Why do scientists want to prove we are an accident?

[hecd2]

Well what we consider to represent the charge and mass of an electron would of course be an electron, but at that point I suppose you’re already assuming that electrons are definitely there… so a more honest question would be - how can something equate with the charge and mass of what we conclude is an electron, and not be an electron? To which I reply, in the same way something can have the shape and sound of of a wasp, yet be a bluebottle.

Well if you are in the habit of confusing wasps and bluebottles, I feel sorry for you. And in any case your answer is not helpful to the discussion because what you describe is confusing one thing that exists with another thing that exists. The honest question is how can something have the mass and charge of what we call an electron and not exist at all? It doesn’t matter what we call it, electron, anti-positron, electrical quantum, atom-orbiter, pink unicorn, as sure as eggs is eggs and elephants are elephants, something has the rest mass and charge and anomalous magnetic moment and spin of what we call an electron because we can detect and measure its properties in many, many ways that are exquisitely compatible - so the question is: how can we measure the properties of an entity that doesn’t exist?

. Protons and neutrons were originally conceived of to balance the math when atoms and electrons were not found to sufficiently fulfil the necessary calculations themselves. Prior to that, the subatomic particles previously found to fit the math alone constitute the subatomic universe were found to be, by themselves, explaining all the action.

This is absolutely and utterly wrong. Protons were conceived to explain observations as I have said before - not some abstract failing in the mathematics. They were postulated to explain *measured *positive charge in the nucleus of the atom and the *observed *relationship between nuclear charge and the position of elements in the periodic table and their existence was confirmed experimentally by Ernest Rutherford in 1917 by alpha bombardment of nitrogen.

According to a sensible definition, we can say elephants are pretty bloody likely to exist - enough, I’d say to make it practical to talk as if with genuine knowledge. They look the same, smell the same, sound the same, are the same shape, and probably taste pretty similar. We cannot say with equal certainty that protons, neutrons and electrons exist - the evidence, when it comes down to it, is too indirect, and singular in its methodical source to boot.

Absolutely and utterly wrong again, because all electrons, protons and neutrons have completely identical properties, not just similar, but identical, and we know with great certainty that they exist through multiple, not singular, observations and and hugely accurate measurements of their properties conducted in many different contexts in many different ways. In fact when we observe an electron, or a neutron or a proton, we can identify what we have observed with more certainty than when we observe an elephant which is ambiguous in terms of species, sub-species and races. Are there two, three or four species of extant elephant? More? Can you tell the difference between a Carthiginian elephant or a African bush elephant? The problem is that you simply don’t have a clue about *why *I can say, reasonably and sensibly, that I *know *that sub-atomic particles exist as entities, and what’s more I know what their properties are and what their behaviour is to a higher degree of certainty than almost every other entity in the universe.

We can say that there are reactions which certainly would suggest somesuch arrangement exists, but reactionary vibrations are just not sufficient to constitute genuine proof of existence…

Reactionary vibrations? What on earth are you talking about?

…as to my knowledge of physics being limited, you know it to be true! Nonetheless, there have been more than a few threads where you’ve quoted all sorts of evidences of arguments against me, which end up doing little such at all, once they’ve been checked through. As to this argument, I established it pretty readily while reading a book about it many years ago… I’m beginning to wonder if that was so long ago that my memory isn’t distorting the technicalities, so I think I may check out a few of these details with a physicism chum, next time I meet up with one, which may well be up to 3 weeks away, unfortunately for this argument… hell, I may try and dig up the original book, for that matter… actually maybe I should make a proper effort to hassle someone to re-explain them to me over the weekend

Why are you mumbling? By the way, I’d be interested if you could produce a single case where evidence that I produced in support of an argument turned out to be “little such at all”.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Mystic_Banana]

