Creation Suggests Creation

[rockytopva]

When it's clear that you understand neither the mass to energy relationship nor what plasma is, you'd be wiser not to recruit them to your unscientific arguments.

I am a laboratory technician who has 25 years experience with ICP, AA, and OES spectrometers. Energize that element and you will get wavelengths of light which can be be measured and enable one to come across concentrations of elements within a metallurgical or chemical sample.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am a laboratory technician who has 25 years experience with ICP, AA, and OES spectrometers. Energize that element and you will get wavelengths of light which can be be measured and enable one to come across concentrations of elements within a metallurgical or chemical sample.

So what - how is that relevant to the nonsense I criticised?

Given your experience it's surprising you get the basics so wrong.

 

[rockytopva]

If that is intended as a logical, adult reply to my post you missed by a very considerable distance. Please stop spamming your E/c2 nonsense, or I'm done with you.

It is there by mathematical calculation.

In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the relationship between mass and energy. The formula defines the energy E of a particle in its rest frame as the product of mass m with the speed of light squared (c2). Equivalently, the mass of a particle at rest is equal to its energy E divided by the speed of light squared (c2). Because the speed of light is a large number in everyday units (approximately 3×108 meters per second), the formula implies that a small amount of rest mass corresponds to an enormous amount of energy, which is independent of the composition of the matter. Rest mass, also called invariant mass, is the mass that is measured when the system is at rest.- Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia

 

[Ophiolite]

It is there by mathematical calculation.

In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the relationship between mass and energy. The formula defines the energy E of a particle in its rest frame as the product of mass m with the speed of light squared (c2). Equivalently, the mass of a particle at rest is equal to its energy E divided by the speed of light squared (c2). Because the speed of light is a large number in everyday units (approximately 3×108 meters per second), the formula implies that a small amount of rest mass corresponds to an enormous amount of energy, which is independent of the composition of the matter. Rest mass, also called invariant mass, is the mass that is measured when the system is at rest.- Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia

Not interested. It is boring nonsense. Introducing it into nearly every thread you participate in is disruptive and rude. I gave you an opportunity to be serious and polite. You blew it. Have a nice day.

 

[rockytopva]

Not interested. It is boring nonsense. Introducing it into nearly every thread you participate in is disruptive and rude. I gave you an opportunity to be serious and polite. You blew it. Have a nice day.

I also consider your attitude cold and hate filled... Which would be the opposite of E/c2.... Absolute zero and dark!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Fine, old guy. The earliest eyes would have been simple photosenstive cells with the abilities I clearly stated in post #37. We see such eyes in basic animals such as jellyfish and flatworms, which are the sorts of eyes that would have been found on the earliest of organisms.

Understand?

So the assumption is that all of these organisms evolved better eyes? Or that they evolved into other creatures with better eyes? Are we to trace our eyes back to these creatures?

 

[Ophiolite]

So the assumption is that all of these organisms evolved better eyes? Or that they evolved into other creatures with better eyes? Are we to trace our eyes back to these creatures?

No.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No.

The ToE is woefully short on details. Creation has no such burden as it cannot be explained in any case.

 

[pitabread]

The ToE is woefully short on details. Creation has no such burden as it cannot be explained in any case.

That doesn't make "creation" particularly useful. If it can't explain anything, who cares?

As for the ToE, if you're willing to dig into the scientific literature there is already more written about eye evolution than you could probably read in a lifetime.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So the assumption is that all of these organisms evolved better eyes? Or that they evolved into other creatures with better eyes? Are we to trace our eyes back to these creatures?

No. Some eyes work better in certain biological niches, some animals end up in other niches that require eyes with greater visual acuity or range.

Creation has no such burden as it cannot be explained in any case.

That's not the stunning endorsement for creationism you think it is, chief.

 

[Strathos]

I think that creating such an effective process of evolution makes God look a lot smarter than He would if He had to individually create each organism, with many of them having design flaws that others don't.

 

[rockytopva]

My argument is that I am only supporting that which was spoken by the apostles...

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. - 1 John 1:5

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My argument is that I am only supporting that which was spoken by the apostles...

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. - 1 John 1:5

But you're not supporting anything. You don't even have an argument.

 

[rockytopva]

But you're not supporting anything. You don't even have an argument.

I gave it my best try!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I gave it my best try!

Not even close.
You're on the physical & life sciences forum, in a subforum marked as creation & evolution.
Your OP contained nothing to do with science and was a much better fit for the apologetics forum.

 

[rockytopva]

Not even close.
You're on the physical & life sciences forum, in a subforum marked as creation & evolution.
Your OP contained nothing to do with science and was a much better fit for the apologetics forum.

So you say... but I don't agree. For life to have arisen from space rock in an absolute zero environment is something that could have only happened by intelligent design.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you say... but I don't agree. For life to have arisen from space rock in an absolute zero environment is something that could have only happened by intelligent design.

The fact that you're saying such things really does show that you don't understand how evolution even works, nor do you understand that evolution is not abiogenesis.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That doesn't make "creation" particularly useful. If it can't explain anything, who cares?

As for the ToE, if you're willing to dig into the scientific literature there is already more written about eye evolution than you could probably read in a lifetime.

That's one of my points as well. If it takes more than a lifetime to understand evolution...????

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. Some eyes work better in certain biological niches, some animals end up in other niches that require eyes with greater visual acuity or range.



That's not the stunning endorsement for creationism you think it is, chief.

Not meant to be an endorsement, just an observation. I believe in lots of things that I can't explain.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not meant to be an endorsement, just an observation. I believe in lots of things that I can't explain.

Except that if you want to say that Creationism should replace the theory of evolution in science, then you'd have to be able to explain Creation. If you can't explain it, then it's worthless in the sciences.
Savy?