Bread_of_Life

Chaos theory is a theory which governs non-linear interactions of systems. One simple non-linear system is when 3 bodies all exert a force on one another at the same time - for example, say three stars were close together - how would that system evolve? Traditional mathematics doesn't help much, because the equations we have are built to deal with 2 objects interacting - add a third, and you have non-linear interaction. The solar system is a non-linear system - the planets are attracted to the sun, but also each other... Of course, this can apply to quantum mechanics, depending on how complex your quantum system is. But traditionally, the fields are very seperate. Yes, although there is some debate to to whether it was real teleportation - or whether the first photon was destroyed and another exact replica re-created. There's no way of knowing either way, of course. But yes, it's happened, on a very small scale. Yes! Everything can be treated as a wave and particle. Even us. We've all got a quantum waveform, everything has. We even refract, like light - but very very little because we're so big, and our waveforms so small! I'm a physicist - although I now work in business, I don't do any lab science since university. So I'm actually an amateur enthusiast at natural sciences - physics is my area of expertise!

Yeah, I know, it's cool - take it that I was marking their work, not yours!

Okay, now to mark Nebula's work: Good credit, 8 points. There are now several mechanisms of evolutionary change as well as mutation and natural selection. A major modern addition would be neutral theory - where neutral mutations are immune to selection and build up variation within a population of organisms. Ew, I'm only gonna give you 1 point for this. Sure, science needs to be repeatable, and controlled experiments are one type of scientific experiment, but NOT the only type. Also, the scientific method involves a LOT more than 2 components. I reckon he said this because, had he listed all the components of the scientific method, it would have become clear that evolution is science, and ID is not.

Okay, a few good observations there by dear melon, a few less good ones! Correct! 10 points! Partial credit, 7 points! Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that there is a limit to the accuracy that we can know the position and momentum of any particle. We can know both, but not exactly. If we knew one exactly, we would know nothing of the other. Teleportation, just fyi, has been achieved in the lab! Partial credit, 5 points! Schroedinger's Cat is actually explaining a concept called "the superposition of states". Prior to observation, the cat is technically in a superposition of dead and alive states - by opening the box and observing the cat we are "forcing" the cat into one state or other. However, the concept that when we observe something we are literally changing the results is more fully described in reference to heisenberg, where by observing the position or momentum of an object, we change the other variable so that we know less about it. Ew, very partial credit, 3 points. The observer, through observation, forces light to be one or other by measuring it. Rather than light being what the observer wants it to be, it exists in a superposition of states until it is observed - and the observation processes forces it into one state or other. Also, technically, this is not a paradox, unless we define "particle" and "wave" as being mutually exclusive states. Clearly they are not, since light can behave as both, and can exist in a superposition of these states. All in all 25/40 - much better than I would expect! Keep up the good work!

pfft, you aint seen a Catholic vs Protestant fight til you've been to Glasgow, or Belfast. We rule sectarian animosity and violence. However, more seriously, I reckon everyone should get themselves well educated on both sides - using resources from the OTHER side of things. In other words, they should educate themselves about the claims of either side from either side, and after that, they'll probably be more tolerant. You only have to go to chick.com to find out what a lopsided, biased and inaccurate account of Catholics you can get from protestant sources. I'm pretty sure you get a similarly inaccurate view of protestantism from Catholics. That's why you should learn about Catholicism from Catholics, and Protestantism from protestants, and maybe read some critical texts from neutrals.

It's all good nebs, you oughtn't do stuff that makes you depressed. Sorry to hear you get depression btw - you better'd be taking care of yourself now!

Ahh well, won't stop me from keeping on trying! I keep on plugging at things when I reckon I'm right!

Nebula, Meaning no offense, I don't think you're going about the right way in defending faith. Faith is a belief without evidence or proof, certainly secondeve can provide evidence or proof they exist, who they are, and what they do. Even if it means you taking a flight to see them. Until then, you should believe proportionally to the evidence (as any wise man does). Secondeve could be anyone, and while I might tentatively believe that he/she lives in Australia, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't true, and I certainly wouldn't stake anything on it. I will be more convinced once I have more evidence. This isn't faith, it's proportioning belief to evidence. Faith is a belief that is not in proportion to the evidence. Similarly, when I board a plane, I have no "faith" it won't crash. I'm well aware it can. I just have good evidence that the plane is well looked after, and I know the probability of a crash is low. I am unwilling to forego my holidays based on the small chance of a crash. Were the risk significantly higher, I might well think of doing so, because my belief in my safe transit would be damaged. I think we should talk about the positive affects in our lives of having faith - a sort of "why not if it's good for you" kindof question. Just a thought! N

Hello Cellshade, Really? Denying biblical literalism or inerrancy may be weird where you come from, but I don't think it's a weird position to hold. Do you know why having children with close relatives is likelier to cause genetic diseases..?

Hello Tah! How are you? Yes I do! Taken literally, physically, yes. However, I argue that the real content of Genesis isn't physical or scientific, but spiritual. In this sense, it is important and true.

I'm going to believe the evidence. It's usually right.

quite, and don't do it too often. Also, drink Irn Bru. It's a scottish soft drink that is also a magical hangover cure. True.

Leonard, Unfortunately, this is one of the most commonly misunderstood pieces of scientific research, especially in the Christian community. Mitochondria as small bacterial inclusions in each of our cells that contain their own DNA. In other words, they are effectively symbiotic organisms living within us. They help us by metabolising glucose into Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) - which our cells use for energy. In return, we feed them. It's a nice little relationship. Mitochrondria became important in scientific research because it was discovered that you get all your mitochrondria from your mother. In other words, your mitochondria come only from your mother's ovum, your father's sperm was too small to carry any. That means that, unlike other DNA, mitochondria are not mixed through sexual recombination, and can only come from one parent. That makes it very easy to track and compare from person to person. What scientists did was take just under 200 women from around the world, and compare their mitochondrial DNA. What they hoped to do is, by comparing the differences in this DNA from those 200 women, to find out how long ago they all shared a common ancestor through a female only line of descent, and where this common ancestor lived. In other words, since we are all related, if we go far enough back in time, from mother to mother to mother - since we're all related we're going to hit a great great great grandmother who's related to all of us. That doesn't mean this person is the only person we're all related to, far from it. She is just the first person by a female only line of descent that we're all related to. Nor does it mean that this was the only woman on earth at the time - in fact, this is very unlikely - because if she were - she probably wouldn't be the first women by a female only line of descent that we're all related to. The experiment found the so called "mitochondrial eve" (unfortunately named, and probably one of the sources of the misunderstanding of what she represents) - lived about 150-200 thousand years ago - probably in Africa (although there were scenarios almost as likely in India, sparking a debate). This was actually earlier than mathematical models had predicted - leading to the conclusion that there may have been a bottleneck in the human population due to a glacial period. However, this research should in no way be taken as representing proof or even evidence of the literal truth of the biblical creation story - nor should it be taken that scientists have discovered someone in some way special or key to the human race. They haven't. All the best, Nikolai

I got a little pished the other day, does that mean I'm not saved? I mean, gee whiz.

Well, we know they weren't, from various modes of evidence, one of which is genetic variation within our species. But in general, it's unusual for a species to survive with so few members, but not impossible. Their sisters, one presumes, although of course, the story isn't physically accurate.

To be honest, I was using the dictionary to make sure other people knew what it meant - I've always used the word in that sense. "Existential angst" is one of my favourite phrases in conversations with my sister - she's always going on about the fundamental aloneness of human beings, and their inability to connect fully with others - the ultimate experiential aloneness of our existence. That's basically how I've always thought of existentialism - I didn't know it had any second meaning as regards faith.

Lol, so true. But now I can't get that song out of my head: Oh, happy days. Remember Forbidden Planet? And Ann Francis? What a wonderful wondeful movie - technicolor, and the first ever to use synthesised sound. A modern remake of Shakespeare's "The Tempest", they just don't make 'em like they used to. And isn't it ironic that as we stand here at the early morning of the new millenium that Michael Rennie's warning about nuclear power and weaponary should still be being debated, and attracting so much attention on the news.

Yes, most probably. Comets and asteroids have been discovered to contain amino acids - proving these can survive even in the harsh conditions of outer space. I don't doubt that on planets elsewhere in this galaxy, and elsewhere in the universe - these compounds have gone into producing organic lifeforms - and that through a process of evolution by natural selection, similar to that seen on earth, those lifeforms have diversified, speciated, become cellular and multicellular, and even intelligent. It would be the highlight of my life if such life was discovered, even better if we met such beings (although this is much less likely). Our horizons, so narrowly focused on earth, would be instantly expanded into the waiting universe. Here's hoping.

I'm sorry, what is existentialist about what Charlie said? Yes, sexuality, evolution and drugs - the three main evils of my life hehe

Christopher John Perhaps you could explain this Chris, as I do not recognise how any methods of radiometric dating make the assumption that the earth is old (with the possible exception of C-14 dating, which requires calibration against objects of known age). Actually, no, there is significant evidence of cultural artifacts dating back tens and hundreds of thousands of years. I'm surprised you've not come across these. I'm not sure what this has to do with evolutionary theory - that the bible attacks people's personal lifestyle. I know many Christians who are evolutionists - I wonder what the bible would say about their lifestyles?

Yes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4849320.stm As well as the recent Anamensis find: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4900946.stm Exciting stuff! N

Newpilgrim, Okay, more good questions: Okay, the answer is that the stars we are observing we can calculate their distance from earth, and work out how long it took the light to get here. Now I know that some creationists say "maybe the light was created "in transit", but as far as I'm concerned, that is God lying, by making up a false history that the star never actually went through and transmitting it to earth. I am assuming here, obviously, that God isn't a liar, and we aren't the victims of a big cosmic hoax. Because we can measure light from a variety of stars, some millions, some hundreds of thousands, some tens of thousands, some thousands, some hundreds of light years away. In other words, we can get a pretty accurate picture of decay rates and many different instances in time. Right, but we can also know that these chains haven't been disturbed by decay rates changing a lot within the last 2-3 million years. Say for example decay rates radically changed a few thousand years ago. That would have thrown all of these chains out of their equilibrium into a new configuration. Then, when decay rates changed back, they would have taken another 2-3 million years to recover the equilibrium for the current rates of decay. Therefore we can confidently say that these *must* have been going at present rates of decay for at least 2-3 million years - because that's how long it takes to reach equilibrium with these rates of decay. Well, that's simple. There are mathematical equations that tell us: (a) How long it will take for these chains to settle down to equilibrium. (b) The ratio of each element in the chain at equilibrium © The ratio of each element in the chain at any time BEFORE reaching equilibrium Therefore what we can do is measure the ratios of each element in the chain, and know how close they are to reaching equilibrium, or if they're there already. If they're part of the way there, we can then know how long since the rock formed and the decay chain started building. And if they are there, we can know that they must have been undistured for at least 2-3 billion years. Yes, many. Pretty much any rock that contains Uranium will have a decay chain at some stage towards reaching equilibrium. This method is actually used to date rocks under 3 million years old. Unfortunately, it can't be used to date older rocks, because all it can tell us is that they've been around for at least 3 million years - it can't tell the difference between a 6 and 9 million year old rock - so we have to use other methods.

New Pilgrim, Good question. There are various ways that we know that. 1. Theoretical reasons: We know what causes radioactive decay - and therefore we know that very basic constants of the universe would have to change in order for decay rates to change. For example, things can't just heat up - heat and pressure don't affect radioactive decay significantly. We know that light conditions don't affect decay, or even the compounds that radioactive elements are in. 2. Real world testing: There are several tests we can do to find out about radioactive decay rates in the past. First off, we can look at starlight. Starlight tells us what happened on stars hundreds, thousands, even millions of years ago. We can see from that light radioactive decay occuring - and measure its rate. This tells us that the rate has been constant over time. Secondly, there are "decay chains" that build up in rocks that contain Uranium. These build up when the daughter element of a decay is radioactive itself. Uranium decays to lead through a chain of about 13 intermediate compounds. The ratio of the elements in the chain is proportional to the decay rate of each element. That means that if the decay rate changes - the ratios change. However - at current decay rates, it takes around 3 million years for these chains to settle down to an equilibrium. That means that, if the decay rates had changed a lot in the last 3 million years, these chains wouldn't be at equilibrium. So by measuring the ratios of elements in these decay chains, and seeing that they are at equilibrium, we can know that they've not been disturbed in the last few million years. There are other more complex methods of testing decay constants in the past - involving neutron absorbtion. If you're really interested, I can go into these. 3. Practical considerations: Radioactive decay involves the release of energy. Always. A lot of energy. So much, that radioactive decay is keeping the earth's core molten, even at present rates. If the rates had increased dramatically, this would have released a lot of heat, and would have melted the rocks that radioactive elements exist in - meaning these would date as young. In fact, if decay rates had changed as much as some creationists would have you believe, the whole earth would have vaporised or melted. This obviously hasn't happened.