water, QM, the sea, and us
Posted by anyman on Apr 01, 2002 at 10:35
it is amazing that in this day and age of rapid advance of knowledge that things so "simple" as the bonding of water molecules, why water remains in liquid form, and a host of other questions concerning water remain poorly understood enigmas
this weeks issue of nature has several articles dedicated to plain ol' water...in its various forms
the previously held theory maintained by the reigning paradigm and establishment scientists just "doesn't hold water"
here is one of my favorite excerptsNow Ernest Davidson and colleagues at Indiana use the principles of quantum mechanics to carry out detailed calculations of the way that X-rays should interact with two water molecules positioned as they are in ice -- something that Pauling pioneered. They find that they can predict the results seen by Isaac's team -- an oscillation in the intensity of the scattered X-ray beam -- even though their calculations indicate no covalent bonding between the two molecules. The oscillations are, they say, "irrelevant to the discussion of the covalent character of the bond".
In fact, these calculations show that the proximity of the electrons on the two molecules does not, in fact, cause a net sharing (which would lead to 'stickiness') but quite the opposite: a tendency for the molecules to recoil from one another, known as 'antibonding'. Apparently, the forces of electrical attraction have to overcome this effect in order to join the molecules together, implying that our seas and oceans are the result of some finely tuned push and pull. (bold emp mine -- am) http://www.nature.com/nsu/000302/000302-2.html
the necessarily implicit tolerances under consideration in our "finely tuned" oceans would, if this work stands, once again point NOT toward random, chance, undirected, results
these results, as in all of the natural* sciences, point once again toward purposed, directed, "finely tuned," closely tweaked, non-random, little-if-anything-left-to-chance-or-luck, stunningly and fabulously designed results
and design, in spite of many protests to the contrary, like those of dawkins et al, is still the provenance (or provenience if you prefer) of a designer :-)
*natural sciene(s) as i generally use this term includes the entire realm of the sciences when they operate without any consideration of the supernatural aspect of science
modern science was almost entirely begun and promoted by folks who held to some measure of christian philosophy based in the book that contains the christian philosophy...folks that were trying to better understand the wonders of this world, the physical universe, the supernatural, and the one true god who is the source of all
most of the "fathers" of the modern sciences were those who held in some measure to the christian philosophy...and many of them to the biblical philosophy of a young earth/universe
arbitrary modern definitions and redefinitions aside, the word science originates from the latin scientia and means simply knowledge, knowing or "the state of having knowledge" or "to know"
and what, after all, is the beginning of knowledge
the fear of the lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction (or discipline) proverbs 1.7
...you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free ---jesus the christ (john 8.32)
now, i sure hope someone says...