Dr. Hnery Morris III is a brilliant Scientist - he set out to disprove the Bible with Science. He became a believer in God and His Bible. . Science does back up MANY claims in the Bible, including the "flood". Not all believers are mindless sheep.
42 comments
"I hold all things together in my hand and woe to you when I let go "
- So THAT's why the Jews were such accomplished theoretical physicists pre 1AD. Of course.
Either that or yet another case of retrospective 'scientific discoveries' within the Bible.
"Not all believers are mindless sheep."
True. some are less intelligent than mindless sheep.
"The most brilliant of all still cannot tell us WHY an atom holds together with two repelling sides - the Proton and the Neutron."
But they could tell you the neutron has no charge and therefore does not repel anything. You must have SKIPPED this in 5th grade science class.
an atom holds together with two repelling sides - the Proton and the Neutron
Bzzzzzzzzzt!!! The neutron, as the name implies, has no electrical charge. The proton is positively charged which forms the overall charge on the nucleus of the atom. Electrons, which are negatively charged, are the only "opposition" to the nucleus but even they form an equilibrium in their orbits.
There used to be two forces known as the strong and weak nuclear forces that are believed to hold the nucleus of atoms together. However, contemporary theories blend these two into just one nuclear force.
Appeal to authority. I don't care how supposedly brilliant Dr. Morris was, he apparently doesn't have much common sense. Otherwise he'd know that you couldn't really "disprove the bible with science" except for the easy parts such as pi=3, fixed, immovable earth, and the "firmament" above the sky. And no, there is no scientific evidence of a global flood. But you can't disprove God, so it's useless to even try. But that's not the point of science, despite what so many fundies claim.
But no matter how brilliant a believer in God is, it still doesn't make god real.
*edit* After googling info on Dr. Morris, it appears he always was a creationist and never did try to "disprove the bible with science." And all his books and creationism ideas were rightly rejected by mainstream science.
Yeah science really backed up the claim that the sun and moon stood still -- no wait.
Okay science really backed up the bible about the world having four corners -- oh shit.
Well! This one's for sure. Science says it's completely possible for someone to die then come back. Wait. No. Nope. Nevermind. Fail.
Protons repel electrons not neutrons Janet.
If the bible specifically mentioned protons or neutrons or the strong nuclear force I would consider listening to your nonsense. However the bible has no scientific insights that would not have been known by first centruy thinkers...almost as if it was written by power hungry men and not divinely inspired.
I hold all things together in my hand and woe to you when I let go
How is "it's magic" a useful explanation for anything? "Why doesn't the car start?" "I don't know - it must be God." "How does a cell phone work?" "I don't know - it must be God." etc.
The most brilliant of all still cannot tell us WHY an atom holds together with two repelling sides
The most brilliant of all still cannot tell us why some photons of light go through a window and others reflect back into the room. But we can control the reflection rate by varying the thickness of the glass. Does that mean glass-makers can control God?
Anyone who claims to have been a disbeliever and then became one through scientific study is a liar, there's NO scientific proof for Bibical claims.
He could have achieved the same results by slamming a two-by-four against his head
The most brilliant of all still cannot tell us WHY an atom holds together with two repelling sides - the Proton and the Neutron.
Had you stayed awake in junior high school, you would know how wrong that is.
WRONG! Scientists have postulated the existence of particles called gluons. Gluons have yet to be evidenced, but the whole thing is still under scrutiny. Neutrons are neutral anyway; it's electrons that oppose protons. Unfortunately, Goddidit is still not a satisfactory answer unless you can demonstrate that God indeed did it.
The most brilliant of all still cannot tell us WHY an atom holds together with two repelling sides - the Proton and the Neutron.
Scientists just SKIP this and call it "Nuclear Glue". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_force
Oh and talking about skipping...God says in the Bible - " I hold all things together in my hand and woe to you when I let go ".
Can he explain why God was stopped by iron chariots? (Judges 1:19 .) And if so, why? Since according to the quote you used, apparently God "makes" all science.
I wish fundamentalists would spend more time reading the Bible so they'd spend less time quote-mining it.
"Dr. Hnery Morris III... set out to disprove the Bible with Science."
As Berny said, that is a lie and you know it. Morris was a lifelong Baptist who took real scientific findings very far out of context to support the Biblical creation myth. He was a fundie.
Let's see your evidence.
Wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the worldwide flood story, which was plagiarized from earlier religions. Also, the Egyptian, Chinese, Indian, and other early cultures have no record of such a flood.
Strawman. No one's saying that they are.
Wrong again. That isn't in the Bible. So you not only fail at science and history, you don't know what your own Bible says.
I Googled, the only thing that came up with Nuclear Glue that had anything to do with atoms was the "School for Champions".
http://www.ronkurtus.com/
Sounds like a place where Timmeh would be at the top of the class.
To set the record straight:
Protons and neutrons are held together by the strong nuclear force, which is moderated by gluons. The weak nuclear force has nothing to do with it.
Computer models of QCD (the fancy name for the strong nuclear force), which simulate the interactions of quarks and gluons, predict properties of nucleons with a great deal of accuracy: we get the mass of the proton to 1% or so, and some quantities to even better accuracy. And these results have been used as inputs to nuclear physics models, which do a pretty good job of getting the binding of nuclei right.
So, philosophical wankage aside, scientists *have* done a pretty good job working out the nuclear binding.
"The most brilliant of all still cannot tell us WHY an atom holds together with two repelling sides - the Proton and the Neutron"
According to my high school physics class, there is a small nuclear force that holds element together through the transfer of particles. The exact properties of the particles I am unsure about because it has been 2 years since I last researched it, but we are finding out why protons and neutrons stay together.
I'm sure that the current research into quarks and subatomic particles should reveal your answer.
WOW! You've successfully completed the work on the grand unified theory! Claim your Nobel prize now!
These days even many school kids know that 'protons' and 'neutrons' as well as other elementary particles are mathematical abstracts that don't actually exist in the way you may imagine.
>>The most brilliant of all still cannot tell us WHY an atom holds together with two repelling sides - the Proton and the Neutron.<<
"It's only Neutron. We call him that because he's so positive."
I couldn't find Henry III, but I did find his father, Henry M Morris, on Wikipedia.
Morris' work with John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood, has been criticized for taking quotes out of context and misquoting sources.[13] For example, in one instance, a source which read "the sea which vanished so many million years ago" was quoted as "the sea which vanished so many years ago." *
That says it all, for me. Brilliant, nah. A brilliant scientist takes the evidence and comes to a conclusion based on them. A hack scientist takes the solution he wants and seeks evidence to back it up, disregarding the ones that disproves it.
Should science really be capitalized? It looks like a philosophy or a religion that way.
* Source: ^ a b "Quotations and misquotations: Classic example from The Genesis Flood". talk.origins. February 7, 2002. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/#s2-1 . Retrieved 2007-01-19.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
