Why creationism is a total farse

[ecofarm]

It was a long time ago and I read too much science fiction. I'll get to work on converting energy to mass, that shouldn't be too difficult.

 

[Ikari]

e=mc2 is the formula used to calculate how much energy to move an amount of mass.

No, the amount of energy necessary to move an amount of mass is called work. It's Fdx. E=mc^2 is the rest mass energy of any given massive particle. Matter can in fact be destroyed and converted into energy; that the principle behind nuclear fission.

 

[Black Dog]

No, the amount of energy necessary to move an amount of mass is called work. It's Fdx. E=mc^2 is the rest mass energy of any given massive particle. Matter can in fact be destroyed and converted into energy; that the principle behind nuclear fission.

You guys really need to go back to science class, lol.

I posted links to the law on it and this is a fact.

Matter cannot be destroyed or created. It can only be changed as in burning wood for fire. You are turning the wood into carbon, not destroying it.

 

[Black Dog]

What is being talked about is called random vacuum fluctuations. It is the spontaneous generation of matter/anti-matter pairs from the curvature of space. If you are trying to say that it cannot happen, then you are most certainly wrong. Random vacuum fluctions cause short time violations of energy conservation, due to the uncertainty principle energy conservation can be violated on very small time scales. However, this effect has a very real and very measurable effect on the energy splitting between the ground state and first excited state levels of the hydrogen atom. This shift has been measured very well, it's called the Lamb Shift.

No that is not what I am saying.

I am saying it is a fact matter cannot be created or destroyed. Now if you want to argue the law of thermal dynamics is somehow no longer valid, be my guest.

 

[Ikari]

Matter can be created and destroyed, it happens. I just told you two ways by which it does.

 

[Black Dog]

Matter can be created and destroyed, it happens. I just told you two ways by which it does.

No it can't.

Energy exists in many forms, such as heat, light, chemical energy, and electrical energy. Energy is the ability to bring about change or to do work. Thermodynamics is the study of energy.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another. (developed by Dr. John Pratte, Clayton State Univ., GA) covering thermodynamics. - LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

 

[Redress]

As I understand it, matter and energy are two states of the same thing. Some "converting" matter to energy is just changing states. Agreeing on terms is usually a good idea.

 

[Ikari]

No it can't.

Energy exists in many forms, such as heat, light, chemical energy, and electrical energy. Energy is the ability to bring about change or to do work. Thermodynamics is the study of energy.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another. (developed by Dr. John Pratte, Clayton State Univ., GA) covering thermodynamics. - LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

When YOU have a PhD in physics, I'll start to entertain your illogical and completely wrong assertions (of course by then you'd realize why you're wrong). Energy most certainly can be changed from one form to another. The rest mass energy of an atom say can be changed into kinetic and heat energy by fracturing the nucleus; which is a process in nuclear fission, which is why things like the nuclear bomb can work.

Additionally, energy conservation laws can be violated on small time scales, such as random vacuum fluctuations which is the spontaneous creation and destruction of a matter/anti-matter pair.

I ****ing hate when people try to use physics but have no god damned clue as to what they're talking about. Leave the science to the big boys.

 

[celticwar17]

When YOU have a PhD in physics, I'll start to entertain your illogical and completely wrong assertions (of course by then you'd realize why you're wrong). Energy most certainly can be changed from one form to another. The rest mass energy of an atom say can be changed into kinetic and heat energy by fracturing the nucleus; which is a process in nuclear fission, which is why things like the nuclear bomb can work.

Additionally, energy conservation laws can be violated on small time scales, such as random vacuum fluctuations which is the spontaneous creation and destruction of a matter/anti-matter pair.

I ****ing hate when people try to use physics but have no god damned clue as to what they're talking about. Leave the science to the big boys.

I feel ya......

 

[Black Dog]

When YOU have a PhD in physics, I'll start to entertain your illogical and completely wrong assertions (of course by then you'd realize why you're wrong). Energy most certainly can be changed from one form to another. The rest mass energy of an atom say can be changed into kinetic and heat energy by fracturing the nucleus; which is a process in nuclear fission, which is why things like the nuclear bomb can work.

This is exactly what I posted Mr PhD, should have got it in English.

