FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS DEBUNKS EVOLUTION

[JenniferG]

Calling our science buffs! Can you refute this man's arguments as to how the First Law of Thermodynamics debunks The Theory of Evolution?  (Fast forward to 17:00 min into the video)

He argues that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed. That no natural processes can alter either matter or energy, in this way. The universe could not come from nothing, he says, it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. He uses the example of Uranium becoming helium, and then radium with lead as its end product.  Uranium breaks down, in a systematic and controlled way, he argues. At one point Uranium did not exist, he says. Matter did not exist. Therefore, he says, at a specific time matter that contain all the elements needed to create a universe came into existence ergo pointing to a creator - G-O-D.

 

[Thurisaz]

Last I checked, science had no answer about what happened in the singularity with that, according to current models, our universe began. And science is open about that. In a singularity you can take your precious natural laws which control the contemporary universe and gently toss them into the fire. So, if anyone absoutely wants to say "You can't answer THAT science ha ha!", yeah they can do so. But then, what exactly is that "nothing" they love to talk of by saying "nothing can't become something all by itself"? Empty space? Space and time also didn't exist in the singularity.

 

So, to make it short (and because my morning coffee hasn't fully kicked in yet ):

If there really is an unknown origin of Everything(TM), so what? Science admits "unknown origin", morontheists scream "GAAAAAWD" but have to admit their gawd is just as mysterious as the singularity. What good then insisting on the name? Saying "Gawd" adds exactly nothing to our understanding. Second, as always with morontheists, they don't even remotely understand the science they so desperately try to attack - and if there's just one thing I learned in all the years then it's this: In a debate about something you don't fully understand, if one side understands where the other is coming from but not vice versa, the side in the know is all but guaranteed to be the side in the right. Case closed, for me.

 

For a really mindblowing and thorough answer to your question, just wait until the Born-Again Astronomer posts in this thread. If he can't answer your question in full, no one can

[JenniferG]

33 minutes ago, Thurisaz said:

What good then insisting on the name? Saying "Gawd" adds exactly nothing to our understanding. Second, as always with morontheists, they don't even remotely understand the science they so desperately try to attack

Thank you for your reply (before your morning coffee even kicked in!)  Next time lay your caffeinated version on me!  

Thing is, these "morontheists" come across with such authority that the average layperson like me who have never heard about the Law of Thermodynamics (let alone that there is a First and a Second) might well think, "Wow, this guy knows some stuff!) You can imagine his congregation being totally impressed right down to their holy little socks when he throws those big words at them. What about all that talk about the broken down uranium and stuff? Clutching at straws? 

[Thurisaz]

I admit, I haven't watched that video. I stopped taking in cretinist crap years ago, after a loooong time of looking at it to know what I'm talking about. Really, you watched one such video, you watched them all.

 

Morontheism in general, and babblical cretinism specifically, is all about regurgibabbling the same old same old just in a new way, and all about sounding like science because they have no fucking clue about real science. I can imagine how impressive that must seem to people who never had anything approaching a scientific education.

Add to that the effect of a speaker who introduces themselves as on your side ("I'm a christian like you"), who perhaps as a sense of humor which improves your mood, and who provides easily digestible (though wrong) answers so that you feel like now you know it all... instant disaster.

 

(Complicated explanations might possibly motivate the victims to do their own research to understand it all better.. and then they might stumble over real science and see how much they have been fooled)

 

I guess now that I admitted that I really should watch it.. damn

 

Okay will do so and then be back!

[Thurisaz]

Well I somehow made it through those 30 minutes of bullshit. Had I played a drinking game - take a shot every time you find a cretinist claim that's been debunked countless times already - I'd have passed out at halfway through at the latest.

 

Let's see, some notes I've taken.

 

The failure of SETI to find any signs of extraterrestial intelligence: Of course the cretinist conveniently forgets to mention that we can't observe more than a tiny fraction of spacetime so far. Maybe there's literally gazillions of civilizations out there, but since when have we had SETI? Keep in mind that what we're trying to pick up with all our sensors travels at the speed of light which is... quite slow when you look at cosmic distances. Let's say we've been listening for 30 years, then we can only possibly pick up signals from aliens who sent out signals within these last 30 years. That's not that many stars at all when you check it.

