The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Tim Robbins

bonkey wrote:

So once again, you show to be false your argument that falsification of one would be the opposite of falsification of the other.

At this point, JC, you're demonstrating that you don't have a grasp of basic logic,let alone science.

There are other explanations for your duplicity, but given that they'd all involve dishonesty on your part, and I'm loate to ascribe such actions to a self-professed Christian, I have chosen to assume to not be the case.

This thread is hillarious. When is the book / movie coming out?
J C I have been told that you and me have a lot in common by a poster who frequents this thread. How's life?

fly_agaric

J C wrote:

The penultimate stage is where we are now on this thread – and it is a tactical retreat!!!
The Evolutionists are just responding to the points being made as a ‘damage limitation exercise’ for the Evolutionist cause………..

……..and final stage is a refusal to debate the issue any further ……….

………which, fly agaric, has just suggested!!!!!


Defending Evolution becomes a ‘hopeless cause’.

Well, your decision to plant a victory flag for Jesus Christ and creationism on my little throwaway contribution suggests maybe you don't feel you are doing very well and want to bow out now with a flourish!:D

J C wrote:

……Oh, and I suppose the sky will also fall in!!!!

I thought I was putting a bit of a positive spin on it actually.:) You must be from the US...:)

J C

Son Goku
It's informative and amusing. Imagine somebody telling you with a straight face that 1648 didn't exist and it's only a conspiracy by modern academics.

I guess it must be something like telling somebody with a straight face that they are mutated muck!!!!!:D

......or telling somebody without a straight face that they are a 'Monkey's Cousin'!!!!:D

Robin
You must have missed JBS Haldane's famous comment that evolution could be falsified by a rabbit appearing in Cambrian rocks…….

JBS Haladane is simply WRONG – because the Cambrian Rocks were laid down at the bottom of the ocean – a place where highly-terrestrial Rabbits AREN’T found!!!!!:eek:


Robin
if creationism is true, therefore there must be rabbits in the Cambrian rocks, but we can see that they aren't. Nothing like them in fact.

See above, for the reason why terrestrial Rabbits aren’t found in rock strata laid down at the bottom of the Ocean!!!:D

I haven't seen any Rabbit 'landed' by fishermen recently ..... have YOU????

You really are starting to 'Rabbit-on' about this, Robin !!!!:D

BTW, did JBS Haladane have ANY explanation for the so-called ‘Cambrian Explosion’ where representatives of nearly all of the major animal groups appeared in an instant of so-called ‘Geological Time’?
Cambridge University paleontologist Simon Conway Morris explained that the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ was 'one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of life.'
Essentially all of the different animal phyla appeared abruptly, without any known transitional forms preceding them. According to evolutionary dating methods, this was about 500 million years ago.
Dr. Morris acknowledged that Darwin recognized this as a problem for his theory, with animals appearing out of nowhere. Dr. Morris said, “to a certain extent that is still a mystery.”
Evolutionists claim that animals diverged gradually from a common ancestor, so there should be fossil examples of this divergence, but instead we see that the major differences arose abruptly at the beginning in the so-called ‘Cambrian Explosion’ according to the evolutionary time frame.

Creationists believe that the fossil record is not a time sequence, but it is instead the sequence of Diluvian burial, with the Cambrian Rocks containing seafloor dwelling creatures and flocculated plankton which were buried first during Noah’s Flood!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
……and with a degree of patronising condescension that I haven't seen for some time!!!
Wicknight
Quite on purpose I assure you,

Could I gently point out that patronising condescension is NOT something to be proud of and it does NOT help your argument, Wicknight…….:eek:


Originally Posted by J C
You see, ALL scientific theories must be subject to continuous testing and validation – otherwise science would rapidly degenerate into a collection of tentative “old wives tales” that are never tested.

Acid Violet
Like the one about all the animals and humans in the world coming from two parents?

Indeed all animals and Humans ARE produced from the mating of two parents…….

…….and I have yet to see muck spontaneously morphing into ANYTHING.......... or dead things becoming ALIVE………….as the Evolutionist ‘old wives tales’ would have us believe!!!:)


Acid Violet
You'd have more success teaching men to breastfeed.

.....another 'gem' from the 'font of Evolutionist wisdom' no doubt!!!:D

......but not a great nutrition strategy!!!:D

Tim Robbins
This thread is hillarious. When is the book / movie coming out?

