Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
31 online now:
GDR, Percy (Admin), ringo, Taq (4 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the source of life
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 181 of 211 (496822)
01-30-2009 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Straggler
01-29-2009 11:42 AM


Re Life
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

So is it God's breath or being "formed" that defines what is alive? You seem to be changing your story to suit your argument.

I would speculate that since man was the only thing that received the breath of life that is what makes man different from everything else.

When God formed animals the Bible does not say how they received life. But they did as Adam named living creatures. Genesis 2:19

Straggler writes:

Is man formed?

No, the first man was formed from the dust of the ground and God breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living soul.

No other man was ever formed from the dust of the ground.

The plants in Genesis 2:9 God made to grow out of the ground.

The beasts and fowls in Genesis 2:19 were formed from the ground.

There were no fish at this time.

There was no coral at this time.

Because there was no sea at this time.

I am referring to the time man was formed from the dust of the ground.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Straggler, posted 01-29-2009 11:42 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Straggler, posted 01-31-2009 4:30 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 182 of 211 (496824)
01-30-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by bluescat48
01-30-2009 7:54 PM


Re Life
Hi cat,

Bluescat48 writes:

Not in a sense but what there is in minute quantities. As I stated earlier about 90% of the "Ground" is composed of the the oxides of Silicon, Aluminum & Iron in that order. Everything else, including non-life elements, is the remaining 10%.

You left out Oxygen which is the most prevalent on both a weight and volume basis.

You also did not mention the four that round out the top 8 that make up the majority of the mineral matter in soils.

They are, magnesium, calcium, sodium, and potassium.

Does not in a sense mean that an omnipotent God could have found all the elements in the ground He needed to form animals out of.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by bluescat48, posted 01-30-2009 7:54 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by bluescat48, posted 01-30-2009 10:43 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 183 of 211 (496827)
01-30-2009 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Capt Stormfield
01-29-2009 9:19 AM


Re Life
Hi Capt,

Capt Stormfield writes:

So if we transplanted a different brain into a body

The first problem you have to get by to accomplish this speculation is that "IF".

There are quite a few learned men who say it is impossible. I don't know if it is or not.

Capt Stormfield writes:

I gather you are suggesting that other animals do have a mind, if not a spirit.

I have nothing that tells me they have either.

Since I was raised on a farm I do know that animals can be trained and they have some hardwired programing that is fantastic. They never try to be anything other than what they are.

Capt Stormfield writes:

What exactly was man's brain doing before God added these invisible components?

Well lets see, God had just formed the human body from the dust of the ground. It would have been like a complete human body that had no life in it. In other words nothing was working.

When God breathed the breath of life into him the man became a living breathing human being.

When the spirit and mind leave the body it will not function.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-29-2009 9:19 AM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 184 of 211 (496829)
01-30-2009 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by ICANT
01-30-2009 8:45 PM


Re: Re Life
They are, magnesium, calcium, sodium, and potassium.

Yes but lacking in one important element, phosphorous, also sulfur.
I did mention oxygen, as oxides of the 3 elements which is why it is ~90%.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2009 8:45 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 211 (496830)
01-30-2009 11:34 PM


Buzsaw Source Of Life Hypothesis
I've been reading this thread for an hour or so. By doing so I have been reminded of how the people of different ideologies look at life, origins etc and how different folks arrive at conclusions.

While reading, as an ID Biblical creationist I've been thinking about how to express my own POV on the source of life.

Here's what keeps me into the Biblical literal Genesis hypothesis relative to the source of life:

1. No creation of energy is observed. Thus I assume that all energy is eternal.

2. Since all energy is eternal that does not contradict the Biblical record.

3. Observation attests to the likelihood that life comes from life. Therefore the likelihood of the source of life being an eternal source does not contradict the Biblical record.

4. Observation attests to the likelihood that complex design is effected by a designer. Again, no contradiction to the Biblical record.

5. Scientifically speaking, the more corroborating evidence there is supportive of a/an hypothesis there is, the more credible the hypothesis.

