Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,485 Year: 3,742/9,624 Month: 613/974 Week: 226/276 Day: 2/64 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists Should Learn to Play the Game Called Science
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 9 of 47 (465679)
05-09-2008 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by munkeyhead
05-09-2008 5:24 AM


munkyhead writes:
quote:
matter cannot be created or destroyed then what exploded to make all we see?
What does this have to do with evolution? You are conflating thermodynamics and cosmogenesis with biology.
Evolution can't tell us how the universe began or even how life began and it doesn't even try. Evolution is about what happens to life after it exists. Evolution doesn't care how the universe came into being because it is consistent with every method you care to name.
Are you saying that if god created the universe, then it is impossible for populations of organisms to change over time?
quote:
Remember even elements cannot be created or detsroyed.
Incorrect. Both fission and fusion are the conversion of elements from one into the other. In the first, a heavy element splits into two lighter ones. In the common uranium reaction, a single atom of uranium fissions into an atom of rubidium and an atom of cesium.
Fusion, on the other hand, combines atoms into new ones. It's how the sun works: Atoms of hydrogen are fused into helium.
quote:
Where are the facts proven by experimentation showing where the elements came from to explode.
That's what experiments like WMAP, COBE, and PLANCK come in. But again, you are confusing cosmogenesis with evolution. The universe could have come into being any way you wish, it would have no effect on the way life imperfectly replicates from generation to generation.
quote:
If you could prove it you would take all the fun away from this timeless debate.
So what would it take for you to claim it had been shown? Please help us out here by letting us know what sort of evidence you would need to see.
For example, why is the WMAP experiment insufficient? What would the results of the WMAP experiment had to have been in order for you to accept them?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by munkeyhead, posted 05-09-2008 5:24 AM munkeyhead has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024