Science and Faith

[edthecynic]

The fact that energy can neither be created not destroyed has been proven by a repeatable experiment so it is not a "belief," it is a PROVEN FACT!!!

Those who deny the First Law of Thermodynamics have created a "personal" God in their image.

A repeatable experiment is infinitely more trustworthy than some imaginary non-thing created by primitive people a few thousand years ago.

What can you prove about your personal creator?

I bet you think you just won an argument. If you knew anything about quantum physics you would know that energy is created, and destroyed, all the time. Electrons routinely jump from one quantum state to another, and either create, or destroy, energy as a result.
For the more informed posters, I know this is an extremely simplistic explanation, but I cannot really explain it without delving into math that is technically beyond me.

I bet you think you just won an argument.

You have to love the arrogant condescension of the CON$ervative Brotherhood that makes them think they can bullshit a physicist about physics.

To get an electron to jump to the next higher energy level you must ADD energy, and when the electron drops back to its normal energy level the ADDED energy is released!!!!!! No energy is "created" and no energy is "destroyed."
No higher math needed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Excited state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Atomic excitation

A simple example of this concept comes by considering the hydrogen atom.
The ground state of the hydrogen atom corresponds to having the atom's single electron in the lowest possible orbit (that is, the spherically symmetric "1s" wavefunction, which has the lowest possible quantum numbers). By giving the atom additional energy (for example, by the absorption of a photon of an appropriate energy), the electron is able to move into an excited state (one with one or more quantum numbers greater than the minimum possible).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fact that energy can neither be created not destroyed has been proven by a repeatable experiment so it is not a "belief," it is a PROVEN FACT!!!

Those who deny the First Law of Thermodynamics have created a "personal" God in their image.

A repeatable experiment is infinitely more trustworthy than some imaginary non-thing created by primitive people a few thousand years ago.

What can you prove about your personal creator?

I bet you think you just won an argument. If you knew anything about quantum physics you would know that energy is created, and destroyed, all the time. Electrons routinely jump from one quantum state to another, and either create, or destroy, energy as a result.
For the more informed posters, I know this is an extremely simplistic explanation, but I cannot really explain it without delving into math that is technically beyond me.

I bet you think you just won an argument.

You have to love the arrogant condescension of the CON$ervative Brotherhood that makes them think they can bullshit a physicist about physics.

To get an electron to jump to the next higher energy level you must ADD energy, and when the electron drops back to its normal energy level the ADDED energy is released!!!!!! No energy is "created" and no energy is "destroyed."
No higher math needed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Excited state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Atomic excitation

A simple example of this concept comes by considering the hydrogen atom.
The ground state of the hydrogen atom corresponds to having the atom's single electron in the lowest possible orbit (that is, the spherically symmetric "1s" wavefunction, which has the lowest possible quantum numbers). By giving the atom additional energy (for example, by the absorption of a photon of an appropriate energy), the electron is able to move into an excited state (one with one or more quantum numbers greater than the minimum possible).

Amazing. You can quote Wikipedia nad think that an excited state proves that I do not know what I am taking about.

Photons are absorbed, or released, every time an electron jumps from one shell to another. If an electron jumps to a higher state it absorbs photons, which are quanta, or energy packets. This destroys energy. When electrons jump to a lower shell the emit photons, thus creating energy.

By the way, energy creation, and destruction, happens every day on a scale that is easily observed in nature. Einstein actually explained this a few years ago when he mapped out the mass-energy equivalence. You might have heard of that at some point in your life, it is probably the most famous equation in history. E=mc2.

About me being condescending. I admit it is a character fault, but I am never condescending to people who can think, no matter how stupid they actually are. If you ever learn to think I will stop being condescending to you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Where did I try to claim the Bible talks about the origins of the universe? I, in fact, pointed out that the Bible does not teach about the God you reject.

As for Spinoza's god, I am always amazed that people who know nothing about his philosophy claim to believe what he taught. These same people often claim to know what Jesus taught, and reject his teachings with a certainty that boggles the mind.

