God will say: " Welcome to Heaven, sirchtruth. You were a good person. However, that Creationism thing? Did you really believe that was the best I could do????"


161 posted on 02/26/2005 8:16:12 AM PST by 2ndreconmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine

Well said.


162 posted on 02/26/2005 8:35:10 AM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Test of something new:

The List-O-Links. Direct link to the right part of my homepage.

163 posted on 02/26/2005 9:08:33 AM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Test of something new:

Works great. A wonderful set of links, to be be avoided at all costs by anti-science Luddites, much as a Vampires avoid sunlight, and for the same reason.

164 posted on 02/26/2005 9:52:42 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine
The Big Bang theory does not attempt to explain how or why the initial explosion originally took place. We simply don't know and can't possibly find out. Science doesn't address this question.

I have no problems with your statement generally, however there are some things you are referring too that don't really address my point, but I think are a good attempt and a decent explaination of the difference between science and CR/ID.

Just so you know, I think that "The Creation" happened exactly like Genesis describes it, literally...there is no metaphors, similies, or figurative language.

My only problem is that evolution, for the most case, is taught as fact. Not that there are not facts to lead one to conclude evolution, but evolution itself is taught as fact, and that is just not so. I could not make the argument better than this:

So, consider the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a scientific theory. It is consistent with a raft of observation that includes astronomy, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, atomic physics, gravitation,...the list goes on. The Big Bang theory will change as we learn more. It will evolve. Parts of it will be found to be incorrect. That, indeed, is the process of science.

That's a great explaination, I think. However, being "consistant" with something does NOT make it factual. That's where the problem comes in, the scientific evidence might be consistance with theory, but the lot of evidence does not make the THEORY fact.

That's my only contention.

165 posted on 02/26/2005 10:57:44 AM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

"Just so you know, I think that "The Creation" happened exactly like Genesis describes it, literally...there is no metaphors, similies, or figurative language. "

What does that mean specifically? Do you believe it was a literal 24 hr day or an indefinite period? Both are literal translations.

Do you believe firmament is an expanse between two types of water layers or the boundaries of the universe? Both are literal translations.

Do you believe God created heavens and Earth or do you believe He sired the universe? Both are literal translations.





166 posted on 02/26/2005 11:37:07 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: shubi
What does that mean specifically? Do you believe it was a literal 24 hr day or an indefinite period? Both are literal translations.

Well, this is a great question! A "Day" is basically described in scripture as 24 hours by two ways I know of:

Ten Commandments - Observe Shabbat
Daniel 9:25 is an exact to the day phrophecy. There are other ways in scriptue I believe describe a literal day as being 24 hours, but those are two I can think of at the moment.

Do you believe firmament is an expanse between two types of water layers or the boundaries of the universe?

From what I know I believe WATERS.

Do you believe God created heavens and Earth or do you believe He sired the universe?

I'm not sure about this, where is "sired the universe?"

Let me make this point, when someone in the bible was reading the bible, they ALWAYS took the verse(s) literally.

I am not saying there isn't any figurative language in scripture, but I do believe there is much less than what people point as figurative. I know because of SCIENCE I have been proven wrong MANY times when I thought scripture was figurative and science showed the way it could happen litterally.

167 posted on 02/26/2005 12:02:31 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
My only problem is that evolution, for the most case, is taught as fact. Not that there are not facts to lead one to conclude evolution, but evolution itself is taught as fact, and that is just not so.

That is not an entirely unreasonable concern. Indeed, Evolution is taught as fact at the high school level. Well, Evolution as an observation is fact. Evolution as a process, namely the mechanism for Evolution is a theory. However, at the high school level it is taught as TRUTH. At the college level and certainly at the graduate school level, it is taught as all science is, as simply the best explanation of the facts that we have. The anticipation, and it is EXPLICIT, is that much of it is wrong and it is the job of scientists to fix that.

I suspect that you might not find it so problematic at that level.

However, at the high school level, it is taught as fact. However, in defense of high school, they have a different educational objective than college or graduate school. They are trying to make students conversant in a subject. They need to be simply conversant before they can study principle or concept.

I have no problem with the approach of qualifying that Evolution is theory. Indeed, that would apply to all science. Consider, we teach physics at the high school level and they teach Newton's laws of motion. Those are not correct either (except in the limit of zero velocity and zero gravitation and ignoring quantum effects). However, I still think it is the right way to go. Students need to be conversant in concepts such as energy, momentum, and angular momentum as a precursor to understanding more complicated issues.

168 posted on 02/26/2005 12:59:03 PM PST by 2ndreconmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
That's a great explaination, I think. However, being "consistant" with something does NOT make it factual. That's where the problem comes in, the scientific evidence might be consistance with theory, but the lot of evidence does not make the THEORY fact.

