Johnny's own sources (re: thermodynamics) fail to meet his own standard of observability, reproducibility and falsifiability.

[walterpthefirst]

The visiting Christian apologist called Johnny has asserted that the first and second laws of thermodynamics prove that the universe must have been created by the Christian god. 

He first laid out his evidence for this assertion to Astreja in this thread on July 6.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/86431-johnny-what-is-a-spiritual-being/page/3/#comment-1250718

 

In this thread I will only comment on his cited material and the links they originate from.  A vital point to remember throughout this thread is that Johnny only holds to science that is observable, reproducible and falsifiable.  Should any of his cited material fall short of this standard he will have contradicted himself.  I will make it abundantly clear when this happens.

 

Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, wrote:

The Universe, and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An effect without a known cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this picture? I do not know. I would only like to present the evidence for the statement that the Universe, and man himself, originated in a moment when time began (1977, p. 21).

 

Jastrow’s statement appears to be his brief description of the Hawking – Penrose Singularity theory, published in 1970, in which all of space and time emerged from literally nothing.  In the 70’s and 80’s this theory was the one generally accepted by scientific community.

 

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021

 

But there are two fatal problems with Johnny’s reliance on Jastrow’s statement.

The first is that the Hawking – Penrose theory has only ever been just that – a theory.  It’s a theoretical paper unsupported by any observed evidence.  It was published in 1970, long before the Hubble or James Webb telescopes were launched.  In the 60’s there was no way any astronomer could have observed the very beginning of the universe.  

 

The only observed evidence relating to the Big Bang at that time was the 1964 discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

 

This is radiation from 380,000 years after the Big Bang, so it does not qualify as an observation that Johnny can cite as evidence.  But, from the presence of this radiation scientists infer that it is the fossil remnant of the Big Bang fireball.  However, this act of inference is of no help to Johnny because he only accepts what has been observed, not what is inferred from observations.

 

Going back to the Hawking – Penrose theory…

 

If we look at the details of the science paper, we see that Hawking was based at the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Theoretical Astronomy.  Not observational astronomy. Theoretical.  Penrose was a member of Birbeck College’s Department of Mathematics.  So, neither scientist was an observational astronomer.  Therefore, even though Jastrow is probably referring to their theory, because it is entirely theoretical Johnny cannot possibly cite Jastrow’s use of it. 

 

The second fatal problem for Jastrow’s citation was that the Hawking - Penrose theory was falsified in 1998.  (I can supply details of how this was done.) This is where something Johnny relied upon DID meet his standard of falsifiability.   But in doing so, this means that Jastrow’s statement is unusable by him as evidence. 

 

 

 

More to follow about Johnny's other sources.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Johnny's next quote originates from here...  https://apologeticspress.org/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-dont-apply-to-the-universe-3704/

 

...and was written by Ken Miller.

 

 

"If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that little imaginary sphere the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:

 

 

 

The first point to pay attention to in this quote is the language Miller uses.  “If the Big Bang occurred…”  is a conditional statement.  So, Miller is not affirming or confirming that it did take place.   Therefore, Johnny cannot use this quote to assert that the Big Bang DID take place.

 

Next, Miller speaks of… “the little imaginary sphere” that once encompassed the entire universe.  But, once again, this is of no help in making Johnny’s case. This is because imaginary spheres can’t be observed, reproduced or falsified.  The imaginary is not real, not concrete and not physical.  Sorry, Johnny.

 

Then Miller twists what cosmologists say about the early universe. 

 

The only claim that cosmologists make about the size of the early universe is that our observable universe seems to have been very small.  Cosmologists are very careful NOT to claim that the entire universe was this small.  That is a claim that they do not make because these very same cosmologists also say that we cannot observe the entire universe.  If we cannot observe anything beyond the limits of our observable universe then it logically follows that we cannot observe the entire universe.

 

Therefore, anything cosmologists do say about the entire universe is based upon inference, not upon observation. Once again, Johnny cannot use this because he only accepts science that has been observed, reproduced and falsified.  Therefore science that relies upon inference falls short of his own standard.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Johnny's next quote also comes from the ApolgeticsPress page, but originates from here...

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Cx0QPbyFQ3MC&pg=PA64&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

...a book by Manas Senapati.