Yes indeed defending the truth of the Word God can be great FUN !!!:)

Jesus Christ also has a sense of humour – otherwise He wouldn’t have created Evolutionists !!!!!:D


Tim Robbins
How's life?

Not a bother, Tim!!

Life is ALWAYS great with Jesus Christ !!!!!:cool:


Wicknight
I do not believe for one second that you ........
........understand the first thing about evolutionary biology.

I don't think that Evolutionists "understand the first thing about evolutionary biology" EITHER!!!:D

Sangre

J C wrote:

Dr. Morris acknowledged that Darwin recognized this as a problem for his theory, with animals appearing out of nowhere. Dr. Morris said, “to a certain extent that is still a mystery.”

Why do you constantly refer to Darwin when trying to rebut Evolution. The theory is 150 years old in case you haven't noticed, it has moved on slightly.

It would be like criticising Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity because Gailileo couldn't accept it in his Principle of Relativity.

Zombrex

Sangre wrote:

Why do you constantly refer to Darwin when trying to rebut Evolution. The theory is 150 years old in case you haven't noticed, it has moved on slightly.

An insight into the creationist mind, unable to understand the march of science because they are too used to fixating on a 2000 year old book ...

Where was your science degree from again JC :rolleyes:

robindch

Wicknight wrote:

Where was your science degree from again JC

The University of Babble-on?

bonkey

Sangre wrote:

It would be like criticising Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity because Gailileo couldn't accept it in his Principle of Relativity.

Don't tempt him.

JC's creationist model effectively requires the STR to be fundamentally incorrect anyway.

Hivemind187

For any of you who seriously cant believe in evolution or like to claim that "I can't see that happening" I have only three words.

BUY

A

MICROSCOPE


... and you can see it for yourself.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
Dr. Morris acknowledged that Darwin recognized this as a problem for his theory, with animals appearing out of nowhere. Dr. Morris said, “to a certain extent that is still a mystery.”

Sangre wrote:

Why do you constantly refer to Darwin when trying to rebut Evolution. The theory is 150 years old in case you haven't noticed, it has moved on slightly.

It would be like criticising Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity because Gailileo couldn't accept it in his Principle of Relativity.

I WASN'T referring to Darwin. The reference to Darwin was made by Cambridge University paleontologist Dr.Simon Conway Morris !!!:D

...and as I have said before Evolution predicts that animals diverged gradually from a common ancestor, so there should be fossil examples of this divergence, but instead we see that the major differences arose abruptly at the beginning in the so-called ‘Cambrian Explosion’ according to the evolutionary time frame!!!!:eek:

GuanYin

J C wrote:

...and as I have said before Evolution predicts that animals diverged gradually from a common pattern, so there should be fossil examples of this divergence, but instead we see that the major differences arose abruptly at the beginning in the so-called ‘Cambrian Explosion’ according to the evolutionary time frame!!!!:eek:

I think people are re-evaluating the phyla distinction of the cambrian explosion and realise that the fossils uncovered are more shallowly classified than once thought.

In any case, evolution doesn't specifically require a gradual divergence. On the whole this may be the case, but as evolution is driven by environmental and competitive factors, depending on the environment, evolution can be, relatively speaking, quite rapid.

J C

robindch wrote:

The University of Babble-on?

"Babble-on" ....Eh....
Do you realise Robin that you are using a phrase that originated at the Babel dispersal when God created all of the languges of the World?

Babbling means incomprehensible speech - and the root of the word Babble is Babel!!!:D

BTW Robin, your reference to the famous British Evolutionist JBS Haldane reminded me that JBS once stated that Evolution could never produce "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect". (Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D Dewar and L M Davies vs JBS Haldane, Watts & Co Ltd. Paternoster Press London p 90.)

Therefore, according to JBS, the discovery of a functional wheel or a functional magnet in living organisms WOULD falsify Evolution.

.....and recent discoveries have shown that there are indeed "wheels" in living organisms - the rotary motor that drives the flagellum of a bacterium, for example, is a wheel.........

.......while turtles and Monarch Butterflies use extremely accurate magnetic sensors for navigation.....

.....and so the 'wheel and magnet' falsifiers of Evolution proposed by your hero, the late JBS Haldane have turned up.......
....and they have therefore falsified Evolution!!!! :eek:

.....and so Bacteria, Turtles and Butterflies have falsified Evolution.......

......but Rabbits HAVEN'T!!!:D

J C

Hivemind187 wrote:

For any of you who seriously cant believe in evolution or like to claim that "I can't see that happening" I have only three words.

