even if you DO belive in evolution, where does it start? yeah, belive the big bang theroy, but how did that start? so there was matter at the begining, but how did it get there. i still have yet to see someone get past that question. somhow it all had to get "started." and evolution can't get past that
Joel
From: University of Rochester
Out Of Pure Light, Physicists Create Particles Of Matter
A team of 20 physicists from four institutions has literally made something from nothing, creating particles of matter from ordinary light for the first time. The experiment was carried out at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) by scientists and students from the University of Rochester, Princeton University, the University of Tennessee, and Stanford. The team reported the work in the Sept. 1 issue of Physical Review Letters.
Scientists have long been able to convert matter to energy; the most spectacular example is a nuclear explosion, where a small amount of matter creates tremendous energy. Now physicists have succeeded in doing the opposite: converting energy in the form of light into matter -- in this experiment, electrons and their anti-matter equivalent, positrons.
Converting energy into matter isn't completely new to physicists. When they smash together particles like protons and anti-protons in high-energy accelerator experiments, the initial particles are destroyed and release a fleeting burst of energy. Sometimes this energy burst contains very short-lived packets of light known as "virtual photons" which go on to form new particles. In this experiment scientists observed for the first time the creation of particles from real photons, packets of light that scientists can observe directly in the laboratory.
Physicists accomplished the feat by dumping an incredible amount of power -- nearly as much as it takes to run the entire nation but lasting only for a tiny fraction of a second -- into an area less than one billionth of a square centimeter, which is far smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. They used high-energy electrons traveling near the speed of light, produced by SLAC's two-mile-long accelerator, and photons from a powerful, "tabletop terawatt" glass laser developed at Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics. The laser unleashed a tiny but powerful sliver of light lasting about one trillionth of a second (one picosecond) -- just half a millimeter long. Packed into this sliver were more than two billion billion photons.
The team synchronized the two beams and sent the electrons head-on into the photons. Occasionally an electron barreled into a photon with immense energy, "like a speeding Mack truck colliding with a ping pong ball," says physicist Adrian Melissinos of the University of Rochester. That knocked the photon backward with such tremendous energy that it collided with several of the densely packed photons behind it and combined with them, creating an electron and a positron. In a series of experiments lasting several months the team studied thousands of collisions, leading to the production of more than 100 positrons.
The energy-to-matter conversion was made possible by the incredibly strong electromagnetic fields that the photon-photon collisions produced. Similar conditions are found only rarely in the universe; neutron stars, for instance, have incredibly strong magnetic fields, and some scientists believe that their surfaces are home to the same kind of light-to-matter interactions the team observed. This experiment marks the first time scientists have been able to create such strong fields using laser beams.
By conducting experiments like this scientists test the principles of quantum electrodynamics (QED) in fields so strong that the vacuum "boils" into pairs of electrons and positrons. The scientists say the work could also have applications in designing new particle accelerators. We all know that energy can be created from matter but here we have matter created from energy. The big bang theory is a giant release of energy that became matter. Hope this answers the unanswerable question. Skid the kid!
[This message has been edited by skidpro1 (edited 11-14-2004).]
That's all dependant on how you define the system. A more complex system will not spontaneously spring out of a less complex system without some form of activation energy.
Your analogy of the entropy of a subset increasing while the entropy of the whole decreases is accurate, as far as it goes, but it's incomplete. Something still has to drive the entropy increase of the subset. Just as water doesn't run uphill, energy doesn't come from no where. Man is not an isolated system, but man IS a subset of the larger system. For man to exist, according to evolution, there must have been a time when man didn't exist, and somehow the energy to create or evolve a human from a lesser organism was added to the subset.
This is where science and theology cross: "where does this activation energy come from?"
activation energy is life LIFE is alive it sorts it self faster smarter stronger animals live longer and and have more offspring slower dumber weaker animals DIE
BTW I have no problem pumping water up hill because I am alive
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
IP: Logged
11:23 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36759 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by skidpro1: By conducting experiments like this scientists test the principles of quantum electrodynamics (QED) in fields so strong that the vacuum "boils" into pairs of electrons and positrons. The scientists say the work could also have applications in designing new particle accelerators. We all know that energy can be created from matter but here we have matter created from energy. The big bang theory is a giant release of energy that became matter. Hope this answers the unanswerable question. Skid the kid!
I had thought the big bang theory was that all of a sudden there was something where nothing previously existed. No mention was ever made to a noise accompanying this proposed phenominum. I did not see anywhere where the big bang theory was a release of energy that became matter. If so, where did this energy come from. I would also think that light has matter. Air does. Sunlight contains vitamin D. I do not think we will ever find out which came first. The chicken or the egg ?
IP: Logged
11:47 PM
skidpro1 Member
Posts: 438 From: portland,or usa Registered: Sep 2004
Where did energy or matter come from? It is infinite (it has always been here) God also said he has always existed! To ask where energy or matter came from is the same as asking where God came from. They have both always been here. Matter can never be created or destroyed as God can never be created or destroyed.