 

Next the cretinist refers to an article in the Wall Street Journal which at least seems to really exist. WSJ doesn't sound like a scientific thing but okay, I'll ignore that for the time being. Who's the author? Google him and you find he makes a living peddling the jebus cult. How likely is it that, if he found evidence his source of income is bullcrap, he'd announce it to the public?

 

Ah the fine-tuned universe bullshit. "The universe is so fine-tuned to us therefore GAWD".

It's like claiming "see how the ground is perfectly formed for the puddle that's in it? GAWD!". Life adapted to the universe, not vice versa. In another universe, maybe silicon-based methane breathers wonder how their universe is so fine-tuned to methane-breathing life therefore METHANE GAWD!

 

No cretinist crapshow is perfect without the argument from ignorance either. "I have no idea how therefore GAWD!". And in a few decades when we do know how it works... what then? This is known as "gawd of the gaps" and those gaps keep getting smaller.

 

Now, uranium -> lead. At least he was kind of correct with his data, aside from ignoring there's several radioactive isotopes to the element in question. For example, there are also uranium isotopes which decay within days, but that wouldn't have sounded impressive for his purpose doncha think?

But here's the kicker: Where does uranium come from?

 

" Along with all elements having atomic weights higher than that of iron, it is only naturally formed in supernovae. "

(Source: Wikipedia)

 

Supernovae are still happening, therefore why should we be surprised to find uranium? Our entire solar system isn't "first generation", all that matter was baked in supernovae before. But again, if he told that truth he'd have no argument left.

 

Don't even get me started about cretinist claims about the laws of thermodynamics. Really, look up what those laws really state as compared to the cretinist strawmen of them.

 

Throughout all that nonsense I note that all the sources he points to turn out to be... other known cretinists. "Gawd is real, here, these pastors have proven it" wouldn't sound very impressive would it? But that's the nature of cretinism, it's an incestous quoting cartel that never presents anything that's new and groundbreaking. They have nothing.

 

In closing, he mocks the beginning of the universe with "an explosion can't create order".

You know who claims the big bang was an "explosion"? Only cretinists. You know who even coined the term "big bang"? A cretinist.

 

That's all for now. I suggest you take a look at this here, it hasn't been updated for quite some time but still covers all the bullshit claims the cretinist makes, further demonstrating how there is never anything new in babblical cretinism. Have fun, it takes quite some time to read through it but it gives you panimmunity against cretinism for life

 

The talk.origins archive - index of babblical cretinist claims

 

 

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

What happened to the second law?

 

It used to be the second law of thermodynamics debunked atheism... now its the first.

 

As a very quick TL;DR all people in the know that I have heard have said there is nothing in the laws of thermodynamics that is either inconsistent with observations or needs god to explain it.

[Thurisaz]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

What happened to the second law?

 

It used to be the second law of thermodynamics debunked atheism... now its the first.

 

Oh no worries of course the cretinist uses that one too, more or less toward the end.

[bornagainathiest]

7 hours ago, JenniferG said:

Calling our science buffs! Can you refute this man's arguments as to how the First Law of Thermodynamics debunks The Theory of Evolution?  (Fast forward to 17:00 min into the video)

He argues that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed. That no natural processes can alter either matter or energy, in this way. The universe could not come from nothing, he says, it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. He uses the example of Uranium becoming helium, and then radium with lead as its end product.  Uranium breaks down, in a systematic and controlled way, he argues. At one point Uranium did not exist, he says. Matter did not exist. Therefore, he says, at a specific time matter that contain all the elements needed to create a universe came into existence ergo pointing to a creator - G-O-D.

 

 

Hello Jennifer. 

 

There's no need for you to be at all worried by this video or anything this naively misinformed man says.