How do you experience a thing “directly” in a way that is categorically different from detecting an electron? Say you have an elephant in front of you - well, photons in light arising from the sun are incident on the surface of the elephant. Many of the photons are absorbed and turned into heat in the elephant’s skin, but some, of particular wavelengths, are reflected (this, by the way, is a very complex process that I am glossing over disgracefully). Since the elephant’s skin is a deep scatterer, the direction of reflection of each photon is randomised. Some reach the pupil of your eyes and are refracted at the cornea and again at the crystalline lens. Photons scattered at the same point on the elephant that traverse different paths converge approximately on the same point on the retina (assuming good visual acuity). Since this is true of all points on the elephant, an inverted representation of the elephant is formed on the retina - this is not the elephant itself, but a pattern of photons whose flux density corresponds in some geometric way with the reflectivity and other optical features of the elephant. The photons are absorbed by the receptors in the retina, and the energy of the photons causes the 11-cis-retinal in the cones to switch to trans. This in turn allows opsin to change its configuration, an effect which is amplified by transducin. This, in turn, activates phosphodiesterase which opens the phosphate ring in cGMP. This in turn blocks sodium, calcium and magnesium channels across the membrane, which creates an electrical potential (owing to the unequal ion concentrattions). This signal, from each cone is then transmitted via a glutamate blocking pathway to multiple synapses. At the first level of processing in the retina, bipolar and horizontal cells detect on-off and edge transitions by equally complex biochemical and bioelectrical processes. Other ganglion cells fire when there is movement - a high and complex level of processing takes place in the retina. This happens before any signal is transmitted to the visual cortex where a much more complex degree of electro-chemical processing takes place. So far, we haven’t even reached the stage where any signals are transmitted to regions in the brain that fire in patterns corresponding to recognition of the light falling on the retina as having arisen from an elephant. So that’s the ‘direct’ detection of elephants, hugely simplified and glossed over.

What about electrons? Well, the story is pretty similar, except at the front end where electrons fall on a scintillator screen and release photons that can be detected in the eye - that’s the equivalent of photons being scattered from the elephant. The back end processing in the retina and visual cortex is simpler for electrons than elephants - all we need to see in the case of electrons is a flash.

So, given this rather indirect sensing of all entities in the external world, how do you detect a thing “directly”, and how is that categorically different from detecting an electron?

By the way, the fallacy you are falling into here is a common one amongst non-scientists - ie to privilege phenomena that can be detected by the human senses unaided above those that require instruments such as microscopes, telescopes, electrometers, scintillation screens, oscilloscopes, cloud chambers, bolometers, radar, thermal sensors, SEMs, strain gauges, microphones, interferometers etc etc etc. In all cases we sense things indirectly and in all cases we can only detect reactions and processes around the thing itself, whether its an electron or an elephant.

I’ll reply to the rest of your post shortly.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Like I said, I’m going to have to check this out properly… doesn’t quite sound right that we have *visual * on electrons , and these things are so often misrepresented - not least by you! Regardless, much of your post is hilariously misjudged… unless we can hear, feel, hell, taste individual electrons, with or without ‘amplifiers’, the elephant still trumps. It’s true about the internal modifiers in our visual faculties, but of course, artificial visual enhancers add only extra

Actually, I suppose that’s a reasonable first point that’s difficult to distort - do we detect electrons via *direct *visual amplification? I suppose we could start from there…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Well if you are in the habit of confusing wasps and bluebottles, I feel sorry for you.

If you missed my point, I feel sorry for you!

And in any case your answer is not helpful to the discussion because what you describe is confusing one thing that exists with another thing that exists. The honest question is how can something have the mass and charge of what we call an electron and not exist at all?

