Message 47 of 59 (354570) 10-05-2006 7:53 PM

Reply to: Message 46 by HellboundGreaser 10-05-2006 10:32 AM

... the IDologists want to give the world of science a wedgie.

Personally I think both sides of the design controversy need to be discussed: see Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...

Enjoy.

Message 48 of 59 (366574) 11-28-2006 6:05 PM

Reply to: Message 15 by God is Love 11-28-2001 11:05 PM

Edited by gaznewt, : I had to put "God is Love:" at the start so people knew who I was replying to

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning - If you must read, use the peek button.

Message 49 of 59 (366576) 11-28-2006 6:19 PM

Reply to: Message 48 by gaznewt 11-28-2006 6:05 PM

Welcome to EvC.

If you choose to stay here, then I hope you get as much out of it as I have. If you want to reply to a member in the future, please do so in a way that advances the debate. Also, I'd like to remind you to scan the Forum Rules a little more closely than you had previously. Particular attention should be paid to rule number 10. The 'ad hominem' rule, so to speak.

The reason that I am giving clemency is two fold. On the one hand, you are new around here, and may not be aware of the tone of discussion we like to at least try and foster. On the other hand, you may have failed to notice that the person you are replying to typed their message almost precisely 5 years ago and it was that person's last venture to EvC (at least to post).

Take care, and enjoy our fora.

Please - do not reply to this message. I get grumpy when that happens. We have a thread dedicated to discussing moderator actions, the link to it is in my signature (the blue box underneath my message).

Message 50 of 59 (366578) 11-28-2006 6:22 PM

Reply to: Message 48 by gaznewt 11-28-2006 6:05 PM

That is not a reply, it is an ad hominem attack on the messenger - a logical fallacy - and says nothing about the message. This is against forum guidelines, and doesn't add anything to the debate.

Nor does it discuss the topic of the thread - Irreducible Complexity (although there is not much to discuss about a concept that doesn't have any real value, predictive or explanatory)

I agree with AdminPD Message 2

quote:

---

Thank you for proposing a new topic and adding to our diversity. Since you are new to EvC, I suggest that you carefully read the Forum Guidelines and familiarize yourself with the functions of EvC by using the Practice Makes Perfect Forum or posting in existing threads.

---

Enjoy.

quote boxes are easy

Edited by RAZD, : deleted comment edited by admins

Message 51 of 59 (462923) 04-10-2008 12:33 PM

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

Message 52 of 59 (513928) 07-02-2009 2:16 PM

First there was the flagella, and it was shown to be just rearranged parts that had other functions in the cell.

The eye was shown how it could evolve from just light receptive cells into an eye.

Even the Blood clotting system was shown that it could evolve and that the intermediate steps would have a positive effect on the organism.

The IC folks have not yet shown a single part that could not be broken down into useful parts.

As for matter from energy. All you have to do is a little math. E = MC^2. Now we the math. M = E/C^2. Tada, matter from energy.

theTroll

Message 53 of 59 (513931) 07-02-2009 2:31 PM

Reply to: Message 52 by theTroll 07-02-2009 2:16 PM

Are you a troll or what?

Message 54 of 59 (513940) 07-02-2009 3:44 PM

Reply to: Message 53 by lyx2no 07-02-2009 2:31 PM

That's actually incorrect. Matter can be and is formed from energy,asmatter/antimatter particle pairs:

quote:

---

In nuclear physics, this occurs when a high-energy photon interacts in the vicinity of a nucleus, allowing the production of an electron and a positron pair without violating conservation of momentum. Since the momentum of the initial photon must be absorbed by something, pair production cannot occur in empty space out of a single photon; the nucleus (or another photon) is needed to conserve both momentum and energy (consider the time reversal of Electron-positron annihilation).

---

Message 56 of 59 (513948) 07-02-2009 4:30 PM

Reply to: Message 54 by Rahvin 07-02-2009 3:44 PM

Sorry, Rhavin, lyx2no is correct. E=mc² does not IMPLY that energy can be turned into matter. And furthermore, you cannot create matter out of energy - in the same way you cannot create ripples out of energy. For ripples, you need water. Admittedly, you would need to ADD energy to a flat pond to create the ripples on the pond. To create an electron/positron pair, you need an electron/positron (Dirac) field, and then you need to add some energy.

And finally, for lyx2no as well, the m in E=mc² IS NOT MATTER. It is MASS. And there is nothing matter-like about mass. It is an attribute of both matter AND energy.

Hope this helps :)

ABE: Sorry, just noticed how OT this is. Happy to continue in another thread if desired...

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Message 57 of 59 (513955) 07-02-2009 5:02 PM

Reply to: Message 53 by lyx2no 07-02-2009 2:31 PM

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html

Also in matter/antimatter interactions there is a tendency for matter to come out just a little bit ahead. That is the the reason we exist.

And no, I am not "a troll", I am theTroll, big difference.
theTroll

Message 58 of 59 (513957) 07-02-2009 6:29 PM

Reply to: Message 57 by theTroll 07-02-2009 5:02 PM

This is partly because in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various 'conservation laws' of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter / anti-matter pairs out of energy.

The tecnical bit it that energy is a description of how much work can be performed, not a substance that can be converted into some other kind of substance.

I don't know why I thought you might have been a troll. It was one of those tingling intangibles. I'm glad it was a false positive on the troll-dar. Welcome to the fray, by the way.

Message 59 of 59 (513968) 07-02-2009 9:29 PM

Going to close, probably in about 15 minutes.

Perhaps someone would like to take the off-topic material to a new topic?

Adminnemooseus