Evolution vs. The Laws of Physics

Jet Black · #51 28th November 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Lyle

Is that a corny abbreviation for something. Or is a new organization I’ve never heard of before?

no, it's simple English. YEC circles is like the group of people who are YECs... you have legal circles, political circles, social circles, circles of friends and stuff like that.

Maybe not to go so much into the theory of Evolution, but it does have more to do with it. It explains the creation of the universe, while writing of God.

it is not important when talking about evolution at all dude, sorry.

Any person that fully believes in evolution must write off God and deny that He is real.

not at all dude, Darwin didn't for example. he simply saw Evolution as the method that God used to create.

Then how would it have started, if there was no time or space. No matter or anything, what exploded?

logical necessity, ekpyrotic, quantum tunneling, something else, and Even God

Would it not take the effort of an outside force to condense, such as gravity... Which didn't exist.

well as soon as you have matter, you have gravity, even hydrogen has gravity, simple newtonian mechanics, I think I learned it when I was about 12. cool eh?

Again, you need gravity. In order to have gravity, you need some body that already was to create gravity...

the force of gravity = G(M1)(M2)/r^2 where m1 and m2 are the masses of the bodies, r is the distance between em, and G is the gravitational constant, cool eh?

Then what would cause the explosion?

it's not an explosion per se, but we dunno yet. there are a number of possibilities though

And since they did not exist the Big Bang is invalid, and so is NASA and a good deal of renowned scientists today.

you have it all wrong dude. the big bang happened, that is pretty much a certainty - red shift, the cosmic microwave background, we just don't know how it started......

take a hill, you see a rock rolling down the hill, so you know that it used to be higher up the hill. Just because you don't know what got the rock rolling but just because you don't know that doesn't mean that the rock was never higher up the hill, or that the rock isn't rolling.

What.....

If there was such an explosion. Then it would be so much as to alter any hope of life, as I said. Such an explosion never creates life, only destroys..

But there would be no such force..

wrong again dude. see in the big bang, it all used to be energy and stuff, then the energy cooled down and matter condensed out of it. eventually the prevalent matter (for reasons I cannot be bothered to go into) condensed out as mostly protons and electrons. small quantum fluctuations in this dense cloud of matter greated tiny gravitational anomalies, and as the universe expanded, these anomalies got expanded by the gravitational attreaction, and all the hydrogen collapsed into clouds. these clouds continued to collapse, and eventually you get stars. now some of these stars will have been well big, I am talking many times the size of the sun and they make our sun look like a popsickle in terms of heat. now these stars go BANG a bit like SN1987A did, and throw loads of left over hydrogen and other assorted heavy elements into space where they can then collapse again, into other stars, and perhaps even planets

eventually all this stuf will run out though, which is a real shame

yet matter cannot be created or destroyed.. And how would the Big bang create space for everything to exist in?

well spacetime and amtter were created in the big bang... thing is we dunno how it started though.

I wrote that section for the person I was debating with, who believed it..

Then at one point there was nothing at all, period. Therefore it would be absurd to think anything could come about to create a Big Bang, to create a universe, which would create life.... You think to small

well quantum mechanically, if you run the time backwards you do get a non zero possibility of everything coming from nothing. but if something can't come from nothing, there are other options

I mentioned a few above!

But the rest of what you say is based on chance, believe it or not.... And there are parts that don't make sense.. I would debate with you as well about morality and truth, but you would not be willing to listen.. The again, what's new???

oh you can dude, course they aren't really scientific issues per se, you might wanna go over to general apologetics for stuff like that.

Take a look at the moon in relation to the earth's orbital speed
You know how much faster the world would be turning 25 billion years ago? or what that would do to the oceans?

oh that old card again, you know those equations are really old and wrong, right?

It requires much more faith to believe Evolution, and that everything happened to land how it did in life..

dude, you haven't even mentioned evolution yet. you are just dazzling us all with you lack of knowledge of cosmology and stellar mechanics and geology so far!

MartinM · #52 28th November 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Lyle

The first states the theory of the Big Bang as a "cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."

That's a pop science explanation. 'Explosion' is somewhat misleading, since it may lead you to suppose that it is the same thing as the explosions you are intuitively familiar with. It is not.

IN 1927 Georges Lemaître based the Big Bang on an explosion of one atom that created the universe

The 'primeval atom' referred to on that site is not an atom in the usual sense of the word. It's a poetic description, that's all.

