The idea of using the spacing between particles to create color is a really neat idea, but this research has a long way to go before it is usable. Having rust-color e-paper isn't going to be so appealing, so they will need to find a white/clear magnetic particle. They are also going to have to figure out how to vary the intensity. Since intensity of the magnetic field controls the hue, I'm guessing they are going to find need something else to do that. Like maybe an b/w LCD on top...
I wish the article had kept this to "Researcher Varies Color by Magnetic Field", which is pretty nifty, rather than quoting the researcher's air-castles about e-paper that he puts in his grant applications. I doubt this will make it to a display technology, but I wonder if it would have uses in making laser cavities that don't have to be exactly tuned to a multiple of the wavelength (since this will only reflect a certain wavelength).
I think some scientists are equally as dogmatic as the dogmatists they oppose. These scientists seem to view science as a way to create a creation myth without God. For example, Hawking with his universes being quantum bubbles (don't know if he still is theorizing this). I say "myth" because science only says what happened. Science just assumes God, if He exists, doesn't interfere with the experiments (or at least always interferes in the same way), but some people seem to think that because God doesn't interfere, He doesn't exist.
Consider three alternatives for Newtonian physics. 1) God doesn't exist. An object in motion continues in motion because there is no power to stop it. 2) God does exist. Objects do not move unless He moves them, but He always moves them in the same way. When something living wants to move it, He moves it for them and doesn't stop moving it until it hits something else. (Think computer game engine). 3) God does exist. He sets up laws of motion and gives living things the power to move them. Once moving things keep moving according to His laws.
We can't tell which is right. Hence, any scientist who says anything beyond "this is a description of how things happen" is creating a myth.
One could even see evolution as a creation myth: The primordial nothingness gave birth to a random quantum bubble. Over billions of years that bubble expanded and small fluctuations gave birth to the stars and eventually our planet. Over billions more years eternal randomness gave birth the amino acids, then amoeba, then fish, reptiles, mammals, and eventually us.
Since I'm probably going to get flamed to crisp for that, I might as well mention that, personally, I prefer the Christian creation myth: the infinitely good God created the universe, the stars, and, incrementally, us. He intended to bless us with His infinite goodness in a marriage-like relationship, but we rejected Him. He then demonstrated His great love by dying for us, so that those who chose to love Him back could be with Him as He originally intended. I think it fits the observed facts (beautiful and complex creation, incremental fossil record, need to be loved, human selfishness, claim of Jesus' death). Plus, it gives us meaning (we were created because God wanted us) and purpose (love God back and love others). Existing just because of random fluctuations would be incredibly meaningless, so I hope it's not true.
Elsewhere (Matt 10:28) Jesus says "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Using the word "destroy" suggests a more permanent situation to me. When Jesus talks about the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), Abraham says that there is a gulf that cannot be crossed between hell, where the rich man was, and heaven. True, the word for hell here is "Hades", so one could argue that Jesus is talking about a different place than Gehenna, but regardless of actual location, it seems that Jesus thinks that Hell is final and destructive. In Matt 25:46, Jesus says "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Maybe those in Gehenna stay there until the Judgement and then go to Hades, but either way, they aren't going to heaven and they aren't getting out. This seems to me to be substantially at odds to the rabbinical teaching of the time.
Regarding John 14:6, maybe I should have included the next verse: "If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Jesus is consistent about claiming to be God. In John 8:58, "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" Here Jesus uses the same phrase that God uses when Moses asks who to tell the Israelites who sent him: "I am". He is saying that God and himself are the same thing. The Jews got the point, too, since they tried to stone him in the verse 59. So knowing Jesus is knowing the Father. And if Jesus is the only way to the Father, he is the only way to God. I would agree with you that this opens up the incredible possibility of knowing God. But we cannot know God apart from Jesus, since it is only Jesus' death for our sins that allows us to have a relationship with a perfect and just God.
Unfortunately, in the descriptions of Hell, Jesus seems pretty clear that we are not all reconciled to God. The rich man, for example, was permanently separated from God, as were the goats in Matt 25 destined for eternal punishment. I, personally, would love to see everyone in Heaven, with God. However, it does not seem like Jesus describes everyone going to Heaven. I guess we have the option to choose to have a relationship with God here on earth. If we accept Jesus' death, we are given this relationship and when we die it is confirmed forever. And if we choose to live without God here on earth, that choice will be confirmed forever, too.
I guess the point I was actually trying to make was that in Christianity salvation is a gift, while to my knowledge, all other religions you earn your salvation in some way (proper worship, obedience, eliminating desire). Since we can't earn our way to God, He had to die for us, so that if we choose to be with Him forever, we may. Our ticket is Jesus' death. I suppose one could argue that choosing/believing Jesus is how you earn your salvation, but choosing to cash a $1 million check that some random stranger gave me doesn't seem like earning it, to me.
