|
Post by Nostradanus on Jan 7, 2004 5:11:41 GMT -5
Considering that Einstein published his theory of relativity in the 50's, and some of your sources are from the 20's and 30's, i'd go with the more recent info. I don't really care enough about the argument to seriously go and research it, because like you guys have basically said, nothing can really prove it either way. But if it happens to come up I can probe my physics teacher for info. I do happen to know that Light exhibits both qualities of particles and qualities of waves. Waves do not vary in speed (assuming a constant medium to travel in) but particles do. So you can see how the question can have two answers.
|
|
|
Post by PaganPriest on Jan 7, 2004 10:44:25 GMT -5
Considering that Einstein published his theory of relativity in the 50's, and some of your sources are from the 20's and 30's, i'd go with the more recent info. I don't really care enough about the argument to seriously go and research it, because like you guys have basically said, nothing can really prove it either way. But if it happens to come up I can probe my physics teacher for info. I do happen to know that Light exhibits both qualities of particles and qualities of waves. Waves do not vary in speed (assuming a constant medium to travel in) but particles do. So you can see how the question can have two answers. There was a law proven that you cannot measure two qualities of a sub atomic particle at the same time if they are relating but opposing qualities. Therefor you cannot find out if light is either a wave or a particle.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 7, 2004 18:36:43 GMT -5
i remember watching an episode of ghost busters the cartoon where 2 of them were arguing the entire time whether light was a wave or a particle. It was funny, at the end like all good tv shows they compromised but i enjoyed it anyway. Lets be like the ghostbusters and compromise here. But any who yes some of my information was from the 20s and 30s but some of it is recent. Also just because the information is old doesnt make it unrelyable. or however you spell that
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Jan 11, 2004 0:19:34 GMT -5
You know another old theory? Earth being the center of the universe, with the sun and other planets revolving around it. This was made obsolete in, oh... the 1500s, I believe by Kepler.
Your saying that just because something is old doesn't make it unreliable doesn't take into account new theories, such as Einstein's special and general relativity, and the whole sh*tload of quantum physics we've learned in the past 7 or 8 decades.
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Jan 11, 2004 0:22:02 GMT -5
Oh... and I forgot.
Don't try to use science you don't understand to prove something that isn't true. You've no hope of convincing someone with any scientific background using the flawed and rather simple arguments you used in your first post. I know of 3rd graders who could come up with those arguments, and 5th graders who could easily knock them down. I'd knock them, but that has already been taken care of by the kind people who've posted prior to myself.
|
|
|
Post by Nostradanus on Jan 11, 2004 13:04:14 GMT -5
I'd have to agree, just because a theory is old in this case pretty much does make it unreliable. As of the middle of this past century with the help of Einstein and company, theories based on newtonian physics were completely squashed. Newtons laws work great here on earth, but when you look at things on a really small level (inside a nucleus of an atom) or on a really big scale (hmm lets say the universe) they really don't hold true. (and yes Colliohn, it was kepler, using brahe's data that totally fucked those pricks who thought the earth was the center of the universe (i know they have some technical name, but i can't think of it at the moment))
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Jan 12, 2004 22:58:11 GMT -5
by defenition the origin of man and this world is a miracle. I'd be interested to know what dictionary you got this definition from.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on Jan 13, 2004 11:20:47 GMT -5
by defenition the origin of man and this world is a miracle. No you see the origin of man is a mystery, it is the unknown. The fact that you just called it a miracle is a prime example of ONE of christianity's duties, give answers to unanswerable questions. Explain what we cannot explain ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 13, 2004 23:12:42 GMT -5