They believe the universe was created by helium and hydrogen

No, they don't. They say that hydrogen and helium were the first elements to form, sometime after the Big Bang.

It states that all energy and particles were contained in one sphere in the universe, before launched out in space

This strongly implies that you're thinking of matter packed into a small volume in a large, empty space, then exploding outwards. This is completely wrong. Is this indeed what you were thinking?

And you have yet to disprove it. On the grounds of the popular view of the Big Bang, there would be no body of gravity to slow, or stop the flying particles of matter

Cobblers. Those 'flying particles of matter' would produce their own gravity.

LorentzHA · #53 28th November 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Lyle

So, does that mean they're right? There are alot of people out there who have and teach false gospels and are accepted (Benny Hiin, and the whole TBN crew... There are more though), but they aren't right.... In fact, many of them are so wrong that it's gross..... Pete, what do you believe?

What makes you sure you aren't one of those people Lyle? What is right to you, if it coincides with your interpretation of the Bible?

MartinM · #54 28th November 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Lyle

The way NASA states it, all particles/matter were gathered in one area, there weren't several stars that had come and gone

Are you thinking that 'all matter' means 'all matter as it is today'? It does not.

The Big Bang that I put forward is the normal example many believe today... Look it up on the web through the search engines I provided

No, it's a twisted, childish version of the real thing.

That any natural body will decay if left alone....

That is not the second law of thermodynamics.

Maybe you should go to Turkey? Because in 1660s I believe (so where around there) They went up and looked through it. It was a boat, and made of gopher wood too... Just as the Bible described it

Like hell. Your evidence for this claim?

And NASA believes the same of the Big Bang that I do

No, they do not.

LorentzHA · #55 28th November 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Lyle

LorentzHA and Arikay, I would love to debate with you to on whether or not God is real of the grounds on other grounds.... We'll see how it would go from there (There are other ways to prove creation other then science).

You would love to debate us on the grounds of other grounds. LOL. In other words you want us to debate you and you can PROVE their is a God but we cannot use science to argue with you? I bet you just want to recite scripture as proof? LOL. You want to site the text from your own belief system and that is supposed to be a closed case? LOL. Every religion has a text that tells them they are correct, what makes yours different-let me guess? Because it says so, in said text! LOL. OK, so you want to debate us and can prove God by not using science. GO FOR IT-The floor is yours.

Talcos Stormweaver · #56 28th November 2003, 02:52 PM

Well, it seems we have a bit of ignorance! Not offending you but...

Is that a corny abbreviation for something. Or is a new organization I’ve never heard of before?

YEC stands for Young Earth Creationism. It is a creationist belief that the earth was created in its complete form and splendor and the Earth is only a few thousand years young.

Any person that fully believes in evolution must write off God and deny that He is real.

Once again, as others have stated, this is not true. By the way, many of the christians here, who have not denied God, are posting here. Speak with them about it.

such as gravity... Which didn't exist.

Gravity is a pseudo-force acting on the matter of the universe. It is a law, not an entity which relies on (itself)* to exist.
*Based on the argument given, it would have to exist, provided the theory can not be falsified on this basis.

Again, you need gravity. In order to have gravity, you need some body that already was to create gravity

See above.

Including NASA and other organizations like it....

I do not see how NASA applies here when you have no evidence to support it.

Then what would cause the explosion?

God (in my opinion)! Maybe a purple fairy named Eri!
That is beyond the present field of science, which studies everything but the supernatural.

And since they did not exist the Big Bang is invalid, and so is NASA and a good deal of renowned scientists today.

So NASA is right, but then it is wrong? (see above)

What...

His point is that it was not a direct act of creation. Rather yet, it was the act of allocating space and energy to form the basic building blocks of life, which ultimately formed life many years later.

If there was such an explosion. Then it would be so much as to alter any hope of life, as I said. Such an explosion never creates life, only destroys..

Ignorant statement! To state that it would never create life is a statement which you can not support by any means.

Hey Jet Black,
Go to

Yahoo
Ask Jeeves
Web Crawler
Google

And look up, The Big Bang Theory. From there you will be able to tell what the standard Big Bang Theory is

I see he was right.

In accordance to the theories I found, yes. Maybe not using the word dust, but particles/matter

Two seperate things: Dust, and particles. Dust is far too specific.

All that I have time for, perhaps I can fill out a more complete response next time.

ForeRunner · #57 28th November 2003, 02:53 PM

Hi everyone. I have been lurking these boards for over a year (mostly this one), so there is no need to introduce yourselves, I know the common players.

