Evolution vs Creationism

[snex]

Yes they have...

Ice is slippery because when you touch it to something (relatively) warm a thin layer of ice melts forming water, which fills in the contours of the ice, causing less friction.

if this is the case, why do cold things slip just as easily on ice as warm things? try it if you dont believe me.

Ice floats in water because when it freezes it forms a crystalline structure which is less dense then water is.

if its less dense than water, then why doesnt the denser water behave as a solid? something that is more dense than a solid should also behave as a solid - but in the case of water, it doesnt.

 

[adumbrodeus]

if this is the case, why do cold things slip just as easily on ice as warm things? try it if you dont believe me.

Dependant on the relative temperature. The important thing is that it's above freezing, and remember, friction also generates heat which has the same effect.


Don't believe me? When the ice is cold enough, things won't slip, instead the crystals will immediately reform, bonding to the contours of the object. This causes the ice to be sticky as opposed to slippery. The effect is most noticable with something that contains a lot of water, like fingers.

BTW when it's that cold it's dangerous to be outside without gloves.

if its less dense than water, then why doesnt the denser water behave as a solid? something that is more dense than a solid should also behave as a solid - but in the case of water, it doesnt.

No... Take a science class please.

Solids are defined by a lack of fluidity, not density relative to it's liquid form.

The vast majority of solids ARE denser then their liquid forms, however because of it's relatively unusual sold structure, water is unique.

Think about a pile of lego blocks (4x2 bump pieces for simplicity), when none of the blocks are attached to each other, the pieces flow, correct? This is comparable to a normal liquid

Now take the same number of blocks and build them into a solid "circle" (as circular as possible) using all the bricks. Takes up less space then the pile, right? No space for air in between. The pieces don't flow freely, right? This is comparable to the average material's solid form.

Now, take the same number of blocks, and build a "circle" but make it as thin as possible, still using all the bricks. Now look at you creation. Takes up more area then the solid circle, right? Takes up more space then the pile right (including the enclosed area)? Do the pieces flow freely? No, not at all (assuming it doesn't break). This is comparable to water's solid form. The way the solidification occurs, the water structures itself so it incorporates empty space, a great deal more then even what liquid water has. It's still got a solid structure because it doesn't freely flow unless it's form changes (it can be deformed, but that's a different story), however, it has such large pockets of space in it's molecular structure that it's less dense then it's liquid form.


Really, it's the same principal ships use to float.



In closing, solidity is about STRUCTURE, not density.

 

[snex]

Don't believe me? When the ice is cold enough, things won't slip, instead the crystals will immediately reform, bonding to the contours of the object. This causes the ice to be sticky as opposed to slippery. The effect is most noticable with something that contains a lot of water, like fingers.

i dont think youve actually tried this.

No... Take a science class please.

Solids are defined by a lack of fluidity, not density relative to it's liquid form.

The vast majority of solids ARE denser then their liquid forms, however because of it's relatively unusual sold structure, water is unique.

Think about a pile of lego blocks (4x2 bump pieces for simplicity), when none of the blocks are attached to each other, the pieces flow, correct? This is comparable to a normal liquid

Now take the same number of blocks and build them into a solid "circle" (as circular as possible) using all the bricks. Takes up less space then the pile, right? No space for air in between. The pieces don't flow freely, right? This is comparable to the average material's solid form.

Now, take the same number of blocks, and build a "circle" but make it as thin as possible, still using all the bricks. Now look at you creation. Takes up more area then the solid circle, right? Takes up more space then the pile right (including the enclosed area)? Do the pieces flow freely? No, not at all (assuming it doesn't break). This is comparable to water's solid form. The way the solidification occurs, the water structures itself so it incorporates empty space, a great deal more then even what liquid water has. It's still got a solid structure because it doesn't freely flow unless it's form changes (it can be deformed, but that's a different story), however, it has such large pockets of space in it's molecular structure that it's less dense then it's liquid form.


Really, it's the same principal ships use to float.

all youre doing is describing WHAT happens, you havent described WHY it happens, and you cant, because the explanation is not known.

