Did somebody call for a physicist? No? Well, you should have.

E=mc^2

should really be written

E = \gamma m c^2

and is the formula for the total energy of a particle in the theory of special relativity. Special relativity is a generic name for a set of generic coordinate transformation that preserve a) The form of the laws of physics and b) specifically, the speed of light as a consequence of the laws of Electrodynamics when changing inertial reference frames. An inertial reference frame is any coordinate system that is moving at a uniform (unaccelerated) velocity relative to all other unaccelerated frames.

To understand this, think about driving your car down a long straight highway at constant speed, say 60 mph. A fly is buzzing along from the back of the car to the front of the car at (say) 3 mph relative to the driver. An observer on the ground, in old/classical Galilean relativity, would see the speed of the fly relative to the ground as the speed of the car plus the speed of the fly, or 63 mph.

Einstein noted that while this appears to work quite accurately for a fly, it cannot be true for light because light is a waveform consequent on Maxwell's equations, and if ME's aren't the same in the car and on the ground, physics is going to be an inconsistent theory. That is, if one shines a flashlight from the back of the car to the front of the car and measures the speed of light in the moving car, one should get c (3x10^8 m/sec). If one measures the speed of light in the car on the ground (where the light moves a greater distance in order to reach the front of the car, which moves as the light is en route, one should still get c.

This means that the observer in the car and on the ground, in order to agree on the speed of light, must disagree on how long the light was travelling and how far it went, disagree in just the right way for the ratio to remain constant. This also means that our beliefs were incorrect even for the fly because it is space and time that are mixing up as one changes frames, so all other speeds shift slightly.

This finally means that our Galilean concept of energy and momentum of even ordinary particles is incorrect. In order to correctly match up with the kinetic energy of a free particle at low relative speeds, the \gamma m c^2 form is necessary where \gamma is a function of the particle speed that appears in the Lorentz transformation that preserves the invariant lengths of four vectors (and the speed of light). The first two terms of the expansion of E are:

E = m c^2 + 1/2 m v^2 + ...

The first term is a constant "rest energy" of the particle -- the energy it has in a frame where it is at rest. The second term is the low-speed kinetic energy term that appears in Newtonian classical physics.

The consequence of this theory plus Einstein's equivalence principle is that whenever one increases the total energy of a particle -- by speeding it up or by placing it in a strong potential (say the binding potential of an atom or nucleus) its mass increases. When one moves it to a state with less binding energy, its mass decreases. Less binding energy means more kinetic energy (proportionally, energy being conserved) and hence mass and energy are interconvertible.

This means, quite literally, that if one has two systems with identical numbers of particles -- say, two identical pens -- and one heats up one of the two to a higher temperature, its mass will be very slightly greater. It means that the mass of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, widely separated, is slightly greater than the mass of one water molecule. It means that if one examines nuclear stability curves, two deuterium nucleii have slightly more mass when separated than one helium nucleus, one Uranium nucleus in isolation has slightly more mass than two nucleii that are its fission fragments. In the latter two cases, however, the mass defect is roughly ten million times larger than the mass defect in the case of the water molecule. Atom per atom, one liberates millions of times more energy converting two nuclei to a single more stable nucleus with slightly smaller mass, which is fortunate as it is this process that provides energy to the stars, including our sun.

If this is still not clear to you, at least it is now moderately accurate. However, it is of no use to a theist -- quite the opposite.

The correct statement of conservation is that it is mass-energy that is conserved in our Universe. It has never been observed to be created or destroyed, and if it were not conserved precisely there would be enormous and immediately visible consequences. That is to say, no act of creation has ever been observed in our cosmos, and we have very good reasons to believe that creation (or destruction) of mass-energy is inconsistent with the stable existence of the cosmos. All we ever see is preexisting stuff moving around and changing form, not anything "new".

Mass-energy is not all that is conserved -- there are many other conservation laws and all of the dynamics we observe as things move around preserves the values of things like charge, total momentum and angular momentum, pseudospin, baryon and/or lepton number. The cosmos we live in appears to be extremely precisely structured and to be governed by laws that are never broken.

So much for any argument for "creation". If we went by actual evidence, all of the evidence of our senses and eyes suggests without exception that there is no such thing, save in the sense of a potter "creating" a pot, which is nothing more than moving clay around that already exists, which in turn consists of atoms and nuclei that are made up of mass-energy that already exists, and as far as we can tell have always existed. We have no reason whatsoever to believe that there was ever a moment where there was nothing, and then there was something, and every reason to believe that the mass-energy of everything that exists has always existed.

