Sciencescience

Sun Mar 11, 2018, 05:08 PM

INTERVIEW WITH A NUCLEAR PHYSICIST!

Those who scoff at biblical creation often claim creation scientists “aren’t really scientists,” saying they don’t perform actual research or publish in scientific journals.
Dr. Vernon Cupps earned his Ph.D. in nuclear physics from Indiana University and has 73 publications in secular scientific journals.
In addition to working at Fermilab for 23 years, Dr. Cupps worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Canada’s TRIUMF Accelerator.
Brian Thomas’ recent interview with Dr. Cupps covered his reasons for becoming a creationist, as well as scientific evidence supporting the Genesis account.

Brian Thomas and Dr. Vernon Cupps discuss his life's work.
Vernon Cupps became fascinated with science in seventh grade and knew then he wanted to be a scientist. His specific interest in nuclear physics came during a physics class at the University of Missouri as he studied the nucleus. Since childhood, he has believed the Bible is infallible, but there were steps involved in his becoming a creationist.

Brian: What do you mean by “creationist”?

Dr. Cupps: Creationism, the belief that Genesis is absolutely correct in its assertion that everything was created ex nihilo in six days by God, is something that I had never specifically concentrated on—I just simply believed the Bible. I spent most of my career in physics and mathematics, and I didn’t think much about the consequences and implications of that particular part of the Bible. But I began to in the 1990s when I read books by Dr. Henry Morris, Hugh Ross, George Pember, and many others. I tried to get a vast range of opinions on the subject, and it became crystal clear to me that the only reasonable point of view was that Genesis is absolutely correct in all that it asserts to be true.

It became crystal clear to me that the only reasonable point of view was that Genesis is absolutely correct in all that it asserts to be true. Tweet: It became crystal clear to me that the only reasonable point of view was that Genesis is absolutely correct in all that it asserts to be true.

Vernon Cupps: Interview with a Nuclear Physicist http://www.icr.org/article/10454/

@icrscience @icrbthomas

Brian: So, you started with “I’m a Christian, I believe the Bible in general,” and then you spent most of your career as a physicist focusing on how the world operates, not how it originated. But you spent years studying the origins subject. Was there a moment as you studied that really resonated with you, where you said, “This makes sense”?

Dr. Cupps: One thing that most resonated with me was that the day-age theory and the Bible couldn’t both be true. The day-age theory is expounded upon by Hugh Ross and his contemporaries, and that theory—or that hypothesis, rather—says that they believe the days set forth in Genesis chapter one are really ages. But the translation of the Hebrew doesn’t allow that to be the case. That’s not proper exegesis of the Bible.

Brian: Why can’t we insert vast ages for days?

Dr. Cupps: The Bible doesn’t allow it. If you go that direction, where do you stop? Because now men are interpreting God’s Word in a way they want to interpret it.

Brian: If you start by using your own definition from outside the context of the passage, then you can do that same thing anywhere else in the Bible.

Dr. Cupps: And you can interpret anything in the Bible any way you want. This leads to confusion—anarchy of interpretation, basically.

Brian: You didn’t want to be confused.

Dr. Cupps (laughing): I’m a simple guy.

Brian: So, you went through this process of investigating origins options, and you settled on recent creation, and one of the biggest reasons was a study of the Bible. Let’s ease back into your career. What did you do as a scientist?


Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois, specializes in high-energy particle physics.
Dr. Cupps: After working at the Indiana University Cyclotron Facility, I went to Los Alamos, where I planned and prepared an experiment to study pion absorption on a number of different nuclei to give us insights into the nuclear force—the force that binds the nucleus together. I also worked on an experiment to study the spin response of the nuclear continuum, which necessitated me to go to TRIUMF, the particle accelerator in Canada. And finally, I worked on an experiment to measure the proton/proton elastic-scattering cross-section to a one-percent precision, a very difficult precision to reach when counting particles. That experiment was done at about 600–900 MEV (million electron volts).

Brian: How do you reconcile the six-day creation view with distant starlight billions of miles away?

Dr. Cupps: The secularists have the same problem. We can only measure the speed of light as a two-way trip. We can’t measure its one-way transit time.