6. Though there are debatable aspects of the Biblical record, there are historical, prophetic fulfillments, archaeological, social, and experiential corroborating evidences supportive of the Biblical record.

7. The more corroborative evidences that can be cited supportive to any historical record, the more under girded the questionable and unsupported portions of the record become. As in working with science theory and hypotheses, math, etc; the unknowns are accepted or incorporated by alleged knowns by the proponents of a given hypothesis or theory

In conclusion, There are just too many supportive evidences relative to the Biblical record and too many questionable science related problems with the unknowns of the naturalistic/secularistic mainline science POV pertaining to the source of life.

Having said the above, I realize that to discuss any or all of the above in debth would lead off topic. There are other threads where we have done and can do this.

I am unable to fully support all of my reasons for holding to the literalistic Biblical POV or to refute all of the arguments to the contrary. I remain with where I see the most evidence.

The above is not to mention the overwhelming personal experiential day by day evidence which I experience personally through application of the Biblical gospel and Biblical principles to my life and observation of that pertaining to many friends and family who are Biblicalists. Of course, these evidences are moot so far as convincing someone else by them alone. These simply corroborate the above cited evidences which assure me that the narrow road that leads to life is the cool way to go. :cool:


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Blue Jay, posted 01-31-2009 1:26 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 188 by Straggler, posted 01-31-2009 4:32 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2009 5:19 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 193 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-31-2009 7:04 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 953 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 186 of 211 (496836)
01-31-2009 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Buzsaw
01-30-2009 11:34 PM


Re: Buzsaw Source Of Life Hypothesis
Hi, Buzsaw.

Buzsaw writes:

I remain with where I see the most evidence.

I think I've found the problem. It's at the very end of your post (in fact, at the very end of a substantial number of your posts):

Buzsaw writes:

:cool:

Take off the shades, man: you'll get a much clearer view of the evidence without them.


-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2009 11:34 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2009 6:33 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 187 of 211 (496845)
01-31-2009 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by ICANT
01-30-2009 8:14 PM


Re: Re Life
I don't find where God breathed the breath of life into anything other than the first man which was the first life form.
This event only happened one time.
He does not say how He imparted life to anything else.

He did cause life forms to exist. Plants, animals, fowl and fish, but He does not give the details.

So you don't mind if I don't speculate do you?

Straggler writes:

OK. Don't speculate. Let's take the biblical account absolutely literally.

By this definition it would seem that man is the only form of life.

No?

If the bible does not say so then on what grounds do you conclude that bacteria, or indeed any other forms of life not specifically described as such in the bible, are actually alive?

All plants were made to grow out of the ground.

Every living creature was formed out of the ground.

If it is alive it was formed.

Straggler writes:

From a biblical point of view how do we determine what is alive and what is not?

ICANT writes:

The plants in Genesis 2:9 God made to grow out of the ground.

The beasts and fowls in Genesis 2:19 were formed from the ground.

There were no fish at this time.

There was no coral at this time.

Because there was no sea at this time.

I am referring to the time man was formed from the dust of the ground.

ICANT you are missing the point as usual.

If you define life in biblical terms then on what basis can you conclude that coral or bacteria are actually alive?

If you define life in biological terms then on what basis can you claim that God "breathed life" into anything?

ICANT writes:

God breathed into him the breath of life.

Life had to exist for God to transfer life to the man He had formed.

God is alive.

He has a Mind, Spirit and Body.

So no, God believing creationist do not have to accept that abiogenesis happened period.

So are bacteria alive?
On which basis, biblical or biological, do you conclude this answer?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2009 8:14 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 188 of 211 (496846)
01-31-2009 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Buzsaw
01-30-2009 11:34 PM


Re: Buzsaw Source Of Life Hypothesis
Are bacteria alive?