I can explain why, but my explanation may be somewhat technical and the concepts involved will require you to expand your mental horizons.  Please let me know if there's anything that needs further clarification and I'll try my best to explain further.  I'll list the errors he makes and deal with each one before moving onto the next.

 

 

1.  Science Proves Things

No.  That's not exactly true. 

Proofs are used in Math, but all the other branches of science do not use proofs.  The observational sciences (physics, biology, geology, etc.) cannot deal in proofs because it's impossible for humans to observe or measure anything absolutely or perfectly.  There is always room for human error and instrumental error and always room for improvement, when it comes to the future.  Tomorrow's technology may offer more precise ways of measuring and observing things and tomorrow may offer better techniques and methodologies for counteracting human error.  In short, observational science never proves things.  It only offers the best explanation for what is currently observed.  Since new things may be observed tomorrow, what it explains today cannot be assumed to be either absolute or proven.

 

 

2. Thermodynamics.

Theists usually cheat or are misinformed when it comes to thermodynamics. 

The main reason for this is that they wrongly treat the edge of the universe as the end of the universe.  They treat what is a visual horizon (the limit of how far we can see) as a physical end to space, a wall beyond which the universe does not exist.  That is false.  Their arguments are falsely based upon a closed thermodynamic system.  This is a region that contains a finite amount of matter and energy.   In such a closed region any finite quantity of anything will eventually run down zero.  So, thermodynamics is being applied properly, but the theists are wrong to treat the universe as a closed thermodynamic system.  It isn't.

 

We know that the universe doesn't finish at some kind of boundary or edge.

If you hop over to this thread... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/77558-is-the-fine-tuned-universe-argument-leaky/ ...you'll see that this subject has recently been under discussion.  A regular Christian visitor to Ex-C has been trying to argue that the universe is a closed system, with nothing existing beyond it's edge.  He's not only wrong but he's also cheating.  In a nutshell Jennifer, if we can't assign a boundary or physical edge to the universe then we can't treat it as a closed thermodynamic system.  Only regions that have a definite boundary can be treated as 'closed'. 

 

This link might be helpful too.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system

Avoiding the technical stuff, the key point is this. 

 

Closed System

In a closed system, no mass may be transferred in or out of the system boundaries. The system always contains the same amount of matter, but heat and work can be exchanged across the boundary of the system. Whether a system can exchange heat, work, or both is dependent on the property of its boundary.

 

Rigid boundary – not allowing exchange of work: A mechanically isolated system

 

The theists falsely treat the visual boundary of the universe as a rigid boundary, disallowing energy to pass across it.  

This is cheating.  There is no such rigid boundary at the edge of the universe.   

 

 

3. Something Can't Come From Nothing

False.  Everything can come from nothing... provided that everything costs nothing to create. 

This is mind-blowing Jennifer, but it's exactly how Inflationary theory works. Btw, Inflation is the currently-accepted best explanation for the origin of the universe.  The key point to embrace is the balance between positive energy (electromagnetic and nuclear) and negative energy (gravitational) in the universe.  What is the total if we add 10 units of positive energy to 10 units of negative energy?  That's +10 added to -10.  The answer is zero.  Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Alan Guth, one of the co-authors of Inflationary theory is quoted as saying that... the universe is the ultimate free lunch.   He coined this phrase to describe how the cost of the entire universe coming into existence was... nothing.  When the positive and negative energies involved exactly cancel each other out any amount of matter and energy can come from nothing.  ANY amount.  Even an infinite amount.  Even an entire universe.

 

Please let me know if anything needs further clarification.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Thurisaz]

Ah the master has arrived... I can rest my case

[LogicalFallacy]

8 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

3. Something Can't Come From Nothing

False.  Everything can come from nothing... provided that everything costs nothing to create. 

This is mind-blowing Jennifer, but it's exactly how Inflationary theory works. Btw, Inflation is the currently-accepted best explanation for the origin of the universe.  The key point to embrace is the balance between positive energy (electromagnetic and nuclear) and negative energy (gravitational) in the universe.  What is the total if we add 10 units of positive energy to 10 units of negative energy?  That's +10 added to -10.  The answer is zero.  Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.  