Brian: Would you say there are enough unknowns, especially in astronomy and cosmology, to place the various origins perspectives on a level playing field?

Dr. Cupps: Absolutely. If you look at the totality of information and data we have on the earth and solar system, it all points to a very young earth and a very young solar system, not to something billions or millions of years old.

Brian: So, the speed of light problem, distant starlight, is a problem for everyone regardless of their origins perspective. Let’s look elsewhere for indicators. Let’s measure some other attributes of the universe.


Spiral galaxies show evidence of a young universe.
Dr. Cupps: We know spiral galaxies have to be reasonably younger than about 300 million years old because they tend to unwind and into an elliptical galaxy by now. Spiral galaxies are found 13 billion light-years from Earth. We see evidence of youth in the extended universe. The Big Bang people can’t explain a lot of things—they can’t explain the antimatter–matter imbalance.

Brian: What is that?

Dr. Cupps: Our universe is basically made up of matter. According to the Big Bang hypothesis, there should be equal amounts of each, but there’s virtually no antimatter! They also don’t know where the elements heavier than iron come from. Their hypothesis is that heavy elements are formed in the explosions of supernovas, or, a more recent hypothesis, that they were formed in the collision of neutron stars.


Prepping for the interview
Brian: When you have a high-energy source, you can make heavy elements out of lighter elements by smashing them together.

Dr. Cupps: Except, it doesn’t work. In nuclear accelerators, we’ve banged large nuclei together, and they do not fuse—they break apart! The secularists generally believe that sequential nuclear reactions in stars—for example, reactions in which an iron atom will sequentially capture additional neutrons—are the means by which heavy elements are created. But multi-step nuclear reactions in large volumes are highly, highly improbable.

Brian: How did we get the heavy elements we have today?

Dr. Cupps: God created them out of nothing.

Brian: What you’re saying is there’s scientific evidence that supports this creation view, and you’re also saying there’s scientific evidence that supports not just the fact of creation but the Bible’s timing of creation.

Dr. Cupps: Correct. There is also the problem that’s arisen from recent observations in the cosmic microwave background that there is a preferred axis in the universe. Big Bang cosmologists believe that Earth is no special place. CMB is the result of light being stretched as space stretched to where the light loses energy until its frequency drops into the microwave background. The Big Bang proponents expected the CMB to be completely uniform across the universe—spread evenly—but it’s not.

Brian: Why don’t these secularists abandon the Big Bang if it has so many problems?

Dr. Cupps: Let me answer that question by quoting a scientist who is a Nobel Prize winner, who wrote a recent paper about how evolution could’ve occurred. He did experiments that were heralded as decisive proof of the theory of evolution. But his colleagues couldn’t duplicate the results, so he retracted his paper. He admitted that “we were totally blinded by our belief.” And that answers the question. They are blinded by their beliefs. I think you will find that the basic difference between creationists and people who believe in the evolutionary deep-time paradigm for nature is a difference in belief—a difference in worldview—it’s not a difference in science. We’re all looking at the same data, so it’s basically a matter of belief. Do you believe the Bible, or do you believe these hypotheses that have been by men?

Brian: So, you went from Los Alamos, Fermilab, and TRIUMF to the Institute for Creation Research. It seems like a big switch.

Dr. Cupps: In some sense it is, in some sense it isn’t. I’m still doing science. Science is a systematic methodology for investigating natural phenomena. It is not naturalism. Naturalism is the scientific approach of the secularists who believe in the evolutionary deep-time paradigm. It is a philosophical principle of secular humanism—it’s not science.

Science is a systematic methodology for investigating natural phenomena. It is not naturalism. Tweet: Science is a systematic methodology for investigating natural phenomena. It is not naturalism.

Vernon Cupps: Interview with a Nuclear Physicist http://www.icr.org/article/10454/

@icrscience @icrbthomas

Brian: You’re doing science at ICR?

Dr. Cupps: Absolutely. And I go where the evidence leads me.

Brian: What are you working on now?