Can you cite the biblical reference that supports your answer?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2009 11:34 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15371
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 189 of 211 (496850)
01-31-2009 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Buzsaw
01-30-2009 11:34 PM


Re: Buzsaw Source Of Life Hypothesis
quote:

1. No creation of energy is observed. Thus I assume that all energy is eternal.

2. Since all energy is eternal that does not contradict the Biblical record.


SInce the Bible makes no real statement on the matter the Biblical record could not be contradicted on this issue whatever the facts turned out to be. THerefore this point is irrelevant.

quote:

3. Observation attests to the likelihood that life comes from life. Therefore the likelihood of the source of life being an eternal source does not contradict the Biblical record.

THis DOES contradict the Biblical record which includes examples of life coming from non-life.

quote:

4. Observation attests to the likelihood that complex design is effected by a designer. Again, no contradiction to the Biblical record.

This contradicts 3)

quote:

5. Scientifically speaking, the more corroborating evidence there is supportive of a/an hypothesis there is, the more credible the hypothesis.

This statement is seriously incomplete and misleading. Strength and quality of evidence also matters greatly. A huge pile of false, weak or even fraudulent "evidence" may be outweighed by a single strong piece of reliable evidence.

quote:

6. Though there are debatable aspects of the Biblical record, there are historical, prophetic fulfillments, archaeological, social, and experiential corroborating evidences supportive of the Biblical record.

This ignores the fact that there is very strong evidence against parts of the Biblical record (including Genesis in particular). Also the fact that the "evidence" offered includes frauds and misrepresentations (and more which are likely frauds or misrepresentations) therefore having no (or very weak) evidential value.

That is hardly a strong case when the real facts are taken into consideration.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2009 11:34 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 190 of 211 (496874)
01-31-2009 8:02 AM


Assessment of Arguments
In Message 185 Buz provided the details behind his rationale for accepting the Biblical account of the origin of life. Since this is a science thread, I'll assess these arguments using scientific criteria.

Buzsaw writes:

I've been reading this thread for an hour or so. By doing so I have been reminded of how the people of different ideologies look at life, origins etc and how different folks arrive at conclusions.

Reality is not an ideology.

1. No creation of energy is observed. Thus I assume that all energy is eternal.

Both theory and real-world evidence agree that energy and matter can be converted from one to the other, and the Casimir effect tells us that energy and matter can flit in and out of existence. Thus, energy is not eternal.

Notice also that the foundation of Buzsaw's assertion that all energy is eternal is, by his own admission, *assumption* and not evidence, so not only is the assertion wrong, it has no foundation in evidence.

2. Since all energy is eternal that does not contradict the Biblical record.

Buz erroneously reasons that assumptions that do not falsify his theory are supportive. Assumptions not based upon evidence cannot be supportive of anything, and Buz's assumption about energy was wrong anyway.

3. Observation attests to the likelihood that life comes from life. Therefore the likelihood of the source of life being an eternal source does not contradict the Biblical record.

For once Buz understates the case. He calls it a "likelihood", but observation tells us with near absolute certainty that life comes from life. What it doesn't tell us is whether there are other things from which life can spring.

Further, Buz's conclusion that it is likely that life springs from an eternal source does not follow from his premise, which was incomplete anyway.

4. Observation attests to the likelihood that complex design is effected by a designer. Again, no contradiction to the Biblical record.

When Buz says "observation attests" we have to understand that he means "my opinion about what I observe". It's only necessary to point out that the professional community studying evidence from the natural world does not share Buz's opinion.

5. Scientifically speaking, the more corroborating evidence there is supportive of a/an hypothesis there is, the more credible the hypothesis.

This is true, but I can only guess that Buz includes this in his list because he believes his four previous points contain corroborating evidence, which they do not.

6. Though there are debatable aspects of the Biblical record, there are historical, prophetic fulfillments, archaeological, social, and experiential corroborating evidences supportive of the Biblical record.

While Buz probably states this too strongly for most people's taste, we likely all agree that there are many passages in the Bible that have corroborating evidence and so are accepted as very likely true. While I have a problem with many of Buz's "corroborating evidences", I understand the spirit of what he his saying and so accept this statement. It's the next one where the serious problems arise.

7. The more corroborative evidences that can be cited supportive to any historical record, the more under girded the questionable and unsupported portions of the record become. As in working with science theory and hypotheses, math, etc; the unknowns are accepted or incorporated by alleged knowns by the proponents of a given hypothesis or theory.

