Posted on 06/18/2005 7:04:07 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Yes, but according to the bible we all share a common ancestor in Noah and he's not such a distant ancestor, maybe 200 generations or so. That doesn't allow for the racial diversification that we see around the world. Heck, it doesn't even allow for the history of ancient countries like Egypt or China.
Don't need to go to all that trouble. A proton is a hydrogen ion.
You might also give them a hint as to when antiparticles came into existence.
Chance mutation and natural selection have not been falsifed. What is more, one concern that Darwinians have about ID is that they cannot think of a test for falsification.
As I said, I'm no Darwinist (since I beleive in God). I suppose I do believe in some sort of intelligent design, but I part ways with popular ID when the discussion turns to making the transcendant empirical.
Regards.
Godwin's Law states that you lose.
That's nice, call people Nazi's and then whine that they are going to attack you at any minute.
M theory is an elaboration of the Big Bang theory.
?
M theory is a generalization of string theory.
That would be right at the time that particles came into existence. What's wrong with the graphic?
I don't like the fact that they use "n" for neutrino and "t" for tau. The standard notation is that "n" stands for neutron and "t" for top quark.
Do you know why the size of the universe by the inflation model is commonly ignored in popularizations? Is it that the size of the universe out to the visible limit is already incomprehensible and considering the whole universe beyond that would short-circuit most minds?
But string theory doesn't enter into that. Essentially all of the structure spectrum of the CMBR is determined by the fact that energy transport was primarily acoustic.
The Big Bang theory can work with or without string theory.
Do you know why the size of the universe by the inflation model is commonly ignored in popularizations?
For one thing, we only just recently determined that the universe is very, very much larger than the observable Hubble volume. For another, if a writer restricts his comments to our Hubble volume, it is at least possible to talk accurately and provably. And after all, our Hubble volume is quite large enough to blow almost any mind that tries seriously to grasp it.
It's too bad we can't do more experiments more quickly to uncover more of the system behavior of the Big Bang black box. At least it is being done scientifically [with hypothetical components], which would require fewer experiments and would happen sooner, rather than by art, but our set of system components seems to be changing every day. Quantum fluctuation, moderated by neutrinos, inflated to an incomprehensible size, or maybe brane collision, or maybe acoustics in an unknown medium, we need more lab data. Crystallization is as complex.
And what was "there" before that event?
I don't get what you're saying here because ionization has little or nothing to do with moving protons or neutrons around. It has everything to do with removing electrons, which you acknowledge can occur.
The statement that the net effect is zero and that a freed electron is immediately captured by an adjacent atom (which must also be an ion) is an oversimplification and not necessarily true.
Depending on conditions, electrons and ions can remain separated for considerably long periods of time in plasmas. However, the phrase 'long period' is a relative term and depends on the speed of other reactions or interactions of interest. Miliseconds are almost an eternity in plasma physics.
That depends on what the physics was like above the grand unification scale. We don't know, yet, but we will.
We haven't even got to the grand unification level yet, so I don't have trouble believing that. Nonetheless, at the point at which we start with what we know, what do the variables describe as existing?
Above the electroweak breaking scale, we have quarks, leptons, gravitons, gluons, and electroweak bosons.
Has it occured to anyone that cosmogony is basically metaphysics? Oddly inconsist with the radi cal empiricism of most scientists? When I consider how much the Hubble sees and then what it CANNOT see, I am reminded of Pascal's awe at the immensity of things.
Nope. You are the first to suggest that and should write the book.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.