The number one bugger for creationists: C

[w81minit]

Creationists are often shocked and are almost always insulted when they are accused of being scientifically inept. Why is this? The reason I ask this and post the above quote is because just what is the law of conservation of matter? I have never heard of it and I don't think anyone else has. Why do Creationists repeatedly dig holes for themselves and reinforce the widely held belief that they never took a science class or at least didn't pass one. It's all too predictable and funny at the same time.

Amalthea
A simple Google search should present enough scientific evidence that others have heard of the Law of Conservation of Matter. As they no doubt heard of the law of conservation of energy. That science evolves and renames its tenents in no way makes me inept, it makes me older or more widely traveled than you. Or it makes you less learned. I am not sure which option is correct or that I have even posited enough options to find the correct one, but one that can be ruled out is that I am inept because I said 'law of conservation of matter.'
Law of Conservation of Matter: Matter can not be created or destroyed by process of simple chemical reaction.
Consider this hole filled in.

 

[w81minit]

W81: the 6000 comes from Ussher, a priest who used the geneologies to calculate the age of the earth. The accuracy of these calculations is questionable, which is why some creationist groups are willing to extend the date out a bit but other creationist groups hold fast to the 6000 and include it in their statement of faith.

Then by Creationists you are referring to a rather small portion of the overall Christian population that also believe in Creation. By your definition I am not a Creationist.

By conservation of matter, I assume you mean the first law of thermodyanmics, which is really the conservation of energy. This law (as with many newtonian laws) only applies to certain circumstances. Quantum mechanics has shown that in the quantum realm the law can be broken, as we see both energy and matter randomly pop in and out of existance.

Nope. Actually, I mean law of conservation of matter. There is also the law of conservation of energy, and they are related, but not one in the same.
Based on our ages I would only assume that you learned your high school science after I learned mine. To me it is an indication of how it has changed, or how it is taught differently in different parts of the country/world.

 

[w81minit]

Just what is the requirement? Is it the making up of fake scientific laws as you did in a post above?

No more than portraying a pedantic sophomore makes you an evolutionist. Please as least feign an attempt at objectivity before you attempt to bash me without cause.
Oh - and get a few more posts under your belt before attacking. I waited at least until 40.

 

[Arikay]

Satan represents the temptations we face and God represents the person who told us to stay away.
The names are also symbolic, Adam means Man or Mankind and Eve means Life.
Pain of childbirth might have been people trying to explain something they didn't understand.
I don't know about the geneologies, like I said, you would get better answers from a real theistic evolutionist.


Conservation of Matter
Your definition of conservation of matter does not say matter is eternal, only that chemical reactions wont destroy atoms. Chemical reactions are not the only thing that effects atoms.

If so, who does Satan and God represent?
If this account is a mere representation (allegorical) then why the names? Why the account of multiplying pain in child birth? Why the explanation of Cain and Able, Noah etc. At what point is it determined that we have moved beyond the realm of fantasy to fact? God (in Genesis chapter 5) clearly lists a geneology from Adam to Noah. What is the purpose of that?

 

[w81minit]

I think you missread my post. I said creationist groups, such as AiG, ICR, CEM, CRS, etc. All of these groups require their members, the people that write articles under the umbrella of that group, the same articles that are found on their sites, to agree with their statement of faith. Although in different words every statement of faith says that creationism is true and that the writter must ignore any evidence that disproves Young Earth creationism or any claim made in the statement of faith.
thus they are biased because they don't allow all evidence to be shown, only evidence that supports creationism.

I have links to each one of these groups statements.

You didn't specify, but perhaps I misunderstood. I thought I read that you generalized about 'most' Creationists having to sign a statement of faith. If it was implied by the term 'Creationist' those groups you just mentioned then I am at fault. Your post does not include those groups you just sited as seen below:

Creationist groups are definatly biased, most have a statement of faith that all members must sign. this statement basically says that they must ignore any evidence that contradicts creationism.

 

[Arikay]

Well by "creationist group" I mean "creationist group."
Edit: By creationist groups I mean creationist organizations.r

A creationist is someone who accepts the theory of creationism (such as the theories proposed by said creationist groups).

