Why creationism is a total farse

[Black Dog]

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.

OK I think I understand, but that was not really what I was saying. Space or the vacuum of space is empty. He said it was made up of particles. Particles are IN space, not space. Of course that is in lawman's terms.

Also when did something being converted to energy mean it was destroyed? Is it not just converted to energy?

 

[Ikari]

OK I think I understand, but that was not really what I was saying. Space or the vacuum of space is empty. He said it was made up of particles. Particles are IN space, not space. Of course that is in lawman's terms.

Also when did something being converted to energy mean it was destroyed? Is it not just converted to energy?

Destroyed in a conventional sense. Meaning that you've taken something that was a "mass" and made it into a different form of energy. You've destroyed the one form of energy "mass" to create a different form of energy, kinetic or heat or binding energies. What was the "mass" is no longer the "mass" and is something else. In those terms you can conceive the mass as having been annihilated and the energy of that mass released into a different form.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

Endogenous retroviruses is a sequences in the genome that might be gotten from ancient viral infections of one sort or another.

Retroviruses are viruses that transcribe their RNA into DNA (hence the "retro") and insert it into our genome which then begins the viral manufacturing process. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are viral sequences in your genome that are inherited from your parents and have usually been made inactive through small changes (though they are sometimes expressed and even can cause virus-like particles to bud off from the cell). ERVs make up about 8% of your genome. Here's an article about a scientist who reverse engineered a virus from ERV sequences

This element, Phoenix, produces viral particles that disclose all of the structural and functional properties of a bona-fide retrovirus, can infect mammalian, including human, cells, and integrate with the exact signature of the presently found endogenous HERV-K progeny. We also show that this element amplifies via an extracellular pathway involving reinfection ...

Link to the source of the quote above.

two species existed at the same time and have similar physiology, then the infection could easily infect both with NO common ancestor.

Yes, by itself the fact that multiple species have ERVs isn't evidence for the common ancestry of those species. However, multiple ERV's in the exact same locations in the genome of multiple species is evidence for their common ancestry. The phylogenetic tree you get from analyzing these ERVs matches the tree we get from other sources.

The pattern of locations of ERV's that occurs in different primate species is one piece of evidence for their common ancestry. We share thousands of ERV's in common with chimps.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

Organic from inorganic, not nothing. Should have been clearer.

Just to be precise, organic chemistry is chemistry that deals with carbon based compounds (including many not related to life). There is nothing fundamentally different about the chemistry that occurs in living organisms. If abiogenesis happened at least some of precursor compounds involved would have had carbon and would have therefore been "organic".

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

It's preposterous for anyone to say they know with absolute 100% certainty what's going on where... what all this is (by this I mean "reality"), and where we all come from. Doesn't matter if you're an atheist or a creationist.

The way people walk around like they know makes me want to slap them. They've given themselves an internal narrative - a story - and they have decided that the story is real.

NOBODY ****ING KNOWS. Get over it and stop arguing with each other.

Read this please.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

Matter has not always existed and can be created and destroyed.

Energy has always existed and can be neither created nor destroyed.

Matter and energy can be converted into each-other.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

They can and were but again means nothing to you.

I would be interested.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

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.

Matter and energy are interchangeable. The energy of nuclear reactions comes from a small amount of mass that is converted into energy, and the particles that are created in particle accelerators are made from the energy of the accelerated particles. A small amount of mass can produce a gigantic amount of energy, and you need a lot of energy to make just a small amount of matter.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

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?

You implied it a few times.

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]

Destroyed in a conventional sense. Meaning that you've taken something that was a "mass" and made it into a different form of energy. You've destroyed the one form of energy "mass" to create a different form of energy, kinetic or heat or binding energies. What was the "mass" is no longer the "mass" and is something else. In those terms you can conceive the mass as having been annihilated and the energy of that mass released into a different form.

OK. Then I was correct all along. I said matter cannot be destroyed, only changed which is correct as matter is energy. So why did everyone think I said something completely and utterly different???

 

[Black Dog]

You implied it a few times.

No I did not...

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.<--- In the process fire "energy" is created.

 

[Ikari]

OK. Then I was correct all along. I said matter cannot be destroyed, only changed which is correct as matter is energy. So why did everyone think I said something completely and utterly different???

Because mass can be destroyed and created. It's done in random vacuum fluctuations. Also mass which is not mass can't be said to be mass. You're destroying one form of energy to create another with some intrinsic loss along the way. You use up the mass to create a different form of energy, like gas in a car. The gas gets consumed, it's broken down into other components and energy. When you say it cannot be destroyed or created, you are in essence saying that the gas tank can never become empty.

 

[Black Dog]

Just to be precise, organic chemistry is chemistry that deals with carbon based compounds (including many not related to life). There is nothing fundamentally different about the chemistry that occurs in living organisms. If abiogenesis happened at least some of precursor compounds involved would have had carbon and would have therefore been "organic".

Not it did not to my understanding. In fact no proof exist to even support it and I looked.

 

[Black Dog]

Because mass can be destroyed and created. It's done in random vacuum fluctuations. Also mass which is not mass can't be said to be mass. You're destroying one form of energy to create another with some intrinsic loss along the way. You use up the mass to create a different form of energy, like gas in a car. The gas gets consumed, it's broken down into other components and energy. When you say it cannot be destroyed or created, you are in essence saying that the gas tank can never become empty.

I understand that, but you keep talking about "mass" I did not say "mass" I said "matter" the mass is irrelevant. I think that is where the confusion started.

And latter on if I did say mass it was only out of frustration, lol.

 

[Ikari]

I understand that, but you keep talking about "mass" I did not say "mass" I said "matter" the mass is irrelevant. I think that is where the confusion started.