Well Colliohn im glad to know that you know infanetly more then me in science. But once again children we see the evolutionists dancing around the issues and questions, they never answer it. They just tell you you are stupid and unscientific and they dont tell you why they find human artifacts in the same stones they call 2 billion years old. They dont tell you why they find human footsteps right next to dinosaurs and why there are sea shells on top of mountans. They dont tell you why we have never seen a star born but we see them die. They dont tell you why they can only find less then 6000 years worth of river sediments in the ocean. Or why erosion only proves a young earth. They dont tell you that when we landed on the moon experts were afriad we would sink throuhg a mile of dust yet when we landed there was a few inches. They dont tell you why there are tress shown to have pass through many layers in the fossil record and many layers of the geologic column. They simply laugh at you and tell you how little you know. Well since you have just told us, Colliohn, how much better you are at science then me and since i am giving facts at a third grade level and you are in high school. Im sure you can answer all of my questions without looking into any other sources. Way to make yourself look REAL smart
And a miracle is something that happens which breaks the laws of science. Evolution breaks every single law of science
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Jan 13, 2004 23:22:47 GMT -5
You want solid proof? I'll show you solid proof. Pictures of nebulas, where stars are born: www.seds.org/billa/twn/Seashells in the mountains: pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/dynamic.html(I could be wrong about this source... it might have more to do with ocean changes than directly with tectonic plate movements, I'm not sure) Erosion: same link as above, I believe. If you would be so kind as to clarify your other queries, and perhaps provide sources, I would be happy to clarify the science behind them. :-)
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 14, 2004 11:26:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Jan 14, 2004 11:35:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Jan 15, 2004 22:26:28 GMT -5
While I am planning on doing that research this weekend, I just want to say one thing now.
You can't pick and choose from science as you do from the bible. If you believe in one piece of [real] science, you must believe it all. All science is done using the same method: hypothesize, observe, test, record data, etc... Therefore, if you believe for example, that the earth revolves around the sun, you must also believe the earth is 93 million miles from the sun, and the Sun revolves around the center of the Milky Way, which is 100,000 light years across. All of that information was obtained in the same way: direct observation from the surface of the earth using logic, math, and previously understood science.
Here's another example. It was brought up at one point that the speed of light being a constant either proves the Universe is billions of years old, or that there is some other explanation as to why we can see objects billions of light years away. I argue that you have no basis for your argument. If you don't believe in the scientific cosmology of the universe, and repute scientific knowledge of astronomy, you can't use any sort of science to disprove this knowledge.
If you wish to create a so called "Creation Science", then you must start from the beginning, as the true scientists did millennia ago. You must use direct observation, starting basic and getting more complex, all without the help of modern science, for you don't believe in modern science.
Creation science isn't science. It is a bunch of hypocrits who wish to disprove valid facts and highly accurate theories (without using any sort of science to do so) simply because they believe something else. That isn't science, that's ignorance and blind defiance.
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Jan 15, 2004 22:38:48 GMT -5
And you know what? I have no reason to defend science in the first place. Science isn't a static, outdated, obsolete thing; unlike something else I can think of (Hint: the 'something' hasn't been changed in... 2000 years or so?).
Science is constantly changing, always improving, and self-correcting.
Hell, if all the bolsh you pasted at the beginning of this thread turns out to be true (which I doubt, seeing as most of it was obsolete when it was printed in the first place), Science would simply take a step back, look around, and make it so the new data works by making fresh hypothesees and theories to fit the data.
You have no right to challenge a field that is as ancient as humans are, especially with shit such as you have found to try to do so.
People who publish the works you have read are angry, bitter bitter who can't take being wrong, so they make up and spread LIES so that it seems as if they are right.
You (meaning christians I have encountered in general) claim to be open-minded, yet you deny any and all fact that could possibly make you change what you believe in the tiniest way.
You might say I am just as close-minded, for the same reason. You would be incorrect. I acknowledged your beliefs as a viable theory; which, if you know what theory is, is a huge open-minded action on my part.
I think I'm done for now. As you can tell, this topic angers me just a bit...
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Jan 16, 2004 11:29:53 GMT -5
Also, I have always acknowledged the somewhat large possibility that Evolution and the Big Bang Theory could be flawed, or even that one or both may be wrong.
When a Christian tells me that god may or may not actually exist, then I will admit his open-mindedness.
|
|