Data that confirms creationism

[seebs]

We don't know this to be universally true... Before relativity came along, the mass of an object didn't change much. Now, it changes with velocity.

So... For all I know, something *can* come from nothing, under at least some circumstances. I simply can't use this either way in an argument; insufficient data.

 

[Josephus]

Increasing velocity requires energy - energy which is converted to mass. Hence the increasing mass with velocity.

 

[seebs]

I don't believe that's actually how the energy/mass/velocity thing goes, but I admit that relativity is mostly in the category of "someone assured me this works, and I don't need to know" for me.

 

[Josephus]

lol. let me assure you, velocity happens when you add energy.

Take a spaceship. The more you fire your rockets, the faster you go - the increase in Delta V or change of velocity.

The longer you fire your rockets, the more fuel you are using. The more fuel you use, the more energy you are putting out.

As you go faster, your mass increases. Energy is being spent to push you against space-time which has a limit to your velocity (speed of light) an exponentially increasing limit that converts your spent energy into more mass.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith If interpretation is required, evolutionary biologists gladly submit their interpretation to be examined by any and all to see if there are any flaws in it.

Any and all? Hogwash. Evolutionary biologists would never consider a creationist's view of his/her interpretation of evidence.

So who is doing the "peer review" of the interpretations of the evidence? Other people with the same a-priori assumptions about evolution.

So at best you may get some disagreement or refinement of details, but you are all going to be finding what you want to find in the evidence, and that is "evolution".

So you think you've got checks and balances, but you have nothing of the sort.

 

[npetreley]

Explain the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter is neither created or destroyed. Where did matter come from in the first place?

Originally posted by mac_philo Please try to stay on-topic. Go back and read the first post. This thread is for scientific evidence for creationism.

That's rather rude, IMO. I believe this person is perfectly on topic.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Josephus
"3) Can you give evidence that an uncreated universe would have no order."

Well, it is true that something can't come from nothing. Would you agree? All causes have a causer except one thing that is the cause of all causes but is itself "unmoved." - Plato.

Well Plato's (or Aristotle's) say-so is not evidence that an uncreated universe could not exist. Your paraphrase can be re-stated as "Everything must be cause except that which isn't." I'm not sure I would agree that this even has valid meaning, much less that it is true. Still, your evidence involved the existence of order, which is not a thing, but a property. Tell me how much order is predicted to exist in a created universe relative to an uncreated one. What measurements of order have been made in our universe to check the predictions of your theory?

"Relative to the frame of reference of matter within the primordial universe, how much faster does relativity predict time will travel for a being that can create light than for the matter in the primordial universe?
<snip>

Gt/Ut = time dilation between God and our Universe's time.

from E=mc2

c2 = E/m

From the theory that more matter means less time passing the change in matter from energy results in E/m = Universal Time factor (Ut)[/quote]

What theory would this be? Please give the proof or evidence for E/m = Ut. By the way, what is a Ut?

Ut therefore must = c2

The speed of light in our universe = square root of Universal Time factor

Gt = 0 (since theory assumes he is unaffected by time)

Gt/Ut = 0 always - meaning God is still unaffected.

If your work is sound, you have shown that Gt/Ut (in your words, "time dilation between God and our Universe's time", is zero. Since you have provided no derivation for any other value for time dilation between God and our Universe, and our Universe has the appearance of being billions of years old, and our Earth has the appearance of forming over hundreds of thousands of years, 4.5 billion years ago, are you saying that 6 day creation is falsified?

By the way, if your life is ever at stake and you really need to do a time dilation calculation, here is the one that results from general relativity
T1 = T/(sqr rt (1-(v*v)/(c*c))), where T is the elapsed time at one frame of reference, and T1 is the time from a frame of reference moving at velocity v.

However, God can choose to enter our universe at any point away from the matter that causes it's existence, and thus it's affect on time. Pretend God picked a point in space where the universe would have to expand to before the universe's time was in synch with the position he picked (as the universe expanded).

Simply waiting 3 days at that spot the very instant the singularity exploded very very very very very far away (little mass close by to affect his relative time), within 3 days the matter of that explosion reached his position and the matter cloud's time was affected - changed slower exponentially until time within the matter cloud became stabilized - perhaps at the exact point where God was floating. If the matter to energy ratio in the universe reached a 1/1 ratio right at the moment it reached God, then that matter cloud's time (Ut) would be ticking in sync with the relative position of God's time - a positional clock reading 3 days, but elsewhere in the universe, especially near the point of the origin of the singularity, billions of years may have passed.

Quite simple.

Sure, perhaps (?)... What is your evidence that it actually did occur this way? That would be the evidence that would confirm your theory - if your predictions are derived correctly.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Any and all? Hogwash. Evolutionary biologists would never consider a creationist's view of his/her interpretation of evidence.

So who is doing the &quot;peer review&quot; of the interpretations of the evidence? Other people with the same a-priori assumptions about evolution.

So at best you may get some disagreement or refinement of details, but you are all going to be finding what you want to find in the evidence, and that is &quot;evolution&quot;.

So you think you've got checks and balances, but you have nothing of the sort.

I stand by "Any and all". I think you miss the point. Publication in a peer review journal is not the end of the process, it is the beginning. Anyone - even you or I, can bring a relevant and correct objection to any interpetation of fact in any paper. The fact is that you and I aren't well equipped to do so, because we don't know enough about the subjects to discover what objections would be relevant and what wouldn't. Nevertheless, there is no requirement that you be an evolutionary biologist in order to publish a paper that identifies flaws in the papers published by those who are.

Thanks for not addressing the rest of the post which points out that interpretation is not even always an issue. That brings us down to very little disagreement, except in terms of "well, I still don't believe it and nothing you say will change my mind." If that is your disagreement, you are welcome to it. You can even keep calling it a scientific perspective if you like, just don't expect to be believed.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley


Any and all? Hogwash. Evolutionary biologists would never consider a creationist's view of his/her interpretation of evidence.

So who is doing the &quot;peer review&quot; of the interpretations of the evidence? Other people with the same a-priori assumptions about evolution.

So at best you may get some disagreement or refinement of details, but you are all going to be finding what you want to find in the evidence, and that is &quot;evolution&quot;.

So you think you've got checks and balances, but you have nothing of the sort.

How then do you explain how evolution entered the scientific concensus in the first place? Surely the Christian scientists of 19th century England did not have an a priori assumption about evolution. According to you such an assumption is key to the scientific survival of evolution. Why did science even consider evolution and promote it, 140 years ago when no such assumption existed? (You can't claim an atheist consipracy because the EAC wasn't founded by I. Pamela Unicoy till 1954.)

In fact, your statement is simply an emotional assertion playing on modern-day conspiracy theories and deficiencies in history education.

Would you say that the only reason people don't consider a flat earth is a priori assumptions that the earth isn't flat? What about geocentrism, alchemy, or demonic posession as the cause of disease? Genesis-based creation, like these other things, was once considered by science, but rejected as the evidence pointed to other explainations.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by mac_philo


Please try to stay on-topic. Go back and read the first post. This thread is for scientific evidence for creationism.

It is on topic, and you can't explain it. So, since you don't have evidence, or explanation, or apparently even an opinion on this, how can you use any logic or belief system?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by s0uljah


It is on topic, and you can't explain it. So, since you don't have evidence, or explanation, or apparently even an opinion on this, how can you use any logic or belief system?

Strictly speaking, it isn't on topic for the thread. The person who posted the thread was asking for evidence in support of creationism. Asking a question that I or any one else has a verifiable answer to (where did matter come from in the first place?) is hardly giving evidence that confirms creationism. It is at most a critique of science for not imparting omniscience.

Except one wildly inaccurate web-page and some items that Josephus posted (for which we are awaiting relevancy as evidence), no one has posted anything that could even be evidence for evolution if it were true...

Yes, I have been baited into debating off topic with some of the ones who have posted their complaints about evolutionary theory in this thread. I'm not the one to complain about off-topic posts, since I am guilty myself. I guess CancertoIniquity has figured out by now that no one is going to post the evidence he asked for (if he is reading the thread)... I can't imagine him still caring about whether the thread goes off-topic.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley

So who is doing the &quot;peer review&quot; of the interpretations of the evidence? Other people with the same a-priori assumptions about evolution.

Yes Nick. Tell us again how the Pope has an a-priori committment to evolution....

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by eldermike
Livefree,

Here is something to consider.

Nick's life is at stake in your senerio. For that reason I like your senerio. Discounting your third possibility and going with; Nick did it, or Nick was trying to help as the two possibles, would you convict; knowing that His life is the necessary payment?

I think Nick should be locked up for a very long period of time.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


Strictly speaking, it isn't on topic for the thread. The person who posted the thread was asking for evidence in support of creationism. Asking a question that I or any one else has a verifiable answer to (where did matter come from in the first place?) is hardly giving evidence that confirms creationism. It is at most a critique of science for not imparting omniscience.

Except one wildly inaccurate web-page and some items that Josephus posted (for which we are awaiting relevancy as evidence), no one has posted anything that could even be evidence for evolution if it were true...

Yes, I have been baited into debating off topic with some of the ones who have posted their complaints about evolutionary theory in this thread. I'm not the one to complain about off-topic posts, since I am guilty myself. I guess CancertoIniquity has figured out by now that no one is going to post the evidence he asked for (if he is reading the thread)... I can't imagine him still caring about whether the thread goes off-topic.

Hi Jerry-

I understand you point, but I see it as evidence of creationism. The absence of scientific explanation for this arguement, points to only one thing, in my very humble opinion.

I acknowledge that I am not presenting data, rather, a lack of data, as the final "data".

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by mac_philo


This thread is for scientific evidence for creationism. You can rail against the second law all you want, but it will not provide evidence for creationism. Nor does the fact that you are expressing the same cliched misconception of the 2nd law provide evidence.

If two students do a math problem, and one correctly shows that the other is flawed, does that mean either is right? Of course not.

This is a long, boring road, that is being travelled in many other threads. If you have no evidence, don't hurt your case by veering off topic with nonstarters that every novice creationist uses.

Lol, actually its the FIRST law. And attacking my supposed misconception of the FIRST law doesn't help your case, lol.

The First Law of Thermodynamics asserts that matter or its energy equivalent can neither be created nor destroyed under natural circumstances. One of the logical outcomes of this law is that there is no new matter or energy appearing anywhere in the universe, nor is there any matter being annihilated. All matter and energy in the universe is conserved. Consequently, this law is often referred to as the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. Although matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it can be converted from one state to another, i.e. from a liquid to a gas, liquid to solid, solid to gas. The overwhelming experience of experimental physics confirms this First Law to be a fact. This law has enormous implications regarding the origin of matter in our universe.

We can go into the nature of infinity if you want, and I will prove you wrong there as well.

This might help you...written be a certain scientist that believed God existed, in some form.

"Relativity : The Special and the General Theory"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...2249395/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-1476572-9131813

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by s0uljah

This law has enormous implications regarding the origin of matter in our universe.

Maybe so, but we are not discussing the origin of matter in the universe. We are discussing the origin of living species on the planet Earth. Specifically, we are discussing whether there is evidence that they were created supernaturally during fairly recent history.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie


Maybe so, but we are not discussing the origin of matter in the universe. We are discussing the origin of living species on the planet Earth. Specifically, we are discussing whether there is evidence that they were created supernaturally during fairly recent history.

Oh come on! LOL The origin of life on planet earth can be logically extended to the origin of all matter if you think far enough.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Hi Jerry-
I understand you point, but I see it as evidence of creationism. The absence of scientific explanation for this arguement, points to only one thing, in my very humble opinion.

Hi! In my opinion the absence of a scientific explanation for the existence of matter/energy only points to one thing too... ignorance about the origin of matter and energy. If ignorance is the only evidence for the theory of creation, I cannot consider it scientific.

On the other hand, the version of creationism that posits only that God created the Universe is no threat to the biological theory of evolution, so I don't have any problem with it in principle. In fact most legitimate ideas of creation have no bearing at all on the scientific theories of evolution - and as such, I have no problem with them.

Nice to meet you, by the way

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


Hi! In my opinion the absence of a scientific explanation for the existence of matter/energy only points to one thing too... ignorance about the origin of matter and energy. If ignorance is the only evidence for the theory of creation, I cannot consider it scientific.

On the other hand, the version of creationism that posits only that God created the Universe is no threat to the biological theory of evolution, so I don't have any problem with it in principle. In fact most legitimate ideas of creation have no bearing at all on the scientific theories of evolution - and as such, I have no problem with them.

Nice to meet you, by the way

You too! You know your stuff, thats obvious.

Anyway, I have no problem with evolution. And as far as no explanation of what was before matter/energy, it doesn't make sense to say we just don't know, and stop there. We don't have any scientific explanation, but we have a logical one.

Either existence is real or it isn't. If it is, which I think you will agree is true, then there had to be a "something" in the first place. Given that "something" can't come from nothing, only one explanation fits, that there was a Creator, that is infinite. And He is the only true infinite "thing" in the universe. That is the point where we can stop, no?

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by s0uljah

Either existence is real or it isn't. If it is, which I think you will agree is true, then there had to be a &quot;something&quot; in the first place. Given that &quot;something&quot; can't come from nothing, only one explanation fits, that there was a Creator, that is infinite. And He is the only true infinite &quot;thing&quot; in the universe. That is the point where we can stop, no?

So everything needs a creator except your hypothetical creator? Special pleading.