And latter on if I did say mass it was only out of frustration, lol.

Mass comes in for E=mc^2, which was what I thought we were talking about. There is a difference between mass and matter. For example, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima represents a conversion of 1 g of mass into energy. The mass is consumed and energy (mostly thermal in this case) is produced. Now you can talk about bayron number, which is probably closer to what you mean by "matter". There is conservation of bayron number...mostly. A more correct statement to say is that given enough time, you will find conservation of bayron number. The "enough time" is necessary because on short time scales, energy conservation can be violated, as seen with random vacuum fluctuations. That really is the spontaneous generation and annihilation of matter but it happens on a short enough time scale to be allowed (so even under that case, we see the break down of that absolute statement that matter cannot be created or destroyed). Under nearly all conditions, bayron number is conserved. There are some processes, however, in which bayron conservation is violated. So while it is a mostly correct statement, it is not an absolutely correct statement. Additionally, there are other theories which at this point are nothing more than math and specualtion (as there are no measurements) which say that there is no such thing as bayron or lepton conservation. But none of that has been observed.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

Not it did not to my understanding. In fact no proof exist to even support it and I looked.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Could you rephrase that?

 

[Black Dog]

Mass comes in for E=mc^2, which was what I thought we were talking about. There is a difference between mass and matter. For example, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima represents a conversion of 1 g of mass into energy. The mass is consumed and energy (mostly thermal in this case) is produced. Now you can talk about bayron number, which is probably closer to what you mean by "matter". There is conservation of bayron number...mostly. A more correct statement to say is that given enough time, you will find conservation of bayron number. The "enough time" is necessary because on short time scales, energy conservation can be violated, as seen with random vacuum fluctuations. That really is the spontaneous generation and annihilation of matter but it happens on a short enough time scale to be allowed (so even under that case, we see the break down of that absolute statement that matter cannot be created or destroyed). Under nearly all conditions, bayron number is conserved. There are some processes, however, in which bayron conservation is violated. So while it is a mostly correct statement, it is not an absolutely correct statement. Additionally, there are other theories which at this point are nothing more than math and specualtion (as there are no measurements) which say that there is no such thing as bayron or lepton conservation. But none of that has been observed.

I know the difference between mass and matter is, you did not have to go through all that to explain it. Gosh darn Ph D's got to explain everything in detail.

So again we were arguing to different things as I did not say mass and tried to clarify I said matter.

 

[Black Dog]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Could you rephrase that?

Abiogenesis. Nothing I could find to support it as more than a hypotheses.

 

[Ikari]

I know the difference between mass and matter is, you did not have to go through all that to explain it. Gosh darn Ph D's got to explain everything in detail.

So again we were arguing to different things as I did not say mass and tried to clarify I said matter.

OK fair enough. I just want to impress that it's not an absolute statement. There are certainly dynamics under which matter is not conserved.

And yes, we have to. You don't get a PhD without the need to run off at the mouth about the technical **** you do.

 

[Dittohead not!]

And following this trail of evidence indicates what about the first or earliest forms of life?

That they were generally simpler than later forms?

I don't know whether magic pixies popped into our universe and tweaked it either. But I don't go around believing that they did.


Do you have any reason to believe the process was "tweaked"? Perhaps we haven't investigated it because there is no sign of such a thing occurring. At the very most we would say "its possible and we haven't looked into it," but that doesn't mean its a valid belief anymore than that of pixy example from above.

I didn't say that the process of evolution was tweaked. I said that we don't know whether it was or not.

This has nothing to do with proving a negative.

You stated:
1) it is extremely unlikely that intelligence sprang from anything but intelligence.

2) I can't prove that it is extremely unlikely that intelligence sprang from anything but intelligence.

Good. Than don't try. Like most ideas relating to god, it is an opinion. None of it is provable.

How did you come to the determination that it is extremely unlikely that intelligence sprang from anything but intelligence?

Based on the observation that like things beget like things. Plants don't produce animals. Inanimate objects don't produce living things. Mindless creatures don't produce intelligence.

Therefore, it is likely that intelligence begets intelligence.

This statement does not follow from your premises. Furthermore, "intelligence" doesn't "spring" from anything. That is word-play. If you use less metaphorical language I think you will quickly find your conclusions are not sound.

So, I'm supposed to use only logic in the discussion of the existence of god?

Intelligence came from something. Where do you think it came from?

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

No I did not...

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.<--- In the process fire "energy" is created.

What happens when matter and antimatter meet?

 

[Misbelief]

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

AS I POSTED SEVERAL PAGES BACK

Matter can be destroyed and created


ENERGY WHICH IS WHAT IS IN YOUR POST, CAN NOT.

 

[ecofarm]

I see where he was going now. He wants to say if energy cannot be created (as in, brought into existence from nothing) naturally, then something supernatural created it; however, it is perhaps unobservable (at this time) and it is not necessarily supernatural. Just because something exists beyond the absolute and complete explaination of current science is no reason to go asking spirits or presuming magic.


Can't figure it out exactly? No complete scientific explaination?? Can't do it in a lab?!

Must be magic!



C'mon. I fear god and praise jesus but I'll believe in magic when I see it.

 

[reefedjib]

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?

Excuse me, Herr Doctor. It is my humble opinion that no matter/mass is created or destroyed during Lamb shift. It is a bad example of matter/mass conversion to/from energy.

 

[Black Dog]

AS I POSTED SEVERAL PAGES BACK

Matter can be destroyed and created


ENERGY WHICH IS WHAT IS IN YOUR POST, CAN NOT.

Matter cannot be destroyed or created. It is changed when turned into energy, not destroyed.

Energy IS matter. :doh