Today I decided to post in order to help our poor misguided Lyle along. Lyle, before you post here again I am going to suggest to you a (very) short list of books on physics that were written for the average person.

Explainations of Modern Physics:
Stephen Hawking - A Brief History of Time
The Universe in a Nutshell
The Theory of everything: The Orgin and Fate
of the Universe

If you can, get ahold of the illistrated editions, the diagrams are excellent.

Then, for a good history of Modern Physics pick up Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps. It is a bit old by physics standards (copyright 1994) but it still gives a very thorough progresson of modern physics.

There are two other books that I am personally fond of, these deal with theology, philosopy and physics.

Fritjof Capra - The Tao of Physics
Werner Heisenberg - Physics and Philosophy

If you take the time to read through and think about the ideas presented in these books you'll recieve a much better understanding of what physics is. I suggested starting with Stephen Hawking's books because I think they are the easiest to understand. I also believe it is possible for a person without formal training in physics to understand these concepts. I have had no college physics courses and my mathmatics is only up to Calculus II and Discrete Mathmatics, yet I am able to read through the published physics journals in my university, and nearby universities (Brown) and understand the concepts that they present (I don't understand the Math and I couldn't critique them however, I'll leave that to the pros).

In any event, my advice to you is to start there and come back when you have the ability to not completely butcher established science.

P.S. For the pros here, please add to my books list. I usually find publications by looking up people mentioned in other publications... I am certain there are things I have missed not being in the Science field.

Edit: Holy Typos, Batman!

Jet Black · #58 28th November 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Lyle

And look up, The Big Bang Theory. From there you will be able to tell what the standard Big Bang Theory is

dude, I have 2 degrees in physics, I think I should know yeah? besides the internet is full of rubbish!

It does have a Chemical make-up, right? Then the Chemicals that make up the sun would to have set right, in the right place...

not at all dude, it's mostly just hydrogen! and hydrogen gets formed from the cooling big bang!

The way NASA states it, all particles/matter were gathered in one area, there weren't several stars that had come and gone.. And as a side note, where did those stars come from?

I explained this stuff in the last post, so I won't go into it again here.

But still, if you are stating that these stars were by-products of the Big Bang, then you still have to explain what gravitational force slowed down this particles/matter and formed it into a star? And where did that gravitational body come from?

the matter from the big bang itself!

What? That had nothing to do with the comment I made....

it did dude, your comment was flat out wrong.

My own devising? What, my rebuttal, or the theory of the Big Bang, or both?

your made up version of the big bang. It ain't waht happebed!

The Big Bang that I put forward is the normal example many believe today... Look it up on the web through the search engines I provided.

no it ain't dude. I have two physics masters derees! I know this stuff.

But the sun is burning, no? And chemicals will burn themselves off, again going along the lines of the Second law of Thermodynamics. That any natural body will decay if left alone....

nuclear fusion dude, not chemical burning! and yeah it will run out sometime though.

I wasn't referring to that, but rather the fossil record shows that plant life has always been the same...

not at all dude, the fossil record shows that plants have changed dramatically.

That's what I was referring to. Although everything has changed, good old plants have always been the same.. But as a side note, why are there plants?

well they would have started off as simple organisms that used light to survive.

Or I should start, what is your theory of evolution?

roughtly, descent with modification and natural selection.

I didn't think all chemicals could mix, and I don't see why life (if it came from this soup) wouldn't show all chemicals in each creature.... Or for that matter, why didn't the "soup" just stay "soup?" There would be n stimulating force that would give it the desire to form into something

oh yeah they can. not all react though. as to why the early mix of chemicals formed life, well that is to do with chemical reactions of amino acids and stuff like that. they would have formed simple self replicators, which changed and so on and life emerged!

Hmmm... That theory and the ones I posted before it are all the ones I've heard (besides the alien theory). What are the others?

you wanna look up some proper papers on abiogenesis.

Do you have proof of this? that they were different?

do you have any proof that they would have had to start out as they are? thing is, stuff like bacteria and simple things don't fossilise that easily. There are a number of neat papers on protein hypercycles and an experiment done by a guy called fox. I will see if I can find them.

Think of it the way the theory is portrayed.... Maybe somewhere near the lines you believe, I know not.. If this little fish creature did exist, it would see no reason to come out of water.

eever heard of mudskippers? see, as soon as something is even remotely successful in an unoccupied niche, it will take over that niche and proliferate in that niche. eventually it will end up competing with others of it's own kind in that niche and then diversity arises!

