The number one bugger for creationists: C

[Cantuar]

Perhaps, it is you who should learn some high school logic. None of the young earth arguments are flawed.

They're flawed both logically (as already pointed out) and scientifically. Generally, the people who understand the sciences involved reject the young-Earth scientific arguments; the ones who accept them are the ones who don't know enough science to make an informed decision.

 

[Physics_guy]

You see the RESULTS of this ‘Predicatively Accurate Theory’, isn’t that right? Just as you see the same in ‘Intelligent Design’. You can see some behavior of particles and the particles themselves in accelerators, just as you can see certain things in nature that can be attributed to God.

Metaphysics[n] the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things. So I would say that string ‘model’ or ‘hypothesis’ pretty much fits the bill, heh?

People like to play funny word games with metaphysics and physics. One is philosophy, the other is science. Neither string theory nor quantum physics are metaphysical - they are entirely physical. Now some people may come to metaphysical conclusions from them - but that has to do with their personal philosophy and not with the physics involved.

 

[homewardbound]

Generally its not called "belief", its "accept". Partly to get away from the "evolution is religion" strawman that creationist groups have made.
Your right, evolution isn't fact, but neither is germ theory, yet I'm sure many would argue that it's true. Something doesn't need to be a fact to be true.

I wasn't refering to evolution anyway, but to the facts and evidence that must be ignored to accept creationism.

Yes, evolution is definitely not a religion, so if accept makes you feel better, I'll try to remember to use the word "accept" instead of "belief".

I can't speak for others who believe in creation, but it's not accurate to say one must ignore facts and evidence in order to accept creationism. I don't ignore the facts and evidence...I weigh them along with many other factors to form my opinions and beliefs. That's why this forum fascinates me.

 

[Jet Black]

Yes, evolution is definitely not a religion, so if accept makes you feel better, I'll try to remember to use the word "accept" instead of "belief".

I can't speak for others who believe in creation, but it's not accurate to say one must ignore facts and evidence in order to accept creationism. I don't ignore the facts and evidence...I weigh them along with many other factors to form my opinions and beliefs. That's why this forum fascinates me.

well you don't have to ignore them if you don't know them, but if you do know them then you have to ignore them.

 

[Amalthea]

Good point, but I beat you to it -- see the second paragraph of post #488.

Beat both of ya to it. Post #477.

 

[aeroz19]

Perhaps you should have read a couple of pages into the thread past the opening post to see how the appearance of age argument is flawed and what its implications are.
Perhaps, it is you who should learn some high school logic. None of the young earth arguments are flawed.

Must be refering to the PRATT list...*reads on*

 

[aeroz19]

I don't have time to read useless stuff. If you have any argument, bring it up one by one.

Look, if you expect us to continue discussing this with you, read the links and discuss what you read. Otherwise we will ignore you and you will lose your credibility. Now, click the links.

 

[homewardbound]

well you don't have to ignore them if you don't know them, but if you do know them then you have to ignore them.

Sorry, my friend, I don't buy that.

 

[Jet Black]

Sorry, my friend, I don't buy that.

well how can facts that contradict an argument can be incorporated into that argument without changing either?

 

[Nathan Poe]

What a dolt!!

What an insult.

God is not capable of deceiving.

Fascinating... What else is God not capable of doing?

Therefore, He is not capable of sending all Christians to heel for believing in Jesus and His resurrection. (May be you must go to the forum "apologetics" to discuss this.)

Wow, The Christians really have God over a barrel on this one....

I don't understand how will can you say that saying the YEC is an evidence of false evidence.

THIS I believe...

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ha Ha, What a childs game. ....I can't believe this thread is 46 pages long of useless arguments.....

....Yea right, you were there when he was doing that. Tell me, what did you do in your leisure time? You had 5 billion years of watching TV??
Did He create your TV or did it just evolve?....

....Perhaps, it is you who should learn some high school logic....

...I don't have time to read useless stuff....

....What a dolt!! ....

Not only is this the pinnacle of YEC counter-argument, it is presented here as a shining example of Christ-like behavior.

Impressed yet?

 

[w81minit]

This is one of the most incorrect statements that I have read on this forum. Do yourself a favor - on the next sunny day go outside and look up at that big bright thing in the sky. That burning ball we call the sun is not powered by chemical processes - it is powered by stellar fusion. I am pretty sure there is no man sitting around intervening to make sure it works.

The disclaimer was in the post itself.
Thanks for pointing it out by quoting it, and then pointing it out again in your opening remarks. I think that makes it duly noted. (dually) Hmmmm...

edit: and by the way, are you indicating that the Sun is creating or destroying matter? (which was the contextual reference)

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The disclaimer was in the post itself.
Thanks for pointing it out by quoting it, and then pointing it out again in your opening remarks. I think that makes it duly noted. (dually) Hmmmm...

edit: and by the way, are you indicating that the Sun is creating or destroying matter? (which was the contextual reference)

The sun is converting matter into energy. E=mc^2

 

[w81minit]

No, we know he didn't do it the way you say. You can invest in your fantasy of God creating all in place and the in situ light but that isn't going to pass critical examination by science.

What gets really annoying is people because they don't know something appealing from incredulity. Especially arguments like 'if you weren't there how do you know?'. Do you realise how bad of an argument that is. By your criteria we would still be in the Bronze Age.

How yet more annoying is it to have someone tell you what you said is untrue when a google search on their would have demonstrated otherwise? Hey Kettle, Hey Kettle, a mister Pot is out here rambling about something being black.

<looking toward the bench>
Your honor, I move to strike the venom contained in the previous posts from the record and start a clean slate without the venom.