Thou Art God is a much more equatable explanation of Spinoza's god than the tripe you are trying to make it out to be. If you look you will see that is actually my tag line, and has been for a long time. There is no conflict between the Bible and Spinoza, except in the minds of those who do not understand either.

I neither agreed nor disagreed with your view of the Bible and the origins of the universe. I stated what I think about the Bible re the origins of the universe.

Where did I state that I rejected God? I can't imagine I would have even hinted at that in any post that I have ever made.

I do feel I was on rather solid ground with Spinoza and Einstein having done considerable reading re both. I often use them as one plausible rationale for I.D. that does not involve an identifiable deity. Sorry you saw it as 'tripe'.

A little touchy today are we?

I thought you were someone else, my mistake.

As for Spinoza, he did not believe what most people say he believed. You should read his writings, and not those of people who do not understand him, yet feel qualified to explain what he believed. Spinoza believed that god is multiple aspects, and that we are only capable of perceiving, at most, two of them, the physical, or nature, and the spiritual.

Spinoza believed in a living god in contrast to the mechanical god that Newton offered. This is where most people get confused. they believe Spinoza's god is nature, and nature is just a part of what Spinaza defined god as being.

In truth, Spinoza's god is more like Aristotle's than that of the modern Christian's version of god, even though the modern Christian gets most of their concept from Aristotle. Spinoza's god is not intelligent, or self aware, it simply exists, and everything flows from that god because of its nature.

I once did a pretty exhaustive paper outlining the contents of Theologico-PoliticaI Treatise . I didn't enjoy it much but it did give me some good insights into Spinoza's thoughts on all this. To Spinoza 'nature was all that exists. But while, like Einstein, Spinoza did not embrace the concept of a personal God that one would have a relationship with, he was not Atheist in the sense that there is no such thing as a spiritual divine. And Einstein is quoted as saying that his god was Spinonza's god though he described it as an 'intelligence'. Again, I use this particular concept as one explanation of how there can be belief in I.D. without also believing in a deity that would be 'worshipped'.

I think all this is to say is there are all sorts of ways that faith and science can be explained or integrated or conceptualized.

My personal belief is that there is no conflict between God and Science. Some folks simply cannot accept that and want to dismiss science in favor of God. Others will pooh pooh that God and science can coexist and dismiss God in favor of science. Spinoza and Einstein took a conpletely different approach. And others will take other approaches.

And I think when we all step into the next life and find out how it all really works, we'll probably all be really surprised.

 

[edthecynic]

I neither agreed nor disagreed with your view of the Bible and the origins of the universe. I stated what I think about the Bible re the origins of the universe.

Where did I state that I rejected God? I can't imagine I would have even hinted at that in any post that I have ever made.

I do feel I was on rather solid ground with Spinoza and Einstein having done considerable reading re both. I often use them as one plausible rationale for I.D. that does not involve an identifiable deity. Sorry you saw it as 'tripe'.

A little touchy today are we?

I thought you were someone else, my mistake.

As for Spinoza, he did not believe what most people say he believed. You should read his writings, and not those of people who do not understand him, yet feel qualified to explain what he believed. Spinoza believed that god is multiple aspects, and that we are only capable of perceiving, at most, two of them, the physical, or nature, and the spiritual.

Spinoza believed in a living god in contrast to the mechanical god that Newton offered. This is where most people get confused. they believe Spinoza's god is nature, and nature is just a part of what Spinaza defined god as being.

In truth, Spinoza's god is more like Aristotle's than that of the modern Christian's version of god, even though the modern Christian gets most of their concept from Aristotle. Spinoza's god is not intelligent, or self aware, it simply exists, and everything flows from that god because of its nature.