 

[manhunter098]

if its less dense than water, then why doesnt the denser water behave as a solid? something that is more dense than a solid should also behave as a solid - but in the case of water, it doesnt.

Since when? The process of water forming into ice makes the molecules align in a crystaline structure, which ends up making it less dense. It forms that crystalline structure because of the angle at which the hydrogen and oxygen molecules are bonded and the polar nature of the molecule.

 

[snex]

Since when? The process of water forming into ice makes the molecules align in a crystaline structure, which ends up making it less dense. It forms that crystalline structure because of the angle at which the hydrogen and oxygen molecules are bonded and the polar nature of the molecule.

ok then explain why this happens at 0C instead of 4C. you cant!

 

[manhunter098]

ok then explain why this happens at 0C instead of 4C. you cant!

Um...yes I actually can. The Celsius scale is BASED on water. Water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C because we made the scale to fit water.

 

[adumbrodeus]

double post...

 

[adumbrodeus]

i dont think youve actually tried this.

That's not correct actually. My freezer is kept cold enough that the surfaces are sticky, especially the ice. That's because the water in my skin freezes.

Same principal.

all youre doing is describing WHAT happens, you havent described WHY it happens, and you cant, because the explanation is not known.

You asked two questions "why is ice slippery" and "why does ice float".

The answer to the former is because when things touch ice it melts a thin layer of ice which fills in the contours of the ice.

The answer to the latter is that ice is less dense then water.


Now, what I went into was explaining the process that occurs, which was the "how" of ice being less dense then water.



Each "why" is a discrete question, a single "why" when applied to a given question is the immediate "why", it does not ask to explain the factors down to "why do strong and weak nuclear forces exist". It only applies to the first degree of why, the immediate causes, unless specified otherwise.

So, if you want to know "why a thin layer of ice melts when it's touched by something warmer" then ask? (the contact of areas of greater and lesser heat causes the transferal of heat energy which excites the molecules causing it to become a liquid)

If you want to know "why is ice is less dense then water" ask that question. (unique crystalline structure)

Btw, the "whys" to the answers of both questions are answered as well.

ok then explain why this happens at 0C instead of 4C. you cant!

The heat in the molecules overwhelm the nuclear forces attempting to cause enough cohesion for it to solidify at anything above that temperature.

Um...yes I actually can. The Celsius scale is BASED on water. Water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C because we made the scale to fit water.

I think he meant at that level of temperature, not why 0 at Celsius reflects the temperature that water freezes at.





Snex: The general point is that science has established enough to satisfy the question that you posed initially and quite a few levels beyond. So don't say things without checking your facts.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

1. If you deny the existence of the holy spirit you can never be forgiven, Jesus states it twice in the NT.

Alright then I looked this up and it does say it. However it doesn't say anything about your punishment so its not a strait ticket to hell either in fact from what I read it seems like you would end up in purgatory.

Originally Posted by adumbrodeus View Post
Don't believe me? When the ice is cold enough, things won't slip, instead the crystals will immediately reform, bonding to the contours of the object. This causes the ice to be sticky as opposed to slippery. The effect is most noticable with something that contains a lot of water, like fingers.

i dont think youve actually tried this.

not like its that hard to test why would you doubt him? And the best example is probably when you lick a Popsicle and your tongue gets stuck to it. thats actually happened to me a lot.


edit: even if god knows all that you are going to do he doesn't stop you from doing it thats how you have free will you get to make your own choices even if its not what he wants
any reason why the last 2 pages are talking about ice though?

 

[SSBbo]

i love that this thread is straying from the subject so much to where everything we're discussing is provable, unlike the actual subject: evolution vs creationism.... wait.... evolution is proven.... carry on with your debating the crystalization of ice.

oh, and i will read that book crimson, i'll sit in books-a-million and read it tomorrow, along with: "god created the intergers" and "about time"

 

[snex]

licking a popsicle or a metal pole is not the same thing. what happens there is that the water on your tongue becomes a part of the crystal matrix.

take an ice cube and toss it onto a frozen pond. it slides.

