From: "Dustin Jones" <FROM EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Silly Silly Silly....
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:45:22 -0500
Howdy there,
Thanks for responding. How fun this is? Ok, I'll give you the elementary school version. Why don't atoms condense into themselves? Well, we don't know why. You really NEED to read up on your quantum physics. The law of Gravity says they should, but they don't. In my (admittedly limited) study of Quantum Mechanics, I can find no one who can explain why big things act so differently than very small things, and if YOU would read up a little you will find many well-respected folks in the field who talk extensively about that very issue. Don't pretend it just doesn't exist.
Well, my study of QM isn't all that limited. While I didn't get my degree focused on it, I did have several classes in it, and I do try to scan relevant literature occasionally to keep somewhat current.
The first and most important reason we don't collapse is because gravity is by far the weakest of all the natural forces, especially when you are talking on the micro level. The force of gravity attraction between an electron and a proton is so weak it might as well be 0 and can be compleatly ignored even if the two are touching. The repulsion felt between a proton and another proton easily outdoes the pathetic attempts of gravity to pull them together.
And the electric force is itself dwarfed by the strong nuclear force (the one that holds the quarks together) at the very tiny level.
That's why it takes the mass of stars many many times to size of our sun to collapse down and overcome the force of electrical repulsion then overcome strong nuclear repulsion. Only masses that big can build up enough gravity pull.
If these "well respected folks" talk so much about it, you should listen to them. They can likely explain it better than I.
Secondly why mach me about when big bang was first theorized. The idea came about in the twenties. Look it up. Look up Georges Lemaître.
I'm sure someone in the distant past also came to the guess that the universe came from a "big bang", but it wasn't until Hubble's work in the 50s that enough evidence came forth that the big bang could be more than just idle speculation.
And dark matter, hehe. Ask a professor about dark matter please. It was dreamed up precisely for the reasons I detailed to you in my first letter. I would also suggest that you brush up on your facts before you leave your responses up on your site. It makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
...Dark Matter wasn't come up with to support the big bang, it was "invented" to explain other problems like the fact that all our models seem to indicate that the universe has about 20x more mass than we can see.
...I do know my facts, it is mostly that I have limited space to explain them (that and I'm not the best explainer :-). That and a decent understanding of science can't be conveyed without spending lots of time working up the basics. Unfortunately, some of the concepts of QM and implications of dark matter and why it must exist are complex and I'm not the person to simplify them.
And again, you are fooling yourself if you think science is always oh so correct, or that things can only be wrong for a short time. Try looking up the problems with something as tried and true as carbon dating; lots of problems there.
...Problems with carbon dating? Or the general concept of radiometric dating?
...Some introductory material on dating methods can be found at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html (by a fellow Christian, no less), with a good follow up at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html.
Finally, responses to common criticisms to radiometric dating can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit.
...And just for an extra link to maybe help you Test your Scientific Literacy at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/SciLit.html. A good test and discussion of what "science" means. It might help you.
...The bigger question as to "science always correct". I know it makes mistakes, but the scientific method and inquiry are still the best ways to look for answers and "the truth". Can you name a better way to look for truth?
Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't think whatever you want to think, but you really should give a little more credit to those who disagree with you.
...Never said I don't give them some credit... depends on the person who disagrees with me :-)
And you are brimming with faith. Faith faith faith. Belief in any particular not-provable possibility is FAITH. Why is it so hard for you to just admit that? Oh well.
...Because my belief in the things I believe in is fundamentally different than what the word "faith" means.
...How bout starting with this: An introduction to Atheism. Explains it more succinctly than I can and there's little point in me re-iterating something that is written better by someone else.
Thanks for the response
Dustin Jones
PS I thought you atheists had finally given up on that old dumb unicorn argument.
...Because its not an "old dumb argument". Its a very handy analogy. Can you prove there is no such thing as an "invisible pink unicorn"? There's as much evidence for invisible unicorns as there is for invisible sky gods.
Mankind has not pondered since it's beginning the existence of unicorns or flying monkeys or anything of the sort. We have, however, always considered the possibility of a God or creator.
...Mankind also considered the earth flat, diseases were caused by demons, the sky was a dome, spirits in the clouds caused lightning, the sun moved around the earth. As a species, we want to find patterns and reasons for things. And when we can't, we quite often make things up.
...As children, we often make up explanations for things that scare or confuse us. Monsters under the bed, skeletons in the closet, haunted houses, demon trees. As children we consider the possibility of all these things, but as we grow up, we get to know better.
You have considered it and made a decision. So have I. I mean c'mon. Lets at least be serious here. Geez. And why do you HOPE there is no God. You should look inward a little.
...I don't "HOPE there is no god" any more than you "HOPE there is no Shiva" or "HOPE there is no Wottan" or "HOPE there is no Zeus". I don't "HOPE there is a next week" or "HOPE the sun comes up". I don't "HOPE that block of cheese in my fridge doesn't turn into a block of gold" or "HOPE that gravity doesn't suddenly turn off on my way home".
...I have turned inward and I've found that made up stories and invisible gods aren't enough to satisfy my sense of wonder and majesty at the world. What ancient people knew about the world just doesn't work when we know so much more now. And more importantly, we are grown up enough to admit we don't know it all, and grown up enough to keep looking.
...but that's more than enuf babbling for now.