Now, regarding evolution.

Nathan is dead on the money. There are, quite literally, mountains of evidence for evolution. Mountains that are chock full of fossils that are organized in layers in the rock strata. Rock strata that are laid down in time. Time that can be dated by radiometric dating using things like the decay rates (well known) of Uranium in crystals in the rocks themselves. From radiometric dating we can tell the age of the Earth itself reasonably accurately. From radiometric dating of moon rocks brought back from the moon we can date the moon. We can date the many, many layers of sedimentary rock containing fossils, and hence can date the fossils themselves. We can (using different methods) observe the stars in the sky and, because looking farther away is looking back in time, see the entire natural history of our cosmos laid out like a movie that runs backwards the farther away one looks. We can see that our cosmos is roughly 13.5 billion years old, and can see using e.g. the Hubble space telescope all the way back to within a few hundred million years of the beginning of this cycle of its (probably eternal) existence.

If one looks at all of this evidence, quite literally the evidence one can see with one's own (enhanced) eyes using things like microscopes and telescopes and remarkably simple devices that we engineer and completely understand, one concludes that the book of Genesis is complete, utter, hogwash from beginning to end. Creation never occurred as it describes, and in fact its description is completely silly, with the Earth and flowering plants preceding the sun and self-luminous moon. The dated fossil record tells a different story of the Earth coming into existence only some eight billion years after the Big Bang, after the Sun, and long, long before the development of flowering plants (which are a very recent development and co-evolved with the also quite recent bee, required for a flowering plant to reproduce successfully).

Why does one believe in evolution? One simple answer is that if one looks at a layer of strata and dates it objectively, one then can predict what fossils one will find in it. One never finds a flowering plant fossil in a layer that is older than the time the first flowering plants appeared. One never finds any fossils that are truly out of place. The fact that in the layers one can usually trace the explicit evolutionary track and probable ancestor species of new animals and plants as they first emerge in the fossil record is also powerfully convincing.

Even this evidence pales, however, before the evidence developed since the discovery of DNA and the development of the science of genetics. We now know how things evolved in exquisite detail. We can see evolution in action every day, as we breed antibiotic resistant diseases through natural selection, as new lethal viruses emerge, as we go for walks with our dogs, dogs that look nothing like the wolves that were their remote ancestors, as we observe new species of fruit fly emerge under selective breeding pressure in the laboratory. We can run computer models of evolution, and learn (as we have) that genetic optimization algorithms are enormously powerful nonlinear problem solvers, quite capable of explaining the astounding range and diversity of life given billions of years and billions of generations to work with.

Nowhere in this cosmology is there room for an invisible hand. The laws of physics, as noted, are rigorous and exact. The observational evidence for an old Universe, one inconsistent with Genesis, is there before your eyes every time you walk outside on a clear night and look up. It is nobody's fault but your own if you turn your head away and blind your senses and your reason to what the stars have to say. The evidence for the evolution of species through a mix of mutation, interspecies breeding, and natural selection is also overwhelming, both in the rocks of the world where again you can see it if you visit any good museum of natural history and in our very genes.

Superstition and myth are unreason, and unreason is evil. Genesis is superstitious myth, unreasonable, and hence evil. It is evil in the precise sense that when one "believes" in it in the face of contradictory evidence, one starts to live in a fantasy world. Making real-world decisions on the basis of an elaborate fantasy is dangerous to yourself and others. We watch in the news every day as people kill one another (and threaten ourselves and our loved ones) because of their irrational belief in their own favorite elaborate fantasy.

The world needs to be done with this.

rgb

Science isn't exactly my strong point.

Plus, I got that stuff off of the internet.

go minnesota vikings!!! *leah saved by Jesus Chris wrote: "Nathan wrote: "it has everything to do with it. It is, after all, the formula for energy, is it not?