 

[SSBbo]

the pond's surface is almost perfectly flat, so is the popsicle's (usually) so there's not much friction.

 

[snex]

the pond's surface is almost perfectly flat, so is the popsicle's (usually) so there's not much friction.

a piece of glass is just as flat - rub two pieces of glass together.

 

[McCloud]

Friction creates heat. Heat prevents bonds from forming.

Jesus christ this is an asinine debate. I don't know why I even engaged in this straw man.

 

[adumbrodeus]

licking a popsicle or a metal pole is not the same thing. what happens there is that the water on your tongue becomes a part of the crystal matrix.

Fundamentally it's the same effect. With other materials the water locks into the contours of the solid as the water solidifies.

edit: It's just less pronounced of an effect.

take an ice cube and toss it onto a frozen pond. it slides.

Friction, it creates heat, though at certain temperatures they will lock together before it can slide far at all.

Glass across glass slides too.


I thought creationalists were supposed to be ignorant of science...

 

[snex]

Friction, it creates heat, though at certain temperatures they will lock together before it can slide far at all.

then you should be able to show this happening.

Glass across glass slides too.

glass is not slippery against other glass. if you wear glass shoes, you do not risk falling if you walk on a glass floor.

 

[adumbrodeus]

then you should be able to show this happening.

I can't show you because you're online and it requires specialized equitment. But try sliding anything across ice at less then minus -183 C...

But again, touch ice when it's extremely cold. It will be sticky.

glass is not slippery against other glass. if you wear glass shoes, you do not risk falling if you walk on a glass floor.

Relatively speaking, glass is slippery, just not as slippery.


Ice has a thin layer that acts like a liquid due to friction-heating and it's unusual structure, so it's more slippery. But all solids have a degree of "slipperiness" due to their friction. Water just has less in solid form due to it's top-layer.

 

[Aesir]

Alright then I looked this up and it does say it. However it doesn't say anything about your punishment so its not a strait ticket to hell either in fact from what I read it seems like you would end up in purgatory.

Those who commit an eternal sin can't go anywhere but hell. This is a fact within the christian Dogma, only souls who needed purification would be allowed into purgatory and then later into heaven.

Once you commit that crime of denying the holy spirit you are forever in sin. Purgatory is merely a place where all impure souls go to become purified, hell is where sinful souls go.

 

[SSBbo]

I thought creationalists were supposed to be ignorant of science...

they're not. they're only ignorant of evolution, and don't believe in the big bang (for obvious reasons). many christian schools have good science departments.

also, i have to give props to the people on the atheist side of the debate that have studied about the bible (aesir for instance).

 

[adumbrodeus]

they're not. they're only ignorant of evolution, and don't believe in the big bang (for obvious reasons). many christian schools have good science departments.

also, i have to give props to the people on the atheist side of the debate that have studied about the bible (aesir for instance).

Just commenting on snex breaking a stereotype.

 

[GhostAnime]

and don't believe in the big bang (for obvious reasons).

well the big bang doesn't actually have anything to do with the existence of a creator (to my knowledge).

 

[Crimson King]

I'm confused you are saying snex is a creationist?

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm confused you are saying snex is a creationist?

I don't think so, but not knowing why Ice floats in water displays a lack of scientific knowledge that is normally attributed to creationalists.



Why ice is slippery is a bit more complex, but it's known that the top layer acts like water.


The point was, "check your facts".



Edit: I hope he's not, an atheist creationalist would be... wrong in so many ways.

 

[AltF4]

admubrodeus:

No, you're missing something. Ice being slippery is still under some considerable debate. Just google around. Even the wikipedia page on "ice" has some info about it. The "thin layer of water" explanation is not universally accepted as you seem to think.

 

[tissue]

Since it looks like there's been a bit of a tangent lately, I'll just reply to the general topic.