I once did a pretty exhaustive paper outlining the contents of Theologico-PoliticaI Treatise . I didn't enjoy it much but it did give me some good insights into Spinoza's thoughts on all this. To Spinoza 'nature was all that exists. But while, like Einstein, Spinoza did not embrace the concept of a personal God that one would have a relationship with, he was not Atheist in the sense that there is no such thing as a spiritual divine. And Einstein is quoted as saying that his god was Spinonza's god though he described it as an 'intelligence'. Again, I use this particular concept as one explanation of how there can be belief in I.D. without also believing in a deity that would be 'worshipped'.

I think all this is to say is there are all sorts of ways that faith and science can be explained or integrated or conceptualized.

My personal belief is that there is no conflict between God and Science. Some folks simply cannot accept that and want to dismiss science in favor of God. Others will pooh pooh that God and science can coexist and dismiss God in favor of science. Spinoza and Einstein took a conpletely different approach. And others will take other approaches.

And I think when we all step into the next life and find out how it all really works, we'll probably all be really surprised.

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.
- Frank Lloyd Wright

 

[edthecynic]

I bet you think you just won an argument. If you knew anything about quantum physics you would know that energy is created, and destroyed, all the time. Electrons routinely jump from one quantum state to another, and either create, or destroy, energy as a result.
For the more informed posters, I know this is an extremely simplistic explanation, but I cannot really explain it without delving into math that is technically beyond me.

I bet you think you just won an argument.

You have to love the arrogant condescension of the CON$ervative Brotherhood that makes them think they can bullshit a physicist about physics.

To get an electron to jump to the next higher energy level you must ADD energy, and when the electron drops back to its normal energy level the ADDED energy is released!!!!!! No energy is "created" and no energy is "destroyed."
No higher math needed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Excited state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Atomic excitation

A simple example of this concept comes by considering the hydrogen atom.
The ground state of the hydrogen atom corresponds to having the atom's single electron in the lowest possible orbit (that is, the spherically symmetric "1s" wavefunction, which has the lowest possible quantum numbers). By giving the atom additional energy (for example, by the absorption of a photon of an appropriate energy), the electron is able to move into an excited state (one with one or more quantum numbers greater than the minimum possible).

Amazing. You can quote Wikipedia nad think that an excited state proves that I do not know what I am taking about.

Photons are absorbed, or released, every time an electron jumps from one shell to another. If an electron jumps to a higher state it absorbs photons, which are quanta, or energy packets. This destroys energy. When electrons jump to a lower shell the emit photons, thus creating energy.

By the way, energy creation, and destruction, happens every day on a scale that is easily observed in nature. Einstein actually explained this a few years ago when he mapped out the mass-energy equivalence. You might have heard of that at some point in your life, it is probably the most famous equation in history. E=mc2.

About me being condescending. I admit it is a character fault, but I am never condescending to people who can think, no matter how stupid they actually are. If you ever learn to think I will stop being condescending to you.

You can be condescending all you want, it only shows that you are too STUPID to know you are making a complete fool of yourself. Keep it up!!!

Repeating the same crap does not make it any less crappy.

Adding photons of energy does not destroy the energy, it excites the electron into a higher orbital. The electron only stays at that orbital until the energy that still exists is released, not destroyed. the released energy is available to do work. No energy is created or destroyed. The SAME energy is absorbed and released. You are full of shit!!!

And E=mc2 has nothing to do with creating or destroying energy, it is the ratio of energy converting into matter/mass and back again. No energy is created or destroyed when mass is converted into energy and vice versa, it is simply CHANGING FORM. Energy exists in three forms, kinetic, potential and heat. The potential energy that already exists in the mass is released, not created, according to the equation E=mc2.
Get it?
I doubt it!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

Have you ever watched "The Universe?"

Spontaneous Generation has already been proven in a Laboratory.

Bull, prove it, link please. Evolution makes no sense.

 

[konradv]

Have you ever watched "The Universe?"

Spontaneous Generation has already been proven in a Laboratory.

Bull, prove it, link please. Evolution makes no sense.

How so? There's ample evidence for it. What's your major objection to the theory?

 

[jgarden]

I choose to believe that the world and mankind were created for a higher purpose - other that merely occupying space in the universe.