Where Buz goes wrong is to draw a correspondence between his own reasoning and the reasoning used in science. Correct when he says that growing confirmations of a theory's predictions increase our confidence, he's dead wrong to equate unconfirmed predictions of theory with unconfirmed religious accounts. The former is derived from the theory's principles, while the latter have an unknown source that could range from actual events to complete mythology.

Even school boards sympathetic to creationism would understand that Buz's list of rationales is overtly religious. They would realize that even if *they* thought it belonged in the classroom that they'd never get away with promoting it as science.

And besides, this is a science thread. Buz correctly notes that to engage in a discussion of his points would lead off topic, which is why I addressed them from a scientific perspective, and looking at them in this way tells us that they contain no scientific evidence or justification for the Biblical account of the origin of life.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2009 6:47 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 211 (496977)
01-31-2009 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Blue Jay
01-31-2009 1:26 AM


Re: Buzsaw Source Of Life Hypothesis
Bluejay writes:

Take off the shades, man: you'll get a much clearer view of the evidence without them.

Hi Bluejay. Very cute and :cool: comment. Shades are cool, you know, and perhaps suited to folks who walk in the brightness of enlightenment. :p

Having read most of your input in this thread (I tend to hone in on your input as I regard it to be fair and balanced, for the most part,) I am flattered that this is all you've come up with in response to the points of my message. Likely if there were substantial arguments to my points, you would have cited them.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Blue Jay, posted 01-31-2009 1:26 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Blue Jay, posted 02-01-2009 7:59 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 211 (496980)
01-31-2009 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Percy
01-31-2009 8:02 AM


Re: Assessment of Arguments
Percy writes:

Both theory and real-world evidence agree that energy and matter can be converted from one to the other, and the Casimir effect tells us that energy and matter can flit in and out of existence. Thus, energy is not eternal.

Does the Casimir effect empirically establish that energy can actually cease to exist or is it possible that it is changed to a state undetectable by humans? If energy can cease to exist does that falsify 1LoT, or does 1LoT falsify the Casimir effect?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 01-31-2009 8:02 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1356 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 193 of 211 (496985)
01-31-2009 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Buzsaw
01-30-2009 11:34 PM


Re: Buzsaw Source Of Life Hypothesis
Hi Buzz,

Just to clarify a couple of things. BTW I am not a scientist but do have a basic understanding and education in science, so take the following as my humble opinion on your "claims":

1. No creation of energy is observed. Thus I assume that all energy is eternal.

These are typical layman assumptions of scientific terms and concepts which you (and many other layman) do not truely understand. We first need to define terms such as "creation", "energy" and "eternal". If you can define these terms first, than (yes I am a layman too, but a somewhat educated layman though in no way an expert like cavediver and others) we can attempt to show you to how you are butchering these scientific concepts i.e. the Laws of Thermodynamics.

2. Since all energy is eternal that does not contradict the Biblical record.

This may or may not be true but has not been scientifically confirmed yet. Again it depends on how you are defining "energy" and how are you defining "eternal". As confirmed by Einstein energy and matter are two forms of the same substance and are intrigately linked to spacetime itself. So the real question is, is the universe itself eternal or not. Is the Big Bang the beginning of spacetime and matter/energy or is it part of a larger multidimensional brane/hyperspace? These are pretty heavy questions that are still trying to be answered by scientists.

The current cosmological model (confirmed through observation, experimentation and deduction) stipulates that time began at the beginning of the "Big Bang" and thus time itself is not eternal. Therefore if time is not eternal (time began) than we can logically deduce that energy itself is not eternal either. However, it makes no sense to ask what occured before time began. However,
another working hypothesis is that the current Big Bang is one event of a continual succession of Big Bangs and thus is not the beginning of time. Therefore my understanding is that the jury is still out on the question of whether time as well as energy is "eternal". Again the question of whether time/energy/space/matter i.e. the universe is eternal or not, is more convaluted and deeper than the pat layman answer you provided.

3. Observation attests to the likelihood that life comes from life. Therefore the likelihood of the source of life being an eternal source does not contradict the Biblical record.

See above. Again we have to defined terms. How are you defining life? Is a virus alive? How about protiens? How about DNA, is it alive? How about organic compounds and molecules? What is "alive"?And what do you mean by "eternal source"? Do you mean a supernatural deity (existing outside the universe)? Or a natural source (part of the universe) of energy?

4. Observation attests to the likelihood that complex design is effected by a designer. Again, no contradiction to the Biblical record.

Again, throwing around undefined, ambiguous and relative terms. What do you considere complex? Is DNA considered complex? How about an atom? How about a proton, is it complex? How about photons? Gluons? How about strings (if they exist), are they complex? The term "complex" like beauty is relative to the observer and is an anthropomorphic term of human origin and understanding. Does a rock require a designer? Do crystals require a designer? And who or what is this designer? How can we determine what the characteristics of a devine designer is by looking at a pile of cow manure or by looking at a piece of limestone?

5. Scientifically speaking, the more corroborating evidence there is supportive of a/an hypothesis there is, the more credible the hypothesis.

No one would disagree with this though you seem to not quite understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. A hypothsis is more like a "working" explanation to a natural phenomena whereas a theory is an explanation/model that has been confirmed by evidence and validated through peer review. Therefore if enough corroborating evidence and observation supports a hypothesis to confirm it as being a reasonable model, by the mass of subject matter experts in that field, of a natural phenomena than it becomes a theory.

6. Though there are debatable aspects of the Biblical record, there are historical, prophetic fulfillments, archaeological, social, and experiential corroborating evidences supportive of the Biblical record.

There is some evidence that supports some of the historical events in the Bible as having actually occurred just as there is some evidence that some of the historical events in the Koran and other religous books actually occurred. However, this is a far cry from affirming that the Bible was written by some supernatural entity and that all and/or any of the supernatural events in the Bible actually occured.

7. The more corroborative evidences that can be cited supportive to any historical record, the more under girded the questionable and unsupported portions of the record become. As in working with science theory and hypotheses, math, etc; the unknowns are accepted or incorporated by alleged knowns by the proponents of a given hypothesis or theory.

Unknowns are not "accepted" in science. If it is unknown it is unknown until science can make it known. Scientific hypothesis and theories attempt to explain the previously unknown causes of known phenomena. That is mission statement of what science is all about i.e. making the unknown, known!

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2009 11:34 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2009 8:09 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 211 (496994)
01-31-2009 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by DevilsAdvocate
01-31-2009 7:04 PM


Re: Buzsaw Source Of Life Hypothesis
DA writes:

Unknowns are not "accepted" in science. If it is unknown it is unknown until science can make it known. Scientific hypothesis and theories attempt to explain the previously unknown causes of known phenomena. That is mission statement of what science is all about i.e. making the unknown, known!

1. By "accepted" I mean they are acceptable aspects of the given hypothesis or theory. For example, the unknown aspects of the BB and of abiogenesis are integral to the scientific ideology.

2. Again, the points you made are debatable but this is not the place to diverge into them in debth. My purpose was to summarize my reasons for staying with the Biblical record and why I do not regard it as empirically falsified.

3. I regard the mysterious aspects of the Biblical record on origins to be no more so than the mysterious aspects of particle and negative energy physics, for example. For me, a source of eternal energy, design and life, as per the Biblical record, relative to what is observed, make more sense than what conventional science has to offer.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-31-2009 7:04 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-31-2009 9:02 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 197 by subbie, posted 01-31-2009 11:03 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 198 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2009 6:38 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 195 of 211 (496997)
01-31-2009 8:40 PM


In Message 192, Buzsaw asks a couple questions that carry some misunderstandings and incorrect underlying assumptions. Energy does not cease to exist as in "completely disappear leaving nothing behind," but it can be converted to matter and back again and so isn't eternal. And 1LOT (conservation of energy) is consistent with the Casimir effect.

--Percy


    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019