<turning back toward the people> What say you?

 

[w81minit]

The sun is converting matter into energy. E=mc^2

So then as the link that I posted indicates where LoCoM fails, LoCoE picks up, correct?
That means that matter is being converted to energy which still can not be created nor destroyed but changed from one form to another. [edit] Not trying to defend myself, just reasoning out the premise.
Question: Does this mean that (given the relative size and consumption of the stars throughout the universe) that there is less matter today than when the stars were born?
edit: and after reading Polycarp1's post on the Matter and Energy in a closed system remaining constant:
Does this mean that as time passes that eventually all the universe will be energy in proportion to the lost matter?

 

[w81minit]

With all due respect, the Law of Conservation of Matter was shelved just under 100 years ago, along with that for Energy, and a substitution of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy replaced them -- based on Einstein's work demonstrating that matter and energy are equivalent and can be converted one to the other. The new law says that the total amount of matter and energy in a closed system, related by c² (remember the OP?), is a constant, though the total of neither component will be.

As for a non-chemical means not the result of man's intervention, I might observe that the Sun shone today, as it has since it was created -- and there is pretty good evidence that the mechanism it uses to keep shining is nuclear fusion. For an even better example, Supernova 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud exploded 17 years ago, obviously without our help -- and the first time that we have actually observed a star before it went supernova. The only known mechanisms for a star to explode in that manner invoke thermonuclear physics.

Nitpick for nyjbarnes: "ignoramus" is a coined word, but the method used to coin it suggests that it would have a Latin plural of something like "ignoramides" (3rd declension) -- so the custom is to use the standard English plural-making rule and use "ignoramuses."

[/font]

To save you a bunch of reading, yes, He is quite capable of doing that. He's also quite capable of sending all Christians to Hell for believing in Jesus, and saving all atheists, just for kicks. The point is that what we know of His character, what He chooses to be, suggests strongly that neither arbitrary reversals of that sort nor creating a Universe full of false evidence is something that He would actually do. His Peace be with you!

Rep is deserved here.
Have to call you on the self promotion, but the post was worth it.
Here, here - debate can take place in a constructive manner.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So then as the link that I posted indicates where LoCoM fails, LoCoE picks up, correct?

Better to say, as Polycarp did, that there is no LoCoM. Matter (or better, mass) can be converted to energy; the total amount of mass-energy is always conserved.

That means that matter is being converted to energy which still can not be created nor destroyed but changed from one form to another. [edit] Not trying to defend myself, just reasoning out the premise.
Question: Does this mean that (given the relative size and consumption of the stars throughout the universe) that there is less matter today than when the stars were born?

That's a good question. It depends on processes that convert energy back into matter, n'est-ce pas? Particle accelerators do this by converting kinetic energy into matter when the particles collide. In nature, well, I'm no expert there. But a bit of Googling found a reference to gamma rays converting their energy into matter when they hit a heavy nucleus - an electron and a positron are produced.

edit: and after reading Polycarp1's post on the Matter and Energy in a closed system remaining constant:
Does this mean that as time passes that eventually all the universe will be energy in proportion to the lost matter?

No. The means by which, by and large, mass is converted to energy in the universe is nuclear fusion. Only a tiny proportion of the mass is converted to energy in this process.

 

[Physics_guy]

So then as the link that I posted indicates where LoCoM fails, LoCoE picks up, correct?

The Law of Conservation of Matter was replaced a long time ago by a more comprehensive Law of Conservation of Energy because in 1905 Einstein showed rather convincingly that matter and energy were interchangable (later Hiroshima and Nagasaki were shown even more convincingly how much energy can be released when matter is converted into energy).

Of course, neither of these "Laws" are absolute. They are genral statements that are true in certain specific conditions. The first Law of Thermo (which we are discussing) is derived from time translational symmetry, so it is not applicable across t=0. In addition, there may be slight imperfections in Lorentz symmetry that cause local violations of this and many other laws if certain quantum gravity models are correct (this is being tested for right now).

Additionally, this Law does not mean that energy or matter cannot just pop into existence, because mass-energy does pop into and out of existence all the time at the quantum level. What it means is that the total net mass-energy of a system beyond the level of Heisenberg Uncertainty needs to remain constant. So if an increase in positive energy is exactly equalled out by an increase in negative energy (yes there is such a thing) then the Law is not violated. By the way, the esitimated total energy of the Universe is exactly zero. Neat, huh?

 

[Physics_guy]

edit: and after reading Polycarp1's post on the Matter and Energy in a closed system remaining constant:
Does this mean that as time passes that eventually all the universe will be energy in proportion to the lost matter?

Nope, because there are processes that result in mass from energy as well.

 

[w81minit]

Better to say, as Polycarp did, that there is no LoCoM.

Well, as I understand it, it has been shelved and rendered obsolete, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or never existed. I wouldn't want another 'you made that up' accusation on my hands.

No. The means by which, by and large, mass is converted to energy in the universe is nuclear fusion. Only a tiny proportion of the mass is converted to energy in this process.

Understood, but still if matter is regularly being changed into energy, and matter is fixed (assuming it is naturally) then eventually it would be consumed. Right?
If matter isn't fixed then there must be a proportion of matter being created and destroyed. Destroyed (converted) at a rate of x and created (converted) at a rate of y. Therefore x/y is the proportion of matter destroyed (converted). If that is determined to be (at a minimum) relatively constant, then we can multiply that out and potentially determine the potential age of the universe, in a vacuum, on a tuesday, for a minute and a half while the sun breaks through the clouds, and the experiment is observable and valid.