Jump to content


Photo

Belief In Methodological Naturalism


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#61 Vegan

Vegan

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Chesterfield, Virginia

Posted 07 March 2014 - 01:33 PM

Why? If you have a case to put forward put it forward... If its YOUR argument YOU need to make it.

 

Sorry, but "my coffee gets cold" doesn't prove that the BB was a supernatural event. 

 

So can you answer the question or not?

 

A- The natural prerogative of energy is to move towards a chaotic state (hence entropy)

A2- Therefore the natural state of energy is chaotic random heat energy which cannot be utilised

A3- Therefore if the BB occurred the energy would automatically enter this state

B- Energy is required to decrease the entropy of an area

C- The universe itself is a closed system and thus requires an energy source outside itself in order to reduce the entropy of the energy in the universe

 

In order to support your argument you'll need to show that the net entropy of the Universe has decreased. You'll need to provide me with some evidence and not "my coffee gets cold".

 

So what was the net entropy of the Universe at t=0, Gilbo? And what affect do gravity and inflation have on net entropy? 

 

Something from nothing defies natural laws....

 

Did these laws exist when "something came from nothing"? 

 

Great then you should agree with me that evolution cannot be claimed as a fact

 

 

 

Science is based on the here and now..... YES things can be revised AFTER new evidence is found, however UNTIL that new evidence is found in order to be (actually) scientific you are required to follow the current evidence to where it leads, and it leads to the BB being supernatural.... Do you think it is scientific for you to not follow the current evidence in the hope that future evidence will vindicate your choice to do so? As I have stated before that is an argument to the future logical fallacy

 

What evidence? So far you've explained why coffee gets cold but you haven't really demonstrated that the net entropy of the Universe has decreased. 

 

Claiming "years and years of research" isn't a demonstration of such a thing. Additionally how does claiming that the BB was a supernatural event contradicts anything research has shown... In fact it actually fills in the problems quite nicely....

 

Of course it does. Magic can explain anything.

 

You are complaining that we shouldn't accept a position due to future evidence that MAY demonstrate otherwise, this means you do not want to accept a position due to this potential future evidence, and since all things in science have the potential for future evidence to overturn them to take your position seriously is to not accept anything in science due to the potential of it being overturned... Thus you are destroying scientific investigation...

 

This is nonsense. You claimed that we should follow the evidence and accept that the BB was a supernatural event. But you haven't shown any evidence that would lead me to such a conclusion. Claiming that we should assume "God did it" because we don't know what caused the BB is what is destroying scientific investigation.

 

As I said if you cannot decrease the NET entropy then you cannot decrease the NET entropy...

 

Show me where net entropy has decreased and your argument that the BB defies the 2nd law might be valid.

 

Ergo to decrease the NET entropy in the universe is to require an energy source OUTSIDE of the universe..

 

But you haven't shown that it has decreased!

 

Pray tell how the NET entropy of the universe is reduced.... (This is what you are not understanding... The entropy of the universe is ALWAYS increasing, even if one locality is decreasing entropy it does so at the cost to another locality and at the same time it is still slightly increasing whilst it is decreasing- think of a bucket of water with holes in it being filled up)

 

When has it decreased? 

 

You keep repeating yourself that the BB defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics but when was this decrease in net entropy?

 

However I already told you that your argument was void since I haven't explicitly stated who the creator was

 

 

Do you believe in God and if so which one? 

 

Or do you want to argue that a creator which you don't even believe in was responsible for the BB?

 

additionally I demonstrated how such an argument defies your own atheistic beliefs and thus is really silly to try and use.

 

I'm not an atheist. 

 

No I have demonstrated how the knowledge that we DO KNOW can point to a Creator... Can you please stop with this false "God of the Gaps" analogy

 

What doesn't point to a creator? Is there anything that could possibly falsify this "creator" that you refuse to reveal the origin of?  



#62 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 March 2014 - 02:19 PM

What doesn't point to a creator? Is there anything that could possibly falsify this "creator" that you refuse to reveal the origin of?  