BUY

A

MICROSCOPE


... and you can see it for yourself.

See WHAT for yourself????

I have looked down many microscopes in my time, but I never did see Evolution down one!!!:D :eek:

J C

psi wrote:

I think people are re-evaluating the phyla distinction of the cambrian explosion and realise that the fossils uncovered are more shallowly classified than once thought.

Oh, Yea????

.....well then they will have to 're-evaluate the phyla distinction' of most animals alive today as well, while they are at it!!!:D

psi wrote:

In any case, evolution doesn't specifically require a gradual divergence. On the whole this may be the case, but as evolution is driven by environmental and competitive factors, depending on the environment, evolution can be, relatively speaking, quite rapid.

Oh, Yea???

......Did Evolution then occur so rapid that nearly all of the different animal phyla appeared abruptly and together, without any known transitional forms preceding them in an instant of so-called 'geological time' during the 'Cambrian Explosion'.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

See WHAT for yourself????

I have looked down many microscopes in my time, but I never did see Evolution down one!!!:D :eek:

Take the lens cap off :rolleyes:

robindch

JC wrote:

the rotary motor that drives the flagellum of a bacterium

Ah, yes, Behe's famously discredited flagellum! I know it well, and so does the church-going Judge John Jones of Dover who, without any scientific training, was able to spot that Behe was talking complete tosh! It's interesting also to note that creationism has accepted so much modern biology that the only argument it can repeat (ad nauseam) is the one about one tiny thing in one tiny bacterium. It must be galling to have to repeat that discredited argument! Looks like the end of creationism is nigh!!

JC wrote:

Babbling means incomprehensible speech - and the root of the word Babble is Babel!!!

Yes, that's the pun I was making -- well spotted! In the context of this thread, I was hoping you'd also pick up on the hidden reference to the Babylonian-Sumerian origin of the genesis myth too. But you didn't.

Oh, well. Back to the smilies I suppose! :eek: :eek:

J C

robindch wrote:

Ah, yes, Behe's famously discredited flagellum!

The flagellum belongs to various species of bacteria and it provides unequivocal evidence of ireducible complexity and Intelligent Design!!

.....and here is a high definition animation of the bacterial flagellar motor
http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flag_dithani.htm
....and remember that this motor is constructed on the surface membrane of a single-celled bacterium!!!:D

robindch wrote:

It's interesting also to note that creationism has accepted so much modern biology that the only argument it can repeat (ad nauseam) is the one about one tiny thing in one tiny bacterium.

Actually, I think that this was the FIRST mention of the bacterial flagellum on this thread.

Anyway this micro-motor is truly amazing - and it comes complete with a stator, rotor, bushings, bearings and a universal joint!!!!
It rotates at around 20,000 rpm, at an energy consumption of only around 10^^-16 W and with an energy conversion efficiency close to 100%.
Even though it is rotating at 20,000 RPM, it can stop within HALF a revolution and it can go into reverse at 20,000 RPM within half a second!!!!:eek:

NOTHING that Man has designed, remotely compares with this amazing intelligently designed 'molecular nano-machine'.

The output of this mechanism is used to drive a set of constant torque proton-powered reversible rotary motors which transfer their energy through a microscopic drive train that propels a helical flagellum that functions like a 'screw propeller'.
This specified complex and highly integrated system allows the bacterium to migrate at the rate of approximately ten body lengths per second - which is equivalent to 72 KPH for a Human Being - which is equivalent to swimming the length of a 50 metre swimming pool in less than 3 seconds!!

Dr. Robert Macnab of Yale University concluded a major 50 page review of this mechanism with these remarks:
"As a final comment, one can only marvel at the intricacy in a simple bacterium, of the total motor and sensory system which has been the subject of this review and remark that our concept of evolution by selective advantage must surely be an oversimplification. What advantage could derive, for example, from a "preflagellum" (meaning a subset of its components), and yet what is the probability of "simultaneous" development of the organelle at a level where it becomes advantageous?"
Macnab, R. (1978), "Bacterial Mobility and Chemotaxis: The Molecular Biology of a Behavioral System," CRC Critical Reviews in Biochemistry, vol. 5, issue 4, Dec., pp. 291-341

.....and if you would like to do further reading on this fascinating topic a good general introduction to flagella can be found in Voet, D. and Voet, J. G. (1995) Biochemistry, 2nd edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 1259-1260.