Because it could be several things that in combination produce such mass and charge, without our ability to discern the multiplicity of sources through a lack of refinement

Absolutely and utterly wrong again, because all electrons, protons and neutrons have completely identical properties, not just similar, but identical, and we know with great certainty that they exist through multiple, not singular, observations and and hugely accurate measurements of their properties conducted in many different contexts in many different ways. In fact when we observe an electron, or a neutron or a proton, we can identify what we have observed with more certainty than when we observe an elephant which is ambiguous in terms of species, sub-species and races. Are there two, three or four species of extant elephant? More? Can you tell the difference between a Carthiginian elephant or a African bush elephant? The problem is that you simply don’t have a clue about *why *I can say, reasonably and sensibly, that I *know *that sub-atomic particles exist as entities, and what’s more I know what their properties are and what their behaviour is to a higher degree of certainty than almost every other entity in the universe.

Ah - but that’s the thing! Science, as an organizational entity, will always seek to categorise, and possibly without sufficient reason. What, after all, differentiates one species from another? Is it the same as what differentiates a pig from a shrew? A black man from a white man? Or a Welshman from an English man? These are not terms based on an objective reality - they are terms based on the opinions of individuals based on what constiutes giving something a different name…

Reactionary vibrations? What on earth are you talking about?
Why are you mumbling? By the way, I’d be interested if you could produce a single case where evidence that I produced in support of an argument turned out to be “little such at all”.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I casually mentioned that we deterimine the difference between different planetary bodies - indeed, any aspect of the universe outside of the solar system - by visual data alone. You countered by referring me to a paper about aspects ‘discovered’ via spectroscopy. Which is, regarding planetary bodies outside the solar system, visual data alone

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Like I said, I’m going to have to check this out properly… doesn’t quite sound right that we have *visual * on electrons , and these things are so often misrepresented - not least by you!

Here’s a tad of information that will hopefully benefit you! It’s from CERN, dated August 8, 2011 entitled “Matter-antimatter: balancing the scales” that was quite interesting. I suggest you read it, it should enlighten you to the fact that:

Using its innovative experimental set-up, the Japanese-European ASACUSA collaboration recently succeeded in measuring the mass of the antiprotons with an unprecedented accuracy. This has been made possible by applying extremely high-precision laser techniques.

ASACUSA physicist, Masaki Hori, adjusts the optical system of laser beams.
The antiproton is not something you could weigh by putting it on a pair of scales. Besides, it is not its “weight” (i.e. the Earth’s gravitational force on it) that scientists aim to measure but rather its “mass”. In addition, the yardstick against which the antiproton mass was measured is not the familiar kilogram, but the electron’s mass. Technically speaking, this is no easy task, especially when an unprecedented precision is requested.

In the ASACUSA experiment, two counter-propagating ultra-sharp laser beams simultaneously hit an antiprotonic helium atom, where an antiproton orbits around the nucleus in place of one of its two electrons. The researchers tuned the laser frequencies to values at which the antiproton jumped between two of its energy levels. By precisely measuring these two energies, ASACUSA researchers were able to calculate the ratio between the mass of the antiproton and that of the electron. “It’s the first time that the double-laser technique has been applied to antiprotonic atoms. Its importance resides in the fact that the first photon excites the antiproton to an intermediate virtual energy state (i.e. one that is not allowed by quantum mechanics) while the second photon completes the transition to the closest real energy state. Taking advantage of this principle, relatively low-power lasers can be used to achieve a very high precision in the proton mass measurement,” explains Masaki Hori, an ASACUSA physicist who also conceived the two-laser set-up.

The antiproton turns out to have the same mass as the proton (of course, with respect to the electron mass), at least to the precision achieved by ASACUSA. The margin of error of the ASACUSA result is only 1.3 parts per billion, about the same as that for the proton-electron mass ratio. Since the Collaboration hopes to do even better in the future, we may soon ‘know’ the antiproton better than we know the proton. In this case, one of the world’s fundamental constants may have to be redefined by measurement from the (so-far unobserved) anti-world.

