RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (36) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: From "LUCA" thread, Paley's Ghost can back up his assertions< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,08:35   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 30 2006,12:44)
Faid:

   
Quote
   
Quote
 
1) The laws can be inconsistent if Jesus glues the atoms together after all.
   
Ohhhhhkay. Please put the troll back in the doghouse now, it drools on the carpet.


I admit the answer was a little flippant. I was trying to say that an intervening deity could set up a universe whose laws conflict with the creation and existence of its own matter. For example, scientists could find that the attractive forces within an atom are too weak to counteract its natural repulsive forces (protons, for example, have positive charges and don't like to be close to each other), and that atoms "should" break apart*. Observations show that the atoms do not fly apart. Therefore, a mysterious glue must bind the atoms -- yet this mysterious glue thwarts all investigations. Sure, scientists can play the "just you wait" game, but if the reigning model explains everything else, and predicts that the glue shouldn't exist, then why should we assume that there's a better natualistic model on the horizon? Perhaps there isn't one, and God is doing the work himself, but hiding his "force" from us.

We may assume that naturalism must have the answers in principle, but then we can't use this assumption to argue against theism, because then we're reasoning in a circle. Perhaps God really is in the gaps. Who can tell when our models fail? We're left with inductive inferences that turn into special pleading as the failures pile up.

*This is not the case in the real world -- I'm using a hypothetical example.

Normally I'm an observer to this type of tripe.  However, I couldn't let this one pass.
 
Quote
Experimental observations
The first direct experimental evidence of gluons was found in 1979 when three-jet events were observed at the electron-positron collider called PETRA at DESY in Hamburg. Quantitative studies of deep inelastic scattering at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center had established their existence a decade before that.

Experimentally, confinement is verified by the failure of free quark searches. Neither free quarks nor free gluons have ever been observed. Although there have been hints of exotic hadrons, no glueball has been observed either. Quark-gluon plasma has been found recently at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratories (BNL).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon
And there is a LOT more physics you need to go through before making conclusions about fine-tuning.
How about a high-energy environment? (where EM and Weak forces combine)
How about a higher-energy environment? (where three, or four fundamental forces combine)
How about Si-based lifeforms? (chemically possible but environmental conditions not well understood)

Also, physicists have postulated the graviton and have started experiments to detect the graviton energy.  However they calculate that you would need a detector the size of Jupiter (filled with Deuterium of course) to have any chance of even detecting one graviton particle in one year.

Debate the present model all you want, I won't get involved because I think your debate model doesn't capture the complexity that actually exists.

Mike PSS

  
  1058 replies since Aug. 31 2005,16:31 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (36) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]