Creationism.

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
strongdl
level1
level1
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:20 pm
Location: Midwest, US

Postby strongdl » Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:47 pm

Wasgood wrote:I dislike ignorant people. Or people that force their beliefs on others. Or tell people that their religion will send them to hell.

Be careful, or you may find out that you were ignorant someday.

To the OP, the universe is not some being's perpetual energy machine. If the universe were to collapse on itself, it would not generate the same energy as this cycle. Laws of science trump theories and hypothesis, except for that one time right before the big bang, and for the theory of evolution.
Mas Tnega
level5
level5
Posts: 7898
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 11:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Mas Tnega » Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:09 pm

strongdl wrote:Laws of science trump theories and hypothesis, except for that one time right before the big bang, and for the theory of evolution.
Eh?
strongdl
level1
level1
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:20 pm
Location: Midwest, US

Postby strongdl » Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:25 pm

Mas Tnega wrote:
strongdl wrote:Laws of science trump theories and hypothesis, except for that one time right before the big bang, and for the theory of evolution.
Eh?


a "singularity" of zero volume that nevertheless contained infinite density and infinitely large energy. Last I knew, this was the theorized state of the universe before the big bang, and its a big problem.

and

The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. And before you say "photosynthesis", that doesn't count, because its a mechanism that could not have developed without suspending the second law.
User avatar
MaximusBrood
level4
level4
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:04 am

Postby MaximusBrood » Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:56 pm

Meeh, disregard this post. It doesn't make sense anyway.
Last edited by MaximusBrood on Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:07 pm

strongdl wrote:The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. And before you say "photosynthesis", that doesn't count, because its a mechanism that could not have developed without suspending the second law.

The Earth is not a closed system. It receives energy from the sun. Photosynthesis uses some of that energy to decrease local entropy, without decreasing entropy in the universe as a whole. No need to suspend the laws of thermodynamics.

xander
TomCat39
level3
level3
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:52 pm

Postby TomCat39 » Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:37 pm

Xander, I'm not sure what path you were leading me on with the geometry laws. I only saw excerpts so do not fully comprehend what those two mathematicians formulas have to do with the big bang.

I did some reading on the big bang via Wikipedia and understand that it's still believed to be one localized bang, and also understand there are many theories for end result, the Big Crunch being one which is the one I had heard of but didn't know the name.

The unexpected discovery that the expansion is accelerating sort of changes thoughts a bit. But wouldn't it be possible that it's still in the acceleration cycle of expansion from the bang? I mean everything has to accelerate to it's terminal velocity, and who's to say that it's done by the end of the initial inflation? I mean to say, who says that we aren't still in the acceleration cycle just like the bullet being fired? The Bullet goes from a dead stop to X amount of feet per second in a blink of an eye. Who's to say we are not still in that blink of an eye acceleration of the big bang? Which in turn still leaves the possibility of heat death in the end and the eventual Big Crunch.

Of course we are still learning about Dark Matter and Dark Energy so maybe it's a whole different kind of perpetual cycle. Who knows?

And I also see where the thought of many "big bangs" came from too with the speculative theory of "chaotic inflation" which leads to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang. The only problem I see with this speculation is that some bubbles will collide at some point, and being that hasn't happened in the billions of years, seems rather unlikely.

So thank you everyone, for I have been learning from all this. I love discussing things (no matter how oddball they are) with all of you.
"Now, stop being a douche to the newbie, and run along."

xander
User avatar
Imperius Rex
level1
level1
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:22 pm
Location: Kelowna, B.C.

Postby Imperius Rex » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:00 pm

due to the discussion of war and them being caused by religion I was googling and came across this link

Death By Atheism

Reading it was fun, I am sure that the facts are probably sufficient, but you can tell it is written by a person with religious beliefs. Before anyone retorts against me, keep in mind that I am an Agnostic and in no way support organized religion.
~~Only Two Things Are Infinite: The Universe & Human Stupidity; And I'm Not Sure About The Universe~~
strongdl
level1
level1
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:20 pm
Location: Midwest, US

Postby strongdl » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:33 pm

xander wrote:
strongdl wrote:The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. And before you say "photosynthesis", that doesn't count, because its a mechanism that could not have developed without suspending the second law.

The Earth is not a closed system. It receives energy from the sun. Photosynthesis uses some of that energy to decrease local entropy, without decreasing entropy in the universe as a whole. No need to suspend the laws of thermodynamics.

xander


But how did a mechanism for doing this develop out of increasing entropy. The system itself could not have developed randomly under the 2nd law, unless you suspend the second law, which many of these origin theories seem to do.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:42 pm

strongdl wrote:But how did a mechanism for doing this develop out of increasing entropy. The system itself could not have developed randomly under the 2nd law, unless you suspend the second law, which many of these origin theories seem to do.


No they don't. You just fail to understand a lot of other scientific principles, as well as the 2nd law itself:

the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium


a) Earth is not an isolated system, b) the way a reaction behaves depends on the conditions of the system.