Vegan, question for you; Does something not being subject to the scientific method equate to being not real and/or unknowable?

#63 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 07 March 2014 - 04:13 PM

...


Gotcha Marmalade. Bye bye bananawave.gif



#64 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 March 2014 - 04:39 PM

Gotcha Marmalade. Bye bye bananawave.gif


Marmalade? Don't you mean; Evad? :P

#65 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 07 March 2014 - 04:43 PM

Marmalade? Don't you mean, Evad? tongue.png

 

No, I meant Harry. 25r30wi.gif



#66 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 March 2014 - 04:48 PM

No, I meant Harry. 25r30wi.gif

No wonder it sometimes feels like evolutionists are all alike. :P

#67 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 March 2014 - 02:40 AM

Gotcha Marmalade. Bye bye bananawave.gif

 

I thought there was something familiar about him... I guess it was the utter refusal to comprehend an opposing argument in its proper context... Yet many of the die-hard evolutionists do this regardless.

 

 

Sorry, but "my coffee gets cold" doesn't prove that the BB was a supernatural event. 

 

Ah evidence for my statement above thanks biggrin.png

 

It seems you have taken my argument out of context (once again) and are refusing to listen...

 

When the coffee gets cold what has happened to the heat energy? It is lost (not destroyed), it is now random useless heat energy which cannot be utilized... It is now "chaotic energy".... Thus the natural prerogative of energy is to become this chaotic energy, however if this is so then how did the energy become "ordered" in the first place?

 

In other-words if the natural state of energy is to achieve maximum entropy what reduced the entropy in the first place? Since if energy was formed naturally then it would form in its natural state.... Thus to have energy which can be utiised and thus moving towards maximum entropy means that a decrease in entropy was required, thus defying the natrual prerogative of energy, thus be supernatural.... (This is like the third time I've explained this).

 

 

So can you answer the question or not?

 

Why should I answer a red herring? If YOU have an argument, YOU were asked to present it... You have thus failed to do so, instead complain create strawmen and red herrings...

 

In order to support your argument you'll need to show that the net entropy of the Universe has decreased. You'll need to provide me with some evidence and not "my coffee gets cold".

 

That was the evidence... IF you had bothered to READ and comprehend my posts you would understand my point.

 

The natural state of energy is maximum entropy, this is based on the fact that entropy always increases...

 

So what was the net entropy of the Universe at t=0, Gilbo? And what affect do gravity and inflation have on net entropy? 

 

Firstly how can I know such a thing, secondly this has nothing to do with my argument... You do not need to know anything about the early state of the universe...

 

Did these laws exist when "something came from nothing"? 

 

Another red herring.... Did you get these for free when you bought your strawmen in that bulk sale? wink.png

 

What evidence? So far you've explained why coffee gets cold but you haven't really demonstrated that the net entropy of the Universe has decreased. 

 

it seems you've "forgotten" my posts....

 

To decrease entropy locally is to require energy from outside the system, in terms of the Earth we have the sun, (however this also requires sophisticated cellular systems to harness it in terms of biological usage)... Now considering that he universe is a closed system, then in order to decrease the entropy of the universe itself is to require energy outside of the universe... hence God.

 

So entropy is the build up of this random (chaotic) heat energy, so how did the energy start off "ordered", what "wound up" the universe in this way, if the natural prerogative of energy is to stay in a chaotic state?

 

 

This is nonsense. You claimed that we should follow the evidence and accept that the BB was a supernatural event. But you haven't shown any evidence that would lead me to such a conclusion. Claiming that we should assume "God did it" because we don't know what caused the BB is what is destroying scientific investigation.

 

I've shown how it defies entropy... All you can do is whine complain and declare that saying "nah uh" is a valid rebuttal

 

 

Show me where net entropy has decreased and your argument that the BB defies the 2nd law might be valid.

 

The natural progression of energy is to move towards chaos (entropy) therefore its natural state is maximum entropy / chaos / random useless energy...