I'm a Christian, and believe in some sort of Creation. Essentially, this amounts to the belief that God exists, and that the world exists (because, after all, no one really believes that the world has existed for an infinite amount of time; thus, there must have been a starting point of some sort: The Big Bang). While many Christians fight hard for the Genesis account, I'm much more open to taking the Bible figuratively, and particularly the pieces of it that sounds like poetry. The beginning of Genesis, in particular, sounds like a hymn, with the consistent refrain of "It was morning and evening; the x day". Whether or not it really, truly happened like that, I have no way of knowing, and don't have any logical reason to fight over it.

What I do know is this, that the world exists, that God exists, and that science cannot explain every aspect of the existence of the world. There is the Big Bang theory, but what, exactly, caused the existence of that minute pinpoint of matter from which everything exploded? What was the catalyst for that reaction? Here is where God, I believe, necessarily enters the picture. At any rate, we do not know of any sort of way in which something can come from nothing, and as there is something, I point to God.

I do not hold this as logically binding, as my unfortunate friends Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort do (The atheist's worst nightmare: a banana!), but at this point, it makes sense. As a Christian, that's the limit of what I can rationally argue. I am not a scientist. Biology bores me. I've read the Origin of Species, and I've listened in on a number of Creation vs. Evolution arguments, and from what I've heard and understood of it, nothing at all contradicts Christian theology. Why a bunch of religious people want to step into a ring and argue about things they know nothing about, I don't know, but I wish they'd stop. It gives the rest of us a bad name.

And for those few who are Christian and do know what you're talking about, go for it. I'm interested in hearing what the limits of either position are, and what that means for existence.

 

[AltF4]

Tissue:

You are correct in that we're off on a bit of an irrelevant tangent. Back to business.


Your reasoning right off the bat is incorrect. You say that the universe could not possibly have existed for an infinite amount of time. This is not strictly true. There is nothing in the laws of nature or logic which would prevent such a world. But, as it turns out, empirical evidence DOES demonstrate that the universe does not happen to be this way. Einstein himself tried to support a steady state theory which would involve the universe existing for an infinite amount of time before us, but it never worked. The evidence we have just contradicts it.

But where you go wrong is in assuming that just because time does not extend infinitely into the past that we must have a moment of creation. You are ignoring other possibilities. Particularly one formed by Steven Hawking. It is a universe which has time that is finite in length yet infinite in extent. Here is a quote or two from myself describing this idea in previous threads:

That's fair. You can pretty much just google "Hawking no boundary" but here are some good ones.

Stephen Hawking's Website
Quotation number three from here. (Funny story)
Audio recording of a lecture by Hawking on the subject
The full thing with as much jargon as you can handle. (Start on page 223)

and "A Brief History of Time" (The Book)

 

[tissue]

Tissue:Your reasoning right off the bat is incorrect. You say that the universe could not possibly have existed for an infinite amount of time.

Actually, I did not say this; I said "no one really believes this." I certainly don't mean to assume it is impossible.

And in this, yes, I was too hasty. While I don't personally understand the reasoning behind his arguments, I believe Kurt Godel answered Einstein's questions about time with a cyclical model that would, essentially, result in infinitude. I had forgotten about this (despite having learned it only a month ago; that's what summer does to you).

This is not strictly true. There is nothing in the laws of nature or logic which would prevent such a world. But, as it turns out, empirical evidence DOES demonstrate that the universe does not happen to be this way.

This is essentially what my post was built from. That such a world isn't impossible, but with the evidence as it stands, no one really argues for it. At least, not since the Greeks/Romans.

But where you go wrong is in assuming that just because time does not extend infinitely into the past that we must have a moment of creation. You are ignoring other possibilities. Particularly one formed by Steven Hawking. Here is a quote or two from myself describing this idea in previous threads:

I will certainly take a look.

 

[Sudsy86_]

(I'm a former christian, by the way, and am currently agnostic-theistic)

Tissue, I think the problems most people have with Christian creationism is that they have wrong assumptions about it: most seem to believe that the Bible necessarily says God created everything directly, whereas that's just a very concrete ( though not necessarily close-minded or invalid) inference of scripture. Unfortunately, most also seem to assume the idea of "God" naturally comes from whack-job, Bible-based religions; so they assume all creationist beliefs are the ones they've already incorrectly inferred as wrong.