That's my only contention.

Actually, my only disagreement with you is one of semantics. Being fully consistent with the entire ensemble of observations does make something fact (it is the definition). What it doesn't make it is TRUTH. However, I continue to argue that the province of science is not Truth, that is the province of Faith.

169 posted on 02/26/2005 1:02:02 PM PST by 2ndreconmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine
I have no problem with the approach of qualifying that Evolution is theory.

If that's the case, I have no problem either considering ID is taught as well just as a valid theory.

170 posted on 02/26/2005 1:06:16 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

What I was getting at is that to translate the Bible literally, you must go from the Hebrew not the English.

In Hebrew, day can be translated either a regular day or an indefinite period. If you look at Gen 2.:4 you will see, even in the English, that all the "day"s in in creation must be translated as an indefinite period. Also, since the Sun was not formed until the fourth day, it is impossible for the first three days to be 24 hrs. unless you do some interpretive tap dance.

Firmament literally means "beginning of the boundaries of the universe". You get this from the word sentence composed by the letters of the word "rakia" translated as firmament in the KJV. So, it is improbable that "waters"
can be taken literally, especially since the Hebrew word is not really a plural as it is translated in English. It just looks like a plural. So, the KJV mistranslated water and did not take the Hebrew in a literal sense, at all. In fact, no one really knows what firmament means.

The best and most literal translation of the first sentence of the Bible from the Hebrew is, "In the first instant, God sires the universe." Creates is not wrong at all, but it is not literal either.

So, if you want to take the Bible literally, you really need to understand the literal meaning of the Hebrew. The English translations are too remote from the original to draw any conclusions about literal translations. At best, you can only get an interpretive take from the English.

It is the ridiculous position that you must take the literal translation of the English that warps meaning and makes a real student of the Bible reject creationism as nonsense. If the English non-literal translation is the basis for your "literal" belief in the Bible, you need to reconsider your whole basis for what you think the Bible means.


171 posted on 02/26/2005 1:56:43 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth; PatrickHenry
If that's the case, I have no problem either considering ID is taught as well just as a valid theory.

Alas, I thought I explained this.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it meets the definition of science.

ID is not a scientific theory because it does not meet the definition of science.

The distinction is important. All science is ultimately a theory. Newton's laws of motion is a theory, so is Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum ElectroDynamics, Statistical Mechanics, Electromagnetic Field Theory, and everything else. All have limitations. All have regions where they are no longer valid (although there have been no corrections yet found to any of the Quantum theories).

The notion that anything else that is a "theory" is also a scientific theory is rhetoric, not logic. The proof comes from simple logic: it is called reductio ab absurdiam. (reduction to absurdity).

Let's postulate your perspective that because Evolution (and the rest of science) is a theory and because ID is also a theory, then ID should be equally valid as a scientific theory. (Equally valid means it should also be taught in school). Note, we are making no distinction between Evolution as a theory and ID as a theory. (i.e. we ignore that one meets the definition of science and the other does not). Well.... OK.

Well then, I am going to propose a new theory to replace Newton's Law of Motion. It is called the "Little Pink Polka-dot Men" theory. In the LPPDM theory, little pink polka-dot men, moving too quickly for the eye to see, run around moving objects in such a way that they nearly approximate Newton's laws. So, when you break a car for a stop light, it is not friction at work, it is little pink polka-dot men. OK, now, we have Newton's theory and the LPPDM theory, and get this: BOTH ARE THEORIES. NEITHER IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, BUT BOTH FIT THE AVAILABLE DATA. THEREFORE, the LPPDM theory is just as good as Newton's laws. We should now insist that high school physics teach LPPDM as well as Newton. (This is the Creationist / ID rehtoric at work).

Well, hell, why stop there. Palmistry is a theory. Tarot card reading is a theory. Witchcraft is a theory. (Well, some people think so). The daily horoscope is a theory. 1-900-Psychic-Hotline is a theory. Astrology is a theory. Think I am being unreasonable?? I bet there are more people that believe in Astrology than in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since they are all "theories" and the rest of science is all "theories", let's teach all of them.

Have to, to be consistent with the Creationist / ID rationale.

And this result is absurd. There is indeed, sirchtruth, a difference between Quantum Mechanics and Astrology. There is also a difference between Evolution and ID. That difference is the same in both cases.

I suppose the only solution is that everything should be taught in the schools. Well....OK. However, I would like to suggest that Evolution, Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology are taught in one class. And Creationism, ID, Astrology, Palmistry, Witchcraft, Tarot Card Reading, and Pyschic Phenomena are taught in another. Then we make each an elective. Let's see which kids get into college.

