Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
Even if that were true (I would have to confirm your claims with some data) what is so illogical about that?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Errors in Science!
- Thread starter OldRegular
- Start date
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
And the idea that what he started was not a natural process is found in the text and context?
And so am I.
I agree, Christ rising from the dead was not a natural process.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
That was a reasonable statement given the data available to him which was the celestial objects moving from one horizon to the other at regular periods.
As information about the paths and patterns about those objects came to light, new reasonable statements came about correcting older statements.
This will continue in the future and is science at work.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
That is true, Gold Dragon. Our base of knowledge is dependent upon those who have come before. I would hate to see humanity to have to "start over" gathering knowledge of the world. How long would it take the next time to get back to where we are now.
As Sir Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
As Sir Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
Writers write to be understood. It would be sad NOT to be able to be able to evaluate what you read and just accept what they wrote based upon their reputation.
There are plenty of eminent scientists that disagree with each other. To be convinced that one is right and the other is wrong doesn't mean I know more, just that I hold a contrary opinion.
This thread is going nowhere fast...I'm out-of-here.
Rob's sad
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
There are also intelligent scientists you disagree with too. Many of them are Christians who believe God created the heavens and the earth.
But when he spoke the universe into existence and the big bang occured, a functioning universe came into being. God stretched out the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth. The Holy Spirit hovered over the face of the water-enveloped earth that was wrapped in thick clouds.
The universe did not come into existence through random, purposeless chance. God designed it and created it! And scientists who believe in the Big Bang have knowingly or unknowingly admitted this! Because once the universe came into being, the fingerprints of design were all over it.
The universe did not come into existence through random, purposeless chance. God designed it and created it! And scientists who believe in the Big Bang have knowingly or unknowingly admitted this! Because once the universe came into being, the fingerprints of design were all over it.
There are also intelligent scientists you disagree with too. Many of them are Christians who believe God created the heavens and the earth. </font>[/QUOTE]In many cases, all you need to know is their bias. A scientist who automatically rules out the supernatural is biased and in many cases cannot be trusted with the evidence.
The opposite is true as well. Creation scientists who insist that the universe is only 6000 years old (because they have misinterpreted the Scripturess) also are prone to mishandle the evidence.
Neither person is devious. It is just the way the human mind works. We try to find evidence for what we a priori believe.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
Agreed. The inherent difficulty is always in the ability to see our own biases.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Plain Old Bill
New Member
Why are there still apes?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Why are there still pigs????????????
Why are there still amoebas?
Many a scientist, especially among physicists, believes in creation. They have now identified the quark as the smallest and most basic particle of anything that exists in the physical universe. They've found that quarks come in six "flavors". (Hey, I didn't make up that name used to differentiate between the types of quarks!) They've found that electrons, protons, neutrons, & every other known subatomic particle is made of quarks.
However, they inevitably come to these questions: WHERE DID QUARKS COME FROM? WHAT DETERMINED THEIR FLAVORS? WHAT DETERMINED THAT X NUMBER OF QUARKS IN THE RIGHT COMBINATION OF FLAVORS MAKES AN ELECTRON? Many of them make up answers in a most unscientific way, but for those who actually observe the rules of science, the answer is obvious...THE POWER OF GOD, and His design of all that exists.
Many a scientist, especially among physicists, believes in creation. They have now identified the quark as the smallest and most basic particle of anything that exists in the physical universe. They've found that quarks come in six "flavors". (Hey, I didn't make up that name used to differentiate between the types of quarks!) They've found that electrons, protons, neutrons, & every other known subatomic particle is made of quarks.
However, they inevitably come to these questions: WHERE DID QUARKS COME FROM? WHAT DETERMINED THEIR FLAVORS? WHAT DETERMINED THAT X NUMBER OF QUARKS IN THE RIGHT COMBINATION OF FLAVORS MAKES AN ELECTRON? Many of them make up answers in a most unscientific way, but for those who actually observe the rules of science, the answer is obvious...THE POWER OF GOD, and His design of all that exists.
" Many a scientist, especially among physicists, believes in creation."
Unless you are including old earth creationism, you'll need to support that statement. Maybe you have an interesting idea of "many."
The Gallup polling group actually asks this question periodically. According to their poll in 1997, only 5% of all scientists, defined broadly, accepted YE creationism. Another 40% accepted theistic evolution, however. So if you include OEC, then your claim is somewhat correct. But I doubt that is what you meant.
"They have now identified the quark as the smallest and most basic particle of anything that exists in the physical universe. They've found that quarks come in six "flavors". (Hey, I didn't make up that name used to differentiate between the types of quarks!) They've found that electrons, protons, neutrons, & every other known subatomic particle is made of quarks."
Not quite. The particles of matter can be divided into three families. For each family, there are two quarks. For instance, the first family contains the up and down quarks which can be variously combined to give protons and neutrons. However, other particles, such as the electron, are particles unto themselves. There are many other matter particles not made of quarks. In addition, there are the force carrying particles such as photons for electromagnetism, gluons for the strong force, three different particles for the weak force and the graviton for gravity. Not to mention a whole slew of other quarkless particles like the Higgs. (Note, not all of these have been observed but the majority have. Only the graviton and Higgs particle are ones in my posts which have yet to be observed.)
" However, they inevitably come to these questions: WHERE DID QUARKS COME FROM? WHAT DETERMINED THEIR FLAVORS? WHAT DETERMINED THAT X NUMBER OF QUARKS IN THE RIGHT COMBINATION OF FLAVORS MAKES AN ELECTRON? Many of them make up answers in a most unscientific way, but for those who actually observe the rules of science, the answer is obvious...THE POWER OF GOD, and His design of all that exists."