Someone that believes in creation is just someone that believes God created. Theistic evolutionists are believers in creation but not in creationism.


I didn't create these definitions, christians did. Mainly theistic evolutionists who were tired of militant atheists claiming that all christians believe in the theory of creationism and tried to use that as ammo that christianity was false.

Then by Creationists you are referring to a rather small portion of the overall Christian population that also believe in Creation. By your definition I am not a Creationist.

Nope. Actually, I mean law of conservation of matter. There is also the law of conservation of energy, and they are related, but not one in the same.
Based on our ages I would only assume that you learned your high school science after I learned mine. To me it is an indication of how it has changed, or how it is taught differently in different parts of the country/world.

 

[w81minit]

Satan represents the temptations we face and God represents the person who told us to stay away.
The names are also symbolic, Adam means Man or Mankind and Eve means Life.
Pain of childbirth might have been people trying to explain something they didn't understand.
I don't know about the geneologies, like I said, you would get better answers from a real theistic evolutionist.

AWA

Conservation of Matter
Your definition of conservation of matter does not say matter is eternal, only that chemical reactions wont destroy atoms. Chemical reactions are not the only thing that effects atoms.

True, but (unless I am incorrect) there are no known non-chemical reactions that happen outside of man's internvention. The law was observed based on man's intervention and as an explanation of the differenc.
While I wouldn't be dogmatic about this, it still bears mentioning.

 

[w81minit]

Well by "creationist group" I mean "creationist group."
Edit: By creationist groups I mean creationist organizations.r

A creationist is someone who accepts the theory of creationism (such as the theories proposed by said creationist groups).

Someone that believes in creation is just someone that believes God created. Theistic evolutionists are believers in creation but not in creationism.


I didn't create these definitions, christians did. Mainly theistic evolutionists who were tired of militant atheists claiming that all christians believe in the theory of creationism and tried to use that as ammo that christianity was false.

Then my sincerest appologies. I was under the impression that a Creationist was someone that believed God created the Earth just as outlined in Genesis. I would fall in that category, but not in the one you mentioned.

 

[Amalthea]

Amalthea
A simple Google search should present enough scientific evidence that others have heard of the Law of Conservation of Matter. As they no doubt heard of the law of conservation of energy. That science evolves and renames its tenents in no way makes me inept, it makes me older or more widely traveled than you. Or it makes you less learned. I am not sure which option is correct or that I have even posited enough options to find the correct one, but one that can be ruled out is that I am inept because I said 'law of conservation of matter.'
Law of Conservation of Matter: Matter can not be created or destroyed by process of simple chemical reaction.
Consider this hole filled in.

There is no such law. Any statement of such is only made by people who don't know physics. This is not science changing nomenclature it's people making things up.

Which makes the 'older and more widely travelled' and I 'less learned' seem rather unlikely.

 

[Arikay]

In quantum mechanics virtual particles pop into existance and then pop out again, which has been observed. This doesn't violate the law because the law doesn't extend into the quantum realm.


I believe that believing in a literal genesis would also fall into the category of creationism, but on the theological side.

AWA

True, but (unless I am incorrect) there are no known non-chemical reactions that happen outside of man's internvention. The law was observed based on man's intervention and as an explanation of the differenc.
While I wouldn't be dogmatic about this, it still bears mentioning.

 

[Amalthea]

No more than portraying a pedantic sophomore makes you an evolutionist. Please as least feign an attempt at objectivity before you attempt to bash me without cause.
Oh - and get a few more posts under your belt before attacking. I waited at least until 40.

I wasn't bashing I was pointing out a fact that at least on this issue you didn't know what to say. I could see why you would require 40 posts, at the least.

 

[w81minit]

There is no such law. Any statement of such is only made by people who don't know physics. This is not science changing nomenclature it's people making things up.

Which makes the 'older and more widely travelled' and I 'less learned' seem rather unlikely.

Here: I'll do it for you since you don't seem inclined to learn from your mistakes.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Law%20of%20Conservation%20of%20Matter

Don't feel bad about this. We all go through periods in our lives where we think we know it all.

