Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
So what - how is that relevant to the nonsense I criticised?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.
It is there by mathematical calculation.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.
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.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
I also consider your attitude cold and hate filled... Which would be the opposite of E/c2.... Absolute zero and dark!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.
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?
The ToE is woefully short on details. Creation has no such burden as it cannot be explained in any case.
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?
Creation has no such burden as it cannot be explained in any case.
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
I gave it my best try!But you're not supporting anything. You don't even have an argument.
I gave it my best try!
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.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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?