 

Therefore since the natural state of energy is maximum entropy if the universe was created "naturally" then the energy would exist in this state. However the energy doesn't exist in a maximum entropy state, the energy was "wound up"....

 

Now IF there was a way to utilise the random heat energy THEN this goes out the window, (but so too does the law of entropy wink.png )

 

But you haven't shown that it has decreased!

 

When has it decreased? 

 

At the start of the universe.... Duh!

 

The energy in the universe was "wound up" thus defying entropy otherwise it would exist in its  natural state of maximum entropy...

 

 

You keep repeating yourself that the BB defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics but when was this decrease in net entropy?

 

Do you believe in God and if so which one? 

 

Yet another red herring....

 

Or do you want to argue that a creator which you don't even believe in was responsible for the BB?

 

Another red herring... Have you been on a fishing trip recently? wink.png

 

I'm not an atheist. 

 

Could have fooled me wink.png

 

What doesn't point to a creator? Is there anything that could possibly falsify this "creator" that you refuse to reveal the origin of?  

 

I refuse to do what now?? You do realize that nobody believes in a created god... (aka idol)...



#68 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 08 March 2014 - 09:04 PM

I asked you to demonstrate / support your false assertion that I do not understand thermodynamics... Are you going to support this claim of yours or are you going to admit that you were wrong? Yes or No?

Seems Vegan is gone, so I'll step in on this one.

 

When I asked you to give the unit of measurement for entropy, you were unable to do so.  In addition, in order to support a claim the BB violates the "law of entropy" one would need to know the energy status of the universe before and after the event. 

 

You claim the BB violates a fundamental law of science.  Yet the none of the astrophysicists, astronomers, cosmologists, and physicists who do know how entropy is quantified seem to have noticed this.  Don't you think at least a few of the actual experts in the relevant fields would have spotted such a breach of the basic laws of science?

 

 

I demonstrated it before, its a little thing called logic.

 

A- The natural prerogative of energy is to move towards a chaotic state (hence entropy)

A2- Therefore the natural state of energy is chaotic random heat energy which cannot be utilised

A3- Therefore if the BB occurred the energy would automatically enter this state

B- Energy is required to decrease the entropy of an area

C- The universe itself is a closed system and thus requires an energy source outside itself in order to reduce the entropy of the energy in the universe

Entropy is a measure of the loss of the ability to do useful work in a system.... which is why your cup of coffee cools.  The BB model suggests the universe has also cooled.... from temperatures in the order of 10^32 (a hundred million trillion trillion degrees) kelvin to near absolute zero.

 

With regard to "C," the estimates I've seen are that the sum of energy and matter in the universe is near zero.  That would indicate no violation of the Second Law.

 

 

5- Great then you should agree with me that evolution cannot be claimed as a fact (absolute).

Not a problem for me.  I would describe evolution as the best scientific explanation available.  Considering the topic (ie: "Methodological Naturalism"), I would even be willing to take that to the next step and say evolution is the best NATURAL explanation.  (The same thing applies to the Big Bang.)   How's that?


  • greg likes this

#69 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 08 March 2014 - 10:18 PM

piasan, could you speak on the 2nd law and the issue that the cosmos could not have an eternal past?

#70 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 March 2014 - 10:35 PM

Seems Vegan is gone, so I'll step in on this one.

 

Yes because he was a person who was previously banned trolling the forum...

 

 

When I asked you to give the unit of measurement for entropy, you were unable to do so. 

 

Where did you ask this? Also I don't see how it has any relevance.... Unless it was a red herring you wanted to use...

http://en.wikibooks....urement/Entropy

 

In addition, in order to support a claim the BB violates the "law of entropy" one would need to know the energy status of the universe before and after the event. 

 

Why?.... My argument doesn't require such... As I have stated the prerogative of energy is to become maximum entropy, as such when the BB occured the energy should have entered such a state since that is the natural prerogative of the universe... However something (someone) "wound up" the universe.