I think Jesus' thought that Hell was forever: "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out." (Mark 9:43, NIV) And he is on record as being exclusive, too: "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6, NIV) I suppose you could argue that Hell might exist forever but people don't stay there, or that being, say, Buddhist, qualifies as "through me", but the most natural reading of the text suggests that Jesus thought Hell goes on forever.
Jesus does share some characteristics with Buddha and leaders of other religions. However, I think he's unique in that Jesus claims that his death grants us salvation--being able to know God--if we believe. Buddha, Mohammad, Moses all told us how we should live, but we still had to solve the problem of our salvation (Buddha: give up all desire; Mohammad: worship Allah the right way; Moses: obey the Law and make sacrifices). Jesus said that you don't have to do anything, just believe. In fact, Jesus said we can't achieve salvation by doing things. So he's more than a figurehead. Without Jesus, Christianity is just Judaism.
The theory of evolution doesn't say "There is no supreme being"
Science assumes that God (or any other supernatural being) is not fiddling with things that they observe, otherwise the observations would have no value. As far as I understand the theory of natural selection, it does assume that any supernatural being is not fiddling with things. My understanding is that it claims that species evolve into other species through gene mutations that survive by only the fittest surviving. I suppose you could argue that gene mutations could be caused by God, and therefore evolution is compatible with religion, but since the name is "natural selection" (i.e. selection not caused by God) it seems pretty likely that Darwin had in mind a theory which did not include God.
This part of the theory is not testable. It does seem like there is substantial evidence that species seem to mutate into different species. But it is not testable (on a human timescale, anyway) whether these mutations are a result of natural causes or a result of God altering them. (And if God were a programmer, He'd probably alter the DNA code a little bit at a time...) So to use the theory to cast doubt on God is pretty shaky, too. All the evidence says is that species seem to change relatively smoothly over rather long timescales. It doesn't say anything about whether this change was natural or supernatural.
Evolutionists using the evidence to argue away God is just as bad as Christians making up evidence for a young earth. It's just that the evolutionists sound more scientific because everyone has forgotten that Science assumes that God does not interfere (for good reason--otherwise they couldn't get any work done).
Slashdot Mirror
The idea of using the spacing between particles to create color is a really neat idea, but this research has a long way to go before it is usable. Having rust-color e-paper isn't going to be so appealing, so they will need to find a white/clear magnetic particle. They are also going to have to figure out how to vary the intensity. Since intensity of the magnetic field controls the hue, I'm guessing they are going to find need something else to do that. Like maybe an b/w LCD on top...
I wish the article had kept this to "Researcher Varies Color by Magnetic Field", which is pretty nifty, rather than quoting the researcher's air-castles about e-paper that he puts in his grant applications. I doubt this will make it to a display technology, but I wonder if it would have uses in making laser cavities that don't have to be exactly tuned to a multiple of the wavelength (since this will only reflect a certain wavelength).
I think some scientists are equally as dogmatic as the dogmatists they oppose. These scientists seem to view science as a way to create a creation myth without God. For example, Hawking with his universes being quantum bubbles (don't know if he still is theorizing this). I say "myth" because science only says what happened. Science just assumes God, if He exists, doesn't interfere with the experiments (or at least always interferes in the same way), but some people seem to think that because God doesn't interfere, He doesn't exist.
Consider three alternatives for Newtonian physics. 1) God doesn't exist. An object in motion continues in motion because there is no power to stop it. 2) God does exist. Objects do not move unless He moves them, but He always moves them in the same way. When something living wants to move it, He moves it for them and doesn't stop moving it until it hits something else. (Think computer game engine). 3) God does exist. He sets up laws of motion and gives living things the power to move them. Once moving things keep moving according to His laws.
We can't tell which is right. Hence, any scientist who says anything beyond "this is a description of how things happen" is creating a myth.
One could even see evolution as a creation myth: The primordial nothingness gave birth to a random quantum bubble. Over billions of years that bubble expanded and small fluctuations gave birth to the stars and eventually our planet. Over billions more years eternal randomness gave birth the amino acids, then amoeba, then fish, reptiles, mammals, and eventually us.
Since I'm probably going to get flamed to crisp for that, I might as well mention that, personally, I prefer the Christian creation myth: the infinitely good God created the universe, the stars, and, incrementally, us. He intended to bless us with His infinite goodness in a marriage-like relationship, but we rejected Him. He then demonstrated His great love by dying for us, so that those who chose to love Him back could be with Him as He originally intended. I think it fits the observed facts (beautiful and complex creation, incremental fossil record, need to be loved, human selfishness, claim of Jesus' death). Plus, it gives us meaning (we were created because God wanted us) and purpose (love God back and love others). Existing just because of random fluctuations would be incredibly meaningless, so I hope it's not true.
