Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

To Previous Posters:The casimir effect has good science supporting it. My post did not in any way deny the existence of the casimir effect. It is the nature of vacuums and the source of the energy for the casimir effect which is not nearly as established as the law of the conservation of mass and energy. I believe I gave excellent sources from some careful scientist in my casimir effect/vacuum post (Scientific American, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys, Caltech education site, the eminent Russian scientist Sakharov, etc) but I did not stress their credentials lest I commit an appeal to authority logical fallacy. I let the matterial speak for itself. I did notice that someone used a genetic fallacy (see: Page not found - Nizkor ) in regards to me using a creationist site in part of my post, but nobody actually was able to dismiss the content of my material directly. I believe that nobody was able to address my content directly was caused by one or more of the following reasons:1. There was some good evidence that vacuums are not totally empty and there was some plausible reasons why the energy does not appear from absolutely nothing.2. The science is still murky in this area and so no dogmatic assertions could be made for nothing creating energy especially in the light of the fact the law of the conservation of matter and energy is so well established.3. The EVC Forum site has a mix of non-scientist, scientist, people who have an aptitude for science, and people who do not have an aptitude for science. I also realize that some of the topics like vacuums, casimir effect are very specialized and perhaps the discussion can only go so far given people's time constraints and their lack of very specialized knowledge. Given the mix of discussants and the specialized area we are talking about, and the evidence I have presented, I perfectly understand if people who wish to dispute my material cannot do it effectively. I do think, however, that they should not automatically dismiss my material due to philosophic reasons and this forum should have discussions that are more evidentially based. I think logical fallacies are very poor form, but given the remarks that some people have made regarding logic I cannot say at this point I am surprised. And again, I do think that the law of the conservation of matter and energy is very much evidentially based. In short, my science law "full house" still beats the duece pair of the casimir effect energy source speculations. I also believe I demonstrated via logic the inadequecy of the nothing from something proposition.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-24-2004]

I know the universe is immense. According to a BBC site the following is estimated regarding the universe's number of stars:"That figure - presented to the International Astronomical Union conference in Sydney - is the kind that really can be called astronomical: 70 sextillion, or seven followed by 22 zeroes."taken from: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Astronomers count the stars Christianities position is that an Almighty God created the universe. So it is not surprising the universe is so immense. By the way, the Bible alluded to the fact that the number of stars is immense in the Old and New Testament as can be seen below from a website:"An example comes to us from the field of Astronomy:Jeremiah 33:22(NASB)22 'As the host of heaven cannot be counted, and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.'"Hebrews 11:12(NASB)12 therefore, also, there was born of one man, and him as good as dead at that, as many descendants AS THE STARS OF HEAVEN IN NUMBER, AND INNUMERABLE AS THE SAND WHICH IS BY THE SEASHORE.Jeremiah wrote in about 600 B.C. and the the Book of Hebrews dates from about 63 A.D. Both bible writers tells us that the number of stars are as innumerable as are the sands of the seas.In 150 B.C. the ancient scientists Hipparchus decided one night to count the stars. He laid on his back all night counting stars and then stated with great confidence that there were less than 3,000 stars.In about 150 A.D. Ptolemy counted 1056 stars, and stated with confidence that the actual number could not possibly exceed 3,000.In 1608 A.D. Galileo used a telescope for the first time and discovered that there were so many stars, he announced the number was innumerable.Today we know that there are well over 100 billion suns in our own galaxy, probably trillions of galaxies in the universe. Jeremiah said that the "hosts of heaven could not be counted." This is literally true. If you were to count the suns just in our Milky Way Galaxy at the rate of 200 per minute, it would take you 1,000 years to quit counting!How did these Bible writers know these facts thousands of years before man's sophisticated instruments could demonstrate the truth of their statements? THE ANSWER IS INSPIRATION!"taken from: Welcome scripturessay.com - BlueHost.comSo could I reasonably know the total energy of such a large universe?
Absolutely not. I would say the same regarding your knowledge, however. Given this constraint, I use inductive scientific reasoning, the most established science (a scientific law), and logic. I do not resort to speculation and being illogical. Speculation has its place in science but it is a poor substiture for more established science and logic.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-24-2004]

