Creation vs. Evolution

[Thalassamania]

For those keeping score....

TheDivingPreacher: Argument from Ignorance and Straw Man
Thalissmania: ad Hominem (you should be ashamed of yourself!)

R

My post was neither an argument nor an attack (ad hominem or otherwise), simply a request for data from "Caymaniac". I will go back and edit my post to make that clear.

I did not invoke the academic game ... he did. Asking him, therefore, to play it by the academic rules, is hardly something to be ashamed of.

Having a degree does not, in and of itself, make one an authority, but a degree from a prestigious institution, with a well known and respected major professor and a committee composed of eminent individuals, and a thesis published in a flagship journal and a lifetime of scholarly work that's made it into the journals ... then you can stand on it an say, I AM AN AUTORITY AND WHAT I SAY HAS WEIGHT.

Please see edit of #746

 

[wreckchick]

Just so we're all on the same page, I'm assuming you were responding to WVDiver's thread where he only made mention of being a biologist but wasn't arguing from that standpoint. The way your post came off was that UNLESS he had the PhD with the journal publications, etc. then the post had no merit. That is an ad Hominem response. Argue the premises, not the person.

R

 

[Thalassamania]

No, we're on the same page. So you've got a PhD, so what? I want him to make his arguments on the merits. If I sounded otherwise please blame it on the long weekend.

Please see edit of #746

 

[wreckchick]

All I got from his post was that he likes the idea that the original spark at the Big Bang that started the whole thing had a divine source and that makes him happy and able to reconcile faith and science so he has internal agreement.

I have no problem with that. I actually don't have a problem with anyone's personal beliefs. It doesn't impact me in any way what someone else chooses to to believe. Just don't tell me I'm wrong or that there are other theories with equal scientific backing because there just aren't. The more someone tries to convince me otherwise, the feistier I'm going to get (I think we proved that premise already).

R

 

[Thalassamania]

Glad that's straightened out. But now you still have to have to find an ad hominem.<G>

 

[wreckchick]

I stand corrected, please continue with your current line of questioning, sir.

R

 

[Thalassamania]

I stand corrected, please continue with your current line of questioning, sir.

R

Nice fish ... it needs braces<G>.

 

[wreckchick]

Ad hominem found in post #599 by caymaniac where he said that his degree superceded yours and therefore your arguement has no merit.

What do I win?

R

 

[cerich]

This is too rich! Using formal education and degrees to bolster a argument on creation vs. evolution.

Last I checked you could get a PhD in science and firmly believe in evolution and you can also get a PhD in Theology and firmly believe in creation.

Neither will affirmativly answer the question (as things stand today), in fact nothing but death will.

 

[MikeFerrara]

.

TheDivingPreacher, matter cannot be created nor destroyed but it can be turned back and forth between matter and energy. There was already a post in this thread that either described it or had a link talking about it. I'm sure lamont will be along to help you out but in the meantime you can probably Google that to get a satisfactory explanation as to why the 1st law of thermodynamics does not invalidate Big Bang Theory.

R

I think the earlier post that you mention misrepresented or, at least, incompletely represented the meaning of the equation E=MC^2. The equation doesn't invalidate either the conservation of matter or energy but rather combines the two.

When a mass gives off radiation, mass is lost and trapped radiation has mass. However that doesn't imply that you can get something from nothing nor does it imply that a 100% conversion is physically possible. The 100% conversion of even a small amount of mass to energy would be a devistating event that probably would take most everything else out with it. LOL...the matter/antimatter thing, right? It does imply that a mass at rest does have energy (lots of it) which goes beyond newtons energy equation E=(MV^2)/2 which would suggest that a resting mass has no energy. The two are reconciled by defining the total energy basically as the sum of the two. That may be oversimplistic since I didn't go into the different kinds of mass refered to in the various equations and I'm not going to try.

In any case, it would seem that spontanious creation either depends on "somthing from nothing" or a "something" that has no beginning and always existed whether it was energy or mass or both.