Just because the E stands for units of energy doesn't mean it has a thing to do with nuclear ..."

ending this argument, matter is not destroyed in nuclear reactions, atoms are broken up into smaller particles we cant observe cause theyre radio active and will kill us.

go minnesota vikings!!! *leah saved by Jesus Chris wrote: "Ok, this a little late, but MATTER CAN BE CREATED!! here's what LiveScience said "Scientists claim to have created a form of aluminum that's nearly transparent to extreme ultraviolet radiation and ..."

matter cant be created or destroyed. theres a set amount of matter in the universe. it isnt atoms or electrons or even quarks, there are smaller and smaller particles that are finite and can be altered to make different elements.

agreed...for once

This means I can actually recharge, do a little writing, and get 8 hours of sleep tonight.

Yeah, this is eating up a bit too much of my time tonight.

He's gone? No offense to you Nathan, I kinda glad. This means I can actually recharge, do a little writing, and get 8 hours of sleep tonight.

Look above.

What is your point?

My point is simple, that energy and matter can be created and destroyed

I'm off to do some work. If you have something else to say, feel free, but I may not get back to you guys until later tonight or tomorrow.

Also, matter not being created or destroyed simply means that matter can be transformed (into energy for instance). That is what happens in a nuclear reaction.

The "missing" rest mass must therefore reappear as kinetic energy released in the reaction; its source is the nuclear binding energy. Using Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc², the amount of energy released can be determined. "

What is your point? You don't even understand the words you are typing.

My mistake about the nuclear reaction aspect of it. I was thinking about the application of the formula to something else.

Nathan wrote: "it has everything to do with it. It is, after all, the formula for energy, is it not?

Just because the E stands for units of energy doesn't mean it has a thing to do with nuclear reactions. And i..."

but it is the formula for energy. and it does have to do with the equation. "In a nuclear reaction, the total (relativistic) energy is conserved. The "missing" rest mass must therefore reappear as kinetic energy released in the reaction; its source is the nuclear binding energy. Using Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc², the amount of energy released can be determined. "

No it isnt....

Yes, it is.

what about the different species?

Species evolve over time and branch out into different species. What about it?

No it isnt....

what about the different species?

Ok, this a little late, but MATTER CAN BE CREATED!! here's what LiveScience said "Scientists claim to have created a form of aluminum that's nearly transparent to extreme ultraviolet radiation and which is a new state of matter."

it has everything to do with it. It is, after all, the formula for energy, is it not?

Just because the E stands for units of energy doesn't mean it has a thing to do with nuclear reactions. And it doesn't.

and you didnt respond to my adaptaion answer

You didn't ask me a question.

Genetic adaptation is evolution.

Nathan wrote: "e=mc2

E = mc2 is Einstein's Theory of Relativity and has nothing to do with nuclear reactions."

it has everything to do with it. It is, after all, the formula for energy, is it not?

e=mc2

E = mc2 is Einstein's Theory of Relativity and has nothing to do with nuclear reactions.

and you didnt respond to my adaptaion answer

Monkeys are animals in a specific species...... Humans are in a different Species...

like what nathan.. like what?

The fossil record, DNA, molecular biology, genetics...I could go on and on.

but evolution says monkeys can form into animals??!?!?

Monkeys are animals.

Nathan wrote: "There is no proof that evolution actually exsisted! There isn't even scietific proof that evolution exsisted!

Your science teacher is a moron. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution."

My scince teacher, thankyouverymuch, isn't a moron and went to university studying this boring stuff! And if there is evidence, pray tell, what is it? I will not be surprised if you come up with something that is full of what you like to call us Christians. You like to call us "BS", don't you?

hey, Nathan, didn't you say that Mattter can't be destroyed? I'm sorry to say, you're wrong.

It's destoryed during nuclear reactions. In fact "this is why Einstein's equation e=mc2 is important. The amount of mass destroyed multiplied by the speed of light squared is how much energy is created by the reaction."

like what nathan.. like what? Birds that have the same beak that is different but just a little bit..thats not evolution... thats adaptaion and even beyond that, theres no proof of adaptatoin jumping speacies.. its always the same...but evolution says monkeys can form into animals??!?!?


you do know that Darwin died as a christian right?

but if you are basing Energy on science...where the parts that make it up?

I don't understand the question.

There is no proof that evolution actually exsisted! There isn't even scietific proof that evolution exsisted!

Your science teacher is a moron. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution.

Nathan wrote: "why cant you believe god was here...now.. and will be forever

Matter and energy are not complex sentient beings. Consciousness is something that develops through evolution. It doesn't just alway..."

