Sorry, I was speaking to those of us with at least a basic understanding of evolution. If you believe that evolution is simply natural selection, I invite you to find and read a few general overviews that will explain it to you much better than I have time to do.
You are still unable to explain to us what scientists have missed that you haven't.
To which scientists are you referring? Don't tell me that you actually believe that those two "fundamental laws of biology" are well known and generally accepted among biologists?
If science nerds are the sort of people that read an absurd quote on a debate forum concerning a subject they pretend to know a lot about and assume that because it matches their naive view that it must be accepted by the scientific community as a whole or (worse) accepted as a scientific law - a prospect that would even amuse the author... then I fully admit to not being a science nerd.You're playing semantics and dodging as usual. And you're not a science nerd, at least admit that.
To which scientists are you referring? Don't tell me that you actually believe that those two "fundamental laws of biology" are well known and generally accepted among biologists?
If science nerds are the sort of people that read an absurd quote on a debate forum concerning a subject they pretend to know a lot about and assume that because it matches their naive view that it must be accepted by the scientific community as a whole or (worse) accepted as a scientific law - a prospect that would even amuse the author... then I fully admit to not being a science nerd.
[BTW, it comes from a short book in which a scientist attempts to convince a fictional priest that science and religion can and should work together to preserve the biodiversity of our planet - ahh, if only it were that easy to define fundamental laws of science]
Indeed, and that's all we have at this point of our scientific knowledge and understanding.Why does gravity act the way it is and not in other ways? Uncertainty and vacuum fluctuations certainly have been theorized to be the cause of the Big Bang, but it's just a theory at this point.
As long as the unc. principle is true, in our Universe it does. (so far we haven't seen any other Universes/examples)Vacuum energy does arise from various dynamics, not all well understood. But that doesn't mean that the absence of particles from a volume (which is what a vacuum would be) would innately have that energy.
Vacuum energy is the background energy of the universe essentially. It's not born of vacuum, but permeates it all. And if there were multiple universes, and those universes had different fundamental constants then it is quite conceivable that they would measure a different vacuum energy since the physical processes that contribute to the vacuum energy could also be slightly different.
The Gods Themselves by Asimov sort of addresses that. Well perhaps not vacuum energy, but a multiverse where within each universe the fundamental constants were slightly different.
Why did you demand proof of evolution if you never had any intention of accepting it from the very start?
I never demanded proof. I simple said that Ham should do so in thus debate and that no theory which cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt should be allowed to be taught as facts.
I never demanded proof. I simple said that Ham should do so in thus debate and that no theory which cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt should be allowed to be taught as facts.
Can't be helped. As of present there are no scientific theories that pose as alternatives to evolution.
Then he would appear as ignorant in the debate as many do here. Also, that's a pretty blatantly obvious and clumsy attempt to tie up Bill Nye so he (Ham) won't have to defend his own position at all. We've all seen that type of debate millions of times already.
Faith is belief without proof. That's where so many maje a midtake..... Trying to prove something that us based on Faith.
Unfortunately science loses much of my respect by suggesting that everything must be able to be proven by science.
Faith is belief without proof. That's where so many maje a midtake..... Trying to prove something that us based on Faith.
Evolution HAS been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dilemma solved.
This is an absolute lie! Only an unreasonable person would believe that matter created itself.
I'm pretty sure no one said that it did.
The lie I was referring to was the statement that evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If this were true, there wouldn't be nearly as much discussion about this topic throughout the Internet and the world.
This is an absolute lie! Only an unreasonable person would believe that matter created itself.
The lie I was referring to was the statement that evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If this were true, there wouldn't be nearly as much discussion about this topic throughout the Internet and the world.
Indeed, and that's all we have at this point of our scientific knowledge and understanding.
As long as the unc. principle is true, in our Universe it does. (so far we haven't seen any other Universes/examples)
Vacuum energy is a property of the vacuum that is "caused" by the unc. principle which is as far as we understand is universally true (in our Universe), hence all my previous points stand;
a. The vacuum isn't "nothing" as you defined it previously.
b. Unfortunately, the mechanism to why exactly it has energy can not be simply answered with "Because of the unc. principle and it always has" - mostly because we do not fully understand this mechanism till this day.
c. The following creationist questions would be "Where it came from? (i.e the unc. principle) and "Why it acts the way it is and not in other ways?"
...and indeed, other Universes may have other unc. principles, other vacuum properties (some time ago, I read somewhere that there is even a theoretical possibility of a solid vacuum), other constants, etc.
However, in our Universe vacuum is what it is, and it isn't "nothing".
Sorry, didn't read it.
Cheers,
Fallen.
The lie I was referring to was the statement that evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If this were true, there wouldn't be nearly as much discussion about this topic throughout the Internet and the world.
Only an unreasonable person would believe that matter created itself.
Partially agree, as there is no such thing as a true "perfect vacuum" - thought there is a scientific definition of number of particles per volume that would be considered as "perfect".Again, vacuum is defined by a density of particles in a volume. A perfect vacuum would be totally devoid of particles within a defined volume.
Vacuum energy isn't the "background energy" of the Universe - I don't really know what you exactly mean by that.Vacuum energy is the background energy of the universe which permeates all space. It's not caused by a vacuum, but exists throughout it.
Vacuum being defined the absence of particles in a volume does not cause vacuum energy, it merely contains it. What contributes to the vacuum energy isn't entirely known. Certainly random vacuum fluctuations can contribute, the curvature of spacetime, gravity, etc.
So again, vacuum is defined by the number of particles in a volume and when people talk of vacuum, it is to that property to which they are referring.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?