 

Do we even know if there ever has been a 'nothing'? Even when cosmologists say nothing they still essentially mean something (Lawrence Krauss - A Universe from Nothing) Even with the zero energy there is still something - just that its total positive and negative parts equals zero.

 

The reason I ask this is because the entire "something cannot come from nothing" argument may entirely miss the point. It's possible there never was nothing, and even under the theist model with god, well apparently he came from nothing... so was there ever a nothing? What is nothing? We don't really know because its never been observed.

[JenniferG]

13 hours ago, Thurisaz said:

it's an incestous quoting cartel that never presents anything that's new and groundbreaking. They have nothing.

 

 

13 hours ago, Thurisaz said:

Well I somehow made it through those 30 minutes of bullshit. Had I played a drinking game - take a shot every time you find a cretinist claim that's been debunked countless times already - I'd have passed out at halfway through at the latest.  LOL  That bad, eh?

 

I like the above quote "incestuous quoting cartel!"  Thanks for the link to the "babblical cretinists claims" index. I might  have to settle down with a bottle of wine to go through them! Thank goodness for Google and people like yourself who can set the record straight against these cretinists' loop of claims for laypeople like myself. The more I listen to scientists like Neil de Grasse Tyson and Carl Sagan before him, Lawrence Krauss et. al., the more in awe I am about all the different disciplines of scientific knowledge we've amassed since Galileo took a peek through his telescope. Thank you for taking one for the team making it through 30 minutes of bullshit! 

[JenniferG]

7 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Do we even know if there ever has been a 'nothing'? Even when cosmologists say nothing they still essentially mean something (Lawrence Krauss - A Universe from Nothing) Even with the zero energy there is still something - just that its total positive and negative parts equals zero.

 

Do you mean the "something" being energy -  the electromagnetic and nuclear energy and the gravitational energy in the universe? To quote BAA's response -  "The key point to embrace is the balance between positive energy (electromagnetic and nuclear) and negative energy (gravitational) in the universe. " All very mind-boggling! 

[LogicalFallacy]

1 minute ago, JenniferG said:

Do you mean the "something" being energy -  the electromagnetic and nuclear energy and the gravitational energy in the universe? To quote BAA's response -  "The key point to embrace is the balance between positive energy (electromagnetic and nuclear) and negative energy (gravitational) in the universe. " All very mind-boggling! 

 

Yes. What I'm getting at is that the whole "universe cannot come from nothing" argument might be moot because we are not claiming it came from ABSOLUTE NOTHING (Whatever that is).

 

It is very tricky, especially as theist desperately want the claim to be of one from absolute nothing.

[JenniferG]

9 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

There's no need for you to be at all worried by this video or anything this naively misinformed man says.

I can explain why, but my explanation may be somewhat technical and the concepts involved will require you to expand your mental horizons.  Please let me know if there's anything that needs further clarification and I'll try my best to explain further.  I'll list the errors he makes and deal with each one before moving onto the next.

 

Thank you so much BAA for your time in educating me about scientific matters. By the way, I wasn't at all worried about the bozo in the suit spouting those things. I had heard creationists' "naively misinformed" arguments before. This cretinist (as Thurisaz so eloquently puts it) rattled off his arguments so sleekly and convincingly that I needed to know from the experts how to refute them.

 

9 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Science Proves Things

No.  That's not exactly true. 

Proofs are used in Math, but all the other branches of science do not use proofs.  The observational sciences (physics, biology, geology, etc.) cannot deal in proofs because it's impossible for humans to observe or measure anything absolutely or perfectly.  There is always room for human error and instrumental error and always room for improvement, when it comes to the future.  Tomorrow's technology may offer more precise ways of measuring and observing things and tomorrow may offer better techniques and methodologies for counteracting human error.  In short, observational science never proves things.  It only offers the best explanation for what is currently observed.  Since new things may be observed tomorrow, what it explains today cannot be assumed to be either absolute or proven.

 

 

This is very useful information for me, a non-scientist, (I'm schooled in the Arts!) This had been my understanding or rather misunderstanding about how science worked - testing and proving stuff! Thank you for enlightening me. I will check out those links you suggested. 

[JenniferG]

12 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes. What I'm getting at is that the whole "universe cannot come from nothing" argument might be moot because we are not claiming it came from ABSOLUTE NOTHING (Whatever that is).

 

It is very tricky, especially as theist desperately want the claim to be of one from absolute nothing.

 

Hey LF, g'day mate! I lived in ChCh for 9 years! Came back to Canada after the earthquake! For that reason, but also because our first grandchild was born and we needed to come back to be closer. 

[florduh]

4 minutes ago, JenniferG said:

...I needed to know from the experts how to refute them.

Experience has taught me that attempting to refute such things is a waste of time for both parties. They form their beliefs about reality in the context of their beliefs about magical, invisible beings. Facts have no place in such a system, so don't bother presenting any to those who already know everything and learned it from God Himself.

[JenniferG]

2 minutes ago, florduh said:

Experience has taught me that attempting to refute such things is a waste of time for both parties. They form their beliefs about reality in the context of their beliefs about magical, invisible beings. Facts have no place in such a system, so don't bother presenting any to those who already know everything and learned it from God Himself.

 

Oh but Florduh, I have an enquiring mind and I need to know the facts so that I'm not misinformed

[florduh]

Just now, JenniferG said:

 

Oh but Florduh, I have an enquiring mind and I need to know the facts so that I'm not misinformed

I get it. Learn all you can about whatever you're interested in. I'm just pointing out you won't win any arguments with these morons regardless of how much you know.

[LogicalFallacy]

11 minutes ago, JenniferG said:

 

Hey LF, g'day mate! I lived in ChCh for 9 years! Came back to Canada after the earthquake! For that reason, but also because our first grandchild was born and we needed to come back to be closer. 

 

Hey! Possibly a good move notwithstanding your grandchild - ChCh is still rebuilding. People left without houses for years.

 

So tell me - NZ or Canada which is better?  (I have this debate going on with Truthseeker )

[bornagainathiest]

Posted 1 hour ago

  1 hour ago, JenniferG said:

Do you mean the "something" being energy -  the electromagnetic and nuclear energy and the gravitational energy in the universe? To quote BAA's response -  "The key point to embrace is the balance between positive energy (electromagnetic and nuclear) and negative energy (gravitational) in the universe. " All very mind-boggling! 

 

LogicalFallacy replied...

Yes. What I'm getting at is that the whole "universe cannot come from nothing" argument might be moot because we are not claiming it came from ABSOLUTE NOTHING (Whatever that is).

 

It is very tricky, especially as theist desperately want the claim to be of one from absolute nothing.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

They have to make that claim because of the burden a literal reading of Genesis 1:1 places upon them.

 

But the science is against them.

Since my earlier post, I've since recalled two more fundamental reasons why the theistic 'closed' universe cannot work.  In the equations of Einstein's theory of General Relativity are three solutions for three different types of expanding universe.   The three solutions shown below (from top to bottom) are Closed, Open and Flat.

 

 

A Closed universe temporarily expands, but the amount of negative energy (gravitational) in it outweighs the positive energy (electromagnetic and nuclear) and that entire universe quickly implodes, collapsing back in upon itself to become a black hole.   

 

An Open universe is the opposite.

Here, positive energy overwhelms the negative, causing this universe to expand so quickly in it's first seconds that even atoms cannot form.   After this brief period of over-fast expansion this universe then slows and settles down, coasting forever.  But by then it is too late.  Without any atoms, such a universe is doomed to remain a cold, sterile void.  

 

A Flat universe has the exact balance of positive and negative energies to avoid the fates of the Closed or Open universes.

As the above graphic says, our observations have shown that this universe does indeed have a flat geometry.  https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html  (See final paragraph of this page.)  

 

So, there are two prime reasons why the Closed universe of the Christian apologists cannot be true.

Firstly, Closed universes collapse into black holes.  Secondly, as of 2013 we know that our universe is Flat to a very high degree of precision.  If we combine these two reasons with the three errors mentioned earlier, then the case made in the video cannot hold water.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Thank you so much BAA for your time in educating me about scientific matters. By the way, I wasn't at all worried about the bozo in the suit spouting those things. I had heard creationists' "naively misinformed" arguments before. This cretinist (as Thurisaz so eloquently puts it) rattled off his arguments so sleekly and convincingly that I needed to know from the experts how to refute them.

 

  10 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Science Proves Things

No.  That's not exactly true. 

Proofs are used in Math, but all the other branches of science do not use proofs.  The observational sciences (physics, biology, geology, etc.) cannot deal in proofs because it's impossible for humans to observe or measure anything absolutely or perfectly.  There is always room for human error and instrumental error and always room for improvement, when it comes to the future.  Tomorrow's technology may offer more precise ways of measuring and observing things and tomorrow may offer better techniques and methodologies for counteracting human error.  In short, observational science never proves things.  It only offers the best explanation for what is currently observed.  Since new things may be observed tomorrow, what it explains today cannot be assumed to be either absolute or proven.

 

 

This is very useful information for me, a non-scientist, (I'm schooled in the Arts!) This had been my understanding or rather misunderstanding about how science worked - testing and proving stuff! Thank you for enlightening me. I will check out those links you suggested. 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My pleasure, Jennifer! 

One of the great features of Ex-C is the diversity of knowledge and experience of it's members.  I'm an amateur astronomer, btw.   But if need be there are three Ex-Christian scientists who can be called upon to help with questions on astrophysics, genetics and chemistry.

 

All the best,

 

BAA.

[LogicalFallacy]

So a quick summary would be that using both the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics in a theist argument requires the universe to be a closed system, but the universe is not closed per reasons mentioned by BAA.

 

That would be a fair accurate summary?

[bornagainathiest]

15 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

So a quick summary would be that using both the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics in a theist argument requires the universe to be a closed system, but the universe is not closed per reasons mentioned by BAA.

 

That would be a fair accurate summary?

 

Yes, LF.

 

In a nutshell...

 

1.  There is no rigid boundary to close the universe with.

2.   We wouldn't be here if this was a closed universe.

 

Game over!

 

[♦ Fuego ♦]

If God can create it from nothing, then it can come from nothing (albeit through means we don't understand and there are lots of those left to discover), therefore those laws wouldn't hold and his argument implodes.

Energy transfers around all the time, and matter gets tossed around rather a lot in the universe. Evolution is seen as yet another process of energy transfer, and may actually be expected as a form of more-efficient entropy. And others have recently posted that life eats life, so it isn't odd that we don't continually see new life forms arising, since other life (micro sized) would tend to consume it before it got established.

So there is much about reality that we still don't know, and we are learning. None of that equals "a bloodthirsty Middle-Eastern deity made it all".

 

[JenniferG]

6 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Hey! Possibly a good move notwithstanding your grandchild - ChCh is still rebuilding. People left without houses for years.

 

So tell me - NZ or Canada which is better?  (I have this debate going on with Truthseeker )

 

Aw, both places have a special spot in my heart. Canadian winters are insanely cold but I'm lucky enough to bugger off to warmer climes to escape the worst of it.

2 hours ago, Fuego said:

If God can create it from nothing, then it can come from nothing (albeit through means we don't understand and there are lots of those left to discover), therefore those laws wouldn't hold and his argument implodes.

Energy transfers around all the time, and matter gets tossed around rather a lot in the universe. Evolution is seen as yet another process of energy transfer, and may actually be expected as a form of more-efficient entropy. And others have recently posted that life eats life, so it isn't odd that we don't continually see new life forms arising, since other life (micro sized) would tend to consume it before it got established.

So there is much about reality that we still don't know, and we are learning. None of that equals "a bloodthirsty Middle-Eastern deity made it all".

 

 

I thought god was American! lol!