172 posted on 02/26/2005 1:58:09 PM PST by 2ndreconmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

micelles


173 posted on 02/26/2005 2:06:09 PM PST by chemainus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine

Excellent points. But the response will probably surprise you.


174 posted on 02/26/2005 2:22:14 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

placemarker


175 posted on 02/26/2005 2:27:08 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs; Junior; general_re; balrog666
Get out of that creationoid thread. I hate to give those things any bumps.

It's like being stuck in a packed elevator during a winos' convention.

176 posted on 02/26/2005 2:29:49 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine

So virtual particles are a function of (t)?


177 posted on 02/26/2005 2:59:27 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine
Then we make each an elective. Let's see which kids get into college.

Exactly.

We've had this same argument so many times on FR that it makes my head spin just thinking about it. IF we decide to let every competing "theory" (but not scientific) into the classroom, there won't be time to teach much of anything that is meaningfully connected to reality.

It means adding the following courses to the already crowded curriculum:

Numerology in addition to math classes

Astrology in addition to Astronomy

Alchemy in addition to Chemistry

Homeopathy and Chiropractic in addition to Allopathic medicine

Augery in place of history

and so on...

There's no end to all the postentially "competing" non-scientific theories that can be shoe-horned into the curriculum.

The proper test is whether or not they are scientific, and additionally, in the context of primary and secondary schools, whether or not the theory is widely embraced by the scientists in the respective field of study.

178 posted on 02/26/2005 3:09:52 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
So virtual particles are a function of (t)?

Well... Yes. At least the time that they exist. Larger, more massive particles exist for shorter periods of time, for example.

The very elegant experimental proof of the presence of this "froth" in the vacuum field as Feynman described it was to shoot particles from an accelerator through a vacuum. Occasionally, when the "virtual" particles came into existance and were real for a brief instant, they were collided into by one of the accelerator particles. Since the virtual particles exist for a very short period of time, this collision does not occur often. But it does occur. And once it occurs, one of the particle / anti-particle particles is knocked away by the collision. Energy from the collision has to go back into the vacuum field. But the collision is real and can be observed by a particle detector.

179 posted on 02/26/2005 3:29:36 PM PST by 2ndreconmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine
There is also a difference between Evolution and ID.

That there is. The "grand sweep" of evolution can never be observed. That says nothing about the viability of the theory, it is simply fact. ID is observable on a daily basis. Chimera's, genetically modified wheat, cotton etc.

I know, it's not the ID you are talking about. But I'm curious, assuming a catastrophic event how would future paleontologists and geneticists know that chimera's were designed? Or to remain in the present, how would we know whether an airborne communicable immunodeficiency virus with very high mortality was designed or mutated?

180 posted on 02/26/2005 3:30:55 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
There's no end to all the postentially "competing" non-scientific theories that can be shoe-horned into the curriculum.

Alas, and I thought I was making such a persuasive, novel argument.

The hubris of being a "newbie" I suppose.

Thanks for the update.

181 posted on 02/26/2005 3:31:39 PM PST by 2ndreconmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine
Well... Yes.

Then virtual particles can not account for the creation of spacetime, right?

182 posted on 02/26/2005 3:32:13 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Then virtual particles can not account for the creation of spacetime, right?

I think this is beyond my expertise. I don't THINK so. However, to be honest, I am now at the limit of my knowledge. My formal expertise is in Plasma Physics, and my knowledge of Quantum Mechanics stopped at the graduate level and intro to QED.

183 posted on 02/26/2005 3:38:40 PM PST by 2ndreconmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine
Thats OK, we can speculate, my formal training in Physics starts and stops well before yours gets started.

For the records, I am one of the dreaded creationists who thinks the BBT is a pretty sound one and I see nothing about it that conflicts with Genesis or my Catholic faith.

But I admit to a tendency to skepticism where scientists are concerned. In fact, just the other day I was telling a technoguy that when I was in the Army I met a hell of a lot of creationists but never met a scientist. You have raised my opinion of scientists. :-}

184 posted on 02/26/2005 3:44:00 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: longshadow; 2ndreconmarine
The proper test is whether or not they are scientific, and additionally, in the context of primary and secondary schools, whether or not the theory is widely embraced by the scientists in the respective field of study.

There's a cruder test: does the subject matter prepare the student for any useful work in the real world? That is, why would anyone study alchemy (instead of chemistry), astrology (instead of astronomy), creationism or ID (instead of biology), etc.? Outside of a few sleazy con operations, there are no industries that hire people who have specialized in these "sciences."

As I've posted before, the biotech industry, which is profit motivated (not ideological), doesn't hire "creation scientists." They do, however, hire tens of thousands of scientists.

185 posted on 02/26/2005 4:05:44 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: shubi
It is the ridiculous position that you must take the literal translation of the English that warps meaning and makes a real student of the Bible reject creationism as nonsense.