Hmm, this makes me remember something my science teacher told me a while ago. What was it?

Oh, yeah! There is no proof that evolution actually exsisted! There isn't even scietific proof that evolution exsisted!

He is the most complex thing ever existed..

but if you are basing Energy on science...where the parts that make it up?...there has to be a base

If I were to speak from your point of view, your statements make just as much sense as mine...

No they don't. I explain that in post 200.

Nik has a point..same w/ greer

why cant you believe god was here...now.. and will be forever

Matter and energy are not complex sentient beings. Consciousness is something that develops through evolution. It doesn't just always exist. Complexity develops over time. If God were real, he would have to be the most complex thing that ever existed, this would need to develop over time, not have always existed.

But if my logic is flawed, so is yours... If I were to speak from your point of view, your statements make just as much sense as mine...

It had to have gotten here somehow, some way...

So let me guess, your argument is that matter and energy needed a creator because you can't see how they could have always been here and that that creator must be your Christian God?

Yet you want to say that another form of energy, God, which is even more complex than the matter and energy you can't believe was always here, was always here?

Your logic is impeccably flawed.

Nathan wrote: "But how did they get here? They had to be created somehow in order to be here now. How do you know they were always here?

It's almost like a I already answered this question. Oh wait, I did."

it won't kill you to answer it again

So you believe that Energy is here. now ... and will be forever...

why cant you believe god was here...now.. and will be forever

Nathan wrote: "it's unlikely they faced the same type of circumstances, and even if they did, wouldn't they all be, like, copies of eachother?

This statement makes no sense at all. Of course planets face differ..."

yeah, i relize now it makes no sense.

What I meant was that you said they faced differeing circumstances. Even though they are different distances from the sun, how would that have affected the matter?

Nathan wrote: "But how did they get here? They had to be created somehow in order to be here now. How do you know they were always here?

It's almost like a I already answered this question. Oh wait, I did."

Hehehe.

Nathan wrote: "But as I said, it couldn't have just appeared...

Okkkaaaayyyy... I said the same. It didn't just appear. It always existed."

But once again I'll ask how do we know that and you'll say since it can't be destroyed or created and it's here now, then it's always been here and this will just keep going in this everlasting loop...

But how did they get here? They had to be created somehow in order to be here now. How do you know they were always here?

It's almost like a I already answered this question. Oh wait, I did.

S-C-I-E-N-C-E.

So science just says matter is here, always has been here and always will be here? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make much sense to me... It had to have gotten here somehow, some way...

But as I said, it couldn't have just appeared...

Okkkaaaayyyy... I said the same. It didn't just appear. It always existed.

Except that we know matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so actually, yeah, it does mean they were always here.

But how did they get here? They had to be created somehow in order to be here now. How do you know they were always here?

How do we know that?

S-C-I-E-N-C-E.

That is not a necessary conclusion at all. It does not follow linearly from the initial premises.

But as I said, it couldn't have just appeared...

it's unlikely they faced the same type of circumstances, and even if they did, wouldn't they all be, like, copies of eachother?

This statement makes no sense at all. Of course planets face different circumstances. Their differing distances from the sun are already different circumstances and there are plenty more.

Except that we know matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so actually, yeah, it does mean they were always here. Computers can both be created and destroyed.

How do we know that?

Nathan wrote: "Is this really a big deal? that i'm not gonna tell my age? is it? No, it's not.

The big deal is the rationale you gave for not telling it.

I'm not a genius, but I am smart for my age.

Then you m..."

You haven't seen me in school. Plus, this has nothing to do w/ the main disscussion so can we please stop arguing about my age and how smart i am? It's completey irrelevant to the cause at hand and i SUGGEST we get back to what we are supposed to be disscussing!!

Just because matter and energy exist now, doesn't mean that it existed before the Earth way created.

Except that we know matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so actually, yeah, it does mean they were always here. Computers can both be created and destroyed.

Someone must have put the matter and energy here...

That is not a necessary conclusion at all. It does not follow linearly from the initial premises.

Nathan wrote: "How could some turn into matter and the rest stay energy?

Differing circumstances causes things to react differently."

Yes, I know that. But you see, there are 7 planets, possibly more, and they are all in different places, and they all probably face different circumstances. it's unlikely they faced the same type of circumstances, and even if they did, wouldn't they all be, like, copies of eachother?