Dr. Cupps: I’m working on radioisotope dating, because the primary argument secularists use to support their deep-time paradigm is that radioisotope dating supports their hypothesis. But radioisotope dating depends on a lot of very tenuous assumptions. I’d like to do some experiments on the decay rate of an isotopic nucleus that’s radioactive to see if the decay rate is truly constant. It appears that both pressure and electrical fields can greatly change the rate of decay. They also assume that the rock is a closed system—no heating or cooling—which is absurd. The best way to look at it is if you took a large jar of water and dropped salt into it, the salt will slowly diffuse throughout the water at room temperature. But if you cool the water, the salt will diffuse throughout the water at a different rate. If you heat the water, the diffusion rate will speed up. You need to have a full knowledge of the history of the rock you are dating—and they don’t have that.

Brian: You’re saying you don’t trust their clocks.

Dr. Cupps: No. Their clock systems have too many unknowns and too many assumptions that are very, very iffy.

Brian: What other scientific evidences for recent creation have you run across?

Dr. Cupps: The rings on Saturn look like they’re very young. The recent satellite probe that passed by Pluto—Pluto looks very young. It should be completely pockmarked with impact craters from debris, and it’s not. And it even has an atmosphere. It should’ve dissipated millions of years ago. The rate of heat loss for Jupiter and Saturn is two to three times what they receive from the sun. Why aren’t they stone cold now if the solar system is four billion years old?


Saturn's brilliant rings can't be billions of years old.
Brian: What makes Saturn’s rings look young?

Dr. Cupps: They have very little debris on the ice crystals. They should be dark.

Brian: Will some of your discoveries make their way into the ICR Discovery Center?

Dr. Cupps: The subject of stellar nucleosynthesis will certainly be in the universe exhibit. That exhibit will demonstrate how the solar system and universe are constructed and what the arguments are, pro and con, for creation on a 6,000–10,000 year time frame. There will be a whole room dedicated to the universe.

Brian: Well, it’s been an informational and inspirational discussion. I say inspirational because we do live in a world that’s permeated by this whole concept that God was not around—everything we see came around naturally. But it’s so refreshing to talk with someone willing to investigate origins and who came down on the side of “the Bible got it right” by investigating what the Bible says and by looking at all the options and weighing all those options. I appreciate your expertise as a scientist coupled with your conviction that what you see confirms the straightforward teaching of the Word of God.

Dr. Cupps: Thank you, Brian

44 replies, 1398 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply INTERVIEW WITH A NUCLEAR PHYSICIST! (Original post)
nolidad Mar 2018 OP
It Guy Mar 2018 #1
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #2
nolidad Mar 2018 #3
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #4
nolidad Mar 2018 #5
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #6
nolidad Mar 2018 #8
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #11
nolidad Mar 2018 #13
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #15
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #7
nolidad Mar 2018 #9
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #10
nolidad Mar 2018 #12
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #14
nolidad Mar 2018 #16
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #17
nolidad Mar 2018 #18
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #20
nolidad Mar 2018 #19
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #21
nolidad Mar 2018 #22
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #23
nolidad Mar 2018 #24
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #25
nolidad Mar 2018 #26
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #27
nolidad Mar 2018 #28
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #29
Cold Warrior Mar 2018 #30
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #31
nolidad Mar 2018 #33
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #34
nolidad Mar 2018 #32
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #35
nolidad Mar 2018 #36
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #37
nolidad Mar 2018 #38
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #39
nolidad Mar 2018 #40
SatansSon666 Mar 2018 #41
nolidad Mar 2018 #42
marmot84 Mar 2018 #43
nolidad Mar 2018 #44

Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sun Mar 11, 2018, 10:03 PM

1. A good read, thanks! Heres something that science cannot explain.

I’m sure Jurassic Park is just around the corner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Mon Mar 12, 2018, 07:58 AM

2. "God created them out of nothing."

What a scientific breakthrough.
Someone get this man a Nobel prize.

Lmao..
What a fucking loon.


Another fool that would rather believe than accept reality.