Elsewhere (Matt 10:28) Jesus says "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Using the word "destroy" suggests a more permanent situation to me. When Jesus talks about the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), Abraham says that there is a gulf that cannot be crossed between hell, where the rich man was, and heaven. True, the word for hell here is "Hades", so one could argue that Jesus is talking about a different place than Gehenna, but regardless of actual location, it seems that Jesus thinks that Hell is final and destructive. In Matt 25:46, Jesus says "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Maybe those in Gehenna stay there until the Judgement and then go to Hades, but either way, they aren't going to heaven and they aren't getting out. This seems to me to be substantially at odds to the rabbinical teaching of the time.
Regarding John 14:6, maybe I should have included the next verse: "If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Jesus is consistent about claiming to be God. In John 8:58, "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" Here Jesus uses the same phrase that God uses when Moses asks who to tell the Israelites who sent him: "I am". He is saying that God and himself are the same thing. The Jews got the point, too, since they tried to stone him in the verse 59. So knowing Jesus is knowing the Father. And if Jesus is the only way to the Father, he is the only way to God. I would agree with you that this opens up the incredible possibility of knowing God. But we cannot know God apart from Jesus, since it is only Jesus' death for our sins that allows us to have a relationship with a perfect and just God.
Unfortunately, in the descriptions of Hell, Jesus seems pretty clear that we are not all reconciled to God. The rich man, for example, was permanently separated from God, as were the goats in Matt 25 destined for eternal punishment. I, personally, would love to see everyone in Heaven, with God. However, it does not seem like Jesus describes everyone going to Heaven. I guess we have the option to choose to have a relationship with God here on earth. If we accept Jesus' death, we are given this relationship and when we die it is confirmed forever. And if we choose to live without God here on earth, that choice will be confirmed forever, too.
I guess the point I was actually trying to make was that in Christianity salvation is a gift, while to my knowledge, all other religions you earn your salvation in some way (proper worship, obedience, eliminating desire). Since we can't earn our way to God, He had to die for us, so that if we choose to be with Him forever, we may. Our ticket is Jesus' death. I suppose one could argue that choosing/believing Jesus is how you earn your salvation, but choosing to cash a $1 million check that some random stranger gave me doesn't seem like earning it, to me.
I think Jesus' thought that Hell was forever: "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out." (Mark 9:43, NIV) And he is on record as being exclusive, too: "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6, NIV) I suppose you could argue that Hell might exist forever but people don't stay there, or that being, say, Buddhist, qualifies as "through me", but the most natural reading of the text suggests that Jesus thought Hell goes on forever.
Jesus does share some characteristics with Buddha and leaders of other religions. However, I think he's unique in that Jesus claims that his death grants us salvation--being able to know God--if we believe. Buddha, Mohammad, Moses all told us how we should live, but we still had to solve the problem of our salvation (Buddha: give up all desire; Mohammad: worship Allah the right way; Moses: obey the Law and make sacrifices). Jesus said that you don't have to do anything, just believe. In fact, Jesus said we can't achieve salvation by doing things. So he's more than a figurehead. Without Jesus, Christianity is just Judaism.
The theory of evolution doesn't say "There is no supreme being"
Science assumes that God (or any other supernatural being) is not fiddling with things that they observe, otherwise the observations would have no value. As far as I understand the theory of natural selection, it does assume that any supernatural being is not fiddling with things. My understanding is that it claims that species evolve into other species through gene mutations that survive by only the fittest surviving. I suppose you could argue that gene mutations could be caused by God, and therefore evolution is compatible with religion, but since the name is "natural selection" (i.e. selection not caused by God) it seems pretty likely that Darwin had in mind a theory which did not include God.
This part of the theory is not testable. It does seem like there is substantial evidence that species seem to mutate into different species. But it is not testable (on a human timescale, anyway) whether these mutations are a result of natural causes or a result of God altering them. (And if God were a programmer, He'd probably alter the DNA code a little bit at a time...) So to use the theory to cast doubt on God is pretty shaky, too. All the evidence says is that species seem to change relatively smoothly over rather long timescales. It doesn't say anything about whether this change was natural or supernatural.
Evolutionists using the evidence to argue away God is just as bad as Christians making up evidence for a young earth. It's just that the evolutionists sound more scientific because everyone has forgotten that Science assumes that God does not interfere (for good reason--otherwise they couldn't get any work done).