Additionally, energy conservation laws can be violated on small time scales, such as random vacuum fluctuations which is the spontaneous creation and destruction of a matter/anti-matter pair.

I ****ing hate when people try to use physics but have no god damned clue as to what they're talking about. Leave the science to the big boys.

We are not talking about quantum physics.

Personal attacks thanks for nothing.

 

[Ikari]

This is exactly what I posted Mr PhD, should have got it in English.



We are not talking about quantum physics.

Personal attacks thanks for nothing.

You're talking out of your ass, and that ain't a personal attack. It's a statement of fact. You do not know what you are talking about. You're trying to take thermodynamics which is inherently an aggregated system of analysis and apply it incorrectly and come up with an incorrect conclusion. My PhD is in physics, I know what I'm talking about on this front. If what you said were true, scientists would have already done the experiments which prove it. But the experiments done show the opposite. In a classical setting on a macro scale, matter is not destroyed in most processes. However, it is not strictly true that matter cannot be created nor destroyed; it can. Rest energies can change with various dynamics such as fission. Do it and see. You take a nucleus, you find it's rest mass. You split the nucleus, and find the rest mass of all the parts. This in fact has been done. When you talk about the absolute of matter not being able to be created nor destroyed you talk against REAL MEASUREMENTS like the Lamb Shift.

Tell me oh Great One, if matter cannot be created nor destroyed in an absolute sense, how do you account for the shift in the energy levels between ground and excited state in the hydrogen atom? Under your premise, can you accurately predict the atomic spectrum of hydrogen?

 

[celticwar17]

This is exactly what I posted Mr PhD, should have got it in English.



We are not talking about quantum physics.
Personal attacks thanks for nothing.

This isn't a game of tag... you can't "that doesn't count!"

Quantum physics is the behavior and existence of matter and energy. It does count, probably the only thing that counts.

I can even give an istance where the anti-matter /matter fluctuations affect the stability of a hydrogen atom. It's matter and energy that comes from NOWHERE and goes back to NOWHERE.

 

[Ikari]

This isn't a game of tag... you can't "that doesn't count!"

Quantum physics is the behavior and existence of matter and energy. It does count, probably the only thing that counts.

I can even give an istance where the anti-matter /matter fluctuations affect the stability of a hydrogen atom. It's matter and energy that comes from NOWHERE and goes back to NOWHERE.

I just hate it sometime when people pretend they know more about physics than physicists. It's one of my pet peeves because specifically on the Big Bang/Creationism front people misuse the physics all the time and claim it says something that it does not. It's particularly annoying. Hell I saw an argument once where someone claimed the Big Bang could not be true because everything was spinning and thus angular momentum had to be conserved, but some planets have retrograde rotation and that shows that angular momentum could not have been preserved.

If people do not understand the science, they should refrain from trying to use it.

 

[Jerry]

I just hate it sometime when people pretend they know more about physics than physicists. It's one of my pet peeves because specifically on the Big Bang/Creationism front people misuse the physics all the time and claim it says something that it does not. It's particularly annoying. Hell I saw an argument once where someone claimed the Big Bang could not be true because everything was spinning and thus angular momentum had to be conserved, but some planets have retrograde rotation and that shows that angular momentum could not have been preserved.

If people do not understand the science, they should refrain from trying to use it.

I'm going to copy-paste that argument to a couple atheist sites to troll them :lol:

The Big Bang could not be true because everything was spinning and thus angular momentum had to be conserved, but some planets have retrograde rotation and that shows that angular momentum could not have been preserved.

 

[Deuce]

No that is not what I am saying.

I am saying it is a fact matter cannot be created or destroyed. Now if you want to argue the law of thermal dynamics is somehow no longer valid, be my guest.

This is exactly what I posted Mr PhD, should have got it in English.



We are not talking about quantum physics.

Personal attacks thanks for nothing.

Look, you're just plain wrong. Nuclear fusion and matter/anti-matter reactions are examples of matter being converted to energy. This doesn't violate thermodynamics, merely your (incorrect) understanding of thermodynamics.

