FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS DEBUNKS EVOLUTION

[disillusioned]

In addition to what has been said so far there is also another refutation that can be made. The laws of thermodynamics are known to apply within the universe, and only within the universe. We have no reason to think that they should apply to the universe as a whole. This is true because the universe need not be a closed system (as BAA has argued), but it would also be true if the universe were a closed system. To argue that the laws which apply within the universe should also apply to the universe is to commit the fallacy of composition. So yes, within closed systems in the universe, energy cannot be created or destroyed. But this says absolutely nothing about whether or not the universe itself can be created or destroyed.

[LogicalFallacy]

Brilliant point @disillusioned

[Joshpantera]

On 10/8/2017 at 4:48 PM, JenniferG said:

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.

 

That's what the site is for. Any time, any one feels that some apologist or preacher needs a critical analysis, just bring it here. We'll crucify them, any one of them, no matter their IQ, credentials, or any perceived intellect or achievements. 

 

You see, they're simply wrong right from the starting point. 

 

And fundamentally wrong, can never transform into being right with the wave of a magic wand, flashy words, or seemingly intellectual ways of bolstering the faith. And that's why no matter which direction they take we'll always pwn them, every time....

 

Give BAA's thread a good long read. That's an example of how to pwn William Lane Craig himself, among many others.

[Joshpantera]

On 10/7/2017 at 11:39 PM, JenniferG said:

Calling our science buffs!

 

After having watched the first video, I can say it's one big "bluff" over and over again.

 

The problem is that these apologetic idiots can speak loud with conviction when they aren't being checked every step of the way. But some one could literally take this guy's videos and refute them point by point making him look extremely foolish at best, and absolutely deceptive and lie mongering at worst. It's hard to imagine that he's completely oblivious to how wrong he is, point by point. He had to sit down, read and research all of this scientific material and then use his imagination to try and put an apologetic spin on it. He must know the context of the actual science and also how far out of context he's taking it all. 

 

That's down right evil when you get down to it. 

 

And it's salesmanship, nothing more. He's crafted this deceptive web in order to try and sell the product of mainstream, orthodox christian thinking. It's aimed, ultimately, at keeping money in the churches for himself all those who benefit from duping their respective communities. What a piece of trash. And the others can then pay him homage for creating the illusion of having defeated science minded, freethinking atheists and agnostics. What an arrogant bluff. But it's also a sign of the times. It goes to show how frantic and desperate they've become over loosing so many members over to science and freethinking, atheism and agnosticism....

 

[bornagainathiest]

Oh btw folks, there's another wrinkle in the story of the Christian apologists (unworkable) closed universe model. 

 

 

 

One that was staring me in the face and which I overlooked in my haste to respond to JenniferG.

General Relativity has something interesting to say about the three types of universe (Closed, Open and Flat, from top to bottom in the graphic below) it predicts and the one (Flat) in which we seem to live.

 

 

That's because Einstein's equations don't just describe space at a given moment, they describe space and time evolving together in what is known as the... 'space-time continuum'. 

 

 https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html  

 

This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.

 

A Closed universe is necessarily finite in both space (size) and time (duration).

But both Open and Flat universes are necessarily infinite in both space and time.  They have no limit or boundary in either size or in the length of time they will exist.  They go on without end and will last for all eternity.  As mentioned before, an Open universe is a sterile one, but a Flat universe is an infinite sea of stars, galaxies and planets.

 

So, ironically enough the Christians have not only opted for the only unworkable option of the three in their apologetic argument, but they've also rejected the only option that would have adequately displayed God's eternal power and divine nature (see Romans 1 : 20).  They had the choice of three and opted for the worst case scenario.  A universe that becomes a black hole.

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

On 10/7/2017 at 8:39 PM, 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.

 

Hi JenniferG,

 

The person presenting this argument does not understand what evolution means in the context of science. In science Evolution is a theoretical process by which living organisms developed and diversified during the history of the earth. The primary theoretical mechanism of evolution is natural selection.  Since this is not what the argument is all about, the argument does not involve evolution in the scientific sense of the word

 

The word "evolution" in general (not biological evolution) according to the dictionary, means the gradual development of something from a simpler, to a more complex entity. The subject argument is based upon this meaning the word "evolution," not on the scientific meaning of the word.

 

Now as to the details of the argument: "matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed." Yes, this is well-accepted theory. .."no natural process can alter either mass or energy in any way." This is a statement based upon the lack of knowledge of science. Energy can be converted from one form of energy into another form of energy by many different means, and gamma rays (energy) can be converted into electron-positron pairs (matter). Also, all know how matter can be converted into energy by atomic conversions such as an atomic bomb. Now this statement "the universe could not come from nothing, he says, it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics."  Yes it does. In this way he is correct but many theorists believe that the first law of Thermodynamics does not necessarily apply to the beginning of the universe. But for the purpose of this argument let's concede that he is correct.

 

Now comes these statement: "At one point Uranium did not exist," he says. Yes, this is true according to present theory. "Matter did not exist." This statement is also true according to present theory, but alternative theory has suggested that matter has always existed.  It is a fact that matter either came into existence at a point of time in the past, or that it has always existed, since logically there would be no other alternatives.

 

But his last statement is where his argument fails  and falls IMO.

 

"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."

 

In other words, at one point in time a form of matter would have needed to exist that contained all the elements (matter) of the universe within it to have been able to create the universe we now observe.

 

This is not a logical argument in that in the beginning matter could have been created from energy alone, according to present theory. Alternative theory has proposed that matter evolved from a non-matter substance that did not come from nothing. Regardless of the facts the argument fails based upon logic alone since there are a number of different science-based theories and other less-considered explanations of the beginning universe, and the matter therefrom,  than just a super-natural one.