To perform its measurements, the ASACUSA experiment uses antiprotons from the Antiproton Decelerator, CERN’s antimatter factory, which slows down antiprotons to a speed at which they can be brought to rest in the experiment’s helium target and spontaneously replace electrons in the helium atoms. Such antiprotonic atoms can survive for microseconds in the target, plenty of time for laser spectroscopic studies to be made. “ASACUSA lasers are unique pieces in that they are extremely phase-coherent and highly reliable,” explains Masaki Hori. “We were able to develop the two lasers thanks to collaboration with the Munich group led by Theodor Hänsch, who was awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physics for inventing the optical frequency comb, which is a device used to measure the frequencies of light very accurately. A copy of this instrument is now installed at CERN and allowed us to achieve the high precision on the antiproton mass.”

ASACUSA’s recent result comes after a long period of testing of the experiment’s performance and marks the beginning of a wide-ranging list of physics studies that the Collaboration is planning for the coming years. Together with the other AD experiments, ASACUSA will certainly help to shed light on antimatter properties.

cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2011/32/News%20Articles/1372186?ln=en

By the way, there’s a video online to watch that is spectacular. The team at CERN know me well. Thanks for the help.

 

[hecd2]

Like I said, I’m going to have to check this out properly… doesn’t quite sound right that we have *visual * on electrons , and these things are so often misrepresented - not least by you! Regardless, much of your post is hilariously misjudged… unless we can hear, feel, hell, taste individual electrons, with or without ‘amplifiers’, the elephant still trumps.

And scientific principles are so often completely misunderstood, not least by you. If you cannot or will not understand that we don’t sense anything directly, and that we can be more certain about some things that we detect with the aid of instruments than with our unaided senses then there is nothing more to be said. And of couse we can detect individual electrons. Doh! But do carry on in your fog of misunderstanding.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

And in any case your answer is not helpful to the discussion because what you describe is confusing one thing that exists with another thing that exists. The honest question is how can something have the mass and charge of what we call an electron and not exist at all?

Because it could be several things that in combination produce such mass and charge, without our ability to discern the multiplicity of sources through a lack of refinement

Really? In all the various ways that electrons are detected, bound in atoms and molecules, free, throughout a vast range of energies, detected individually and so on, all producing exactly the same properties for the entirty? In effect, you are proposing that the electron is composite entity, made up of more fundamental particles. Perhaps you could suggest the sort of things that " in combination produce such mass and charge", spin and magnetic moment etc etc exactly the same in all manifestations of the electron in the huge number of different experimental arrangements where electron properties are probed? You won’t be able to because, after more than a hundred years of investigating the properties of the electron, scientists have no reason to propose that an electron is anything other than a fundamental particle, so we can conclude that your suggestion is no more than a desperate attempt to save a failed argument.

Ah - but that’s the thing! Science, as an organizational entity, will always seek to categorise, and possibly without sufficient reason. What, after all, differentiates one species from another? Is it the same as what differentiates a pig from a shrew? A black man from a white man? Or a Welshman from an English man? These are not terms based on an objective reality - they are terms based on the opinions of individuals based on what constiutes giving something a different name…

Thank you for making my point for me. When I detect an electron I can be more certain of what I detect than I can when I observe any biological species, because of the very real (but not entirely insurmountable) problems in defining biological species. Such difficulties do not attend the categorisation of subatomic particles. All protons have exactly the same properties. All neutrons have exactly the same properties. All electrons have exactly the same properties. It is impossible to confuse one with another. Whereas biological populations always have a range of properties and can be categorised only by similarity of properties and behaviour.

(Nevertheless, it is crystal clear that all human beings of whatever race or national persuasion form a single (rather narrow) species according to all definitions of species used by biologists; and shrews and pigs do not. You haven’t chosen very good examples of the potential ambiguities in species definition.)

