Quote:
Originally Posted by TomT
I don't find where you have defined "Creationist" here. In my mind, evolution is about how we got from point A to point B. Creation is about where A came from. You might add, Catastrophism is about how some of the steps from A to B happen suddenly, like mutations.
So isn't creation beyond the realm of science, and science can deal with things after A.
|
I can deal with that definition. The problem is when the creationist shows up in the classroom; attaching IV's to evolution and/or other aspects of the scientific inquiry, screaming that there are fundamental flaws they can fix.
But they can't. Most of the 16th through the mid 19th centuries were spent weaving together theories of the natural and supernatural; and what we have arrived at today is our best effort at unraveling the basic fabric of nature from a very large batch of glorified superstitions. This weeding process is not complete; and it is not helped-along when we are not carefully checking our hideside for layered flaws.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Folkhemmet
Speaking of energy releasing devices, why is it Jerry, in your opinion, that it has not been possible to bridge the gap in energy release between TNT and nuclear weapons despite numerous efforts to do so?
|
This coment leaves me scratching my head. Our experimental observations have taught us subatomic bond energy yields are many times greater than molecular bond energy yields. We understand a lot about these processes, and we have theories. We also find a lot of mysteries that we are at a loss to explain with our current theories. There is much to learn.