To: PercySo far you have been the most reasonable poster in this string so far. It is correct that the net effect would be zero acording to my understanding in the scenario that you give. At the same time, however, the energy appearing from absolutely nothing is not established at all given the information I have presented regarding vacuums and the possible sources of the energy. It is also very much true that the law of the conservation of mass and energy is very well established and that nothing from something violates logic. In short, I still do not see mass appearing from nothing naturally. I would also argue that the evidence that nothing has causal power is not exactly overwhelming.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-24-2004]

TO: PercyMy previous post was for you specically.TO: Percy and ALLIt may be a while before I respond to subsequent post. I contacted the owners of my suppliers company today and I made certain commitments. I would enjoy returning to this string later and continueing the dialogue.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-24-2004]

To: crashfrogI believe in going where the best and strongest evidence leads me. I realize that there are various degrees of certainty in regards to evidence.As far as you knowing the inner workings of how evaluate evidence I would say that if you assert my Christianity somehow taints my thinking processes, I would say it is time honored principle that he who asserts must prove. And given that this is a internet discussion and you are not a mind reader I would say that the "taint" objection would be a difficult slog for you to prove. I would say that this "taint objection" is a two edged sword and I could say the same regarding you. I did mention that philosophic positions are no substitute for evidence and that some materialist were using logical fallacies like the genetic fallacy. But given their lack of addressing my post's casimir effect information directly via science or logic and given the genetic logical fallacy, I felt I was perfectly justified in mention the materialist philosopy presupposition issue. If I resort to using logical fallacies or do not attempt to use evidence or logic then I think it is fair game to talk about my presuppositions. But I do not see me using poor science or logical fallacies in my discussion of vacuums and the casimir effect.To: LoudmouthI have already acknowledged that science laws can be overturned and have been overturned. At the same time, the law of the conservation of mass and energy is extremely well established as even a professed materialist in this post string has admitted. I do believe it is being judicious to go with the stronger evidence.To: ALLI am leaving for work. I hope to continue this discussion after I have finished my commitments to my suppliers and others. It may be a while.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-24-2004]

To: PercyI was about to leave for work and I realized I needed to do something in regards to computing. My curiousity got the best of me and I saw your post.I would say that perpetual motion machines that grab energy from nothing are implausible. None of my sites were optimistic regarding perpetual motion machines. One site that you mentioned did say:"Claims for perpetual-motion machines and other free-energy devices still persist, of course, even though they inevitably turn out to violate at least one law of thermodynamics. Energy in the vacuum, though, is very much real."taken from: http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM.htmlWhere we differ, however, is the nature of vacuums. I realize that it definitely appears in regard to vacuums that you are stating they are empty. You said:"When I examine your references it is clear that they are saying something different. For example, http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM.html, is saying that what appears to be empty space is actually filled with energy. It isn't saying that energy is "appearing from absolutely nothing," but that it is a property of space itself."I think rather than just stating space is empty it would be better if you addressed the sources of information I gave in my previous post should you choose to do so. If you do not wish to do so that is fine. I have no problem with that. I will return at a later time in order to give the various contributors more time to research this matter.Lastly, I did use the reply button but I wanted to emphasize the point given my lack of commitment to using it before.To: Crashfrogre: "net energy of the universe is not zero"I cannot say I have any firm opinions regarding this matter. I would have study it further and even then given our knowledge of physics I cannot say I would arrive at any firm opinion. I do think that the law of the conservation of mass and energy though is extremely well established.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-24-2004]

TO: AllI did as much posting as I could do today given my commitment to the owners of my suppliers company today.I look forward to coming back later, although it may be awhile, and continueing the discussion. I would be interested in what people may have to say regarding the material on the casimir effect that I posted. I would also be interested in what people would have to say in regards to the casimir effect and big bang theory that creationist site commented on.Since Percy has taken an interest in this string, I am hoping it is still open when I come back. Time will tell.Sincerely,Ken