 

You claim the BB violates a fundamental law of science.  Yet the none of the astrophysicists, astronomers, cosmologists, and physicists who do know how entropy is quantified seem to have noticed this.  Don't you think at least a few of the actual experts in the relevant fields would have spotted such a breach of the basic laws of science?

 

Argument to authority... Perhaps for the same reason they cannot see how having something from nothing defies the 1st law.....

 

Entropy is a measure of the loss of the ability to do useful work in a system.... which is why your cup of coffee cools.  The BB model suggests the universe has also cooled.... from temperatures in the order of 10^32 (a hundred million trillion trillion degrees) kelvin to near absolute zero.

 

And?... You've just shown that entropy is increasing....

 

With regard to "C," the estimates I've seen are that the sum of energy and matter in the universe is near zero.  That would indicate no violation of the Second Law.

 

READ my argument again... Its based on the prerogative of energy to increase entropy and enter "maximum entropy" (random heat energy that cannot be utilized)... IF this is the prerogative of energy then this is what energy should have been when the BB occured and created it (also defying the 1st law of thermodynamics).. You can prove me wrong by demonstrating that maximum entropy is not the prerogative of energy.

 

Not a problem for me.  I would describe evolution as the best scientific explanation available.  Considering the topic (ie: "Methodological Naturalism"), I would even be willing to take that to the next step and say evolution is the best NATURAL explanation.  (The same thing applies to the Big Bang.)   How's that?

 

Great :) Then I have a task for you.

 

Please correct your fellow evolutionists every time they claim "evolution is a fact" because to do so is to demonstrate their unscientific / religious faith in evolution and how they are not willing to be swayed by future evidence.



#71 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 March 2014 - 06:51 AM

Seems Vegan is gone, so I'll step in on this one.

Don't you mean Marmalade?;)
 

You claim the BB violates a fundamental law of science.  Yet the none of the astrophysicists, astronomers, cosmologists, and physicists who do know how entropy is quantified seem to have noticed this.

If they accept the Big Bang on its own terms they don't just admit it but claim this violation of science is itself 'science'. It gives me great hope to realize that even materialists discuss miracles, even if it's in shrouded terminology.
 

Not a problem for me.  I would describe evolution as the best scientific explanation available.  Considering the topic (ie: "Methodological Naturalism"), I would even be willing to take that to the next step and say evolution is the best NATURAL explanation.  (The same thing applies to the Big Bang.)   How's that?

Firstly, neither Darwinian Evolution or The Big Bang are subject to methodological science. Evolution is 'the best' godless explanation. As a practicing Roman Catholic, this should provide you some pause.

I know the Pope had said evolution is ok. He was wrong.

I still don't understand how cognitive dissonance doesn't ensue when someone says The Big Bang is a natural explanation when it's beginning is, on its own terms, a violation of what we observe as natural. We're not the ones claiming this, btw. It's claimed by its architects, supporters and every Discovery Channel special which talks about it with sanctimonious music playing in the background.

#72 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 09 March 2014 - 07:53 AM

No wonder it sometimes feels like evolutionists are all alike. tongue.png

That's convergent Evolution!



#73 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 March 2014 - 01:46 PM

Don't you mean Marmalade?wink.png

Well, I knew him only as "Vegan."  I'll accept that the administrators have done the research to tie him to the other names that have been mentioned.

 

If they accept the Big Bang on its own terms they don't just admit it but claim this violation of science is itself 'science'. It gives me great hope to realize that even materialists discuss miracles, even if it's in shrouded terminology.

Asimov's "Judo Argument" comes to mind.  In part, it goes like this: 

I am, as a matter of fact, surprised that those Believers who advance this
argument (and reveal their ignorance of thermodynamics) should think that
the suggestion can possibly hold. Do they honestly think that scientists
are so stupid that they would not see the conflict between evolution and
the second law if it existed - or, seeing it, would be so lost in malice as
to ignore it just to spite God?