 

[Black Dog]

I just hate it sometime when people pretend they know more about physics than physicists. It's one of my pet peeves because specifically on the Big Bang/Creationism front people misuse the physics all the time and claim it says something that it does not. It's particularly annoying. Hell I saw an argument once where someone claimed the Big Bang could not be true because everything was spinning and thus angular momentum had to be conserved, but some planets have retrograde rotation and that shows that angular momentum could not have been preserved.

If people do not understand the science, they should refrain from trying to use it.

Here was his original comment you never saw...

Uhmmm there is actually spontaneous matter generation, it actually what makes up "space" - http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...reationism-total-farse-18.html#post1059426101

To which I replied...

No. Matter is a form of energy, not "space." Depending on how you define matter, energy is conserved as far as scientist can tell. You can change matter into other forms of energy etc. It cannot however be destroyed or created. -http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/96555-why-creationism-total-farse-19.html#post1059426667

Now point out where I was wrong? Or how my understanding without a PhD in physics somehow makes his statement correct?

 

[Ikari]

I'm going to copy-paste that argument to a couple atheist sites to troll them :lol:

Man....do it on science sites instead and you'll get heads to explode. But I don't even get any of the argument. Let's say the Big Bang is correct even, and that's where the universe originated from. Let's say we even figure out abiogenesis and can explain the natural processes by which live begins and evolves. Nothing, and the Rock means NOTHING, in any of that would ever discount a god. There still could be a god who set things in motion, who guided this or that, or whatever you want. None of this excludes that possibility.

 

[Black Dog]

Look, you're just plain wrong. Nuclear fusion and matter/anti-matter reactions are examples of matter being converted to energy. This doesn't violate thermodynamics, merely your (incorrect) understanding of thermodynamics.

This is funny. Please point out where I said or implied matter cannot be converted to energy? I said it CAN. :roll:

Are people not reading anything?

 

[Ikari]

Here was his original comment you never saw...

Uhmmm there is actually spontaneous matter generation, it actually what makes up "space" - http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...reationism-total-farse-18.html#post1059426101

To which I replied...

No. Matter is a form of energy, not "space." Depending on how you define matter, energy is conserved as far as scientist can tell. You can change matter into other forms of energy etc. It cannot however be destroyed or created. -http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/96555-why-creationism-total-farse-19.html#post1059426667

Now point out where I was wrong? Or how my understanding without a PhD in physics somehow makes his statement correct?

Energy conservation can be violated on small time scales. Whether or not you wish to call it "space" or not, the fact is that random vacuum fluctuations are very real, have a measurable effect, and that effect has been measured. We know there is spontaneous creation and annihilation of matter/anti-matter pairs.

 

[Black Dog]

Energy conservation can be violated on small time scales. Whether or not you wish to call it "space" or not, the fact is that random vacuum fluctuations are very real, have a measurable effect, and that effect has been measured. We know there is spontaneous creation and annihilation of matter/anti-matter pairs.

That does not answer my question. Where was I wrong? Where is my understanding "oh great one" wrong?

 

[scourge99]

They can and were but again means nothing to you.

Actually it does. Obviously I can't accurately imagine the emotion and sensations of your experience but given a description I can put myself in your shoes to determine whether the experience itself indicates what you claim it does. Given the details we should BOTH agree to the same conclusions. Make sense?

I'm NOT trying to say you didn't have the experience you claim.

For example:
1) What are we to make of the many personal experiences that are claimed to be the product of different gods or entities?

Nothing.

It seems you are unwilling to consider this point. Should I expect this type of response when I make other valid points?

2) We know that our brains can see, hear, taste, smell things that are not real. Whether the result of drugs, brain damage, stress, or other altered or physical states.

I am smart enough to know the difference.

Being smart or dumb doesn't make one immune from altered mental and physical states (E.G., meditation, brain damage, drugs) that can produce such things as hallucinations and illusions.

No. Some amino acids which MAY be or maybe not.

it stated that the experiment replicated 4 of 20 found in life.

Like I said, we don't know.

I agree that we don't know what the very first life was made of. But I think scientists have some good ideas about early life and very basic life.

The experiment which has never been successfully repeated

I never looked that deeply into it. Who tried?

was a failure in that they had to fudge atmospheric conditions to even get the little they got.

I don't know how far off the conditions were from what scientists believe earth was capable of. At the very least the experiment demonstrates that these amino acids can be produced in a particular environment. That they don't require a magic wand to come into existence.

This is a better example of intelligent design than anything else.

What's the hypothesis? How is it tested? If its not testable its just an idea/speculation/conjecture.

No scientist has discovered a testable hypothesis for ID. Have you found one?

 

[lovelyLUDWIG]

hang on to every sliver of hope you have in a supreme being that loves you, because i guess at best hes a dad that left you after conception and never called or paid child support, does he really care that much? cause the last billion years was us evolving, becoming a man without a father, just a mother earth, with out his involving. so if gods real, please dont try to act like my father now, this is a single parent home, and my mom found a new man, science.

Man....do it on science sites instead and you'll get heads to explode. But I don't even get any of the argument. Let's say the Big Bang is correct even, and that's where the universe originated from. Let's say we even figure out abiogenesis and can explain the natural processes by which live begins and evolves. Nothing, and the Rock means NOTHING, in any of that would ever discount a god. There still could be a god who set things in motion, who guided this or that, or whatever you want. None of this excludes that possibility.

 

[Ikari]

That does not answer my question. Where was I wrong? Where is my understanding "oh great one" wrong?

When you say that mass, particularly as you refer to the rest mass as E=mc^2 cannot be created nor destroyed. Mass itself can be created and destroyed, rest mass energy can be changed to other forms of energy which are not mass. Particle/anti-Particle pairs can spontaneously generate and annihilate on small time scales.

 

[Ikari]

hang on to every sliver of hope you have in a supreme being that loves you, because i guess at best hes a dad that left you after conception and never called or paid child support, does he really care that much? cause the last billion years was us evolving, becoming a man without a father, just a mother earth, with out his involving. so if gods real, please dont try to act like my father now, this is a single parent home, and my mom found a new man, science.

Is there a point to this? I'm an atheist anyway, I don't care about people's personal opinions and beliefs in gods. I am just saying that science will never prove or disprove the existence of gods and that the idea of gods can co-exist with science and measured reality.

 

[Black Dog]

Actually it does. Obviously I can't accurately imagine the emotion and sensations of your experience but given a description I can put myself in your shoes to determine whether the experience itself indicates what you claim it does. Given the details we should BOTH agree to the same conclusions. Make sense?

No. Don't you think I have been through this with people like you before? Many times.

Let's see group hallucination, you must have been drinking or on drugs or you are just crazy and have mental problems.

No we will not come to the same conclusion.

I'm NOT trying to say you didn't have the experience you claim.

Did not mean to imply that?

It seems you are unwilling to consider this point. Should I expect this type of response when I make other valid points?

I meant what I said, nothing to be made of it. I don't go around trying to convert people based on my personal experiences with the metaphysical or my relationship with God. So I really don't make any bones about anyone else who has experiences.

Being smart or dumb doesn't make one immune from altered mental and physical states (E.G., meditation, brain damage, drugs) that can produce such things as hallucinations and illusions.

This is true, but most of those don't apply. Granted some I know where just me, most were not. Some happened with a group, and we all experienced the same exact thing. More a heightened sense of awareness than any kind of meditation, drugs etc.

it stated that the experiment replicated 4 of 20 found in life.

The experiment replicated amino acids that might be. Even he did not know.

I agree that we don't know what the very first life was made of. But I think scientists have some good ideas about early life and very basic life.

I do to. This does not in any way disprove a creator or God. Then again I don't think science and religion are at odds.

I never looked that deeply into it. Who tried?

Don't know, I do know it was never successfully repeated. :lol:

Seriously, I don't know if it was tried or not.

I don't know how far off the conditions were from what scientists believe earth was capable of. At the very least the experiment demonstrates that these amino acids can be produced in a particular environment. That they don't require a magic wand to come into existence.

It also proved it took an intelligence to manipulate the atmosphere for the acids to be produced. Geller himself said it could never have been done in nature.

What's the hypothesis? How is it tested? If its not testable its just an idea/speculation/conjecture.

Yes it is.

No scientist has discovered a testable hypothesis for ID. Have you found one?

Nope. Of course I don't expect to find testable evidence of the metaphysical anyway. I honestly don't think it's possible.