I casually mentioned that we deterimine the difference between different planetary bodies - indeed, any aspect of the universe outside of the solar system - by visual data alone. You countered by referring me to a paper about aspects ‘discovered’ via spectroscopy. Which is, regarding planetary bodies outside the solar system, visual data alone

As I recall you said:
"The thing that gets me about cosmology is that ultimately, stars are far away, we can only really go on what we can see. We can’t verify that they are made of what we think they are, and I somehow doubt that we can even (genuinely) prove they are a) as far away as they are, b) as big as we think they are or c) have properties sufficiently consistent with our sun to allow us to calulate what goes on with them to any real degree of sufficiency. "

And I said:
“So you are choosing to challenge the validity of the physics of main sequence stars such as the sun. In order to do so rationally, you will need more than your personal doubt and lack of knowledge of the evidence. If you are claiming that the sun is not a typical hydrogen burning main sequence star, you’re going to have to do better than this - maybe you should look into how spectroscopy is used to detrmine stellar composition, temperature, luminosity, distance and mass.”

I didn’t refer you to a paper - I merely suggested you learn about how spectroscopy and other techniques are used to determine all the these properties of stars. Which you obviously never bothered to do.

If you are determined to doubt the confidence that we can have in certain scientific findings while remaining completely ignorant of the scientific basis for that confidence, there is nothing anyone can do to change your mind. We see it here with subatomic particles and we saw it with the question of how we measure the properties of stars. It’s just not a very reasonable stance to take.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[LogisticsBranch]

scientists have no reason to propose that an electron is anything other than a fundamental particle

Just wanted to briefly mention that a proton is ‘an elementary nuclear particle with a positive electric charge located in the nucleus of an atom’ according to the United States Nuclear Regulartory Commission. nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/proton.html
And an atom is ‘the smallest particle of an element that cannot be divided or broken up by chemical means. It consists of a central core (or nucleus), containing protons and neutrons, with electrons revolving in orbits in the region surrounding the nucleus’. nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/atom.html

Bye the way, it appears that my request to be your friend is still pending. Are you aware of that?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Here’s a tad of information that will hopefully benefit you! It’s from CERN, dated August 8, 2011 entitled “Matter-antimatter: balancing the scales” that was quite interesting. I suggest you read it, it should enlighten you to the fact that:

cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2011/32/News%20Articles/1372186?ln=en

By the way, there’s a video online to watch that is spectacular. The team at CERN know me well. Thanks for the help.

hang on - all this stuff seems to entirely confirm what I’ve been saying, that all this is naught but calculating the existence of something inferentially based on the reactions at an atomic level, aren’t they?

OK - send me a link to the video… hopefully it’s not going to be more than 10 minutes…:yawn:

 

[Mystic_Banana]

As I recall you said:
"The thing that gets me about cosmology is that ultimately, stars are far away, we can only really go on what we can see. We can’t verify that they are made of what we think they are, and I somehow doubt that we can even (genuinely) prove they are a) as far away as they are, b) as big as we think they are or c) have properties sufficiently consistent with our sun to allow us to calulate what goes on with them to any real degree of sufficiency. "

And I said:
“So you are choosing to challenge the validity of the physics of main sequence stars such as the sun. In order to do so rationally, you will need more than your personal doubt and lack of knowledge of the evidence. If you are claiming that the sun is not a typical hydrogen burning main sequence star, you’re going to have to do better than this - maybe you should look into how spectroscopy is used to detrmine stellar composition, temperature, luminosity, distance and mass.”
Alec
evolutionpages.com

Thing is, yet again, it looks like I come up with a point, and you say “pah! Ignorant peasant! It’s not like that at all!” Then argue relentlessly utilising greater scientific qualification, but - yes! never quite managing to come up with anything that refutes me. But teasing that out of your relentless quoting of positivistic jargon is mindnumbingly frustrating :banghead:

Was it someone else then? Can you give me a link, since you’ve apparently found the thread? I can’t find it

Thing is, didn’t they pretty much get even Mars *wrong * on what they could see, when they managed to do a proper chemical analysis? Although I’m sure your zealous positivity will snatch glory from failure there…