 

 

“Isolated system: It is the system which exchange [sic] neither matter nor energy with the surroundings. For such a system, the matter and energy remain constant. There is no such perfectly isolated system, but our universe can be considered as an isolated system since by definition it does not have any surroundings” (Senapati, 2006, p. 64, emp. added).

 

 

Again, please note the language used here.  Senapati is not stating that the universe is an isolated system.  Nor is he stating that the universe has been observed to be an isolated system.  All he is saying is that it should be considered as one.  Nothing more than that.

 

Therefore, Johnny cannot use this quote to claim that science has proved or observed the universe to be an isolated thermodynamic system.  Senapati is inferring that it is.  Even if we concede that the universe MUST BE an isolated system, that is neither proof that it is nor an observation that it is.

 

So, once again Johnny cannot use Senapati's words to support his claims.  They fall short of his own standard of observability, reproducibility and falsifiability.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Johnny's next quote originates from here...

 

https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Fishbane-Physics-for-Scientists-and-Engineers-Ch-1-40-3rd-Edition/PGM2813317.html

 

 

“A spontaneous process in an isolated system increases the system’s entropy. Because the universe—our entire surroundings—is in contact with no other system, we say that irreversible processes increase the entropy of the universe” (Fishbane, et.al., 1996, p. 551, italics in original).

 

 

Please note what is being said here.  Fishbane et al have no way of observing that the universe is in contact with no other system.  Therefore, they are obliged to state, 'we say that''.  Which is an inference.  Inferences like this fall below Johnny's standard of observability, reproducibility and falsifiability, so he cannot use this quote to support his claims about the universe being an isolated thermodynamic system.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Johnny's last quotes can be grouped together because they all originate from here...

 

https://lavelle.chem.ucla.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26508

 

 

 

"---The universe is an isolated system because energy cannot be created or destroyed. Likewise, matter cannot be added or taken away from the universe."

Jason Liu 1C

 

 

"---The universe is an isolated system as the universe in itself is a system with no surroundings. With the first law of thermodynamics, no energy in the universe can be created or destroyed, so the universe is an isolated system."

Jaewoo Jo 2L

 

 

"---The universe is isolated because neither matter or energy can be exchanged with it. This is because the universe encompasses everything, so it does not have surroundings it could exchange matter or energy with."

Morgan Baxter 1E

 

 

Please note that I do not dismiss these quotes as invalid because they were written by chemistry students and not by cosmologists.  On the contrary, they are entirely valid.  But they still do not meet Johnny's standard of observability, reproducibility and falsifiability. 

 

Jason Liu, Jaewoo Jo and Morgan Baxter cannot have observed the universe to be an isolated thermodynamic system.  In the absence of any such observations, they, just like every cosmologist, are obliged to infer that the universe must be such a system.

 

As such, these quotes cannot be used by Johnny to support his claim that the universe is an isolated thermodynamic system.

 

 

Thank you,

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sdelsolray]

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

...

More to follow about Johnny's other sources.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Thanks for the compilation work of Poster Johnny's posts.  Poster Johnny only requires others to limit their scientific references to those which are observable, reproducible and falsifiable (i.e., no inferences, no forensics, no extrapolations, etc.).  That doesn't apply to Poster Johnny, at least according to Poster Johnny.  I suspect he pretends he is special.

[Johnny]

20 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

The visiting Christian apologist called Johnny has asserted

You're a joke. I showed that and you ignore it. Go pretend to your fellow non-thinkers and liars.

 

Again, you...

 

I'd like to draw your attention to the example of a scientist who re-interprets scientific evidence as he sees fit, so that it only supports what he feels it must.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony

 

Michael Behe is a biochemist and was called to the stand in the 2005 case of Dover versus Kitzmiller.

 

He is an advocate of Intelligent Design theory.

 

 

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

 

 

You are well aware of the evidence supporting the LCDM model, but I submit that like Behe, you do not find it "good enough" to persuade you from your long-held beliefs.

 

Therefore, I must ask you another question, Pantheory.

 

Will any amount of evidence for the LCDM model ever be "good enough" for you?

 

(Please note that this question carries no implication or inference of my support for the LCDM model.  I have no axe to grind here.  I neither support it nor reject it.)

 

Please answer the question succinctly and directly.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

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

 

The real story.....

https://evolutionnews.org/2009/07/ken_millers_only_a_theory_atta_1/

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

For your attention, Johnny.

 

 

"In this thread I will only comment on his cited material and the links they originate from. "

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.