"I go where the evidence leads me"

"God created them out of nothing"

Oh.. oh my..
Hahahahah

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 12, 2018, 01:35 PM

3. As opposed to the big bang/evolution cosmology

that says nothing exploded c. 14 billion years ago and when that nothing exploded it created everything???


Give them loons some thorazine !

Same with finding now over 2 dozen samples of dino tissue--some over 500 million years old! Instead of realizing the dating is wrong- they are tossing out all the experimentation they did on how tissue and DNA degrades and revamping it.

Because those morons know that if they dare challenge radiometric dating and long long ages- the bishops and cardinals of teh secular religion will excommunicate them and their grant money will go POOF!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 12, 2018, 02:14 PM

4. He says he'll go where the evidence leads.

Then when asked how the heavy elements got here he said
"God created them out of nothing."
Yeah..
Really following the evidence there..

And he's probably the best you've got.
Hahaha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 12, 2018, 06:06 PM

5. As opposed to your belief system that says:

nothing existed-- it exploded- it created everything by blind random chance!?

The evidence proves this every time:

Psalm 19 King James Version (KJV)
19 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork

It is just sad that seeing- you cannot see!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 13, 2018, 05:06 AM

6. There is evidence for what I accept.

There is none for what that idiot said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 13, 2018, 10:27 AM

8. Still waiting for you to unlock your secret box of evidence

and give some empirical proof! Not your line of "given enough time a crocodile scale could become a feather!"

that is powerful evidence! NOT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 13, 2018, 10:55 AM

11. It's totally better than " god created them out of nothing"

At least we can see the scales elongated under a microscope.
That idiot you posted about has no credibility anymore. He lost it when he signed ICR statement of faith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 13, 2018, 04:24 PM

13. Or he is bolder!

Lots of research scientists at Universities work in the closet! They know if they open up about their faith- BOOm they lose tenure, get fired or have their names tarnished so they get no more grant money!

Going against the secular dogmas of the big bang or Darwinian evolution has far nastier consequences. all these scientists do this of their own free will --gladly so!

Of the thousand upon thousands of degreed scientists listed with ICR, AIG, CRS, nearly all became convinced of a YEC and Creation ex-deo through their research as unbelievers or nominal believers in this guys case!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 13, 2018, 06:36 PM

15. Over 97 percent of scientists

Accept the theory of evolution .
Not because they are scared to reveal the truth.
That's ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 13, 2018, 06:48 AM

7. The firmament?

This firmament?



Lmao..
Yup, great proof you have there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 13, 2018, 10:31 AM

9. No

I am not like you! I do not project modern thought onto ancient men! We do not know how the ancient people of God believed, but based on the scriptures they knew the earth was round like a ball

And if your morons who wrote this stuff bothered to read the bible, they would no t make themselves look so utterly bereft of knowledge. But hey! You have a track record of finding what you can to mock god and His people, so continue looking like an idiot if that is what floats your boat!!!

I keep noticing that instead of rebutting his science- you do what you do best==attack teh person!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 13, 2018, 10:53 AM

10. I see. So where did the firmament and its windows come from?

Lmao

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 13, 2018, 01:42 PM

12. I think you laughed your brains off!

Well I know you think that nothing did it

While I say God created it.

As for windows- I used to think that you were not that unintelligent- but now you make me wonder when you cannot even understand metaphors. I know I know what you'll say --what kind of God is it when He didn't give Noah multiple PHD's in modern science way back then and he had to use metaphorical language!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 13, 2018, 06:17 PM

14. Metaphorical? He couldn't just say clouds?

How hard is that?
Noah didn't need a PhD to understand rain clouds for fucks sake.
He can tell Noah that it will rain from the clouds.. no wait.. he'll say the windows of heaven instead. Where is the logic in that? He confuses him more than anything by saying things that are not true. In other words, lying to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 13, 2018, 07:12 PM

16. Well it wasn't clouds!!!!!

It had never rained yet.

Genesis 1: 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Well with your hate twisted brain,, you can think what you wish, but I will take Gods Word for it who loves you as much as He loves me rather than a narrow minded, anti Christian, anti Bible, anti God person as yourself!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 13, 2018, 07:33 PM

17. Nobody had ever seen rain before the flood?

Shit dude..



Raindrop impression fossil.

FYI raindrop fossils cannot form underwater during a flood and they didn't form after.
Some raindrop fossils have been shown to be other things as well but not this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 14, 2018, 06:41 AM

18. YOU "Some raindrop fossils have been shown to be other things as well but not this one. "

For now. One thing that is true of evolutionary beliefs. What is true today will be science fiction in a few years.

Why don't y9ou educate us all on how raindrops can be fossilized?????

IOWput up or shut up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #18)

Fri Mar 16, 2018, 04:30 AM

20. You don't see the picture?

That's how.
One thing is for sure. Doesn't happen under water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 15, 2018, 03:54 PM

19. Well I know you think I am just a mouthy know nothing YEC.

But based on the science of fossilization I reject that these are raindrop fossils!

What it takes to make a fossil is moist soft sediment like they said. In order to imprint on moist sediment type soil- it would have to be a "hard" rain and it would not leave these intermittent dop like imprints. It would also have to take a rapid burying while these imprints are fresh lest the sediment dries and nature and erosion removes these fragile traces.

I for one am willing to wait a few years where with more research they will quietly drop this from the textbooks like they have done with thousands of other "settled science facts" that are now science fiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #19)

Fri Mar 16, 2018, 04:31 AM

21. Learning something new

Doesn't always mean what you knew before is wrong. Just expanded on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #21)

Fri Mar 16, 2018, 06:51 AM

22. That is true

Just a smuch as science has had to edit so much of their "facts" as further information was found and their old" facts" were just way wrong.

Expanding knowledge means you add to truth with greater depth! That is a given.

But just look at the dates of the universe that the secularists have given-- anywhere for millions of years in the 19th century and a few billion in the early 20th, to over 20 billion to 16 billion to 13.8 billion. 30 years from now who knows what they will guess the age is !

But even though you probably won't, I invite yo to watch this video from a PHD in astrophysics and when He speaks of a young universe- instead of just LMAO- why don't you give short answers as to why you think him wrong???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #22)

Fri Mar 16, 2018, 07:45 AM

23. I don't even have to watch it to know he's wrong.

He signed a statement of faith saying he would not accept any evidence that goes against biblical creation. No matter what.
Can't be anymore dishonest than that as a scientist.
Maybe I'll watch it later and debunk it.
Even though I'm not an astrophysicist I bet I can do enough research to easily show he's a fucking nutter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #23)

Fri Mar 16, 2018, 06:19 PM

24. I forgot you know he will say before you even look at it!

Well I love to see you try!

and then come back here and explain why he is wrong- instead of just doing your typical blowhard routine!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #24)

Sat Mar 17, 2018, 04:24 AM

25. I will. When I have time to give it attention.

I can make a few guesses.
He thinks it's wrong because it conflicts with scripture.
He'll make shit up and change shit around. He'll ignore evidence that conflicts, just like he said he would when he started working for those fucking lunatics.
Maybe I'm wrong..
I will watch it later, if it isn't too long and boring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 17, 2018, 06:45 AM

26. Well you will learn differently

Most YEC scientists ( I can't say all for I haven't studied from all, there are tens of thousands) freely admit there are difficulties that remain unsolved to this day with a young universe.

YOu are very wrong! Because you do not listen to the bona fide scientists who are YEC- you appear to busy to attack them without studying what they say first!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #26)

Sat Mar 17, 2018, 06:56 AM

27. As soon as they admit they will reject evidence

Like the "scientists" at ICR do, there is no point in listening to them. They admitted they are dishonest and I don't have time to guess or research what thy leave put or what lies they tell to their deluded followers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #27)

Sun Mar 18, 2018, 09:50 AM

28. Well there is you rmechanism so you don't have to listen to a contrary opinion!

I hoped you would listen for a change- but feared you would come up with a cock-a-mamey excuse for not listening. Sad to say you did not disappoint.

BUT IOW you don't know they are lying- you just feel they are lying because you don't agree with YEC!

