Changes

:So I am utterly baffled at your suggestion that "many expensive attempts for a century have failed" to find this unification.  What attempts?  When?  What was the experimental equipment?  Experimental protocol?

:So I am utterly baffled at your suggestion that "many expensive attempts for a century have failed" to find this unification.  What attempts?  When?  What was the experimental equipment?  Experimental protocol?

:The only statements I've seen to the effect that they can't be "unified" is in articles here at Conservapedia.  Such as [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=edit&section=62 this statement in the "Biblical scientific foreknowledge"] article, which says, without supporting reference, that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by scientists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of theoretical unification with matter."  Admittedly, a "grand unified theory" is taken by the scientific community to be something beyond simple unification of matter and energy, but the BSF article specifically discounts the possibility, on Biblical grounds, of a unification of light and matter.

:The only statements I've seen to the effect that they can't be "unified" is in articles here at Conservapedia.  Such as [https://conservapedia.com/Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Impossibility_of_a_Grand_Unified_Theory this statement in the "Biblical scientific foreknowledge"] article, which says, without supporting reference, that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by scientists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of theoretical unification with matter."  Admittedly, a "grand unified theory" is taken by the scientific community to be something beyond simple unification of matter and energy, but the BSF article specifically discounts the possibility, on Biblical grounds, of a unification of light and matter.

:I utterly reject the notion that scientific advances can be discounted in advance on Biblical grounds.  And my reading of various Fundamentalist articles does not find any such assertions regarding light and matter having been created on different days.  As far as I know, Conservapedia is the only place that promotes this notion.  Though my reading of Fundamentalist literature has admittedly been spare, limited primarily to the notion that the speed of light has changed significantly, or that there is some kind of "time dilation field" explaining the enormous disconnect between Creationist theory and the scientific community.

:I utterly reject the notion that scientific advances can be discounted in advance on Biblical grounds.  And my reading of various Fundamentalist articles does not find any such assertions regarding light and matter having been created on different days.  As far as I know, Conservapedia is the only place that promotes this notion.  Though my reading of Fundamentalist literature has admittedly been spare, limited primarily to the notion that the speed of light has changed significantly, or that there is some kind of "time dilation field" explaining the enormous disconnect between Creationist theory and the scientific community.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:35, January 2, 2022 (EST)

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:35, January 2, 2022 (EST)

::Sam, in less than 60 seconds I pulled up [[Wikipedia]]'s immense wisdom (being sarcastic about it, of course) and found that its assertion of progress towards a unified theory has a "citation needed" tag, and its paragraph on point admits the following:

::Sam, in less than 60 seconds I pulled up [[Wikipedia]]'s immense wisdom (being sarcastic about it, of course) and found that its assertion of progress towards a unified theory has a "citation needed" tag,

::and its paragraph on point admits the following:

{{cquote|Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics to form a theory of everything. Trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions leads to fundamental difficulties and the resulting theory is not renormalizable. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory]</ref>}}

{{cquote|Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics to form a theory of everything. Trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions leads to fundamental difficulties and the resulting theory is not renormalizable. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory]</ref>}}

::Agree or disagree?  Happy New Year's to you, by the way, and as I said before if you find the [[Theory of Relativity]] helpful to you in any way, then I don't want to try to disavow you of that.  I think for most people the theory is at best confusing, and at worst a distraction from the [[Bible]] that would help them immensely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:57, January 2, 2022 (EST)

::Agree or disagree?  Happy New Year's to you, by the way, and as I said before if you find the [[Theory of Relativity]] helpful to you in any way, then I don't want to try to disavow you of that.  I think for most people the theory is at best confusing, and at worst a distraction from the [[Bible]] that would help them immensely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:57, January 2, 2022 (EST)