If you’ve not got an honest refutation of what I’m saying, I’d wish you’d just say it… not that your approach is unusual in the world of modern science. Science speak is so relentlessly positivistic it’s difficult to ring out that things are relentlessly referred to as fact when they are often anything but

 

[StrawberryJam]

Thing is, yet again, it looks like I come up with a point, and you say “pah! Ignorant peasant! It’s not like that at all!” Then argue relentlessly utilising greater scientific qualification, but - yes! never quite managing to come up with anything that refutes me. But teasing that out of your relentless quoting of positivistic jargon is mindnumbingly frustrating :banghead:

Was it someone else then? Can you give me a link, since you’ve apparently found the thread? I can’t find it

Thing is, didn’t they pretty much get even Mars *wrong * on what they could see, when they managed to do a proper chemical analysis? Although I’m sure your zealous positivity will snatch glory from failure there…

If you’ve not got an honest refutation of what I’m saying, I’d wish you’d just say it… not that your approach is unusual in the world of modern science. Science speak is so relentlessly positivistic it’s difficult to ring out that things are relentlessly referred to as fact when they are often anything but

No one is clear on what you are actually saying to refute it. Ramblings do not count.

 

[inocente]

No one is clear on what you are actually saying to refute it. Ramblings do not count.

It’s absolutely and totally clear dude. The point is that evidence is only evidence if sensed directly, so 9/11 never happened, you’re a figment, and everyone who can’t plainly see and touch God must become an atheist forthwith.

Hang on, maybe Mystic’s point isn’t so clear after all.

 

[StrawberryJam]

It’s absolutely and totally clear dude. The point is that evidence is only evidence if sensed directly, so 9/11 never happened, you’re a figment, and everyone who can’t plainly see and touch God must become an atheist forthwith.

Hang on, maybe Mystic’s point isn’t so clear after all.

Inocente,

Virtual non sinful beverage headed your way.
Enjoy. Clink. Yes, that helps.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

It’s absolutely and totally clear dude. The point is that evidence is only evidence if sensed directly, so 9/11 never happened, you’re a figment, and everyone who can’t plainly see and touch God must become an atheist forthwith.

Hang on, maybe Mystic’s point isn’t so clear after all.

It’s like that, but less stupid :ehh:

Incidentally, you apparently don’t understand the concept of “faith”

I also direct you 2 to check out these 3 concepts:

knowledge

evidence

assumption

and maybe try and discern the difference between them… :doh2:

 

[inocente]

It’s like that, but less stupid :ehh:

:juggle:

*Incidentally, you apparently don’t understand the concept of “faith”

I also direct you 2 to check out these 3 concepts:

knowledge

evidence

assumption

and maybe try and discern the difference between them… :doh2:*

It seems to me that some people take one attitude to science (“bet you can’t prove you’re right”) and another to faith (“bet you can’t prove I’m wrong”). Science of course works on weight of evidence rather than on absolute proofs, and so doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about, especially when it has such a spectacularly good track record of gaining knowledge. Can I make the assumption we’re both agreed on this?

 

[grannymh]

:juggle:

It seems to me that some people take one attitude to science (“bet you can’t prove you’re right”) and another to faith (“bet you can’t prove I’m wrong”). Science of course works on weight of evidence rather than on absolute proofs, and so doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about, especially when it has such a spectacularly good track record of gaining knowledge. Can I make the assumption we’re both agreed on this?

Ah, one says. Sometimes the weight of evidence is inferred.

 

[inocente]

Ah, one says. Sometimes the weight of evidence is inferred.