I think that as believers we all accept that God created the laws of our universe. However, I think that you are a bit mistaken in your assertion about where scientists think the properties of the particles come from. String theory is currently a leading candidate for the explanation of the properties of the forces. Scientists will contiue to search for the underlying explanations of how the characteristics of our universe came to be. Both those that believe and those that do not believe in God. There are many things that are not yet known.
I think most physicists would also agree that the quarks were formed sometime after the inflationary epic of the early universe.
Unless you are including old earth creationism, you'll need to support that statement. Maybe you have an interesting idea of "many."
The Gallup polling group actually asks this question periodically. According to their poll in 1997, only 5% of all scientists, defined broadly, accepted YE creationism. Another 40% accepted theistic evolution, however. So if you include OEC, then your claim is somewhat correct. But I doubt that is what you meant.
"They have now identified the quark as the smallest and most basic particle of anything that exists in the physical universe. They've found that quarks come in six "flavors". (Hey, I didn't make up that name used to differentiate between the types of quarks!) They've found that electrons, protons, neutrons, & every other known subatomic particle is made of quarks."
Not quite. The particles of matter can be divided into three families. For each family, there are two quarks. For instance, the first family contains the up and down quarks which can be variously combined to give protons and neutrons. However, other particles, such as the electron, are particles unto themselves. There are many other matter particles not made of quarks. In addition, there are the force carrying particles such as photons for electromagnetism, gluons for the strong force, three different particles for the weak force and the graviton for gravity. Not to mention a whole slew of other quarkless particles like the Higgs. (Note, not all of these have been observed but the majority have. Only the graviton and Higgs particle are ones in my posts which have yet to be observed.)
" However, they inevitably come to these questions: WHERE DID QUARKS COME FROM? WHAT DETERMINED THEIR FLAVORS? WHAT DETERMINED THAT X NUMBER OF QUARKS IN THE RIGHT COMBINATION OF FLAVORS MAKES AN ELECTRON? Many of them make up answers in a most unscientific way, but for those who actually observe the rules of science, the answer is obvious...THE POWER OF GOD, and His design of all that exists."
I think that as believers we all accept that God created the laws of our universe. However, I think that you are a bit mistaken in your assertion about where scientists think the properties of the particles come from. String theory is currently a leading candidate for the explanation of the properties of the forces. Scientists will contiue to search for the underlying explanations of how the characteristics of our universe came to be. Both those that believe and those that do not believe in God. There are many things that are not yet known.
I think most physicists would also agree that the quarks were formed sometime after the inflationary epic of the early universe.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Isn't the concept of an inflationary epic just that? Don't some scientists believe that the universe is still expanding? Isn't the idea of quarks still just a theory, assuming they have passed the test of a hypothesis?
Quarks have been observed. All six flavors. Plus some interesting particles made partially from them other than neutrons and protons. They are a very well established part of the standard model.
The inflationary epic of the universe is also fairly well established. The WMAP cosmic microwave mission has discovered many crucial details. There are competing theories that are not very widely accepted. Such as the Ekpyrotic Universe in which the universe got its start when two branes collided. Each theory makes some very specific predictions which will allow them to be sorted out. For instance, inflation makes a prediction that the CMB should show long wavelength gravitational waves while the Ekpyrotic Universe predicts the opposite. This allows for empirical tests to distinguish between the two. So far, the inflationary theory has been shown by observation to make correct predictions. In your theory, should the CMB show long wavelength gravitational waves or not? Oh, that's right, you cannot make any predictions AND you can arbitrarily spin any findings, no matter how at odds with you opinions, into your system. It is the ultimate answer. No matter what the evidence, you deny it as long as possible and then if you cannot make it go away, you just capriciously accept it as if it has always been part of your opinion.
And yes, the universe is still expanding. Faster every day. Does your opinion have an explanation for this?
The inflationary epic of the universe is also fairly well established. The WMAP cosmic microwave mission has discovered many crucial details. There are competing theories that are not very widely accepted. Such as the Ekpyrotic Universe in which the universe got its start when two branes collided. Each theory makes some very specific predictions which will allow them to be sorted out. For instance, inflation makes a prediction that the CMB should show long wavelength gravitational waves while the Ekpyrotic Universe predicts the opposite. This allows for empirical tests to distinguish between the two. So far, the inflationary theory has been shown by observation to make correct predictions. In your theory, should the CMB show long wavelength gravitational waves or not? Oh, that's right, you cannot make any predictions AND you can arbitrarily spin any findings, no matter how at odds with you opinions, into your system. It is the ultimate answer. No matter what the evidence, you deny it as long as possible and then if you cannot make it go away, you just capriciously accept it as if it has always been part of your opinion.
And yes, the universe is still expanding. Faster every day. Does your opinion have an explanation for this?
But you can. God saying "Let there be light" could have created an expanding universe ex nihilo as evidenced by the red shift data from the light observed from the stars. </font>[/QUOTE]Creation ex nihilo is not the same as the Big Bang Theory! Creation ex nihilo means creation from nothing. The Big Bang Theory is that a speck of infinite mass exploded in some fashion. </font>[/QUOTE]A speck of infinte density mass is NOTHING! </font>[/QUOTE]No, it is a speck of infinite mass! </font>[/QUOTE]Not according to Hoyle. He said if you go back far enough you come to "nothing."
Infinite density is "nothing." The more dense it gets the smaller it gets until one reaches "nothingness."
The Big Bang is not the result of infinite mass. The Big Bang implies a universe from "nothing."
Read Hoyle.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
This is a common question arising from a misunderstanding of evolution.