IP: Logged
11:58 PM
Nov 15th, 2004
alienfiero Member
Posts: 638 From: auburn, wa., usa Registered: Aug 2004
What your talking about is zero point energy, and if they could make anought zero point energy the size of a light bulb, it would destroy our galaxy. A little more then maybe the universe.
IP: Logged
12:22 AM
Fastback 86 Member
Posts: 7849 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Sep 2003
I fail to see what the hang up here is. We agree that:
Creationism in whatever form is religious in origin. Evolution as a theory is scientific in origin. The First Amendment states that there will be no goverment sponsored religion, period.
So then,
Public schools, which are provided, operated, and financed by the Federal Goverment's Department of Education are therefore government entities. If you don't believe that, read a high school history book, then pick up a copy of A Peoples History of the United States. The winners write the history books. Back on point, if schools are provided, operated, and paid for by the US Government, then to teach any form of religion in them is in direct violation of the First Amendment.
Honestly, why is that so hard to understand? And really, how insecure in your faith do you have to be to believe that your children are going to be turned against God if they learn about Evolution? If your child's religious beliefs hinge on a lack of a contrary, dissenting, or alternative possibility, you've done a very poor job of educating your child in your religion. If you can flush years of Church and Sunday School down the toilet because your kid took one year of high school science, there was a problem in your childs religious upbringing long before they took that class.
When it comes to religion and fairness, its all or nothing according to the First Amendment. Either teach every religions version of creation or don't teach any. Evolution is not a religious belief, it is a scientific theory (best guess) based on empirical data. It does not meet the same guidlines as religion, pure and simple, and as such it is not and should not be classified as one. If it is not, it should not be kept out of pertinent curriculum as it does not violate the Constitution as endorsement of one religion (not all) does.
Out Of Pure Light, Physicists Create Particles Of Matter
A team of 20 physicists from four institutions has literally made something from nothing, creating particles of matter from ordinary light for the first time. The experiment was carried out at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) by scientists and students from the University of Rochester, Princeton University, the University of Tennessee, and Stanford. The team reported the work in the Sept. 1 issue of Physical Review Letters.
Scientists have long been able to convert matter to energy; the most spectacular example is a nuclear explosion, where a small amount of matter creates tremendous energy. Now physicists have succeeded in doing the opposite: converting energy in the form of light into matter -- in this experiment, electrons and their anti-matter equivalent, positrons.
Converting energy into matter isn't completely new to physicists. When they smash together particles like protons and anti-protons in high-energy accelerator experiments, the initial particles are destroyed and release a fleeting burst of energy. Sometimes this energy burst contains very short-lived packets of light known as "virtual photons" which go on to form new particles. In this experiment scientists observed for the first time the creation of particles from real photons, packets of light that scientists can observe directly in the laboratory.
Physicists accomplished the feat by dumping an incredible amount of power -- nearly as much as it takes to run the entire nation but lasting only for a tiny fraction of a second -- into an area less than one billionth of a square centimeter, which is far smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. They used high-energy electrons traveling near the speed of light, produced by SLAC's two-mile-long accelerator, and photons from a powerful, "tabletop terawatt" glass laser developed at Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics. The laser unleashed a tiny but powerful sliver of light lasting about one trillionth of a second (one picosecond) -- just half a millimeter long. Packed into this sliver were more than two billion billion photons.
The team synchronized the two beams and sent the electrons head-on into the photons. Occasionally an electron barreled into a photon with immense energy, "like a speeding Mack truck colliding with a ping pong ball," says physicist Adrian Melissinos of the University of Rochester. That knocked the photon backward with such tremendous energy that it collided with several of the densely packed photons behind it and combined with them, creating an electron and a positron. In a series of experiments lasting several months the team studied thousands of collisions, leading to the production of more than 100 positrons.
The energy-to-matter conversion was made possible by the incredibly strong electromagnetic fields that the photon-photon collisions produced. Similar conditions are found only rarely in the universe; neutron stars, for instance, have incredibly strong magnetic fields, and some scientists believe that their surfaces are home to the same kind of light-to-matter interactions the team observed. This experiment marks the first time scientists have been able to create such strong fields using laser beams.
By conducting experiments like this scientists test the principles of quantum electrodynamics (QED) in fields so strong that the vacuum "boils" into pairs of electrons and positrons. The scientists say the work could also have applications in designing new particle accelerators. We all know that energy can be created from matter but here we have matter created from energy. The big bang theory is a giant release of energy that became matter. Hope this answers the unanswerable question. Skid the kid!
it doenst really answer the question. OK, so you can create matter from light. i believe that, they have proven it. BUT, where did the lgiht come from? that had to come from somewhere/somthing/someone. do you get what im saying? lets say that the big bang theroy is plausable for a moment. even it everything did start from light and energy like this article says, then were did the light coem from? what or who pit it there? you can jsut keep going back till you realize that something/somone outside the space time continueum had to start it all going. that is my point.
Joel
[This message has been edited by justa6 (edited 11-15-2004).]
Where did energy or matter come from? It is infinite (it has always been here) God also said he has always existed! To ask where energy or matter came from is the same as asking where God came from. They have both always been here. Matter can never be created or destroyed as God can never be created or destroyed.
sorry, i hadnt read this post yet. this is where you have to decide
I fail to see what the hang up here is. We agree that:
Creationism in whatever form is religious in origin. Evolution as a theory is scientific in origin. The First Amendment states that there will be no goverment sponsored religion, period.
So then,
Public schools, which are provided, operated, and financed by the Federal Goverment's Department of Education are therefore government entities. If you don't believe that, read a high school history book, then pick up a copy of A Peoples History of the United States. The winners write the history books. Back on point, if schools are provided, operated, and paid for by the US Government, then to teach any form of religion in them is in direct violation of the First Amendment.
Honestly, why is that so hard to understand? And really, how insecure in your faith do you have to be to believe that your children are going to be turned against God if they learn about Evolution? If your child's religious beliefs hinge on a lack of a contrary, dissenting, or alternative possibility, you've done a very poor job of educating your child in your religion. If you can flush years of Church and Sunday School down the toilet because your kid took one year of high school science, there was a problem in your childs religious upbringing long before they took that class.
When it comes to religion and fairness, its all or nothing according to the First Amendment. Either teach every religions version of creation or don't teach any. Evolution is not a religious belief, it is a scientific theory (best guess) based on empirical data. It does not meet the same guidlines as religion, pure and simple, and as such it is not and should not be classified as one. If it is not, it should not be kept out of pertinent curriculum as it does not violate the Constitution as endorsement of one religion (not all) does.
evolution is a religous beleif, you have to have faith in evolution as much as you do in creation. i believe that the schools should teach evolution as what it is, a therory. and they should emphasize that. it is a guess, and they should state that. but when i was in school, we were taught evolution nothing was ever said about creation. and we were tested on it, and if you didnt answer the questions about how old the earth is or how it all started to the schools standards, they failed you. why should a student be graded different becasue he/she believes in creation and doesnt belive in the therory?
i would love to see them teach the 2 side by side, and let the student decide what they want to believe. have them takes test on both. just my thoughts (im havign this same discussion in a friends blog lol!)
[1]I had thought the big bang theory was that all of a sudden there was something where nothing previously existed. No mention was ever made to a noise accompanying this proposed phenominum.
I[2] did not see anywhere where the big bang theory was a release of energy that became matter. If so, where did this energy come from. [3] I would also think that light has matter. Air does. [4] Sunlight contains vitamin D. [5] I do not think we will ever find out which came first. The chicken or the egg ?
1 the BIG BANG could be the end of the last cycle/begining of this one or it could just happen on it's own all by it's self
2 the univerce is stranger then we can conseve as is quantum physics stuff can and does POP out of nothing sorry if you donot like it the univerce does not ask your permission to be
3 light has no rest mass, air does but hi-energy light has energy and E=MC[2]
4 NO vitamin D is produced by your body in responce to light there is no vitamin D in light light is just the trigger to the process
5 a bird layed an egg that became a chicken the mother bird does not have to be the exact same aswhat grows from the egg BTW chickens and all birds desended from DINO's DINO's had feathers
DNA will show this tale in a few years when we can read and understand it
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
Originally posted by Fastback 86: I fail to see what the hang up here is. We agree that: Creationism in whatever form is religious in origin. Evolution as a theory is scientific in origin. The First Amendment states that there will be no goverment sponsored religion, period.
I do not see a consensus that "we" agree on any of the above. My take on these observations of yours : #1 Creationism is the belief of most who are religious but is a theory. Those who do believe in it also believe in evolution but not as far as believing man's ancestors include monkeys and fish. #2 Evolution is the belief forwarded by agnostics and athiests and thus is religious in origin and also is just a theory. #3 How does acknowledging all theories equate to sponsoring religion.
quote
Originally posted by Fastback 86: Evolution is not a religious belief, it is a scientific theory (best guess) based on empirical data.
em·pir·i·cal Audio pronunciation of "empirical" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr-kl) adj. 1. 1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. 2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
Give us some empirical data, observation or experimentation, which supports the evolution of man from a cell or even a monkey.
To prove either theory would be a scientific task but neither one belongs in a science class.
IP: Logged
08:07 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36759 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by skidpro1: To ask where energy or matter came from is the same as asking where God came from. They have both always been here. Matter can never be created or destroyed as God can never be created or destroyed.
Good point. I have questioned where God came from.
IP: Logged
08:16 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36759 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
2 the univerce is stranger then we can conseve as is quantum physics stuff can and does POP out of nothing sorry if you donot like it the univerce does not ask your permission to be
I do agree. Other dimensions, reincarnation, life other than that on earth, all possible with me. Also, I was wrong about light containing Vitamin D, you correctly pointed that out. A slip of the thought process.
IP: Logged
08:26 AM
Nov 16th, 2004
Fastback 86 Member
Posts: 7849 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Sep 2003
em·pir·i·cal Audio pronunciation of "empirical" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr-kl) adj. 1. 1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. 2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
Give us some empirical data, observation or experimentation, which supports the evolution of man from a cell or even a monkey.
To prove either theory would be a scientific task but neither one belongs in a science class.
Cliff, I'm not going to cut and paste chapters out of science texts for you. If you want to know what the evidence is, why don't you go pick up a high school science textbook? It hasn't been banned there, yet. Here's a link I googled, though http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/
But just for fun, please explain to me how the 3.4 million year old skeleton dubbed Lucy can exist if the Earth is only 6000 years old. Argon-Argon dating (a proven scientific method) verifies her age.
The Lucy skelton:
Modern day human skeleton:
Not quite the same. What happened in the last 3.4 million years? Something had to have. Humans are not the same as they were a long time ago, they have evolved, in one fashion or another. End of story. Does this mean they couldn't have been created long before that, then evolved from there? No. All it means is that we've evolved.
Please provide any kind of empirical evidence supporting creationism. Evolution is not a religious belief, it is a scientific theory (not a fact).
IP: Logged
12:31 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36759 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Fastback 86: But just for fun, please explain to me how the 3.4 million year old skeleton dubbed Lucy can exist if the Earth is only 6000 years old. Argon-Argon dating (a proven scientific method) verifies her age.
Not quite the same. What happened in the last 3.4 million years? Something had to have. Humans are not the same as they were a long time ago, they have evolved, in one fashion or another. End of story. Does this mean they couldn't have been created long before that, then evolved from there? No. All it means is that we've evolved.
Please provide any kind of empirical evidence supporting creationism. Evolution is not a religious belief, it is a scientific theory (not a fact).
Ummm....when did I say the Earth is only 6000 years old ? When did I say evolution was not possible ? The discusion here has been about how life began. If we are going to debate, we are both going to debate apples to apples or oranges to oranges. The examples you forward are not empirical evidence on the origins of life. The fact that man has many different skin and hair colors offer as much proof of evolution as lucy does. In fact, the discussion here has been about including the theory of crationism and
quote
Originally posted by Fastback 86: Evolution is not a religious belief, it is a scientific theory (not a fact).
I personally think neither one should be taught in science class but if you teach one theory you should teach every theory !
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 11-16-2004).]
IP: Logged
05:42 AM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Bush is a creationist of course he believes rocks are 6,000 years old!
HE IS?????
You'ld better hurry up and tell him. He just authorized billions of dollars in new NASA funding to find life on Mars...which can't be there according to Creationists.
What is the matter with you when you can't separate a faith in the teachings of Christ with the origin of dirt?
IP: Logged
11:18 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I fail to see what the hang up here is. We agree that:
Creationism in whatever form is religious in origin. Evolution as a theory is scientific in origin. The First Amendment states that there will be no goverment sponsored religion, period.
Two things to consider:
1. Yes, the government shall not sponsor any religion. BUT, neither shall it prevent the free expression thereof. Doesn't saying "you can't talk about creationism" end up preventing religious expression, which is also against the very same constitution?
2. If you teach evolution exclusively in schools, isn't the government squashing religion by omission?
I'm not saying public schools have to hold Bible studies, but why not a required portion of class that at least skims over the major religion's ideas of creation? That means, Christain, Jewish, Buddism, Islam, etc. It wouldn't be that damn difficult, except you'd have to spend a bunch of time defending lawsuits from Atheists (who are gettting their way exclusively now, anyway).
IP: Logged
11:36 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Where did energy or matter come from? It is infinite (it has always been here) God also said he has always existed! To ask where energy or matter came from is the same as asking where God came from. They have both always been here. Matter can never be created or destroyed as God can never be created or destroyed.
Regarding the question "where did energy or matter come from?" you should re-word it to "where did energy/matter come from?". They are opposite sides of the same coin. There can be no energy without matter and vice versa. The answer is, when you find out, let the rest of us know and I'll personally hand you the Nobel Prize.
Everything after your question is wrong. Energy and matter are NOT infinite. They are, in fact, VERY finite. Yep, our Universe has boundries. God has never said he has always been here. He said, "I am that I am". In other words, either he's not sure, or he thinks we wouldn't understand the answer (take your pick). Asking where energy and matter comes from is not the same as asking where God came from since it is likely that God created energy/matter. You have just giving the chicken and the egg arguement. To say matter can never be created or destroyed in also inaccurate ( a common misnomer). matter can be created with energy and energy created from matter. Ever look up in the sky? The sun converts a couple million tons of matter into energy every day. That matter is now gone. we feel the effect of its conversion through radiation. at some point in the distant future it is likely that all matter will have been converted into energy and the universe will be a dark cold burnt-out cinder. Unless you are an advocate of the "big crunch" theory in which case the universe re-invents itself.
The arguement about whether or not science and God can be separated in silly. The study of God is not the same as the study of science but the two are related in the same way that the study of making steel and the study of building skyscrapers are different, yet related. Even though the disciplines are VERY different, you can't have one without the other. The science of 'HOW' the Universe came to be here does not explain the 'WHY'. Invariably, understanding one may help to understand the other.