More detail about the flagellar motor can be found in Schuster, S. C. and Khan, S. (1994) "The Bacterial Flagellar Motor," Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure, 23, 509-539; Caplan, S. R. and Kara-Ivanov, M. (1993) "The Bacterial Flagellar Motor," International Review of Cytology, 147, 97-164

Further info on the flagellar motor and it's irreducible complexity is available here:-
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html

and here is an illustration with captions of the individual parts
http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flag_labels.jpg

...and BTW, Dr. Behe is NOT, NEVER has been and NEVER has claimed to be a Creationist..........
......I think that he is actually a Theistic Evolutionist........:D

.......so all of the Theistic Evolutionists on the thread should take note of Robin's (repeated) caustic comments in relation to to this Theistic Evolutionist, whom I would rate as one of the greatest 'cutting edge' scientists of modern times.......

......I may fundamentally disagree with both Dr. Behe's theology and his Evolutionary outlook ....... but just like with my views on Darwin, I am prepared to rise above petty quibbling to recognise and applaud scientific genius when I see it.

Creationists are prepared to cherish the work of great scientists, whatever their views on the 'origins question'.........

.......but I have not detected similar inclinations on the part of the Evolutionists on this thread towards Creationists, or indeed even towards Theistic Evolutionists - who believe that God was the Designer behind the 'Evolution of Particles to People'.:D

J C

Originally Posted by J C
I have looked down many microscopes in my time, but I never did see Evolution down one!!!

Wicknight wrote:

Take the lens cap off

.......and where have YOU seen 'Particles to People Evolution' in action on a Microscope slide?????

J C

Originally Posted by Wicknight
Where was your science degree from again JC

robindch wrote:

The University of Babble-on?!

Originally Posted by JC
Babbling means incomprehensible speech - and the root of the word Babble is Babel!!!

robindch wrote:

Yes, that's the pun I was making -- well spotted!

Thanks Robin for providing an excellent example of how the veracity of the Bible is supported, even in everyday 'figures of speech' !!!!!:D

robindch wrote:

In the context of this thread, I was hoping you'd also pick up on the hidden reference to the Babylonian-Sumerian origin of the genesis myth too. But you didn't.

The reason that I didn't, was because the Babylonian-Sumerian account of Creation is less accurate than the Genesis account - and the Babylonian account may have been further corrupted in the language confusion and resultant social upheaval during the 'Babel Dispersal' - the veracity of which YOU have confirmed above, with your comment about my Alma Mater being "The University of Babble-on"!!!!:D

I think you have just hoisted yourself on your own petard, Robin......:D

Son Goku

J C wrote:

It rotates at around 20,000 rpm, at an energy consumption of only around 10^^-16 W and with an energy conversion efficiency close to 100%.

This is made to sound impressive but it isn't. The Flagellum is so small it doesn't suffer from friction and other such effects. For things this small statistics like that are easy to achieve.

J C wrote:

NOTHING that Man has designed, remotely compares with this amazing intelligently designed 'molecular nano-machine'.

Nonsense there are nano-rotors in Trinity College Dublin that rotate at 40,000 rpm and have the same effeciency. There are also naturally occuring chemicals that have 5,000 rpm rotors.
(I'll love to see what you say about this, because these rotors actually exist. It'll be interesting what you'll say to dismiss them.)

J C

Son Goku wrote:

there are nano-rotors in Trinity College Dublin that rotate at 40,000 rpm and have the same effeciency.

.....and I suppose these 'nano-rotors' just arose spontaneously in Trinity......:D

......or were they developed after massive pains-taking effort and research????

......and do they come with a fully integrated sensory feedback and management control system as well.....like the bacterial 'nano-rotor'???

BTW, there are ALSO some bacterial rotors that have been 'clocked' at over 50,000 RPM.:D

In any event, your statement amounts to arguing that some electric motors are produced by considerable Human ingenuity and applied intelligence while other electric motors arise spontaneously and of their own accord without any original intelligent input!!!

Anyway, what would an 'intermediate' bacterial rotor look like......
say one without a rotor or one without a stator.......
......or one with half a rotor or half a stator.....
......and what selective advantage would such a useless appendage confer???

I once had a motor with half a stator and amazingly I found that it didn't work AT ALL!!!:D

Yale's Dr Robert McNabb has eloquently stated the dilemma of the Evolutionist, when they observe the bacterial flagellum
"What advantage could derive, for example, from a "preflagellum" (meaning a subset of its components), and yet what is the probability of "simultaneous" development of the organelle at a level where it becomes advantageous?"