Putting it bluntly, by what you're saying water could not possibly freeze naturally.
User avatar
Phelanpt
level5
level5
Posts: 1837
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:20 am
Location: Portugal

Postby Phelanpt » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:13 pm

strongdl wrote:To the OP, the universe is not some being's perpetual energy machine. If the universe were to collapse on itself, it would not generate the same energy as this cycle. Laws of science trump theories and hypothesis, except for that one time right before the big bang, and for the theory of evolution.


Don't forget that scientific laws are not laws as we usually think of them. They are observations which so far have tested true.
And they were tested true inside the universe. So, if there is an outside to the universe, the same observations might not test true.

Since what TomCat39 was speculating on would happen outside the universe, the laws of science as we know them might not be laws there.

As for the general concept, it's like someone* said: It's been a theme in Sci-Fi, and (as far as I know) there's nothing in the scientific body of knowledge that might indicate it to be true.

*Edit: Didn't one of you mention this? I thought for sure I had read it in this thread... :?
Last edited by Phelanpt on Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
strongdl
level1
level1
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:20 pm
Location: Midwest, US

Postby strongdl » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:22 pm

Phelanpt wrote:
strongdl wrote:To the OP, the universe is not some being's perpetual energy machine. If the universe were to collapse on itself, it would not generate the same energy as this cycle. Laws of science trump theories and hypothesis, except for that one time right before the big bang, and for the theory of evolution.


Don't forget that scientific laws are not laws as we usually think of them. They are observations which so far have tested true.
And they were tested true inside the universe. So, if there is an outside to the universe, the same observations might not test true.

Since what TomCat39 was speculating on would happen outside the universe, the laws of science as we know them might not be laws there.

As for the general concept, it's like someone said: It's been a theme in Sci-Fi, and (as far as I know) there's nothing in the scientific body of knowledge that might indicate it to be true.


Well played. I forgot about Sci-Fi. And I really do mean that to sound funny, and not sarcastic as it probably does.
Last edited by strongdl on Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
strongdl
level1
level1
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:20 pm
Location: Midwest, US

Postby strongdl » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:31 pm

Xocrates wrote:Putting it bluntly, by what you're saying water could not possibly freeze naturally.


I don't think I was implying that. What I'm saying is that in considering the laws of science, and closed systems, you can't ignore the origin of the system itself.

We look at a solar powered manufacturing facility and we say, see, the sun's power is decreasing entropy on the raw materials that the facility makes. We don't look at the system/facility and figure out in what system this system was arranged.
User avatar
jelco
level5
level5
Posts: 6018
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:45 am
Location: Cygnus X-1
Contact:

Postby jelco » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:52 pm

strongdl wrote:I don't think I was implying that. What I'm saying is that in considering the laws of science, and closed systems, you can't ignore the origin of the system itself.

We look at a solar powered manufacturing facility and we say, see, the sun's power is decreasing entropy on the raw materials that the facility makes. We don't look at the system/facility and figure out in what system this system was arranged.

If there ever was an excruciatingly obvious hypocritical post, it's this one.

You are saying that the Sun is decreasing entropy of the raw materials of the facility, whilst stating that the factory is a closed system. Do you really need more explanation to figure out what is wrong with this hypothesis of yours?

Jelco
"The ships hung in the sky much the same way that bricks don't."
- Douglas Adams
strongdl
level1
level1
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:20 pm
Location: Midwest, US

Postby strongdl » Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:08 pm

jelco wrote:
strongdl wrote:I don't think I was implying that. What I'm saying is that in considering the laws of science, and closed systems, you can't ignore the origin of the system itself.

We look at a solar powered manufacturing facility and we say, see, the sun's power is decreasing entropy on the raw materials that the facility makes. We don't look at the system/facility and figure out in what system this system was arranged.

If there ever was an excruciatingly obvious hypocritical post, it's this one.

You are saying that the Sun is decreasing entropy of the raw materials of the facility, whilst stating that the factory is a closed system. Do you really need more explanation to figure out what is wrong with this hypothesis of yours?

Jelco

I did not exclude the sun from the system.
TomCat39
level3
level3
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:52 pm

Postby TomCat39 » Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:28 pm

Phelanpt wrote:Since what TomCat39 was speculating on would happen outside the universe, the laws of science as we know them might not be laws there.

As for the general concept, it's like someone* said: It's been a theme in Sci-Fi, and (as far as I know) there's nothing in the scientific body of knowledge that might indicate it to be true.


And I don't believe there is any knowledge to say it's not true either.

Just like you said, since it's outside of our universe (something we can't observe at this time) we have no inkling what laws apply if any at all.

Granted, it's most likely fiction, but I do think it's fun to speculate on and works the imagination too just as a blank page can.
"Now, stop being a douche to the newbie, and run along."



xander

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests