|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can somebody help me get my feet wet? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Ned, the same minute you posted your message, I got a new topic started.
Evolution as Fact and Theory Moose ps: I'm not a real professor, but I sometimes play an antlered one on TV. Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
What Ned said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOTHINGNESS Inactive Member |
Hi Triple,
Here is some food for thought. I'm not as intelligent as these other guys, but I just try to use common sense. Time is not eternal and it had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it needs a cause. Also, there could not have been an eternal number of moments before today; otherwise today never would have come, which it has. Tomorrow does not exist; therefore, declaring that time has ended today.We arrived at today, therefore showing that we have been limited to a number of moments before today. Therefore, showing that, "time" had a beginning. If the space-time universe had a beginning, it must have been caused into existence. Everything that has a "beginning" must have a cause. Understanding God's preexistence comes by first understanding that, "there was no time before it was created". There was not a creation "in" time, rather, a creation "of" time. Einsteins's theory of "general relativity" is deemed to be essentially a law. And "general relativity" indicates that time indeed had a beginning. Second, the big-bang model indicates there was a beginning of matter, which is the creation of something out of nothing. As with time, it seems inconceivable that there could have been space with no matter, and then space with matter. Even the first law of thermodynamics contradicts this The consciousness cannot be a byproduct of dead matter, considering it has emotions, sensations, desires, free choice, and personal convictions. You cannot get something from nothing. If the universe with dead matter having no conscious, feelings, desires, or any type of choice that involved the thinking process- "How do you get something totally different, which consists of, -consciousness, living, thinking, feeling believing creatures?" Our consciousness has a unique structure, far beyond anyone's imagination. It literally separates us from all creatures. The evidence for consciousness suggests that life after death is credible. DNA is made up of biological information, similar to books, and computers. We have six feet of DNA inside our bodies. No explanation has ever been found, which explains how information got inside our biological structure. Considering that non-living matter, which came into existence by means of nothingness, how could it possibly instruct our trillions of cells inside our DNA, and follow highly complicated instructions? Therefore, producing a very sophisticated human design. Enjoy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4128 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
I'm sorry but that was the biggest load of mix-up nonsense I've seen in a while.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I think everyone noted that right off Charles and we seem to have agreed that none of his stuff is worth responding to. Let's just leave it until he either starts to post something with an once of sense or gets bored and leaves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Nothing says that everything has to have a cause. In fact, an equal amount of anti-matter and matter are appearing, without cause, all of the time. Almost as soon as they appear they combine and release energy. This is called the Cassimir effect, and it is without cause and random.
quote: Actually, there were. Hint: look at calculus. The area under any curve is defined by an infinite number of slices. If that curve is defined as time, time also has an infinite number of slices. Your assumptions are wrong, therefore the argument fails.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Agreed. If you ignore the rambler, hopefully the rambling will stop.
The Laminator For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5118 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
Hi! As a biology teacher I find that a basic understanding of science is a good place to start. Then you can delve into more complex ideas once you have the basics down. Just pop into a search engine and look up science. I have many things at my disposal that I have taken off of the web and have been given by other educators. I wish I had a list of science books or websites for you, but you will have more fun looking on your own. Talkorigins is a good site to start with. As far as books go, Ernst Mayr is a great author. I just finished This is Biology and it was great. Just keep looking.
One warning--creationism is more of a political position than a reputable way of looking at the natural world. Take everything from creationsist websites with a grain of salt, they like to break their own commandments to force their positions into public view. Too bad I didn't have you as a student. Your questioning is what makes my job challanging and enjoyable. Have fun!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOTHINGNESS Inactive Member |
Virtual particles are theoretical entities, and it's not eve clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs. However, there's a much more important point to be made about this. You see, these particles, if they are real, do not come out of nothing. The quantum vacuum is not what most people nvision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws.
JThese particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum. So its not an example of something coming into being out of nothing or something coming into being out of nothing, or something coming into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origi of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from? Now you got to account for how the is very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being. If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can't legitimately use quantum physis to explain the origin of that domain itself. You need something transcendent that's beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being. Suddenly, we are back to the origins questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
What about the Casimir effect, surely that shows that virtual particles are more than a theoretical construct.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Nothingness
Now you got to account for how the is very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being Son we can't even explain what energy is let alone explain its origin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Nothingness writes: Virtual particles are theoretical entities... As has already been noted, the existence of virtual particles has been verified experimentally, of which the Casimir effect is the most well known demonstration. Virtual particles are produced in pairs, so the net energy is zero, but the virtual particles *do* have a net mass. Some scientists speculate that this may explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: It is also thought that the Big Bang was just a large one of these quantum fluctuations. With the Casimir effect we are witnessing "Little Bangs". It is thought that a slight imbalance of matter over anti-matter resulted in the mass of the universe we see today. So I guess the creation of universe wasn't from nothing or without cause?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOTHINGNESS Inactive Member |
I wish you wouldn't ask difficult questionslol Let me see.
Subatomic particles keep deviating strangely from predictable paths (e.g, individual particles cannot be accurately followed, various properties cannot always be predicted with certainty, etc..) Unfortunately however the fact remains that however strange the sub-atomic realm might be, it can never provide proof nor even evidece that particles arise uncaused. This is simply because things can be inherently unpredictable and yet still be caused. On the other hand, a completely unpredictable event. Thus, it follows that if sub-atomic events really occur without cause, then no mathematical tool whatsoever would be able to make meaningful predictions concerning them. Yes, even the "Jvery effective" equations of quantum physics would be useless. It does not matter if scientific experiments have revealed that o the smallest scale individual particals display random and unpredictable patterns of behaviour. Quantum theory is able to make meaningful predictions about these very same particles, albeint statistical predictions concerning large numbers of them. this would be impossible if the particles and their behaviour were uncaused. Besides, although individual particles display random, unpredictable moveents, the whole method of scientifically observig the is based on the prediction that the saidparticles will be there to observe, and not say cars or elephants. In other words, the very fact that the same old particles keep arising, complete with the sae old recognizable properties, proves that these particles cannot be uncaused. Non-causality is non-discriinatory, and it has the entire infinite range of possible fors for it to randoly choose from. A known statistical distributio is scientifically acceptable, although it's nice to be able to explain it. Many-worlds theory, comined with Borel's theore, gives a good explanation. It is a comprehensible order, as long as you can coprehend that all possibilities occur-they just don't interact, and so in one we cannot observe another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I take it this means you don't know what the Casimir effect is then? It has been raised three times now in this thread and even your direct reply to a post mentioning the Casimir effect totally fails to address whether it shows the existence of virtual particles as a real phenomenon rather than a theoretical construct.
The existence of virtual particles doesn't neccessarily mean there is no such thing as cause and effect, but what underlying causes there are to virtual pair formation may reside within the very structure of the universe itself and well below our current ability to resolve. TTFN, WK
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024