.....it's no wonder that Evolutionists don't want to be reminded of the 'simple' bacterium and it's AMAZING flagellum!!!!:eek:

Son Goku

Myself wrote:

There are also naturally occuring chemicals that have 5,000 rpm rotors.

Care to comment on that?

2Scoops

Or, indeed, this:

2Scoops wrote:

How do you come up these ideas? They are not part of the Christian faith and they have no evidence behind them from a scientific point of view. Are you just making it up as you go along?

BTW, if you could explain the bit where the maths paper gave definitive proof of creation, I'd be grateful.

Really, J C, give your control + V keys a break (or apple + V if you use a Mac;)) and answer some novel questions. If you keep trotting out the same old tired responses and ignoring questions we'll have to believe you're losing your enthusiasm for creationism and considering defecting to evolutionism!!!11:D:D:D

Or perhaps an explanation as to why to continue to ignore large parts of people's posts would suffice. Is it because you don't want to have to lie but find the truth rather embarrassing?

J C

Son Goku wrote:

There are also naturally occuring chemicals that have 5,000 rpm rotors.

Son Goku wrote:

Care to comment on that?

Care to reference that??:D

...and I will comment!!

J C

2Scoops wrote:

Or, indeed, this:

perhaps an explanation as to why (you) continue to ignore large parts of people's posts would suffice.

I must have answered thousands of questions from hundreds of Evolutionists at this stage .......
.....right across the spectrum of all of the sciences as well as across the entire theological and philosophical spectra as well!!!:D

I am only one person (admittedly indwelt by the Holy Spirit and well qualified scientifically) ......but ye are hundreds of persons!!!:)

Anyway, if you have a SPECIFIC question I will gladly try and answer it!!!:D

2Scoops

J C wrote:

[/B]Anyway, if you have a SPECIFIC question I will gladly try and answer it!!!:D

Ok, I will limit myself to one specific question, originally asked by me a few weeks ago and I'm sure you remember the context:

Many of your ideas are not part of the 'official' Christian faith and they have no evidence behind them from a scientific point of view. Are you just making it up as you go along?

J C

2Scoops wrote:

Ok, I will limit myself to one specific question, originally asked by me a few weeks ago and I'm sure you remember the context:

Many of your ideas are not part of the 'official' Christian faith and they have no evidence behind them from a scientific point of view. Are you just making it up as you go along?

OK, in order to properly answer you question, could I clarify with you:-

1. What do you mean by the 'official' Christian Faith?

2. Which specific (theological) ideas of mine, do you believe, "are not part of the 'official' Christian faith"?

3. Which specific (scientific) ideas of mine, do you believe, to "have no evidence behind them from a scientific point of view"?

Could I also reassure you that I am not 'just making it up as I go along'....

...in fact, you just couldn't make up some of this stuff!!!:D

2Scoops

J C wrote:

1. What do you mean by the 'official' Christian Faith?

The Bible or other works considered the Word of God.

J C wrote:

2. Which specific (theological) ideas of mine, do you believe, "are not part of the 'official' Christian faith"?

these two stand out in recent memory:

• That menopause is part of God’s Divine Providence in action, by removing the burden of child-bearing and child-rearing from older women.
  
• That viruses were not originally created by God.

J C wrote:

3. Which specific (scientific) ideas of mine, do you believe, to "have no evidence behind them from a scientific point of view"?

Of the two above, the menopause one... unless 'creation science' has light to shed on the matter?? And of course, there is ample evidence that viruses were not originally created by God.

J C wrote:

Could I also reassure you that I am not 'just making it up as I go along'....

I require further reassurance:D

Son Goku

J C wrote:

[/B]
[/B]
Care to reference that??:D

...and I will comment!!

Clark, Ted M.; Grandinetti, Philip J.; Florian, Pierre; Stebbins, Jonathan F. Correlated structural distributions in silica glass. Physical Review B: Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (2004), 70(6), 064202/1-064202/8.

Now will you comment?

DerKaiser

Cuckoo!!!!!
It's all a bit science fictiony isn't it, explain dinosaur bones and fossils, and if you say "God put them their to test our faith", I'll find you.................

Do you respect Scientology?

That's crazy too

J C

Originally Posted by J C
1. What do you mean by the 'official' Christian Faith?