IP: Logged
11:39 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by Fastback 86: But just for fun, please explain to me how the 3.4 million year old skeleton dubbed Lucy can exist if the Earth is only 6000 years old. Argon-Argon dating (a proven scientific method) verifies her age.
FYI, not all religious people believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I don't. I do believe that human history is about that long. I also believe in a combination of creation and evolution.
IP: Logged
11:41 AM
PFF
System Bot
Tugboat Member
Posts: 1669 From: Goodview, VA Registered: Jan 2004
1. Yes, the government shall not sponsor any religion. BUT, neither shall it prevent the free expression thereof. Doesn't saying "you can't talk about creationism" end up preventing religious expression, which is also against the very same constitution?
2. If you teach evolution exclusively in schools, isn't the government squashing religion by omission?
I'm not saying public schools have to hold Bible studies, but why not a required portion of class that at least skims over the major religion's ideas of creation? That means, Christain, Jewish, Buddism, Islam, etc. It wouldn't be that damn difficult, except you'd have to spend a bunch of time defending lawsuits from Atheists (who are gettting their way exclusively now, anyway).
1. No one that I know of has said that creationism can't be taught. All anyone is saying is that publicly funded schools (an extension of the government) cannot teach Judeo-Christian creationism as that would be thought of as sponsering a particular religion.
2. That would be a good idea, but it is fraught with potential problems. First, do you give each religion the same period of time or do you give them a lenght of time proportional to their adherants? If you give them the same time, how much time do you give each and do you exclude the smaller ones? If you give each religion the same amount of time, you are going to spend a lot of time on fairly uncommon religions. If you exclude some, then you are now "sponsering" the more popular religions. If you give more time to the more popular religions, then you are again putting some religions ahead of others. Also, do you divide the time by the number of people in that school district, that city, county, state, country, or world?
BTW, there is something that keeps getting brought up that I want to address. This is the idea that the government is sponsering the "religion" of atheism by removing religion from government or that Atheists are winning. If atheism is truly a religion, then the central tenant would be "There is no Supreme Being." Have there been any attempts to put this into textbooks or teach this in schools or post this on public buildings? I don't think there have been. If the Atheists were winning or making the attempt, then they would be teaching that there is no God or other Supreme Being. The schools and government are trying to leave the question of God to the parents and community. If you believe there is a God, the school should not teach anything that says there is or is not a God. If you don't believe there is a God, the school is still not saying there is a God or there isn't a God.
Note: Teaching evolution is not teaching there is no God. No where have I seen anything in evolutionary teaching that says something like, "We must have evolved since there is no Supreme Being to create us."
You can't just pick and choose what parts of the bible you want to believe in, everytime something gets disproven. Well I mean you can of course, but it kind of nullifies the rest of your arguments. Bible says the earth is flat, which is disproven, so of course nobody believes in that anymore.. It says the earth is 6000 years old. Disproven. Scientific dating methods prove of ancestors millions of years old (And the dating methods are quite good). How many things have to be disproven to dispell of a theory (and evolution doesn't have neaaaaaaaaaaaarly as many holes as creation. Evolution has facts with a couple holes. Creation has no facts, with a bunch of faith. Someone was going to explain to me the facts proven about creation, but never did. I can't remember who, but speak up please. I am curious (seriously).
God has never said he has always been here. He said, "I am that I am". In other words, either he's not sure, or he thinks we wouldn't understand the answer (take your pick).
I found this Todd.
Revelation 1:8 - I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Care to explain
IP: Logged
12:48 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
You can't just pick and choose what parts of the bible you want to believe in, everytime something gets disproven. Well I mean you can of course, but it kind of nullifies the rest of your arguments. Bible says the earth is flat, which is disproven,
Where?
quote
so of course nobody believes in that anymore.. It says the earth is 6000 years old. Disproven.
Where?
IP: Logged
12:51 PM
Tugboat Member
Posts: 1669 From: Goodview, VA Registered: Jan 2004
Regarding the question "where did energy or matter come from?" you should re-word it to "where did energy/matter come from?". They are opposite sides of the same coin. There can be no energy without matter and vice versa. The answer is, when you find out, let the rest of us know and I'll personally hand you the Nobel Prize.
Everything after your question is wrong. Energy and matter are NOT infinite. They are, in fact, VERY finite. Yep, our Universe has boundries. God has never said he has always been here. He said, "I am that I am". In other words, either he's not sure, or he thinks we wouldn't understand the answer (take your pick). Asking where energy and matter comes from is not the same as asking where God came from since it is likely that God created energy/matter. You have just giving the chicken and the egg arguement. To say matter can never be created or destroyed in also inaccurate ( a common misnomer). matter can be created with energy and energy created from matter. Ever look up in the sky? The sun converts a couple million tons of matter into energy every day. That matter is now gone. we feel the effect of its conversion through radiation. at some point in the distant future it is likely that all matter will have been converted into energy and the universe will be a dark cold burnt-out cinder. Unless you are an advocate of the "big crunch" theory in which case the universe re-invents itself.
The arguement about whether or not science and God can be separated in silly. The study of God is not the same as the study of science but the two are related in the same way that the study of making steel and the study of building skyscrapers are different, yet related. Even though the disciplines are VERY different, you can't have one without the other. The science of 'HOW' the Universe came to be here does not explain the 'WHY'. Invariably, understanding one may help to understand the other.
Tood, if the universe has boundries what is beyond the boundries? Think about it?
IP: Logged
07:05 PM
skidpro1 Member
Posts: 438 From: portland,or usa Registered: Sep 2004
Regarding the question "where did energy or matter come from?" you should re-word it to "where did energy/matter come from?". They are opposite sides of the same coin. There can be no energy without matter and vice versa. The answer is, when you find out, let the rest of us know and I'll personally hand you the Nobel Prize.
Everything after your question is wrong. Energy and matter are NOT infinite. They are, in fact, VERY finite. Yep, our Universe has boundries. God has never said he has always been here. He said, "I am that I am". In other words, either he's not sure, or he thinks we wouldn't understand the answer (take your pick). Asking where energy and matter comes from is not the same as asking where God came from since it is likely that God created energy/matter. You have just giving the chicken and the egg arguement. To say matter can never be created or destroyed in also inaccurate ( a common misnomer). matter can be created with energy and energy created from matter. Ever look up in the sky? The sun converts a couple million tons of matter into energy every day. That matter is now gone. we feel the effect of its conversion through radiation. at some point in the distant future it is likely that all matter will have been converted into energy and the universe will be a dark cold burnt-out cinder. Unless you are an advocate of the "big crunch" theory in which case the universe re-invents itself.
The arguement about whether or not science and God can be separated in silly. The study of God is not the same as the study of science but the two are related in the same way that the study of making steel and the study of building skyscrapers are different, yet related. Even though the disciplines are VERY different, you can't have one without the other. The science of 'HOW' the Universe came to be here does not explain the 'WHY'. Invariably, understanding one may help to understand the other.
Your wrong again Toad!! This is one of the most important rules that scientists have found which describes natural phenomena. Unfortunately there is no non-circular proof of energy conservation -- in the end, all laws of physics that we know of are the result of observation, formation of hypotheses, making predictions, and testing them. Conservation of energy is one such law. If energy could be created or destroyed, all of our ideas of how the world works would have to be modified in some way (and we'd learn something very perplexing). But so far, energy seems not to be created or destroyed.
Energy can be converted from one form to another, though. Mechanical energy, such as the kinetic energy of motion, can be converted to heat energy, for example in the heating of a car's brakes when it slows down. Chemical energy in the gasoline of the car can be converted into both heat energy in the exhaust and heating the engine, and into mechanical energy to move the car. Potential energy, such as the gravitational potential energy stored in an object which is on a high shelf, can be converted into kinetic energy as the object falls down. Electrical energy can be converted to heat or mechanical energy or sound energy in a variety of useful ways around the house using common appliances.
It is often the conversion of one form of energy to another which is the most important application of this rule. Often predictions of the behavior of physical systems are very much more easily made when using the idea that the total amount of energy remains constant. And careful measurements of different kinds of energy before and after a transformation always show that the total always adds up to the same amount.
Historically, of course not all the forms of energy were know to begin with. Scientists had to keep inventing more forms to keep the law of energy conservation true. If that process had gotten too messy or complicated to make sense, we would have had to give up the law.
One very interesting feature of energy is that other forms can be converted into rest mass and back again (particle physicists do this every day in their accelerators). Einstein's E=mc^2 gives the relationship between the rest mass of a particle (measured in standard mass units) and the amount of energy that corresponds to (measured in standard energy units). It even applies to other systems where particles are neither created nor destroyed. If a box contains some air at a temperature, and then is warmed up, it will become ever so slightly more massive because of the extra energy given to it. You can call that rest mass of the whole box or the mass equivalent of the kinetic energy of the particles in it- nature doesn't care what names you give it.
IP: Logged
07:11 PM
lurker Member
Posts: 12353 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
I had thought the big bang theory was that all of a sudden there was something where nothing previously existed. No mention was ever made to a noise accompanying this proposed phenominum.
This alone proves you shouldn't be having this conversation until you learn what the theories you are arguing against are before arguing that your religous belief should be taught as a valid theory. On the Big Bang... go here for a basic overview of the theory, if you want more data after at least getting an idea of the theory message me and I'll get you more.
BTW... this has ZIP to do with creationism vs evolution... it's the people you listen to on radio, in church, read on religous websites spouting the views you parrot so well that mix evolution which is an explanation of one method of how lifeforms evolve and change to fit their environments with cosmology theories of the creation of the universe which is a physics question. Neither one negates the concept of god or a higher being in my mind.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:I did not see anywhere where the big bang theory was a release of energy that became matter. If so, where did this energy come from.
That's the big question isn't it... want links to String theory or Brane theory... it would make your head hurt and it's pure theory in that we can't see back before the bang, so we can't observe what conditions existed. Maybe someone will come up with something amazing like the present mapping of the microwave shadow OF the bang.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: I would also think that light has matter.
Light is energy, not matter... as someone linked earlier scientists have repeated an experiment a bunch now creating matter from energy, I'm sure you know the God vs. the scientist arguement...
A scientist is talking to god about creation, "We can create anything you can... we can recombine matter to make steel, plastics, even grow new plants and animals, even turn dirt into glass and concrete, bridges and computers...". God says "that's pretty good, now get your own dirt"
Well, now we have made matter out of light... I'm not saying that replaces god, just find it interesting. I don't get why the tools used for creation HAVE to be as your teachers tell you the bible teaches? That god just did stuff and the idea of understanding how it actually happened, not just how a jewish guy raised as an egyptian prince who talked and argued with god wrote it down and others over the centuries have translated it for their own needs put it to you as the perfect literal truth. You get hung up on the mechanics/science being in conflict with your creation story because the dates don't work out the way someone taught you... so you believe a bunch of bull that flies in the face of facts. Instead of modifying your understanding of the bible story... you ignore what doesn't fit and misuse science to question valid theories that don't question god, just explain the same ideas using observable facts that unfortunately for your beliefs conflict with timelines as they have dashed many other religous 'theories' or 'truths' in the past. Earth ain't flat... Universe doesn't revolve around us, not even the sun does..., Stars aren't painted up there... Eclipses may or may not be acts of god, but we can tell you now when they will occur...
Understanding doesn't reduce the awe one bit...
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Air does. Sunlight contains vitamin D.
Oh man... I'm trying so hard not to laugh at this stuff... Yes Air has matter... O2, CO2, CO, NOx, HC, N, blah blah blah... all matter in gaseous form also things like H20 and particulates suspended in that gas as vapors and dusts. Air is not light, it's matter.
SUNLIGHT CONTAINS VITAMIN D!!!!! Try again... it is an energy source our bodies react with to synthesize vitamin D, like plants use chloraphyll to convert sunlight into food when combined with nutrients pulled from the soil through intake of water. Process explained with first hit on a google search... you should try it sometimes in place of prostelizing. http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/otherendo/vitamind.html
None of the science I linked to debunks god in my mind anymore than writing down "In the beginning god said let there be light..." or whatever variant proved that the timelines given were literal.
I wish there was a way to get you to understand that your beliefs are just that, beliefs. The creationist theory is something I'd teach in school as an example of a flawed disproven theory... not that god didn't create the universe, not that god doesn't exist... just that your creationism theory doesn't work as presented because it flies in the face of scientific observation. Any theory is disproven and needs to be adjusted or discarded if ANY fact disproves it as proposed. The Evolution theory, the Big Bang theory, and all other scientific theories follow this premise... if there is an exception, the theory is disproven and must be modified or discarded. Layer upon layer of evidence support both evolution and the big band theories...
Evolution is supported by Darwins observations, by studies in multitudes of fields, by breeding of animals... survival of the fittest doesn't mean just the strongest, it means the ability to fit a need in an environment... we breed plants, animals for our purposes... they survive because they fit our needs and improve generation by generation. The environment does the same with everything... humans didn't survive by being the fastest, by breeding faster, by having bigger teeth, we survived because intellegince won out as a survival trait. We went from being prey to being hunters... we've grown larger, live longer, gotten smarter because that's what works... human races in ancient times evolved to match the needs of survival in their environments... skin pigments, hair covering, eyebrows, height etc... We have to a large part superceded that since now we change our environment to match our needs instead of the other way around, but that also fits the theory. Survival of fittest may now mean the ability to work as larger and larger groups to ensure a win/win when possible or to resist tyranny. Did we decend from apes? I'd say not exactly... because unlike people comparing apes and humans and saying we didn't descend from them... you can also compare pit bulls and minature poodles... neither descended from the other... but they have common ancestors. Tens of thousands of years of evolution seperate us from apes and unlike creationists would like to think... the apes haven't stopped evolving either, they just moved down a different path.
Here is a link to one of the most interesting comparisons I've seen of humans and apes from a creationist viewpoint.
I disagree with some of the premises used in that they are trying in the article to prove that we aren't related... like saying you can't be related to someone in your family tree that is way off on another branch because you don't look anything like them and don't match blood types or hair color, or even skin color... even when knowing the geneology you can trace back to common great great great great grandparents. The article is ignoring that they are taking that premise out thousands of generations. That is where comparing fossils comes in... ie.. the missing links... many of which have been found even though you don't seem to believe that. Also recently they have found that Homo Sapiens may have lived side by side on islands with another intelligent species within last 20K years.
Again... link or another path of evolution that didn't work out? Regardless... it doesn't prove or eliminate god, sure puts another dent in literal creationism. The bible includes giants also... were they people? Did they have souls?
I had made a whole post regarding Morris as your example of the wave of scientists turning to creationism... but clicked at the wrong time/place. Hard to believe how many creationist websites quote your post word for word about his qualifications... I missed the part about him being qualified to judge evolution as a hydraulic engineer though... and since his degree in hydraulics was issued before WWII, before computers, before space flight, before the big bang theory, I don't see how this one guy turning to creationism creates a wave of scientists leaving evolution theory behind... I haven't even found anything off of a creationist website referring to him. I assume he's died by now although he could be in his late 80's or 90's, but no death notices or anything I could pull up in a quick search. I'll look some more...
[This message has been edited by Scott-Wa (edited 11-17-2004).]
IP: Logged
02:15 AM
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
". If these people are real scientists and really do or did work for these big universities and companies, why do they deny that biological evolution happens or call it just a theory when all it means is cumulitive change over time? We see examples of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, Galapagos finches and peppered moths changing, and many other observable examples of "evolution" happening even today
Generally, they are referring to the common descent of all life from a single ancestor, primates and humans sharing a common ancestor, etc. Some have termed this "true" evolution, "vertical" evolution, and "macroevolution" which entails very large steps in morphotype reconstruction. Variations of bacteria, viruses, birds, moths, dogs, etc., which falls within limited expression of existing traits, are also a part of the creation model and thus are not a problem for creation scientists. They observe and study these things like any other scientist. Look for a more detailed faq on the term evolution in our faq database some time in the future."
See the Generally part? It's the old bait and switch... pervert the definition, "They are referring to the common descent of all life from a single anscestor"... Who's definition is that? That isn't the scientific theory of evolution... that is as bad as literal bible creationism. In one step they acknowledge evolution and yet leave out the definition of evolution to a future FAQ!!!! Can't prove them wrong when they twist in the wind refusing to even define exactly what they believe they are fighting against. Let's see, creationists have had several hundred years now to define the term evolution as they dislike it, haven't they?
Keep them ignorant and indignent! Works everytime...
Just keep asking us to prove something when you won't even accept the definition of the terms.
IP: Logged
02:35 AM
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
Revelation 1:8 - I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Care to explain
Hey I'll take this one..... :-)
quote
String Theory and Cosmology (2003, NS 127) Ulf Danielsson, Ariel Goobar, Bengt Nilsson August 14-19 Sigtuna, Sweden Proceedings: to be published in Physica Scripta, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 2004.
Dynamics of D-brane Decay by A. Sen
Type IIA and IIB string theories admit unstable D-branes of odd and even dimensionalities respectively. These D-branes are characterized by the presence of a tachyonic mode whose dynamics displays novel features. In particular at the minimum of the tachyon potential the total energy density vanishes, showing that this configuration represents closed string vortices, monopoles etc.) involving the tachyon field represent lower dimensional stable and unstable D-branes in the same string theory.
Time dependent solutions involving the tachyon field, in which the tachyon rolls away from the maximum of the potential, also displays novel features. While the total energy density is conserved, the pressure of the system increases monotonically from a negative value to zero as the tachyon rolls down the hill. This is to be contrasted to the case of an ordinary scalar field for which the pressure oscillates about its average value as the scalar field oscillates about its minimum. There is however a non-standard scalar field theory involving a square root action which reproduces many of the features of the tachyon dynamics. In particular near the minimum of the potential, the classical solutions in this field theory are in one to one correspondence with the solutions of the equations of motion of non-rotating, non-interacting dust.
The pressureless matter produced in the process of tachyon condensation can be interpreted as a collection of slow moving heavy closed strings which are produced in the process of tachyon decay. Various properties of this system of closed strings ({\it e.g.} pressure, dilaton charge etc.) agree with those calculated from tree level open string theory. This suggests a duality between tree level open string theory and closed string theory. In a more complete form, the duality conjecture states that the full quantum open string (field) theory on an unstable D-brane captures the full dynamics of the system, including the closed string states produced in the decay of the brane, and furthermore, Ehrenfest theorem holds for this system, so that in the weak coupling limit the classical results reproduce the time evolution of quantum expectation values.
For space-filling branes, we need to take into account the gravitational (and other massless closed string) background produced by the brane in order to give a consistent description of the D-brane decay. On the other hand the open-closed duality conjecture suggests that the full quantum open string (field) theory should contain complete information about the system, including the gravitational background produced by the decaying brane. Since the rolling tachyon background is time reversal symmetric, this suggests that we look for time reversal symmetric cosmological solution. Such a solution involves a bounce, with positive spatialcurvature. If there is no bare cosmological constant, then such a solution must eventually end in a big crunch, and hence, by time reversal symmetry, begin in a big bang. However in the presence of a bare cosmological constant, we can get a complete non-singular solution for a certain range of initial conditions.
Hope that clears it up... hope you reply with something as scientifically defensible. This one won a Nobel... but I think it explains your quote :-)
Oh, just for edification, I don't believe either your quote or mine determines if it's a one shot deal or something destined to repeat.
[This message has been edited by Scott-Wa (edited 11-17-2004).]