("The Judo Argument," pages 225-237 in "The Planet That Wasn't", 1976, New
York: Avon Books)

 

(Substitute "Big Bang" for "evolution" and it's the same thing.)

 

Firstly, neither Darwinian Evolution or The Big Bang are subject to methodological science. Evolution is 'the best' godless explanation. As a practicing Roman Catholic, this should provide you some pause.

What gave me pause was the Biblical claim of a universe only 6,000 years old when we can SEE, with the unaided eye, objects 2.4 million light years from Earth.  Science is incomepetent to deal with God because it is restricted to natural testing.  I have no problem with evolution (and the Big Bang) as processes of creation used by God.

 

Keep in mind.... the evidence by which I reject Genesis literalis exists whether the BB is true or not.  So, I can sit here and say the BB can be absolutely, totally, completely wrong.  That does nothing to deal with the reason for my acceptance of deep time.

 

I know the Pope had said evolution is ok. He was wrong.

As far as I know, every Pope since Pius XII in 1950 has said the same thing..... the Catholic Church has no issue with evolution if it is seen as a process of creation used by God.

 

You may say the Pope(s) are wrong.... but you are not my religious mentor.  Back when I was 20 or so, if I had approached my religious mentors with the issues I had and they said (paraphrasing the creationist ministries):  "If the evidence contradicts the Bible, it is invalid by definition."  I would have walked away from all religious belief then and there.

 

Catholics don't accept the doctrine of sola scriptura.  We believe God also speaks to us through His creation itself.  Since "truth cannot contradict truth" if there is a conflict between the Bible and God's creation, we must find a way to reconcile the difference.

 

 

I still don't understand how cognitive dissonance doesn't ensue when someone says The Big Bang is a natural explanation when it's beginning is, on its own terms, a violation of what we observe as natural.

The problem is that we have no evidence of the "beginning" of the BB.  Any such evidence was destroyed in the event itself.  Gilbo took me to task for that claim before.  It did not originate with me, but with Robert Jastrow:

"So, the scientist asks himself, what cause led to the effect we call the Universe? And he proceeds to examine the conditions under which the world began. But then he sees that he is deprived-today, tomorrow, and very likely forever-of finding out the answer to this critical question.

 

Why is that? The answer has to do with the conditions that prevailed in the first moments of the Universe's existence. At that time it must have been compressed to an enormous-perhaps infinite-density, temperature and pressure. The shock of that moment must have destroyed every relic of an earlier, pre-creation Universe that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion. To find that cause, the scientist must reconstruct the chain of events that took place prior to the seeming moment of creation, and led to the appearance of our Universe as their end product. But just this, he cannot do. For all the evidence he might have examined to that end has been melted down and destroyed in the intense heat and pressure of the first moment. No clue remains to the nature of the forces-natural or supernatural that conspired to bring about the event we call the Big Bang."

(Link: http://www.leaderu.c.../1truth18b.html )



#74 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 March 2014 - 08:45 PM

 

Seems Vegan is gone, so I'll step in on this one.

 

Yes because he was a person who was previously banned trolling the forum...

 

Which I did not dispute.

 

 

When I asked you to give the unit of measurement for entropy, you were unable to do so. 

 

Where did you ask this? Also I don't see how it has any relevance.... Unless it was a red herring you wanted to use...

http://en.wikibooks....urement/Entropy

 

 

 

The request was made in post #43.  It is relevant because I often see creationists pontificating on the 2nd Law and entropy without realizing what it actually implies and says.  It's a reasonable conclusion that if someone doesn't even know how entropy is measured, they likely don't know what it is.

 

In post #44, you said:

However what I do know is that via the law of entropy the natural prerogative of the universe is to be in a state of chaos, the energy after the BB would be in its natural state and thus in chaos... However that means there would be no entropy since the energy of the universe is in its natural chaotic state and thus cannot get more chaotic, yet entropy exists demonstrating the the universe was in an ordered state despite the natural prerogative to be chaotic.. What this implies is that there was some form of supernatural event that went against the law entropy and the natural prerogatives of energy to be chaotic, (thus making it supernatural), to "wind up" the universe in terms of ordered energy.