This is a fine point and one more Christians must consider. I totally beleive the bible is the inerrant word of God in the original Hebrew, although I would not discount the Greek since Jesus may have quoted from the Septuagint. One more point. You also must take in totality the all the scripture. I believe it's all an integrated message that points to Christ.

All of your points are well taken here.

186 posted on 02/26/2005 4:39:19 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

The Big Bang! Or, as I like to call it, "The Big Hoax!"


187 posted on 02/26/2005 4:40:35 PM PST by DennisR (Look around - there are countless observable clues that God exists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
There's a cruder test: does the subject matter prepare the student for any useful work in the real world?

I must respectfully disagree; you're advocating a utilitarian test to decide what goes in a science class curriculum. The trouble with this is there are a great many things that are unscientific and which are utilitarian, and many things which are scientific but are very un-utilitarian for the average person.

I don't know of very many high school students who are going to get jobs as Quantum Mechanics, but I still think QM is worthy of mention in physics or chemistry class. Conversely, there is a significant demand for people who are able to slop out a toilet and change the fragrant urinal cakes, but that doesn't mean it ought to be taught in science class.

;-)

188 posted on 02/26/2005 5:49:11 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
I must respectfully disagree; you're advocating a utilitarian test to decide what goes in a science class curriculum.

I am not suggesting a utilitarian test for determining what is science. However, because so many creationists seem unable to comprehend the nature of science -- notwithstanding the numerous times it's been explained -- I was attempting to offer something at a simpler level that they might be able to grasp.

As for your jocular suggestion about teaching janitorial science, I consider that a more worthy topic for a government school than creationism.

189 posted on 02/26/2005 6:07:19 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

Jesus was quoted by the Gospel writers from the Septuagint, but that doesn't mean He actually quoted from the Septuagint.


190 posted on 02/26/2005 8:11:59 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

I think you completely missed the import of Patrick Henry's post.


191 posted on 02/26/2005 8:13:08 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: shubi
I think you completely missed the import of Patrick Henry's post.

That's okay; I'm positive you missed the point of mine.

;-)

192 posted on 02/26/2005 8:27:17 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Jesus was quoted by the Gospel writers from the Septuagint, but that doesn't mean He actually quoted from the Septuagint.

Correctly put. There was a chance he did quote from the SPT since nearly 370+ years before his birth it was in black and white. There were three recognized languages in his time Greek, Aramaic, and Latin. My only point is that if He did quote from the SPT then it would have confirmed the authenticity and accuracy of the copy, if you believe that Jesus is who the bible claims him to be.

193 posted on 02/27/2005 3:28:39 AM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

There is a difference between a government school and a public school. We need to emphasize that and take the schools back from the government and give them to the people to run.


194 posted on 02/27/2005 3:55:54 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

"My only point is that if He did quote from the SPT then it would have confirmed the authenticity and accuracy of the copy, "

It really doesn't confirm anything, except Jesus used whatever he could that the people were familiar with, could understand and would serve to teach. There are errors in the Septuagint and that is all there is to it. Perhaps there were no errors in the specific parts he quoted.

A lot more people spoke Greek in Jesus time than Hebrew.


195 posted on 02/27/2005 3:58:20 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: shubi
It really doesn't confirm anything, except Jesus used whatever he could that the people were familiar with, could understand and would serve to teach. There are errors in the Septuagint and that is all there is to it. Perhaps there were no errors in the specific parts he quoted.

It confirms that if Jesus is who the bible reports him to be then it's accurate enough! The disciples used it too probably...Why would GOD quote scripture from an erronous or inaccurate source?

This is exactly what I was referring to before when we were discussing "Literal."

There is way more TRUTH to discover than meets the eye on not only what Jesus said, but what he did! The 1st and 2nd verse of Isaiah ought to wake you up a bit when you discover what Jesus did NOT read in verse 2. (Luke 4:18) And this is one place I believe he was reading from the SPT...Notice the two are a little different from Isaiah and Luke?

196 posted on 02/27/2005 6:15:57 AM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

I don't have time to check this out right now, but are they different in meaning from the Hebrew to Luke? What is the correct translation of the Greek in the Septuagint?

These are the important issues. The problem I have discussing this with you is the tendency to take the English translation. Which English version/s do you use?


197 posted on 02/27/2005 6:49:37 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: shubi
These are the important issues.

I use KVJ, but you are making a good point. Let me check some things out.

198 posted on 02/27/2005 5:59:22 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

I took a quick look. The significant difference is the passage about the blind. It is not in the Hebrew.


199 posted on 02/27/2005 6:39:40 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

200. Another prime number!


200 posted on 02/27/2005 6:52:36 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-223 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson