evolution does not explain the origin of the universe

While evolution is a credible scientific theory, it's range is limited, and some of the controversy about evolution is more about extending its range beyond its limits. Evolution does not explain the origin of the universe; evolution does not explain how life comes from non-life; nor does it, title to the contrary, explain the origin of species. All it says is that given an already existing species (that is, a group of animals that can reproduce with each other), some of the offspring will have variations which give them a better chance for survival. These offspring will then produce offspring with similar traits.

And the theory stops there.

There is no evidence that after a certain amount of variations, a new species is born, that is, an offspring which cannot reproduce with relatives of its parents. The theory begins after the species has come into existance.

Therefore, Intelligent Design, as much as it is maligned, seems just as good a hypothesis for those things which evolution does not cover--i.e., the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and, with the addition of the "anthropic principle," a phenomenon widely discussed by such authors as Paul Davies, the apparent calibration of the universe to produce consciousness.

I, a lifelong Democrat, liberal, and Christian, see Intelligent Design, as a basis for my most cherished values--because I believe the universe is created, I believe we are stewards of creation--therefore I oppose such things as drilling in Alaska, and I affirm environmental protection. My basis for these values may be different from my fellow Democrats, but there is no reason to malign me or my position, since I come out on your side.

Where we differ is that I don't mind the discussion of Intelligent Design as part of education--you can talk about Newton, Jefferson, Aristotle, Kant, Einstein, and any number of great thinkers who share this belief. I suspect that the Methodist Hillary Clinton believes in some form of Intelligent Design--so why be afraid of discussing it? It might be a way to talk about Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Native American beliefs, Wicca, as well as Christianity and how there are different approaches to the very philosophical question, "Why not nothing?"

I would prefer no flames. Again, my goal is to open up the Democratic party to a wider diversity of opinions.

I mean, shall we teach our kids that if we don't know something, we should just assume God did it?

Why can't we admit limits to science? Why can't we discuss the unknowable? How is the language of quantum mechanics any less poetic than the Epic of Gilgamesh? Just because you name something a "quark" doesn't mean you know anything about it. Why not just admit it?

in case you missed the memo REAL science is predicated on the understanding that WE don't know what everything means or is.

science seeks to uncover that knowledge.

Responded the wrong post -- sorry 'bout that! :)

teach it as literature or mythology, but science it ain't.

Science doesn't deal in faith and poetry.

and detail how his magic wand works

science isn't about knowing everything, it's about finding things out

for most people. But too many approach religion from the standpoint of knowing the answer, or it being THE answer.

There's a reason the greatest religious leaders are considered philosphers, but you can't make the ID crowd buy that.

I suspect if I had THE answer to one or both, I wouldn't be as content as I am. The pursuit is what makes me happy.

That's basically what you're relegating your god to.

If science can't fully explain it - yet - then "Goddidit."

Problem is, what if science DOES then explain it. Well, your god shrinks. He's now smaller, because there's one less phenomenon that you need to invoke him to explain.

Just as people used to think that disease was caused by demons, that Zeus threw lightning bolts when he got mad, etc.

The tsunami WAS CAUSED BY AN ANGRY GOD! It was another sign of revelations! You blasphemous pagan, you!

ask away

i like the cut of your jib!

Nathan Isgur who did tons of work on quarks?

Somewhat before my time, and his work was not directly in my area of research (CKM matrix and exotic meson CP violating decays).

He was a wonderful person, absolutely brilliant. One thing I admire about him most is that he fled to Canada rather than support the Vietnam War. He died just a few years ago and left a hole in my heart, even though I hadn't seen him since 1968.

Decades ago.

C'mon people, scientific literacy is a virtue.

It always surprises me how people who know so little about science want to decide what's taught in science class.

They defy our understanding of existance. They have no mass, and they have no location. We have absolutely no idea what the word "quark" refers to, except that it can be described with an equation. There is no laboratory test for a quark, and there never will be. Please look at Feynman and Penrose for further info.

Read about them here
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html

It explains how they are observed and measured.

There is no direct evidence of quarks. They have not been seen or measured--activity which could possibly be explained by quarks has been seen, but no quarks. Look at your link carefully.

The accumulation of many such results, where experiments match predictions based on quarks, convinces us that quarks are real.

Perhaps you should read the link carefully.

No, but than again, we can't see viruses either, should we question the existence of them too?

how can i know he exists?

I have a feeling there won't be any response. ;-)

ies--went on a little long there. Proof is not an issue in this particular discussion.

Whatever terms you may try to couch it in, ID's ultimate purpose is to get a particular version of reality shoehorned into the education system.

much education centers around learning the basics.

we shouldn't use public education as a religion factory.

But your's does just fine. Thanks for the backup.

Many viruses remain undiscovered, too.

The Fermilab website has some good information on how particle accelerators and detectors work:

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/physics/collider/more.html

Also has a link to a sort of slide-show, explaining it all in a way that doesn't require an advanced degree. I definitely recommend it to anyone who wishes to learn a little more about how science explores the world of the sub-atomic:

http://www-ed.fnal.gov/projects/exhibits/searching/exhibit_home1.html

Yes, it's true that you can't easily apply ideas like "location" to objects at the quantum level; but that does not mean that quantum particles do not exist. Existence is not predicated on adherence to the laws of classical physics.

If a quark doesn't have to be anywhere, why does a dragon? My point is, that all language about the unknown is ultimately mythical.

It's just that the more you know of a quark's position, the more uncertain the quark's momentum becomes.

Again, you've got a serious misunderstanding of Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle.

And to say the HUP or QM is mythical, is to be intellectually dishonest.

Look, I'm not going to be able to give you a satisfactory explanation, because as far as I know, no one's yet managed to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. But I do know that the fact that it hasn't been done does not imply that it can't or won't be, and I believe that it can and will. If you want to call that "faith," then at least it is faith grounded in reason.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's so much simpler than listening.

I'm going to point out that it's wrong.

If you don't want me to do that, make sure you get your information straight before posting.

It's the Repukes that are anti-intellectual.

No one has ever seen dragon scales, felt dragon wing beats, blown fire, or shadows of dragons. It cannot be predicted where dragons will be, or that they have ever been.

and, of course, remove the portion "except that it can be described with an equation".

RC

Look, I'm a Christian, but I'll point out logical problems anytime I see them. Of course I have no proof God exists, that's why it's called faith. I have the same faith that quarks exist.

The pursuit of ANY knowledge is a virtue.

They can be measured in much the same way that one might measure the dimensions of a car, although with much more sophisticated technology. The reason for this is simple - to conduct a measurement, one needs an energy which depends inversely on the scale one is trying to probe down to. Loosely speaking, the smaller the thing you want to see, the more energetic the probe must be - this is why when optical instruments fail us we switch to the electron miscroscope, or X-ray crystallography. This process carried onwards gets us to the accelerators of today, where protons are smashed into each other to briefly probe down to the quark scale. As to measured, look at:

pdg.lbl.gov

for a very very comprehensive review...

You are completely misreading what this experiment shows. I know how these electron microscopes work, and while they can point to phenomena which may be the result of quark activity, they really have no clue. I can point to phenomena which may be the result of dragon activity--can I now say dragons exist?

then yes.

would indeed be a vain effort - I was trying to explain how one measures things (not only quarks) which cannot be seen with the naked eye, but there you go. We are, after all, a very crude (and self-conscious) measuring device, us humans. For popular benefit, here is a snippet of what we know about the bottom quark (my thesis topic):

Mass = between 8.3 and 8.9 * 10^-27 kilograms

Electric Charge = -(1/3)e (i.e. one third of the proton charge)

Parity = positive

Spin = 1/2

Now I am afraid I must leave you to ponder on this, as work calls.

on edit: I might add that one very key difference between a quark and a dragon is as follows: there has never been a need to invoke a dragon (as defined in most mythology) to explain anything. Of course, if you wish to call the next particle which physics discovers a dragon, that is your choice...

Do tell.

Which is pretty much why it never has to.

There is no merit whatsoever to creationism or intelligent design.

Just because a bunch of people chose to believe something doesn't make it a valid argument.

That is "scientific" church lingo for "this is pure bullshit, but you must believe it without proof, and in spite of contrary proof, or you will burn in HELL"

Science concerns itself with what can be empirically observed. All other truths are within the realm of philosophy and mathematics. Trying to account for unexplained but observable phenomena (what you disingenuously refer to as "the unknowable") doesn't imply the belief that all truths are subject to scientific inquiry. That's the view of scientism, not of most scientists.

The difference between the Epic of Gilgamesh and quantum mechanics is that you can use the latter, poetic as it may be, to make accurate, reproducible predictions about how the material world operates. That distinguishes science from flummery.

(I am using the terms as defined by Stanley 1979, where microevolution is genetic drift within a species and macroevolution is speciation and/or stepwise evolution.)

Both have been observed IN HUMAN LIFETIMES and there's literally mountains of information demonstrating that point. And it's not just unicellular organisms or viruses (although that's the bulk of it), nor is it blasting Drosophila with X-rays, but real damned field work in human lifetimes studying the same lineage of multicellular organisms.

And don't get me started on the fossil record....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have my eyes open.

does not mean GOD is the explanation.

sorry.

can i have my language back please?

is she like?

I don't mean to flame. BELIEVE what you like. Allow science to bring us the knowledge, even if it is conditional.

Cthulhu is gonna be pissed when Cthulhu wakes up...

..there are plenty of things I don't understand. Doesn't mean there's not an explanation for them, just that I don't understand them. If I were to attribute everything I didn't understand to god that would be absurd.

If someone has studied and absorbed every aspect of science and scientific theory and fully understands it and still wants to believe in a god then more power to them. But simply being too lazy to look into things from a factual and scientific standpoint and then expecting everyone else to adopt that stance takes a lot of nerve.

:shrug:

on edit- evolution has NOTHING to do with cosmology, never has, never will... you're creating a strawman

giant, striped chicken that created it all? I mean really!

double post

RL

Look, you want the truth about the universe?

Here it is, all laid out nice and simple.

The universe was created last weekend in the dormroom of a guy named Steve. Since Steve has infinite power and knowledge, he had no trouble accomplishing this task over the weekend. In fact, he even went to a house party Saturday night.

With the universe, he created the illusion of thousands of years of history. So even though you think that you have been living on this earth for years now, and that there were millions of people before you, the truth is that none of this existed before last weekend before Steve created it.

Trust me, this is all possible through the power and wisdom that is Steve.

And how do I know this? Steve himself told me, and I am here to spread the word to you.


How is that theory any different than intelligent design?


And, by the way, to address your "briliant" question:

Ok, into what is the Universe expanding?

I dunno. Probably the same stuff that was there berfore God created the Universe.

What was here before God created the Universe, by the way? Surely intelligent design addresses this.

And, where did God come from? Has he always existed? And, if so, where did he reside before he created the Universe?

I expect complete and accurate answers to each of these questions, since intelligent design apparently has all the answers and covers all the bases.

:)

Steve told me to reject you and your sinful ideas.

;)

I look up into the billions upon billions of stars in the sky and I see the incalculable and immaculately perfect work of the laws of nature, not of God. That doesn't make the night sky any less magnificent.

in your profile.

Why can't one be in wonder over the vastness of the universe and the multitude of stars just because they're there. What does God have to do with being in awe of the scope?
The Professor

Wow! It must be god 'cause I can't figure it out, Daddy!

But not for long...

Why on earth would it be otherwise?

Evolution does not bear any relation to the origin of the universe. That's cosmology, evolution is biology. I think what they're after is the concept of abiogenesis, which is another field that's being researched. I don't know much about it, so I will not presume to be an authority on the subject.

Most YEC's ( Young Earth Creationists) and ID ( Intelligent Design) folks take a line that essentially says that nothing living can come from something that's not living. I seem to recall reading in passing something about research being done with organic compounds being created in clay beds, as being a possible origin. What I have the biggest problem with is their application of the second law of thermodynamics. What they fail to see is that Earth is not a closed system, and it receives energy from the sun, so, there can be local reversals of entropy, possibly giving rise to life.

But hey, it's not my specialty. I'm just a computer nerd with a biologist brother.

K.

scientists have been able to make a living cell from nothing but the building blocks, they just coulnd't figure out how to make it do anything.

Sounds fascinating - do you recall where you head that?

Thanks for the link. I'll be reading this and more after work!

The origin of the universe.

That's my point. I support discussing Intelligent Design as a vital part of education.

and has as much validity as teaching children that the world is flat.

and because it is not science.

that forbids "nationalizing religion" and promotes "separation of church and state."

That's why we do not teach "Christian" beliefs as if they were Science. Why should we confound religion with Science? Would we dream of blurring the lines between math and religion?

..if you mean science class well then:
It's
Still
Not
Science

what's wrong with it is that it is not science. It belongs in the science classroom no more than astrology does.

There are THOUSANDS of creation stories. To teach a Christian ID while neglecting the others would be a joke. To research, understand, and evaluate all of them would be not possible in a school curriculum without excluding other more important and informative subjects.

and I'm sick to death of wingnut CHRISTIAN philosophy being foisted into the mainstream and down my son's (who is also the child of a lapsed Hindu--you want a creation story--it's far more interesting!) throat.

I don't want even mainstream Christianity foisted into the public arena, much less wingnut philosophy.

Whatever. Do you think kids don't know that some people believe that God or an intelligent creator made the universe? You teach evolution because it's a theory that requires some explanation. You teach science because it requires explanation. You do not need to teach children that some people believe that the universe was created by a god. Do you also teach kids that some people believe that they don't need to go to the hospital because an Intelligent Creator will provide for them? It certainly is a theory.

How about this, we teach evolution because the idea that it is expressing is both agreed upon widely by experts in the field, and it requires explanation and example. Saying that God created everything doesn't require any explanation. It explains itself. If you spend anymore than 5 seconds lingering on the subject you cease to teach and you begin to preach.

Why can't "Intelligent Design" be taught in church where it belongs?

Why push it onto a society that's supposed to be a melting pot of beliefs? Why not keep religious beliefs out of the shared pot and leave them unto their own space?

And read up on the scientific method while your at it. "Intelligent Design" is faith wrapped in jargon, and you know it. It has no place in a science class.

Myth and Mythology 101

or

Wacky Fundy Propaganda 201

RL

Intelligent Design is just like creationism.

Its completely baseless.

The only shred of "evidence" for either argument is the Bible.

And, that alone should tell you why Intelligent Design doesn't belong in schools.

In fact, every religion can teach their own creation myth(s) in their parochial schools.

as an object lesson on how religious superstition and dogma can and do hijack the language of science.

edit: grammar

philosophy class.

I personally suspect that there are leaps of evolution that suggest a form of intelligent design, AKA the aliens altered our DNA, including making us believe in higher beings to make us easier to control.

The argument is that you can't force science to teach something without evidence. That's what all the other brainwashing classes are for like history, philosophy, english, psychology and such.

Philosophy or the other religions of the world that do not believe we came into being other than in a lush garden where people wore fig leaves.

ID is an admission that "I personally do not know everything that there is to know."

ID is a statement of fear that "There is so much to read and so much to learn and so much to discuss and so much to ponder, that I just throw my hands up."

In some way ID is a statement of hope, that maybe I may have the time to read, and learn, and discuss, and ponder.

ID is like an onion -- or a Faberge figurine. As you go through each layer you learn more -- and see that ID was like a lesson plan to study these questions of evolutionary biology and paleontology.

The science and math scores of American children lag behind the rest of the civilized world, and adding myth to cloud science is a disservice. I'm from Massachusetts, and went to Catholic school. Religion is taught in religion class. Mythology is taught in Western Civilization or Classics classes. And Evolution is taught in biology classes.

And I cannot find them, therefore evolution is wrong and God created the world in six days, amen.

:hi:

RL

I bet you love all those off-the-cuff remarks Bush makes about his opponents. They're so clever.

If you're not careful god is going to give you an ulcer...

(You wanna post your myths, be prepared to be laughed at...)

RL

I think it's fairly evident that if evolution does not FULLY EXPLAIN every single thing in this entire universe, then it MUST be completely and totally FALSE, which then PROVES that Intelligent Design is correct, which then PROVES that there is a God, who created the world in six days. Amen.

I don't see how anyone can poke holes in this irrefutable logic, and I know you agree.

You really lightened up this otherwise tedious thread.

Thanks
The Professor

...'cause it's not.

...and to my knowledge evolution is NOT taught as a theory of the origin of the unitverse. It better not be - it has nothing to do with cosmology.

PS: I'm a liberal Catholic who believes in the strength and integrity of the scientific method.

a MAJOR point i've long been making regarding such debates.
it's one thing to go into what the scientific theories do and do not explain.

it's another thing entirely to just throw up your hands and claim that "god did it" has ANY explanatory power whatsoever.

the claim that "god did it" answers any questions at all is, in fact, just another way of saying "shut up, quit asking questions, and be satisfied with not knowing."

now, if you want to say "god did it, and here's how", well then you've got something to talk about. but so-called intelligent design proponents (i.e., creationists) rarely if show any interest in such discussions.

"the claim that "god did it" answers any questions at all is, in fact, just another way of saying "shut up, quit asking questions, and be satisfied with not knowing."

That's just a complete misrepresentation of Intelligent Design. I'm not talking about "God of the Gaps". Did Newton stop asking questions? Tillich? Tolkien?

Perhaps you could explain it to us then?

Read The Horse And His Boy by C. S. Lewis. Read the Silmarillion by Tolkien. Read the Principia by Newton. Read Ideas and Opinions by Einstein. Read The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

Then you'll have some idea about Intelligent Design.

have you read these books or did you cop a bibliography from a right-wing ID site?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

when other people make it easy.

sorry.

i don't know if gannon did much "debating" as he did "whoring."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

just truthful.

i don't get ann coulter, do you?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've seen no objection to that. We simply object to teaching it as science.

... thought-provoking allegory in others... and, in the case of The Principia and other books on the sciences, some informed and insightful essays by accomplished science.

But... nothing that suggests ID should be taught in science class.

Perhaps you could give me an example from one or more of these works that elevates ID beyond the level of musing on possibilities, and places it squarely in the realm of science?


(edited HTML)

Right again unblock! :kick:

By saying "God made it!" is just another way of saying "shut up" is exactly right!

The reality is no one knows where the Universe came from. It is unknown.

I don't think anyone here wants to trample on anyones beliefs. As a matter of fact we encourage all different beliefs. Just don't try and force anything down anyone elses throat.

to put it on the same level as something like evolution is absurd. One is an article of faith the other is an article of science. It's irellevent whether they both address the same point or not. One is a theory ecompass a set of irrefutable facts. The other is something that is completely taken on faith.

If you want to talk about intelligent design in philosophy or religion classes then that is fine (last I checked public schools steer away from that stuff).

But I believe the position of the democratic party, progressives, and liberals is not that there is no god, or not that intelligent design doesn't exist, just that it's nowhere even near a scientific theory.

"he always was..." just doesn't cut it.

you said: "my goal is to open up the Democratic party to a wider diversity of opinions."

i guess the Democratic party has been sorely lacking in christian fundamentalism lately.

boy we NEED more of that!

Intelligent Design is a way to discuss a wide variety of different approaches to questions science doesn't have the means to answer. So, why not teach it?

to proselytize and evangelize.

it is not about open mindedness, it is not about different approaches, it is not about diversity.

sorry, it is about fundamentalist christianity and the culture war and the attempts of the religious right to insinuate itself into every aspect of the american life.

sorry again, you don't get to hijack the language this time.

And no matter how many historical figures I look at, I'm always a wacky fundamentalist? I don't want to be a member of a party where I am simply tolerated--I want to be welcomed, because my beliefs lead me to support traditionally Democratic causes, such as the environment.

You can be a democrat and believe in whatever you want. But you can't not believe in separation of church and state.

And teaching a religious theory in the classroom is violating separation of church and state.

but when you advocate teaching the subterfuge of ID as an equivalent of good science (and under the rubric of public education), you infringe on my right to be free FROM RELIGION.

Democrats are supposed to be intelligent, well read, and open minded.

But that's just my opinion.

in the class room..should I pick up my jacks and leave too?

We teach fairy tales in literature class. We teach evolution in biology. We teach multiplication in math class.

If you want to support the arts in public schools again, I would gladly consider teaching Intelligent Design in FUNDAMENTALIST FOLKLORE CLASS

with modern science like carbon dating we can gather FACTS that I'm sorry to say, go against what you were told.. the world IS round and it IS millions of years old we DID have ancestors like were like apes and we ARE very close to apes. (Gravity is a theory too) NOW.. if you go to a philosophy or theology class, were the student know that they are not dealing with fact, but ideas, thats great, its not the discussion we oppose.. it the "science" label that degrades REAL science. Its like Gannon and real journalism, if you cant see that difference you need more help than we can provide.

And "Intelligent Design" is just a subset of "Scientific Creationism" and inherently dishonest.

If Jefferson were alive today he'd be calling it bullshit too.

He taught that the lessons of the bible were good but didn't give a bit of credence to the miracles.

Now we have a huge argument on here because someone here posted they want ID in science class..


if that's the case, then I want them to also teach the beliefs of shintoists, dieists, bhuddists, alienists, Native American religions and every other one I didn't list. Hell, why teach science, they'll be learning so many other ways humans were made and developed without any nasty work and proof needed.

all jayzus, all the time!

ask us about our language-hijacking special.

These are all terms people use in the discussion of Intelligent Design.

are pretty much only discussing the literal interpretation of the King James Version of the Bible.

And American, and protestant to boot.

ohter cultures to make their weak points.

Lots of Creation theories, which one do you want taught?

As if I can't guess--only one religion uses the phrase "intelligent design." :eyes:

I don't think the Constitution addresses the issue of teaching Intelligent Design, or the free discussion of both religious and scientific topics in the classroom--where do you see that?

to the constitution of the united states?

This country's education system was set up by Puritans, and the great schools started out as religious schools while the Consitution was in effect. I believe some of the writers of the Constitution went to public schools where religion was discussed. So, what's your point?

for the one millionth time:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

the first part is germane because the state can have no viewpoint, pro or con, as it concerns religion. although you are free to practice your version of religion free from governmental influence.

IT DOES NOT MEAN

that christian fundamentalism is the de facto state religion because some protestant whackjobs got kicked out of britain for being so damn obtuse.

regardless of precedent cultural and religious factors, the CONSTITUTION is the primary document that establishes the body of laws in this country.

what you present is anecdote and wishful thinking. an attempt to conform facts to your particular worldview and set of assumptions and presuppositions about the world.

IT STILL DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE NO MATTER HOW FERVENTLY YOU BELIEVE IT, NOR DOES THAT MAKE IT LAW.

that's my point.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

have relatively little to do with the administration of the laws of this country.

and i have read them. they aren't really germane (maybe tangentially if you try to force reality into a narrow worldview) to the discussion of the first amendment protections against government sponsored religion.

so I think their ideas are pretty darn germane. Toss in Mortimer Adler as well.

don't parse much do you?

anyway, they can be germane in a tangential way with people who try to conform reality to their worldview.

does any of this register?

and so no religion in the school... this doesnt make sense to you because you base your world on religion, not reality. The rest of us can see the world as it is and wonder and discuss the existance of god in whatever form.. but the FACTS of the world should do be DISTORTED by religous dogma! I dont want my children taught unproven junk science like the Grand Canyon was created by ANYTHING other than millions of years of erosion.. BECAUSE THATS WHAT HAPPENED, FACT!

Yeah, DU certainly demonstrates that the Democrats march in lock step... :eyes:

Thanks, but no thanks. If you choose to believe that a great "Father" in the sky who sits on a "white throne" at the pearly gates created humans and all life, go right ahead.

But, don't expect my tax dollars to fund teaching your religious beliefs in our public schools.

Sounds like the language of fairy tales to me. Why is a quark real and a dragon a myth? Both are words which attempt to talk about a reality not measurable, and not visible to the eye. Your myth works for you--but don't pretend it's somehow better.

A quark is talking about the basic sub-atomic particles, something not visible to the naked eye. A dragon is a large mythical fire-breathing creature that doesn't exist. What are you talking about?

Boy, you need to read up on your physics. There is no discrete object "quark"--it is a relationship of energies. That which the word "dragon" represents, does exist, as much as what the word "quark" represents. You need to study your semiotics as well.

From Stanford - 'Quarks are fundamental matter particles that are constituents of neutrons and protons and other hadrons. There are six different types of quarks. Each quark type is called a flavor.'
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html

What does the word 'dragon' represent that exists?

I thought that Einstein showed that matter doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure he did, in fact. I believe that "matter" is a word we use to describe the curvature of the universe, not any particular object.

'Matter' - Anything that takes up space or has a mass of any kind is matter. Everything you can touch is made of matter. If it is made of anything, that anything is matter.

http://www.chem4kids.com/files/matter_intro.html

Please show evidence of Einstein 'proving' that matter doesn't exist.

As far as 'What is Flavor', did you read my post? Did you click on the link?
'What is Fundamental Matter' - the basic parts of matter as defined above.

Matter is the curvature of space. It doesn't "exist" as a separate thing.

'Matter' - Anything that takes up space or has a mass of any kind is matter. Everything you can touch is made of matter. If it is made of anything, that anything is matter.

http://www.chem4kids.com/files/matter_intro.html

Please study the Big Bang theory.

does that not exist? Is my face accually up against the monitor? And how many times am I going to have to provide you with the link to the definition of matter before you read it?

http://www.chem4kids.com/files/matter_intro.html

Are you also open to random schizophrenics teach their theories about space and cosmos and antispace particles and the quadrilateral commission? Because what you're posting is basically new age mumbo jumbo that has nothing to do with science, and I'm wondering why your stuff in particular should be taught.

Are you speaking of space as in volume? I don't think you're going to find Einstein arguing against a 3rd dimension, that's pretty obvious. I don't see how you can possibly say that space doesn't exist. So if there's no space is matter now 2 dimensional? How can we possibly recognize ideas like in and out without space?

You're really coming off like a street loony to me now, but maybe I'm just tired.

gravity is the curvature of space, according to einstein. he also posited (correctly) that matter and energy are interchangeable, that is, that one may 'change phase' into another. but not once did he argue that matter didn't exist.

I think you might be mixing an inaccurate explanation of the formula E=MC^2 with an inaccurate explanation of relativity and this is where your misconception is coming from.


Matter is what causes the curvature in space-time. Gravity is how we observe/feel this 4 dimensional curve. I believe this is what Einstein says.

I think your misconception comes from E=MC^2. Basically a formula to convert matter to energy, and with some algebra, vice versa. It means that matter is a form of energy, not that matter doesn't exist.

There is no matter--matter does not cause gravity--a black hole is a super-intense curvature of space. There is no matter there.

He's quite convinced that black holes have mass.

Mass is a measurement of the curvature of space. You reread Hawking

No big deal, a lot of people who haven't taken any physics can get them screwed up. Why should I be the one who reread's hawking, when I'm not the one who thinks Hawking believes black holes don't have mass?

I mean, Hawking's formula for the luminosity of a black hole's Hawking luminosity depends directly on the black hole's mass!

Mass is the measurement of the curvature of the universe--look it up in one your physics texts from all the classes you took--but make sure it's a class after, say, 1950.

Which is it?

Mass: A property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion. The mass of an object is not dependent on gravity and therefore is different from but proportional to its weight.

Seems to fit fine with my understanding of mass and weight. Says nothing about the curvature of the universe.

What does it say in your physics text? What century are you from? Have you come back in time from the future?

Physics has advanced since then.

Copyright 1996.

And it's the one used by scientists today.

with the idea of mass being the curvature of space-time(Which you keep errantly reffering to as space)? I'll make it easier for you.

http://www.google.com



Mass is the measurement of the matter that comprises an object.

Weight is the effect of gravity on mass.

Weight is seperate from, but proportional to mass.

You do not actually have weight, what you feel as weight is actually the forces exerted by the objects that touch you.

Those forces are explained by Einstein with a space-time continuum. If you imagine space-time as a sheet of paper and an orange as an object in space-time you will see how the object bends space-time thus creating the curvature that you are speaking of, and what we feel as gravity. While it is true that the larger the curvature the more massive the object, the object according to Einstein's model is stretching space-time and the way we perceive it is gravity.

You've been pretty inconsistent throughout this whole discussion so I'd like to ask you, where did you learn physics? I'm interested to know if maybe you're from a foreign country so maybe a language barrier exists, and the only thing we had a disagreement between was the word choices? I'd really like to know where you learned these things though because you have a few things mixed up I believe.

I'll use the definition they give of various terms. I assure you skjpm, that you're the one who's confused, but since you asked for a textbook I'll get mine. :eyes:

Mine is from 1995. It's by Merrill. The title is Physics: principles and problems.

This is what it says about mass and weight:

"The gravitational force exerted by a large body, usually Earth, is called weight."

"Mass and weight are not the same. Weight depends on the acceleration due to gravity, and thus may vary from location to location. A person weighs a very small amount less on top of a high mountain, even though he or she has the same mass."


Basically you keep insinuating that mass is the measurement of the curvature of the universe. Guess what? You've got it completely backwards, Force or Weight is the measurement of gravity's observable effects. Mass is what determines weight: more massive objects having stronger pulls. Gravity is the curvature of space-time, not mass.

The matter most certainly is there and will, eventually, be spit out in an unrecognizable form. Hawking never tries to argue against matter existing either, so I don't know how you're trying to use Einstein and Hawking's views to promote this theory you seem to be expressing.

A black hole is an infinitely dense collapsed star (which I believe contains matter, yes, yes it does), that curves space-time, thus( and I want to express that this is not necessarily my view, I'm just trying to explain it to the best of my ability because skjpm so clearly has a misunderstanding of it.) creating gravity. For example. Black holes are named as such because light cannot escape their gravitational pull. This would be because light would "fall" into this infinite hole. Thus the curvature of space-time is Gravity, and what causes the curvature is matter. More massive objects have stronger gravitational pulls.

There is no objective "thing" at the center of a black hole, what you seem to be calling "matter". There is only the intense curvature of space. And nothing "weighs" anything there--the curvature of space becomes practically circular so that it is bent inward on itself.

You can see how language is ineffective in describing things, and that all descriptions of the universe are ultimately myth.

Just wonderin'.

Perhaps the poster in question could take a quick jaunt there?

but for the most part they are interchangable. Mass is the measurement of how much matter an object contains. Big difference, it doesn't make my argument any less valuable. I can also scold you for using terms that aren't completely accurate, what do you mean by center? A black hole should act like a bowling ball stretching a towel, going down into infinity. In 3 dimensions it looks like the object is stationary, but in 4 the object is "falling." There would be no "center" to a black hole

you're arguing that einstein said that there was no such thing as matter, and prove it by telling someone to read hawking?

seriously, you need to retake physics. besides, black hole mechanics is a red herring regarding matter, physics (especially einsteinian) breaks down inside the event horizon of a black hole.

I was mostly using the example of a black hole to explain that gravity is the curvature of space-time, wheras skjpm is saying that "mass is the curvature of space."

Quarks are the smallest bits of matter known at the moment, so far as we have been able to figure out as human beings, there are likely things that make up the quarks, but we have not even found proof of them.

The proof for quarks existing is not solid enough to call it solid evidence...


Yet from what we can tell, every molecule is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons which we CAN SEE and those appear to be made up of smaller bits that we can't see clearly, we know they are there since we humans are REALLY REALLY REALLY good at breaking things, even neutrons.

how about gravity.. does this guy believe in that?

who knows a lot about quarks. i wonder why you haven't engaged him yet.

****crickets****

:)

Does a tornado exist? It's also a relationship of energies. It cannot be removed from the atmosphere. Does a "cold front" exist?

--IMM

sucessful physical theories we have. Using the idea of quarks, we are able to make predictions of unprecented accuracy about the real world. But, when push comes to shove, any scientist worth their salt will tell you that the picture's not complete yet. There's still lots we don't know, but the ideas we develop in the future must encompass those we have deveolped in the past. Relativity didn't destroy newtonian physics, it just becomes a special case of a larger theory. Some theorys ARE better, because they actually work to provide useful information about the actual world, dragons don't do that.

Mind you, I DO believe that there is room for god in the universe, but not in the guise of ID. To me the idea of god mucking about making animals out of goo seems unbelivably crude and demeaning to one who is supposedly omnipotent. I guess I see gods hand more in the creation of universes, not cockroaches.

to a certain kind of limit set of a dynamical system. Strange attractors no more or less real than the number seven. As for quarks, I'm no physicist, but I do know that they have been observed. Repeatedly. And even if the common conception of what a quark is is different from the rigorous definition, that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they exist.

And if we're only to "believe in" things visible to the naked eye... well, we're going to have to toss out a lot more than a few science books.

One doesn't "believe in" science. One examines the accumulation of data and either accepts it or rejects it as useful in explaining the world around us.

We've heard that before...from the fundies.

Let's just stomp out all intellectualism while we are at it.

I think you are in the wrong forum if you think evangelisizing is going to win anyone here over.

Read some of what the actual scientists are writing these days....

Strange attractors are a subset of observable behaviors in certain dynamic systems. They exist. I've documented them myself. I did the research, made predictions, and repeated the experiments that produced them.

That's what happens when you have a legitimate scientific theory: you can use it both to explain earlier observations and to predict future observations.

What, exactly, is it that "intelligent design" has ever predicted or explained?

All it does is explain how life evolved AS WE OBSERVE IT.
Beyond that, it's all conjecture.
A higher being may have started the whole process after all, even guided it somehow. But until we see EVIDENCE of how life really started, it's anybody's guess. And science cannot make intelligent theories based on no evidence at all.

It is either literature, mythology, religion, or philosphy, but it IS NOT SCIENCE.

:)

:kick:

Evolution = Scientific Fact
Creation = Religious Doctrine
Intelligent Design = Mythology

:kick:

I wouldn't separate intelligent design from creationism/religous doctrine in this manner. ID is just a back door attempt to support creationism while pretending to get away from religion. It's not as if we have separate groups supporting creationism versus ID as opposing viewpoints.

ID servies the goals of the religious right by giving a way to interfere with the teaching of evolution while attempting to avoid criticism on separation of chruch and state grounds. Of course, once you teach that evolution didn't occur and there was an intelligent creator, they expect this will lead to belief in their creation story. (It would be amusing to have a group of kids be taught the ID dogma, and then come up with some other beliefs of a designer/creator which is quite different from christianity.)

school.

:-)

True, there are limits to what is explained by science. However, the fact that we do not currently have a scientific explanation does not mean that there isn't one.

Scientific explanations still need to have some demonstrable fact to them and be open to verification. Lack of a scientific explanation for something does not provide any evidence for intelligent design, which has no evidence and does not leave itself open to any form of objective verification.

There are many beliefs about things which science can and cannot explain. Teaching them as philosphy, or looking at the creation stories of a variety of cultures as literature, would be valid. However such teaching should not make any claims for the validity of these as a competing scientific theory, and should include the variety of cultural/religious views on matters such as creation. There actually could be some value in people seeing that there are a variety of creation stories, in order to reduce the temptation of seeing a choice simply between science and fundamentalist christian teachings.

Kepler's Music of the Spheres--science or art? The Uncertainty Principle--science or philosophy?

Problem solved.

I think that our students need a full context in which to make decisions--there's not a Sunday School reality and a High School reality--it is all one reality, and needs to be discussed that way.

because that's sure as hell what you are advocating here

It's called a "liberal education." Read Adler, Dewey, Mill, for further insight.

the idea of a "liberal education" or classical education was to create "men of parts." the idea of liberal education predates christianity.

it wasn't about creating subterfuges and political chicanery to introduce fundamentalist christian religiosity into the body politic.

would have holocaust denial taught in history class.

Nothing liberal about that.

And there's nothing educational about "Intelligent Design."

because it in no way represents science. ID is mythology, literature, or philosphy, not science.

And I don't think I am alone in resisting your campaign to force your version of reality on me and my progeny.

It is absurd to teach religious views lacking any scientific evidence as science. The religious right goes even beyond this. They typically don't want to just present their views as an alternative. They genearlly try to keep out evolution from being taught at all.

It is not only limited to evolution. They are attacking physics over the big bang. They are even attacking geology due to finding rocks which show the earth as being older than is claimed in the bible.

There is a clear difference here. Supporters of science would be willing to throw out evolution or the big bang if a new scientific paradign were found which had better evidence behind it. (True there would be some opposition as such issues are rarely 100% clear at first, but at least the debate would be centered on science).

In contrast, those who support intelligent design and creationism start with religious beliefs, and then try to get whatever facts to fit their religious beliefs, or come up with bogus reasons to dismiss fact which contradict their views.

and you might see it one day.

You are proposing teaching something for which there is no foundation other than an individual's faith. Should we be teaching karma in science class as well? Should we be teaching about Shiva the destroyer?

Do we make room in history class for those who deny the Holocaust ever took place? While we are learning about dinosaurs, do we describe how each era of time corresponds to a day in the first week? No, because these, like Intelligent Design, are neither history nor science, they are ideology, and public schools have to walk that fine line between teaching and indoctrinating.

You need to provide some independently verifiable evidence to support the existance of the alleged intelligence behind the design.

Nobody has been capable of doing such, so as far as science goes, ID is putting the cart before the proverbial horse.

Strictly speaking, since the scientific method always produces inductive arguments, it can never absolutely prove anything to be true or false. It can, however, provide a sufficiently cogent inductive argument to be persuasive. Philosophy, contrary to popular belief, is no less rigorous; in fact it's similar to mathematics, in that both use systems of formal logic to make deductive inferences. If you want to get really pedantic about it, purely theoretical physics isn't science per se, as it uses rational rather than empirical methods to build upon what has already been observed and is therefore presumed to be true.

In other words, your dichotomy between science and "philosophy" (which I consider to mean "rational rather than empirical inquiry") is pretty much meaningless, even if it's not technically false.

because we cannot access data from before the Big Bang - but then science has always recognised these limitations. Science curricula should stick to teaching kids about refutable theories of nature based on concrete observations, and leave ID to Philosophy along with all other belief systems...

on edit: in fact its a bit worse than that, because however far we could go back, one could always ask 'what happened before X,Y,Z?'. The origin of the universe is not, IMO, a scientific problem.