Boy I am glad I am not as shrivelled up as you !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 19, 2018, 04:51 AM

29. Insults do not change the fact

That they are openly dishonest.
Which I guess to you, is honest because the admit it.
Lmao.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #29)

Mon Mar 19, 2018, 06:20 AM

30. It is a bit amusing that this poster

will scream “ad hominem attack” when one laughs at “scientists” like Carl Baugh who attempts to prove the existence of living pterodactyls, but will attack other posters as liars, as being “shrivelled up,” etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 19, 2018, 06:34 AM

31. Yup and bigots and hateful

That's what they do when backed into a corner with evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 19, 2018, 06:45 AM

33. Well if you bothered posting some, we could find out if you could

back me in a corner!

But you are too busy just calling creationists loons and hurling crude epithets and just saying you are wrong (like that is supposed to be evidence).

Personally I think you are a phony based on your posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 19, 2018, 06:50 AM

34. I call the people at ICR loons.

Not all creationists.
Just the ones that deliberately deceive other creationists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 19, 2018, 06:43 AM

32. Are you learning lying from devil boy now?

or is it just faulty memory.

I told you directly that I know nothing of this Baugh guy. so you accusing me of you hurling ad-hominems about him is just a lie!

Does referring me in the third person ease your conscience?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 19, 2018, 08:50 AM

35. Calling us liars

While ignoring everything put in front of you isn't very becoming of you.
If all you got left is to accuse people of lying all the time, well, you fucking have nothing. Even less than space, which does have something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #35)

Tue Mar 20, 2018, 05:16 PM

36. What do you throw in front of me but one liners!

YOu throw a phrase like virtual particles and you call that a response?

I think I have produced far more science than you probably can even hope to produce.

BTW saying math, evidence and observation are not proof! What math, what evidence , what proof?

When I challenged you to show the evolution of scales to feathers- the best you could come up with is a picture of an elongated scale and the standard throw away line that given enough time- it COULD evolve into a feather!

Yes space contains everything- but space itself is just ---space! it is not a solid, liquid, gas or plasma- it is a void that all matter exists in!

And as soon as you stop lying to me about what I say, I will gladly stop calling you on your lies. but as long as you misrepresent what I write or twist them for whatever reason- I will call you on it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #36)

Thu Mar 22, 2018, 04:27 AM

37. Wrong.

You have repeatedly shown you have to be spoon fed information.
I throw out virtual particles and you don't research it. Call me a liar instead.
We know these exist, you don't because you don't want to. You'd rather stay wrong and call names than actually research it and Fucking learn something for a change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 22, 2018, 05:11 PM

38. Yes there is a phenomenon called virtual particles

but they are not particles and they are still hypothetical!

They can be clearly defined by math, but are undetectable in observation.

IOW they have a hypotheses based on a mathematical formula- but when it comes time to demonstrate the reality of that formula? They cannot detect the particles in the real world. They are a mathematical reality but a real world flop!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #38)

Fri Mar 23, 2018, 04:46 AM

39. The mathematical formula predicts them.

They have been shown to have an effect in a perfect vacuum in several ways.
Effects have been observed and they are Learning more everyday about them. That's what scientists do. Just because they can't take a picture of one and show it to you doesn't mean fuck all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #39)

Fri Mar 23, 2018, 06:47 AM

40. Math predicts them

but they have yet to be empirically observed. Because a virtual particle is not matter!

A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air.


https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle.../virtual-particles-what-are-they

It was misnamed a particle because it is something that does not have any physical property but describes a disturbance where no matter is!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #40)

Fri Mar 23, 2018, 07:07 AM

41. They have effects in space.

If space is nothing, where are they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #41)

Sat Mar 24, 2018, 06:40 AM

42. My last post was about virtual particles not space.

Your side of this debate says they are not particles at all. Take it up with your side!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Mon Mar 26, 2018, 07:31 AM

43. Sorry to point out but ...

My credentials are actually stronger than this persons and I'm hated and dismissed here. That this guy is a "nuclear physicist" proves nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #43)

Mon Mar 26, 2018, 06:08 PM

44. So you are a nuclear physicist?

Well it proves He can speak with authority about the subject!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience