God powers my flashlight.

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
*sigh* I believe in evoltion, so therefore lets kill everything we can to weed out the weak and unfit genes...Seebs how do you like strawmen?

Louis, I have thought and thought, and I just can't see how this is a "straw man" in the usual sense of the word. Of course, it is a charicature, but it isn't meant to pretend that creationists reject electronics, but merely to assert that on the same basis of Biblical literalism that they reject evolution they should reject any eletrical (or any other natural means) of producing light. God is the creator, therefore nature cannot be responsible at any level. That is the message of creationism. God created people, therefore there was no natural process of evolution of people. Seebs is doing his best to expose a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be one or the other: it can be both.

 

[seebs]

While it's obviously a bit of a straw man, it's really a pretty close analogy. We really haven't ever seen an electron; they're just the result of a huge number of different observations all pointing back at a single theory. If the theory is "wrong", it's gonna be "wrong" the way we've found exceptions to Newton's Laws of Motion; weird boundary conditions that don't affect normal observation.

Evolution is roughly at the same point these days. The so-called "holes" are almost invariably the result of misunderstandings of what the theory says. While evolution isn't as well-established as electrons... it's pretty close. I would be very surprised if anyone came up with a serious challenge to the basic theory within my lifetime.

 

[LouisBooth]

"God is the creator, therefore nature cannot be responsible at any level. "

*sigh* God created light, not a electrical device that produceds light. So you're saying that if X makes Y, then nothing else can produce the same effect?

"The so-called "holes" are almost invariably the result of misunderstandings of what the theory says. "

No, the holes are there.

*sigh* seebs its really funny how your response goes...well of course it is..but that's beside the point LOL..whatever...Its not close at all.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"God is the creator, therefore nature cannot be responsible at any level. "

*sigh* God created light, not a electrical device that produceds light. So you're saying that if X makes Y, then nothing else can produce the same effect?

We are saying just the opposite. The "nothing else" is the nature of electricity. Light can both be "created by God", and "created by natural processes that were created by God." The idea that it can only be one or the other is the false dichotomy upon which "Creationism" (as denial of evolution) is based.

 

[LouisBooth]

"The "nothing else" is the nature of electricity. Light can both be "created by God", and "created by natural processes that were created by God."

There is a difference in this analogy and applying it to evolution. 1. its not 'LIFE' and 2. It involves a great amount of time. Again, its a strawman.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"The "nothing else" is the nature of electricity. Light can both be "created by God", and "created by natural processes that were created by God."

There is a difference in this analogy and applying it to evolution. 1. its not 'LIFE' and 2. It involves a great amount of time. Again, its a strawman.

How does it matter that it is not 'LIFE' and that it involves a great deal of time?

If God can create using natural processes, then He must be able to do so just as well with 'LIFE' as He can with 'ELECTRICITY'. The time is irrelevant unless you take an extremely narrow view of what the term translated to English as "day" must mean.

 

[stu]

I would need to see an actual electron, not just this so-called "evidence".

well that is rather interesting, I have gotten to the point as an agnostic I would make do without completely "seeing". I do not need to see him, but you must find any one effect that does not have anyother explaniation. miracles are fine but you would have to objectively prove that god was the cause and not something else. since christians will at least say we can observe god's effects, maybe they could prove that those effects are actually controlled by the the god they worship. I don't think this is too much to ask.
<TABLE height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>If I can't see them, how can I see them glowing?

&nbsp;it is not the actual electrons themselves glowing in is the resistant material that they flow through that actually produces the glow you describe.

if electrons don't exist then why does your computer you are useing work. How was it designed by human hands to work if electrons don't exist?

does god control the flow from your keyboard to the rest of your keyboard... now only if that evidence like electrons can be shown to really be the effects of god as you claim.

why do you claim that batteries contain *electrons*?

from the mesurements of and ohmmeter... and you can the observe the effects of a "live" battery i.e your flashlight actually works. &nbsp;

so what happens when the light in your flashlight goes out. had god stopped working for you?!?!?! have you sinnned?!?!?! NO NO NO NO you need to put fresh batteries in. so is god then really in the batteries that were manufactured in some plant by humans?!?!?! so then god must be a human invention that is turned off some assembly line. and he also apparently fails at regular mesured interevals &nbsp; are you confused yet </TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=bottom>&nbsp;

Seebs isn't serious. He's making fun of some people and I think they don't get it. Hmmm...

oh i understand... and i don't hold that high a standard as he is in this example.. hmmm....

stu</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>&nbsp;

 

[LouisBooth]

"How does it matter that it is not 'LIFE' and that it involves a great deal of time? "

Well if you get right down to it..a flashlight doesn't make light, now does it..it focuses it...it makes a difference because its not life. I can make a certain chemical, say a salt..by adding an acid and a base..but that doesn't mean I created the salt.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"How does it matter that it is not 'LIFE' and that it involves a great deal of time? "

Well if you get right down to it..a flashlight doesn't make light, now does it..it focuses it...it makes a difference because its not life. I can make a certain chemical, say a salt..by adding an acid and a base..but that doesn't mean I created the salt.

When I'm not wearing my silly hat, I am obliged to grant that the flashlight *CREATES* light. To approximate, electrons are used to heat tungsten; when the tungsten atoms have enough spare energy, it is emitted as photons. The photons *DID NOT EXIST* before they were emitted.

Whole books are written on the process, but it is certainly the case that the flashlight *CREATES* photons.

As to life vs. non-life, I don't know that I'm sure about the boundaries, myself. I don't even know how to tell from looking at life whether or not it has a soul, although I've been told only humans do. A virus, for instance, is right on the boundaries of my concept of "life". Same with algae.

 

[LouisBooth]

"The photons *DID NOT EXIST* before they were emitted. "

So you're saying we can create energy now? intriging...

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"The photons *DID NOT EXIST* before they were emitted. "

So you're saying we can create energy now? intriging...

No, that's not what I said. Converting other things into photons actually *makes* photons - from other energy.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Converting other things into photons actually *makes* photons - from other energy."

Ahh..so if I convert water into a gas I acutally make steam then? I'm a creator? NO. LOL. You're just manitipulating it seebs, big difference.

 

[DrLao]

There is a big difference, LouisBooth. Steam is made of the same particles as the water you boil. The photons that come from a flashlight did not exist before the light is switched on.

 

[LouisBooth]

"The photons that come from a flashlight did not exist before the light is switched on."

They didn't exsist at all, you mean he created the energy?

 

[LouisBooth]

so give me your definition of what a photon is...

 

[seebs]

Would you agree that, when I burn wood, the process is actually producing additional heat, not merely "transforming" heat which was already there?

Matter and energy can be converted into each other, and one kind of energy can be converted into another. Photons are a specific kind of weird energy that has qualities consistent with both particles and waves - this is why they're confusing.

What happens is, an electron jumps to an "excited" state where it's in an outer shell of the atom that normally wouldn't need that many electrons, and when it "falls back in", the energy difference comes out as energy - and if it's in a wavelength that we can see, it's light.

Sort of.

That's an abysmally poor explanation, I'm afraid; however, I don't think a better one will help much unless you want to pick up a couple of semesters' worth of physics. (Actually, some of this is arguably chemistry.)

However, the fact remains that energy that does not contain any photons can be used to *create* photons, which did not previously exist.

(Unless we want to assume that God runs the Mass-Energy Bank, which contains all of the particles He'll ever be using at once, and He performs exchanges according to invariant rules. I think it's easier to say that He made the rules such that photons can, indeed, simply be created.)

 

[LouisBooth]

"not merely "transforming" heat which was already there? "

Nope, when you get down to it you're doing a conversion...

"What happens is, an electron jumps to an "excited" state where it's in an outer shell of the atom that normally wouldn't need that many electrons, and when it "falls back in", the energy difference comes out as energy - and if it's in a wavelength that we can see, it's light. "

Exactly..so you're getting out something you put in...thanks for agreeing with me


"Actually, some of this is arguably chemistry.) "

I know, that's why I"m questioning you.


"However, the fact remains that energy that does not contain any photons can be used to *create* photons, which did not previously exist. "

NOpe, its a converstion, just like you said in your "poor" explaination. Thanks for agreeing.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

"What happens is, an electron jumps to an "excited" state where it's in an outer shell of the atom that normally wouldn't need that many electrons, and when it "falls back in", the energy difference comes out as energy - and if it's in a wavelength that we can see, it's light. "

Exactly..so you're getting out something you put in...thanks for agreeing with me

No, you're getting out something *other than* what you put in.

When uranium decays into lead, there is *less* uranium, and *more* lead. Lead was created, uranium was destroyed.

"However, the fact remains that energy that does not contain any photons can be used to *create* photons, which did not previously exist. "

NOpe, its a converstion, just like you said in your "poor" explaination. Thanks for agreeing.

I don't agree with your description at all; you're using the word in a sense which is quite simply incorrect in this context; it'd be like trying to insist that Christian doctrine be understood in terms of the idea that "saving" is what one does in a bank, and thus, that "Jesus saves" means that He puts away at least a third of His income against future need.

If there is no photon, and later, there is a photon, a photon was *CREATED*. Not merely moved from one place, or form, to another. There is nothing that you can point at and say "that's a photon, it just doesn't know it yet".

Are we "creating" energy? No. We are, however, creating photons.

I mean, yeah, at one level, everything's interchangeable; you can convert mass into energy, and energy into mass, too. However, we don't normally talk about it that way, because it's misleading.

The fact is that photons can be created from stuff that's never had any photons anywhere near it before. Energy can be used to make new photons. Photons can later be turned into energy. However, the photons really do exist, and aren't the same thing as the energy used to create them. They follow different rules.

The comparison to steam isn't a very good one. The comparison to, say, fusing hydrogen into helium would be closer.

 

[LouisBooth]

"When uranium decays into lead, there is *less* uranium, and *more* lead. Lead was created, uranium was destroyed. "

*sigh* not according to the basic chemistry of it...same stuff..less particles, then again, this is not like the other process you talked about at all. You put together things. so lets just stick to that shall we?

"Are we "creating" energy? No. We are, however, creating photons. "

Seebs as always you're jumping around without adressing the one thing you start with. Now, you say you create light, ie photons...Lets look at another approach, is this the first time light was created? (assuming your position is right, even though I disagree but you don't want to address that). the clear answer: NOPE. So you are not the original creator, nor have you "changed" it. Thus the analogy again is wrong that God is not the orignal creator of species and no new species are created. Case closed..yet again.

 

[Freodin]

Ok, let´s say I would agree with you that matter and energy cannot be "created", only "converted".

But how do you define "life" in this way? What is it that has to be "created" and why is this process of "creation" limited to God?

When I paint a picture, did I not "create" beauty? When I tell a joke, did I not "create" happyness?