Just as a baby eagle sees no reason of leaving the nest, it's parent has to kick it out. The same reason you don't see more evidence of worms growing legs and crawling out of the ground, even today.

totally different thinking dude.

Why would the early creatures see the need for sexual relations to reproduce life. When they were already sexless and coming along just fine...

well those bacteria and yeast that did swap genes with one another would have been significantly more successful, since they could inherit beneficial mutations from soemone else too! cool eh?

yet your theory of the Big Bang does not match up to the one widely held by NASA and others. Even the one taught in public schools today, or on TV, or anywhere. You'll have to explain your view to me a little more, or allot more :p

actually dude, mine does. It's called the standard model, and I spent some good part of my first degree learning it!

But if a meteor just larger then a house would be estimated to destroy the world, then wouldn't such a rock create the same effect by landing in the water? And wouldn't that destroy, all, life?

This sin't no cheap sci fi flick, it isn't going to blow up the planet or anything, some stuff will survive!

Maybe you should go to Turkey? Because in 1660s I believe (so where around there) They went up and looked through it. It was a boat, and made of gopher wood too... Just as the Bible described it.

maybe you should, cos it ain't there dude.

Show me a web-page, or a book, that would prove such a theory. Because I have never heard of that one....

this is like elementary plate tectonics, have you never heard of plate tectonics before? did you know that everest is still going up?

Maybe you should read through NASA's reports, study the physical universe and it's make up.... What I believe of Evolution I have gathered through MANY different sources..

me too, all yours seem to be wrong. I got my knowledge from biology professors and university libraries.

And NASA believes the same of the Big Bang that I do.....

not at all dude.

Though I will tell you I may know a good deal about science, but it's in areas here and there.

sorry dude, I have two physics degrees, I know a shed load more than you. You're wrong, sorry about that. feel free to ask us to educate you though.

LorentzHA · #59 28th November 2003, 02:55 PM

Lyle. The second Law of Thermo speaks to the amount of energy available in a system, to do work. When I was going to Bible study I had people why barely made it out of High School telling others to use that argument when facing non-believers. 1. It does not prove a God and 2. How can you use a scientific argument when you are not even sure what it is about or what it means, Lyle?

I left the church becuse the ignorance was FRIGHTENING.

So Lyle, you speak out against science but YET try to use scienctific Laws that you do not even understand as your way of "proving God". Lyle, I left church because of nonsense like this. Should you really be speaking on subject with, false authority and pride, that you are not even in the slightest way familar with except in name only!?

Without going to the web Lyle, would yo umind explaining to me, in your own words, what the FIRST law of Thermo states and why? Kind of get what I am driving at here?

LorentzHA · #60 28th November 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by ForeRunner

Hi everyone. I have been lurking these boards for over a year (mostly this one), so there is no need to introduce yourselves, I know the common players.

Today I decided to post in order to help our poor misguided Lyle along. Lyle, before you post here again I am going to suggest to you a (very) short list of books on physics that were written for the average person.

Explainations of Modern Physics:
Stephen Hawking - A Brief History of Time
The Universe in a Nutshell
The Theory of everything: The Orgin and Fate
of the Universe

If you can, get ahold of the illistrated editions, the diagrams are excellent.

Then, for a good history of Modern Physics pick up Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps. It is a bit old by physics standards (copyright 1994) but it still gives a very thorough progresson of modern physics.

There are two other books that I am presonally fond of, these deal with theology, philosopy and physics.

Fritjof Capra - The Tao of Physics
Werner Heisenberg - Physics and Philosophy

If you take the time to read through and think about the ideas presented in these books you'll recieve a much better understanding of what physics is. I suggested starting with Stephen Hawking's books because I think they are the easiest to understand. I also believe it is possible for a person without formal training in physics to understand these concepts. I have had no college physics courses and my mathmatics is only up to Calculus II and Discrete Mathmatics, yet I am able to read through the published physics journals in my university, and nearby universities (Brown) and understand the concepts that they present (I don't understand the Math and I couldn't critique them however, I'll leave that to the pros).

In any event, my advice to you is to start there and come back when you have the ability to not completely butcher established science.

P.S. For the pros here, please add to my books list. I usually find publications by looking up people mentioned in other publications... I am certain there are things I have missed not being in the Science feild.

Yes. And they are excellent books!

Thanks for pointing these out to him!