So, I'm led to ask you--what do you believe is the general process of the universe/ physical world's existence? Feel free to PM me your reasoning if you're hesitant to here.

 

[snex]

i dont think it was godel who came up with a cyclical model - he was a mathematician and a christian. he believed his own mathematical incompleteness theorems argued in favor of god.

in any case, the cyclical models dont seem to fit reality either, as the universe's expansion is accelerating and will never stop. the most popular models right now are string theory and loop quantum gravity, but until we turn on the LHC, we cant test either one.

and that brings me to my next point - testability. you seem content to just take something we dont understand and stick god in there and be done with it. but thats not how we gain knowledge about the universe, we always require testable explanations for things. god is not testable. you may be comfortable with current science, but what happens when they do turn on that LHC and we find that no gods are necessary for universe creation?

 

[tissue]

i dont think it was godel who came up with a cyclical model - he was a mathematician and a christian. he believed his own mathematical incompleteness theorems argued in favor of god.

Of course. The theorems were not his only work, however. I can certainly assure you that he did construct a cyclical model of time, and he presented it to Einstein (for, I believe, his 70th birthday).

and that brings me to my next point - testability. you seem content to just take something we dont understand and stick god in there and be done with it. but thats not how we gain knowledge about the universe, we always require testable explanations for things. god is not testable. you may be comfortable with current science, but what happens when they do turn on that LHC and we find that no gods are necessary for universe creation?

Just because no God is necessary for the universe's existence does not mean that God did not have a hand in the matter.

Again, as I stated in my post, I do not consider my reasoning to be logically, necessarily binding. I'm not saying that, just because God happens to fit here, it must be so. I'm simply presenting my understanding of the matter. For now, it does not collide with science.

 

[snex]

Again, as I stated in my post, I do not consider my reasoning to be logically, necessarily binding. I'm not saying that, just because God happens to fit here, it must be so. I'm simply presenting my understanding of the matter. For now, it does not collide with science.

it absolutely does collide with science. you are mixing up the conclusions of science with science itself. science is a method of discovery. your belief may not contradict any of the conclusions science has discovered so far, but it absolutely does contradict the methods of science. in science, we do not form beliefs without evidence first. god beliefs are not privileged in this regard.

you can maintain any silly and untestable belief youd like, but dont pretend that youre not completely ignoring the way science works by doing so.

 

[tissue]

it absolutely does collide with science. you are mixing up the conclusions of science with science itself. science is a method of discovery. your belief may not contradict any of the conclusions science has discovered so far, but it absolutely does contradict the methods of science. in science, we do not form beliefs without evidence first. god beliefs are not privileged in this regard.

Correct, my beliefs do not collide with the conclusions of science, merely with the method of science. This was my point.

Your post seems to indicate an exaltation of science beyond what it can say or do. Surely you do not consider science the only means by which we obtain truth? What of mathematics (a science in a very loose application of the word, perhaps, but not in any evidential, a posteriori meaning)? What of metaphysics? Do you discard any form of the a priori, simply because it does not align itself with the methods of science?

Personally, I do not limit myself to only the truths obtained by science. By the same token, we can only hold truths to the extent of the means by which they were obtained. In this, mathematics is greater than science, in that science can never grant absolute certainty, while mathematics is perfect and precise in its conclusions (though even it is a confusing jumble that we cannot totally approach).

My religious beliefs are not without ground. I have personal experience of divinity, that is rational (who, upon seeing a dog in the street, would claim there are no dogs?), justified, and warranted (here I point to Alvin Plantinga's groundbreaking epistemological trilogy on 'warrant'). My belief is not built merely upon blind faith (if it were so, why would I believe in Christianity as opposed to, say, Rastafarianism, which seems to me to be much more fun?).

But that, more properly, is a discussion best left to another topic.

 

[Sudsy86_]

in any case, the cyclical models dont seem to fit reality either, as the universe's expansion is accelerating and will never stop.

Not necessarily. We can't know that until we figure out if the universe is necessarily infinitely large or not. If it is, it means infinite density in the universe's energy field, and continuous radiation accelerating outwards, meaning you would be right.

If it's not infinitely large, their is a finite energy field density, meaning a finite amount of radiation over time, meaning acceleration is happening in a finite timeframe.

Of course, at that point, the lack of action of bosons would cause action and life in the universe to end.

 

[snex]

Correct, my beliefs do not collide with the conclusions of science, merely with the method of science. This was my point.

Your post seems to indicate an exaltation of science beyond what it can say or do. Surely you do not consider science the only means by which we obtain truth? What of mathematics (a science in a very loose application of the word, perhaps, but not in any evidential, a posteriori meaning)? What of metaphysics? Do you discard any form of the a priori, simply because it does not align itself with the methods of science?

Personally, I do not limit myself to only the truths obtained by science. By the same token, we can only hold truths to the extent of the means by which they were obtained. In this, mathematics is greater than science, in that science can never grant absolute certainty, while mathematics is perfect and precise in its conclusions (though even it is a confusing jumble that we cannot totally approach).

My religious beliefs are not without ground. I have personal experience of divinity, that is rational (who, upon seeing a dog in the street, would claim there are no dogs?), justified, and warranted (here I point to Alvin Plantinga's groundbreaking epistemological trilogy on 'warrant'). My belief is not built merely upon blind faith (if it were so, why would I believe in Christianity as opposed to, say, Rastafarianism, which seems to me to be much more fun?).

But that, more properly, is a discussion best left to another topic.

try the "how can anyone believe in god?" thread.

the problem with your response here is that it simply asserts the existence of other types of knowing other than science/math/what-have-you. if you teach the methods of science and math to two people living on opposite ends of the earth, they can apply those methods and consistently arrive at the same conclusions. so far, nobody has ever outlined any such method of metaphysics, supernatural reasoning, or any way of coming to understand "divinity" as you call it. if you have other ways of knowing, then present them. but given the fact that theologians who are smarter than both of us have been trying and failing to do so for millenia, i really doubt you have anything to offer.

 

[Sudsy86_]

Alt, this is my take on possibilities before the Big Bang.

There couldn't have been a time.

Considering the cause of the "explosion" was too high energy field density, we can know that nothing could have come before it because: the conservation law of energy/ matter state that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Essentially: the sufficiency of the cause of the ' Bang is dependent on the density of energy.

That means there could not have been more or less density of energy if there were to be a time before the Big Bang. Thus, the conditions would be the same.

Now, what triggers this in the first place? Obviously, physical laws' of action and interaction of properties do.

Essentially: the cause of the 'Bang is exclusively dependent on the universe's conditions--which couldn't have been different, meaning the cause of the expansion must have always existed in in time, meaning the Big Bang must be the beginning of time.

 

[AltF4]

That still violates causality. Whatever caused the big bang must also then have had a cause.


The problem is in assuming that there was a "bang" in the big bang. If there wasn't a bang, we don't have any of these silly contradictions we're all so concerned about. Time could just approach the "moment of creation" asymptotically, and never reach it.

It may seem weird intuitively, but the models which describe such a world ARE consistent. Meaning that they do not have any contradictions. It's only a matter of finding out whether that model applies to our universe.

 

[SSBbo]

the big bang used to confuse me until i realized... humans made up time as a way to organize things.

the universe before the big bang must've been one mass, extremely dense, containing all the matter and energy we know of today.

 

[AltF4]

Humans did not "make up" time. We discovered it.

Time is real, very real. You can stretch it, shrink it, and even tear it.

It is not just an artificial construct used to describe the sequence of things.

 

[SSBbo]

I've always been taught that time isn't real, but space-time is.

i view the universe as everchanging, not through time, though.

 

[blazedaces]

I've always been taught that time isn't real, but space-time is.

i view the universe as everchanging, not through time, though.

Most of what you were taught through school is a lie (a white lie, but still a lie).

Time is real and it can be altered by things like gravity and velocity.

-blazed