If only we had some way of knowing whether science works such as cell phones, artificial hearts, computers, putting a man on the Moon, antibiotics, the periodic table, plastics, vaccines, anesthetics, vitamins, knowing that the universe is expanding, that the Sun is a star, that biodiversity is important to our survival, discovering microorganisms, plate tectonics, cosmic radiation, neurotransmitters, periodic ice ages, dinosaurs, natural selection, photosynthesis, the genetic code, …

 

[grannymh]

If only we had some way of knowing whether science works such as cell phones, artificial hearts, computers, putting a man on the Moon, antibiotics, the periodic table, plastics, vaccines, anesthetics, vitamins, knowing that the universe is expanding, that the Sun is a star, that biodiversity is important to our survival, discovering microorganisms, plate tectonics, cosmic radiation, neurotransmitters, periodic ice ages, dinosaurs, natural selection, photosynthesis, the genetic code, …

That is quite a leap from a little comment about some evidence to a large list of results of science.

 

[hecd2]

Thing is, yet again, it looks like I come up with a point, and you say “pah! Ignorant peasant! It’s not like that at all!”

Thing is that the only “point” you are making here is to argue from invincible ignorance of how various astronomical techniques are used to probe the properties of stars. You “point” is that we cannot know anything about them because they are far away (similar to the case of sub-atomic particles where you argue that we cannot know anything about them because they are so small, withoiut understanding the first thing about how their properties are determined). Your lack of knowledge of how these things are done does not constitute an argument.

Then argue relentlessly utilising greater scientific qualification, but - yes! never quite managing to come up with anything that refutes me

. What you mean is never coming up with anything that you are prepared to learn about or understand. That’s your loss. In that thread I suggested that you learn about how spectroscopy is used to probe the constituents of extra-solar bodies, which you obviously refuse to or can’t be bothered to do.

But teasing that out of your relentless quoting of positivistic jargon is mindnumbingly frustrating :banghead:

Are you sure you know what positivism is?

Thing is, didn’t they pretty much get even Mars *wrong * on what they could see, when they managed to do a proper chemical analysis? Although I’m sure your zealous positivity will snatch glory from failure there…

Thing is, perhaps you can give me a reference there, because I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[lemondiesel]

OP, whats wrong with being an accident? Can’t we just be so rare that it makes us miraculous? Science only wants answers, where as you want answers with a purpose. We are guided on the very idea of survival, which makes us a mere step in the evolutionary process. Maybe we have not even reached our goal yet

Whatever, do we really take the OT seriously?

There is no way the god of the OT is the same as the NT. Are we really suppose to believe a politically ambitious god gave birth to the worlds first hippy?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

We are not a scientific blunder.(lol!) This thread is becoming rather interesting. Mystic Banana you need to see the video that you requested which is found at the bottom of the website I previously presented to you. Before I depart I’d like to share with everyone some links (urls) that are reputable sources that people can review that should be useful to this current topic of discussion:

1. How many atoms are in the human body? Find out by reviewing this link (url): education.jlab.org/qa/mathatom_04.html
2. Celebrating Einstein - “Seeing the Wind” - *How do we know there’s a wind, when we can’t see the wind? In 1905 Einstein found a similar way to show the existence of atoms, even though at the time we had no way to see atoms. *osti.gov/accomplishments/nuggets/einstein/seeinga.html
3. Seeing Atoms -* What does it mean to see an atom?* physicscentral.org/explore/action/atom-research.cfm
4. October 15, 1986 Nobel Prize Award Ceremony at The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences ‘decided to award the 1986 Nobel Prize in Physics by one half to Professor. Ernst Ruska, Fritz-Haber-Institut der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany, for his fundamental work in electron optics, and for the design of the first electron microscope
   and the other half, jointly to Dr Gerd Binnig and Dr Heinrich Rohrer, IBM Research Laboratory, Zurich, Switzerland, for their design of the scanning tunnelling microscope.’ nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1986/press.html

There’s a plaque in my office that was given to me by a group of prominant scientists (believers and non-believers) that says the following, “Strength . . .great strength comes from faith in God.” They know me all too well. Also, I should mention that science isn’t philosophy nor does it use God. Science doesn’t use supernatural explanations to explain the natural universe we live in. However, my strength and determination to continue to move forward comes from God. Thank you.