 

[Amalthea]

AWA

True, but (unless I am incorrect) there are no known non-chemical reactions that happen outside of man's internvention. The law was observed based on man's intervention and as an explanation of the differenc.
While I wouldn't be dogmatic about this, it still bears mentioning.

What? Are you serious? And you questioned earlier my learned status and you post this. You are a big 0 for 2 on science in the last few pages on this thread. Have you perchance got an encore error for us?

 

[Amalthea]

Here: I'll do it for you since you don't seem inclined to learn from your mistakes.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Law%20of%20Conservation%20of%20Matter

Don't feel bad about this. We all go through periods in our lives where we think we know it all.

Nice dodge. You referred earlier to 'conservation of matter' in reference to the eternal nature of matter in the universe. This is a topic of cosmology not chemistry.

 

[w81minit]

What? Are you serious? And you questioned earlier my learned status and you post this. You are a big 0 for 2 on science in the last few pages on this thread. Have you perchance got an encore error for us?

Amalthea,
I have interest in allowing this to totally debase the arguments placed on each side of this debate by reasonable adults. If you are so poised to react in an agressive tone with each post, then you will be treated as such. There is, after all, room in this forum for a dolt such as me. Thanks for proving it. Can we move on?

 

[w81minit]

Nice dodge. You referred earlier to 'conservation of matter' in reference to the eternal nature of matter in the universe. This is a topic of cosmology not chemistry.

<shaking head>
I prove you wrong, and instead of retracting your statement you accuse me of dodging?


Thanks once again for proving that I am a pitiful scientist and a worthless poster. You do amaze me with your penchant for the attack. Please more, please more. I am low, yea, you could bring me lower.

 

[Amalthea]

OK carry on using bad science. I'll quit bothering you over it. But you shouldn't apply chemistry to physics which was the topic at hand when you made your statement and then you even said there was no non-chemical reactions outside of mans influence. What about stellar fusion? Radioactive decay? Urca process? Pycnonuclear reactions? And on and on and on....

 

[Intrepid99]

C...what a pain, eh? It is the number one problem that Creationists have to deal with. Some stars are millions of light-years away, and this means that earth has been around for at least millions of years. How do creationists solve this huge problem? Well, since they believe the Bible says that the earth is no older than 10,000 years, they must never question this, EVER!! Instead, they think inside the box--the Bible box, a very limited, small box.

(I'm blowing steam here obviously, because I hate closed minded thought, [and I am surrounded by it a lot], which hinders progress and confuses millions of people, and even threatens to destroy their faith. Many of you know where I am coming from...)

But does the Bible even say the earth is 10,000 years old? To come later (in another thread)...

So, here's how Creationists deal with the problem of star light:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/star-light.html

1. God created the light at the beginning. However, they are insisting that the light we see today from distant celestial bodies is that light. There are problems with this beyond reason.

2. C was much faster back in the beginning. However, this is totally unsupported.

3. Quantum Physics. Light seems to travel slower to us than it really is.

This is so sad.

Note: I'm starting to lean toward the old-age theory. I used to believe the Earth was 6000 years old, but that just doesn't seem to hold up in the real world.

Ha Ha, What a childs game.
The God that we worship is capable of creating the stars million of light years away right from the begining. We dont need any big bang to scatter them all over the place of millions of light years apart.
I can't believe this thread is 46 pages long of useless arguments.

 

[w81minit]

OK carry on using bad science. I'll quit bothering you over it. But you shouldn't apply chemistry to physics which was the topic at hand when you made your statement and then you even said there was no non-chemical reactions outside of mans influence. What about stellar fusion? Radioactive decay? Urca process? Pycnonuclear reactions? And on and on and on....

You completely left off the contextual relevence to my statement. I even indicated that I wouldn't be dogmatic, but that it still merits mention.

Chemistry, Physics, Biology and never the three shall meet.
So let it be written, so let it be done.

I'm sorry, Ama - terribly sorry.

 

[Amalthea]

Ha Ha, What a childs game.
The God that we worship is capable of creating the stars million of light years away right from the begining. We dont need any big bang to scatter them all over the place of millions of light years apart.
I can't believe this thread is 46 pages long of useless arguments.

Ah, but we know he didn't do that.