 

In post #47, you said:

The law of entropy demonstrates that the natural prerogative of the energy in the universe is to move towards a chaotic state, ergo chaos is the natural state of energy in the universe.

 

This also shows you don't understand thermodynamics.  The natural state of energy in the universe is order, not chaos.  For example, at absolute zero particles are not moving at all.  Their kinetic energy is zero.... hence they are orderly.  On the other hand, at high temperatures, they are moving extremely fast often colliding in a random fashion.... hence they are chaotic.

 

BTW, the unit of measurement for entropy is the joule-kilogram per degree Kelvin.  Notice, it includes units of energy, mass, and heat.

 

In addition, in order to support a claim the BB violates the "law of entropy" one would need to know the energy status of the universe before and after the event. 

 

Why?.... My argument doesn't require such... As I have stated the prerogative of energy is to become maximum entropy, as such when the BB occured the energy should have entered such a state since that is the natural prerogative of the universe... However something (someone) "wound up" the universe.

 

Thermodynamics is a science of measurements.  As such, in order to show a violation of the law, it is ABSOLUTELY required to show the energy status before, and after the event.  Since we do not know what existed before the BB or what triggered the event, there is no way to support your clai

 

 

You claim the BB violates a fundamental law of science.  Yet the none of the astrophysicists, astronomers, cosmologists, and physicists who do know how entropy is quantified seem to have noticed this.  Don't you think at least a few of the actual experts in the relevant fields would have spotted such a breach of the basic laws of science?

 

Argument to authority... Perhaps for the same reason they cannot see how having something from nothing defies the 1st law.....

 

When dealing with highly technical matters, a certain amount of "authority" is entirely appropriate.  I guess you'd give equal weight to the opinion of a 6th grader and a Nobel Laureate in a discussion of physics.

 

Let's put it this way.... on one hand, we have the opinion of a biotechnologist who doesn't seem to have a good understanding of entropy while on the other hand, we have hundreds (?) of PhD's who have made the study of this thing the focus of their professional careers.  I hope you won't be insulted if I put my money on the experts in the relevant field.

 

 

Entropy is a measure of the loss of the ability to do useful work in a system.... which is why your cup of coffee cools.  The BB model suggests the universe has also cooled.... from temperatures in the order of 10^32 (a hundred million trillion trillion degrees) kelvin to near absolute zero.

 

And?... You've just shown that entropy is increasing....

 

Yep.  As it should.  What you have not shown is that the BB caused a reduction of entropy.

 

 

 

With regard to "C," the estimates I've seen are that the sum of energy and matter in the universe is near zero.  That would indicate no violation of the Second Law.

 

READ my argument again... Its based on the prerogative of energy to increase entropy and enter "maximum entropy" (random heat energy that cannot be utilized)... IF this is the prerogative of energy then this is what energy should have been when the BB occured and created it (also defying the 1st law of thermodynamics).. You can prove me wrong by demonstrating that maximum entropy is not the prerogative of energy.

 

I have a better idea.... prove you're right by showing what existed before the BB and that the event actually caused a reduction of entropy.

 

Not a problem for me.  I would describe evolution as the best scientific explanation available.  Considering the topic (ie: "Methodological Naturalism"), I would even be willing to take that to the next step and say evolution is the best NATURAL explanation.  (The same thing applies to the Big Bang.)   How's that?

 

Great smile.png Then I have a task for you.

 

Please correct your fellow evolutionists every time they claim "evolution is a fact" because to do so is to demonstrate their unscientific / religious faith in evolution and how they are not willing to be swayed by future evidence.

 

Sure .... if you'll correct your fellow creationists who say anything conflicting with Genesis is invalid by definition because to do so is to demonstrate their unscientific / religious faith in creation and how they are not willing to be swayed by future evidence.


  • greg likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users