Whether God created us in 6 days or we evolved over 4 billion years is largely a debate over timelines and mechanics.

HOW we got here is secondary to WHY we are here!

 

[McPuff]

You can be condescending all you want, it only shows that you are too STUPID to know you are making a complete fool of yourself. Keep it up!!!

Repeating the same crap does not make it any less crappy.

Adding photons of energy does not destroy the energy, it excites the electron into a higher orbital. The electron only stays at that orbital until the energy that still exists is released, not destroyed. the released energy is available to do work. No energy is created or destroyed. The SAME energy is absorbed and released. You are full of shit!!!

And E=mc2 has nothing to do with creating or destroying energy, it is the ratio of energy converting into matter/mass and back again. No energy is created or destroyed when mass is converted into energy and vice versa, it is simply CHANGING FORM. Energy exists in three forms, kinetic, potential and heat. The potential energy that already exists in the mass is released, not created, according to the equation E=mc2.
Get it?
I doubt it!!!

You are in no position to accuse someone else of being condescending.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Have you ever watched "The Universe?"

Spontaneous Generation has already been proven in a Laboratory.

Bull, prove it, link please. Evolution makes no sense.

Really? It's all around you. Watch Nat Geo's show sometime called "The Human Family Tree". It was a genetic study that went around the world and took various DNA samples from people all over the planet.

Know what they discovered? That mankind originated in Africa like most thought, and there is a genetic Adam and a genetic Eve, whose markers we ALL carry. Now, what is interesting is the various adaptations people made as they lived in different places. Know that epithileal fold that Asians have? Guess what......Eskimos have 'em too, and that is because they spent a lot of time either on the water or in the snow, and those people evolved that to help them deal with the sun's glare on either.

Yes. Mankind has evolved.

There are many other places where evolution is present. Look at the evolution of computers just over the past 20 years. We've gone from desktops to laptops to smart phones to iPads, and now..........Watson kicked the crap outta Jeopardy's 2 best players EVER!

Evolution can also be seen in the Galapagos Islands. Why do you think that Darwin stayed there to study? He saw many different varieties that all came from the same basic root, and depending on where they lived in the islands, they evolved different traits.

It's only the idiots who claim evolution is flat out false that I have much problem with.

 

[edthecynic]

You can be condescending all you want, it only shows that you are too STUPID to know you are making a complete fool of yourself. Keep it up!!!

Repeating the same crap does not make it any less crappy.

Adding photons of energy does not destroy the energy, it excites the electron into a higher orbital. The electron only stays at that orbital until the energy that still exists is released, not destroyed. the released energy is available to do work. No energy is created or destroyed. The SAME energy is absorbed and released. You are full of shit!!!

And E=mc2 has nothing to do with creating or destroying energy, it is the ratio of energy converting into matter/mass and back again. No energy is created or destroyed when mass is converted into energy and vice versa, it is simply CHANGING FORM. Energy exists in three forms, kinetic, potential and heat. The potential energy that already exists in the mass is released, not created, according to the equation E=mc2.
Get it?
I doubt it!!!

You are in no position to accuse someone else of being condescending.

I fight fire with fire. I have learned that the CON$ervative Brotherhood can dish it out but can't take it.

And the big difference in this case is what I'm saying about physics happens to be correct, and the fool who is telling me I need to learn about physics is blowing smoke, so I have a right to mock his condescension.

 

[edthecynic]

Have you ever watched "The Universe?"

Spontaneous Generation has already been proven in a Laboratory.

Bull, prove it, link please. Evolution makes no sense.

Really? It's all around you. Watch Nat Geo's show sometime called "The Human Family Tree". It was a genetic study that went around the world and took various DNA samples from people all over the planet.

Know what they discovered? That mankind originated in Africa like most thought, and there is a genetic Adam and a genetic Eve, whose markers we ALL carry. Now, what is interesting is the various adaptations people made as they lived in different places. Know that epithileal fold that Asians have? Guess what......Eskimos have 'em too, and that is because they spent a lot of time either on the water or in the snow, and those people evolved that to help them deal with the sun's glare on either.

Yes. Mankind has evolved.

There are many other places where evolution is present. Look at the evolution of computers just over the past 20 years. We've gone from desktops to laptops to smart phones to iPads, and now..........Watson kicked the crap outta Jeopardy's 2 best players EVER!

Evolution can also be seen in the Galapagos Islands. Why do you think that Darwin stayed there to study? He saw many different varieties that all came from the same basic root, and depending on where they lived in the islands, they evolved different traits.

It's only the idiots who claim evolution is flat out false that I have much problem with.

I hope you don't intend to equate them to the biblical Adam and Eve. Mitochondrial Eve lived 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier than Y-chromosomal Adam and in the bible Adam came before Eve.

 

[N4mddissent]

This is a quote by honest swindler scientist:

"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."-G. Wald, Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life, New York, Houghton Mifflin-Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1996.

I let you comment this statement.

Well, first I would say that I cannot verify this quote. I can find two similar quotes that may be the origin of this quote.
When it comes to the origin of life, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us to supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible.

"The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 1954, reprinted on p 307-320, A Treasury of Science, Fourth Revised Edition, Harlow Shapley et al., eds., Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1958. p 309.

and

As for spontaneous generation, it continued to find acceptance until finally disposed of by the work of Louis Pasteur—it is a curious thing that until quite recently professors of biology habitually told this story as part of their introductions of students to biology. They would finish this account glowing with the conviction that they had given a telling demonstration of the overthrow of mystical notion by clean, scientific experimentation. Their students were usually so bemused as to forget to ask the professor how he accounted for the origin of life. This would have been an embarrassing question, because there are only two possibilities: either life arose by spontaneous generation, which the professor had just refuted; or it arose by supernatural creation, which he probably regarded as anti-scientific [Wald, George (1972), Frontiers of Modern Biology in Theories of Origin of Life (New York: Houghton-Mifflin).]

Neither is exactly the quote in the original post. Perhaps the quote in the original post does exist, but I do not have a copy of the book and could not find any other confirmation. However, the 1958 quote is the one that most resembles the quote in the OP. So ignore the 1996 date. It is more likely something a variation of something stated in 1958. Evolutionary biology has advanced a great deal since then. Furthermore,

1. It does not matter what Wald said, even if he won a Nobel prize. (His area of specialty was eye pigments and he won his prize in medicine.) There is no prince of science. No one opinion is ever beyond scrutiny. Science is a consensus of experts (plural). Even Einstein was wrong about quantum theory. Wald does not speak for all of science. So what exactly was the point of the quote?

2. Biology generally distinguishes between spontaneous generation which involves complex organisms generated from dead organic matter and abiogenesis which involves the formation of self-replicating molecules which may lead to the earliest forms of life. This is a common distinction in the scientific community whether Wald recognized it or not.

3. The theory of evolution concerns the diversity of life after the first self-replicating "organisms" appear. While a confirmed theory about the origin of life may help to supplement certain aspects of evolutionary theory, it is not necessary for the theory. So origin of life is really a separate issue from the accuracy of evolution in explaining the diversity of life.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Here's an interesting thought...........

In the Bible, the very first name God used out of the many that He has was "ElOhim", which when translated from the Hebrew means "God of Many Powers", i.e. energy.

Next.........let's look at the Judaic understanding of our soul. According to Jewish theology, when the embryo created by your parents hit the 40 day mark, it was at that time God would carve off a small piece of Himself from under His Throne of Glory, and insert it into your embryo.

Scientists have found out that the 40 day point is where you finally grow a nervous system. What powers your nervous system? That's right.......electricity.

Interestingly enough, there are many religions where reincarnation is recognized and referred to. Judaic and Hindu theology for 2 examples. There was once a rabbi who was able to tell how many lives you'd lived before, by studying how you looked and acted. One time he asked a man why he hadn't learned things because he said that the man was already laying in 12 graves already.

Now, if your soul is a small piece of God's energy, then you can even prove the 1st Law of Thermodynamics via theology.

 

[Foxfyre]

3. The theory of evolution concerns the diversity of life after the first self-replicating "organisms" appear. While a confirmed theory about the origin of life may help to supplement certain aspects of evolutionary theory, it is not necessary for the theory. So origin of life is really a separate issue from the accuracy of evolution in explaining the diversity of life.

Bravo.

The issue of evolution for me is not that organisms and life forms have evolved nor the principle of natural selection--I accept all of those concepts as valid scientific theory--but rather the questions that 'Darwinism' doesn't even address and cannot answer. The largest of those of course is where the substance of life came from in the first place,

Where the substance of life or anything else came from and/or its nature is indeed an entirely different subject.

 

[Sky Dancer]

How is it that you have no problem with the theory of evolution as a Christian, Fox, and other Christians do?

 

[edthecynic]

Here's an interesting thought...........

In the Bible, the very first name God used out of the many that He has was "ElOhim", which when translated from the Hebrew means "God of Many Powers", i.e. energy.

Next.........let's look at the Judaic understanding of our soul. According to Jewish theology, when the embryo created by your parents hit the 40 day mark, it was at that time God would carve off a small piece of Himself from under His Throne of Glory, and insert it into your embryo.

Scientists have found out that the 40 day point is where you finally grow a nervous system. What powers your nervous system? That's right.......electricity.

Interestingly enough, there are many religions where reincarnation is recognized and referred to. Judaic and Hindu theology for 2 examples. There was once a rabbi who was able to tell how many lives you'd lived before, by studying how you looked and acted. One time he asked a man why he hadn't learned things because he said that the man was already laying in 12 graves already.

Now, if your soul is a small piece of God's energy, then you can even prove the 1st Law of Thermodynamics via theology.

I hope that isn't what it sounds like!
God pulling something out of his glory seat sounds quite disgusting!!!

What exactly is a "throne of glory" and how exactly is a throne a PART of a God?

 

[McPuff]

I fight fire with fire. I have learned that the CON$ervative Brotherhood can dish it out but can't take it.

And the big difference in this case is what I'm saying about physics happens to be correct, and the fool who is telling me I need to learn about physics is blowing smoke, so I have a right to mock his condescension.

As usual, liberals think it's perfectly fine to insult and use "uncivil rhetoric" against those they disagree with, but if a Conservative even voices his/her opinion they are demonized.

If anyone "can't take it", it's you. If you think you should have the right to mock someone, don't cry when you are mocked.

 

[edthecynic]

I fight fire with fire. I have learned that the CON$ervative Brotherhood can dish it out but can't take it.

And the big difference in this case is what I'm saying about physics happens to be correct, and the fool who is telling me I need to learn about physics is blowing smoke, so I have a right to mock his condescension.

As usual, liberals think it's perfectly fine to insult and use "uncivil rhetoric" against those they disagree with, but if a Conservative even voices his/her opinion they are demonized.

If anyone "can't take it", it's you. If you think you should have the right to mock someone, don't cry when you are mocked.

Yeah, play that CON$ervative perpetual victim. Everybody picks on you dear sweet CON$.
Poor baby.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I fight fire with fire. I have learned that the CON$ervative Brotherhood can dish it out but can't take it.

And the big difference in this case is what I'm saying about physics happens to be correct, and the fool who is telling me I need to learn about physics is blowing smoke, so I have a right to mock his condescension.

As usual, liberals think it's perfectly fine to insult and use "uncivil rhetoric" against those they disagree with, but if a Conservative even voices his/her opinion they are demonized.

If anyone "can't take it", it's you. If you think you should have the right to mock someone, don't cry when you are mocked.

Whoa. Slow down. What does being a liberal or conservative have to do with physics?

Scrolling back to see how a discussion on physics ends up being political.