2Scoops
The Bible or other works considered the Word of God.

The only writing considered to be ‘The Word of God’ by Christians is the Bible.



Originally Posted by J C
2. Which specific (theological) ideas of mine, do you believe, "are not part of the 'official' Christian faith"?

2Scoops
these two stand out in recent memory:
· That menopause is part of God’s Divine Providence in action, by removing the burden of child-bearing and child-rearing from older women.
· That viruses were not originally created by God.

Are these your ONLY / BEST evidence in favour of Evolution then???

The FACT is that the menopause DOES remove the burden of child-bearing and child rearing from older women.
The FACT is that because of the Menopause, most children reach adulthood before their mothers die of old age.

It is evidentially therefore one of God’s mercies on a fallen Humanity, who must experience the infirmities of old age and death, that the Menopause remove the burden of child-bearing and child rearing from older women, and most children reach independent adulthood before their mothers die of old age.

I don’t think there are any Doctrines of the Church infringed by the above obvious conclusions – which are therefore NOT heretical concepts.:)



In relation to viruses, I don’t think that viruses were originally Created by God because they are obligate agents of disease and death……
……and God declared His work on Days 3, 5 and 6 when he created all life to be “good”!!!

Interestingly, God declared five out of the six days of Creation to be “good”……
……….and the only work that God didn’t declare to be “good” during Creation Week, was the Second Day when He divided the waters above and below the Earth – which subsequently wiped out 99.99999% of life on Earth during the Deluge judgement.

Viruses are degenerate life forms in that they are totally dependent on other living hosts for their survival and multiplication. As degenerate life forms that cause disease and death, they were therefore not Created by God during Creation Week when God described His creation of all life during days 3, 5 and 6 to be “good”.

Viruses may have come about by the processes triggered at the time of the Fall judgement and/or by the actions of post Fall Humanity which may also have assisted their emergence and establishment.

Once again, I don’t think that any Doctrines of the Church are infringed by the above obvious conclusions in relation to viruses and my views in relation to viruses are therefore NOT heretical either.:)


Originally Posted by J C
3. Which specific (scientific) ideas of mine, do you believe, to "have no evidence behind them from a scientific point of view"?

2Scoops
the menopause one... unless 'creation science' has light to shed on the matter?? And of course, there is ample evidence that viruses were not originally created by God

It is repeatably i.e. scientifically observable that the Menopause is part of the Human ageing process and it DOES remove the burden of child-bearing and child rearing from older women as well as allowing most children to reach adulthood before their mothers die of old age.

...and I’m glad that we BOTH (theologically and scientifically) agree that “viruses were not originally created by God.”!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
Could I also reassure you that I am not 'just making it up as I go along'....

2Scoops
I require further reassurance

Read all that I have written and hopefully you will be further reassured.

In any event I am only a mortal, sinful Human Being ……….
……..and therefore if you want the only reassurance that ultimately matters (the reassurance that you are saved) …….then you should put your faith, not in me ……..but in Jesus Christ!!!:)


Son Goku
Clark, Ted M.; Grandinetti, Philip J.; Florian, Pierre; Stebbins, Jonathan F. Correlated structural distributions in silica glass. Physical Review B: Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (2004), 70(6), 064202/1-064202/8.

Now will you comment?

A paper about an interesting concept on the edge of physics and chemistry …….but bearing NO practical resemblance to the amazing bacterial micro-motor - which comes complete with a stator, rotor, bushings, bearings and a universal joint!!!!
…..which rotates at around 20,000 rpm, at an energy consumption of only around 10^^-16 W and with an energy conversion efficiency close to 100%.
…….and even though it is rotating at 20,000 RPM, it can stop within HALF a revolution and it can go into reverse at 20,000 RPM within half a second!!!!

NOTHING that Man has designed, remotely compares with this amazing intelligently designed 'molecular nano-machine' that comes complete with a fully integrated sensory feedback and management control system as well.!!!

Please bear in mind that this mechanism consists of a set of constant torque proton-powered reversible rotary motors which transfer their energy through a microscopic drive train to propel a helical flagellum that functions like a 'screw propeller'.
This specified complex and highly integrated system allows the bacterium to migrate at the rate of approximately ten body lengths per second - which is equivalent to 72 KPH for a Human Being - which is equivalent to swimming the length of a 50 metre swimming pool in less than 3 seconds!!

The chemical/physical structures in silica glass are extremely simple and STATIC in comparison!!!!:D