Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
sorry, I missed the established definition. What was it?
The universe. What is the established definition that when we speak of the universe, what comes to mind? The existence of matter? Hardly.
And yet the wine he made will continue to age after he made it. It appeared to be old, and got older; thus, it can age.
Point missed. Scientists (if they existed back then) could not really accurately date it. Say a sample of this wine was a year old. It will always be a lot younger that it will appear to be. But, by scientific means certain scientists would swear the wine is aged ten years. But the dumb believer (in the eyes of the secularized scientists) will know its began its life at a vintage of nine years one year back. FAITH allows the believer to know the truth. Scientists will swear the believer is only an idiot and knows nothing.
You said that if the universe had no beginning, nothing could age. That is what I've been addressing. What are you suddenly talking about?
I was addressing the OP. Which was..
In reference to apologetics, do you ever tell people, such as friends or coworkers, that the universe had a beginning, and that God is the cause for the beginning? If you do think that, then how do you answer someone who asks you how we know the universe has a beginning?
How dare they dogmatically assume that evidence showing a rock formation taking a million years to form would actually take a million years to form, without taking into account that God could have made it instantly so! I demand text books in school say:
I am no proponent of a young earth. The Hebrew and Greek texts do not point in that direction, no more than the time of the resurrection involves reasons for easter eggs and rabbits. Some traditions of past church organizations imposed ideas that do not agree with the Bible. Young Earth Creationism has been one of them.
But now we're getting off topic.
For you, maybe. I hope you can reciprocate in kind. For, here again is the original post that I was relating to.
In reference to apologetics, do you ever tell people, such as friends or coworkers, that the universe had a beginning, and that God is the cause for the beginning? If you do think that, then how do you answer someone who asks you how we know the universe has a beginning?
Your diversion, to not be a diversion, would need to read...
In reference to apologetics, do you ever tell people, such as friends or coworkers, that matter had a beginning, and that God is the cause for the beginning? If you do think that, then how do you answer someone who asks you how we know that matter has a beginning?
The subject was the existing universe, not matter. You switched topic.
Who thinks that rocks are eternal and in what context?
Genez postulated the eternity of matter in post #4.
As was already pointed out, there is also the possibility of an unknown unintelligent agent. This could be something such as M-theory. There is also a 4th possibility, multiple gods could have created everything.
There is no evidence of any such agent, and polytheism has less credulity than monotheism.
I don't know anyone who thinks that. Do you know people who think we came from nothing?
Absolutely. Not only that, I have been told by evos that quantum mechanics is IRREFUTABLE PROOF that we could have popped into existence. My favorite, though, remains the "theory" that we were pooped out of the black hole of a parallel universe. That's classic.
So that makes your view valid? Seems like a cop out.
Over 5,000 years of human history, not to mention that over the years I've had a relationship with the one who actually CREATED the universe.
There is no evidence of any such agent, and polytheism has less credulity than monotheism.
Well of course there isn't. We don't even understand that force it might be yet. But since science DOESN"T have all the answers, and also doesn't claim to, you can't discount the possibility.
Why is many gods less likely than one? If one being can exist outside time and make everything poof in from nothing, what makes 5 less likely?
Metherion
__________________ Oh, for the love of Pete!
PETE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!!
And, because I won't write anything I'm not willing to attach my name to...
1. Matter can be created. It can also be destroyed.
Wow. Who should I believe, you or the First LoT? Since I don't see a Nobel Prize by your name for disproving the law, I have to conclude that you are wrong. Einstein demonstrated that matter/energy are convertible, but that process has a net loss of heat energy.
It is the sum total of matter and energy that remains constant.
You just said that matter could be created and destroyed. Which is it now?
A huge amount of energy can form a tiny bit of matter, and a tiny amount of matter can release a huge amount of energy.
Thats called conversion of form, and it is NOT the creation or destruction of matter.
One of the current theories is that gravity is so weak because gravitons 'escape' to alternate universes or something.
Okay, I just spit coffee out my nose at that one. Alternate universes???? Seriously??? And you believe that is scientific???
But that does not mean it is false or to be ridiculed.
It is both.
Entropy does not only increase. Entropy can also stand still.
For a time, yes, but not for eternity. The rate of increasing entropy is variable, but not the Second LoT. It holds true.
As a matter of fact, there can theoretically be a point of maximum entropy where the energy to generate more (i.e. break down matter into energy in a way that would increase entropy) isn't available.
My theory on that is that after enough time had elapsed, provided the universe was left to its own, that eventually the entire universe would be a cosmic mush of more or less equalized energy.
Entropy measures the usable energy in a system, not the matter.
Energy/matter are convertible.
You leave out a possible result and display a false dichotomy in the answer...
Not in the least.
The universe was created by forces beyond our understanding but completely in tune with physical and natural laws as of yet undiscovered by science and unknown to mankind.
Gobbledegook. The physical laws of the universe state that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only it's form may be changed, and that matter/energy due to increasing entropy is in a constant state of decay, and thus cannot be infinite. Those laws are mutually exclusive. How can something be "completely in tune with physical and natural laws as of yet undiscovered by science" and yet violate the laws of physics that science has already proven? It's not a valid viewpoint. it makes about as much sense as saying some parallel universe pooped us out a black hole.
You left out number 2. But it is indeed possible.
Only in the twisted, anti-scientific mind of an evo fanatic.
Therefore, with both flawed premises and a flawed conclusion, your argument is invalid.
Neither the premise not the conclusion were flawed. The only flaw was in the attempted refutation which basically amounts to "magic might happen, so there."
Also, just because entropy decreases the USABLE energy in a system, it does not mean the energy is gone, or destroyed, or whatever.
No.... you might recall I DID mention that in the first line of my statement. You know that bit about cannot be created OR DESTROYED. Wow. Unimpressive!
Wow. Who should I believe, you or the First LoT? Since I don't see a Nobel Prize by your name for disproving the law, I have to conclude that you are wrong. Einstein demonstrated that matter/energy are convertible, but that process has a net loss of heat energy.
Surprise, surprise!
THAT IS THE FIRST LAW! The 'loss' of heat energy is... INCREASE IN ENTROPY ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONVERSION! The energy isn't destroyed, merely changes form.
Thanks for playing.
You just said that matter could be created and destroyed. Which is it now?
Uhm... how about both? It can be created from energy and destroyed to yield energy.
Thats called conversion of form, and it is NOT the creation or destruction of matter.
Well, if they can be converted, then for one to be created, the other must be destroyed. And if it can be converted back, then one must be destroyed for the other to be created.
Look, if you're going to try to argue the first law of thermodynamics, don't do it with someone who uses it for a living, capiche? Thermodynamics and heat transfer IS in my field.
It is both.
Ah, so simply because you BELIEVE it is ridiculous, it can't be true and deserves to be made fun of? And here I thought we still needed research in quantum mechanics and subatmoic particle behavior. Since you obviously know it all to be able to tell whether something or not it true when there is ongoing research about it...
For a time, yes, but not for eternity. The rate of increasing entropy is variable, but not the Second LoT. It holds true.
Second law of Thermodynamics:
The entropy in a closed system that is not in equilibrium will tend to increase with time until it reaches a maximum value.
SO, entropy can stop increasing at TWO points:
One, it reaches a maximum.
Two, it reaches equilibrium.
So, according to the second law, it does not always have to proceed to the maximum.
Learn to use them right if you're going to at all.
My theory on that is that after enough time had elapsed, provided the universe was left to its own, that eventually the entire universe would be a cosmic mush of more or less equalized energy.
But not only energy. There might still be matter, and the energy needed to cover the entropy increase to get matter into energy would not be present in usable form. That would be an equilibrium.
Energy/matter are convertible.
But wait! You were accusing me of being ridiculous and violating the first Law when I said the exact same thing earlier! And to be converted into the other, one must be destroyed.
So, which is it? Are they interchangeable? And if they are, and you say so yourself, why are you ridiculing me for saying the exact same thing you are? Or are you wrong, in which case why are you even using the argument?
Gobbledegook. The physical laws of the universe state that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only it's form may be changed, and that matter/energy due to increasing entropy is in a constant state of decay, and thus cannot be infinite. Those laws are mutually exclusive. How can something be "completely in tune with physical and natural laws as of yet undiscovered by science" and yet violate the laws of physics that science has already proven? It's not a valid viewpoint. it makes about as much sense as saying some parallel universe pooped us out a black hole.
Again, you know everything about the universe? You know for certain there is nothing we have not discovered that could possibly lead to a scientific revolution? And remember, science doesn't PROVE anything. We evidence it, but evidence can support multiple theories. ALL the evidence will only support the right one. And since we don't know everything about the universe yet (well, apparently you do), we could have it wrong, but still working because the parts of it we have access to all follow what we know.
Also, get this whole 'matter decaying' thing gone. The only thing that decays in usable energy. Matter in its current form is not usably energy. You have to convert it to energy first, then that energy can decay into less usable forms. This whole matter decaying from the 2nd Law is garbage.
Only in the twisted, anti-scientific mind of an evo fanatic.
No. To paraphrase, only in the twisted, anti-scientific mind of someone who thinks their credulity is the base judge of whether not things are possible in the universe is 'we might not have discovered that yet' thrown out.
Neither the premise not the conclusion were flawed. The only flaw was in the attempted refutation which basically amounts to "magic might happen, so there."
The refusal to acknowledge there might be things beyond human understanding in attempting to exclude every possible outcome is a flaw. Saying that it's unbelievable and therefor untrue is a logical fallacy called 'argument from incredulity.' "I don't believe it could be therefore it's not true" is pretty much most of what you've said regarding the unknown unknowns. So it's still flawed, for the same reasons.
No.... you might recall I DID mention that in the first line of my statement. You know that bit about cannot be created OR DESTROYED. Wow. Unimpressive!
Yes, because sarcasm and venom that accomplishes nothing REALLY adds to an argument.
Metherion
__________________ Oh, for the love of Pete!
PETE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!!
And, because I won't write anything I'm not willing to attach my name to...
The universe. What is the established definition that when we speak of the universe, what comes to mind? The existence of matter? Hardly.
What is it?
Originally Posted by genez
Point missed. Scientists (if they existed back then) could not really accurately date it. Say a sample of this wine was a year old. It will always be a lot younger that it will appear to be. But, by scientific means certain scientists would swear the wine is aged ten years. But the dumb believer (in the eyes of the secularized scientists) will know its began its life at a vintage of nine years one year back. FAITH allows the believer to know the truth. Scientists will swear the believer is only an idiot and knows nothing.
I understood your point, but it was irrelevant to the discussion we were having which was about your claim that things in a universe without beginning wouldn't age.
Originally Posted by genez
I was addressing the OP. Which was..
And I was asking you for more clarity on your reponse to the OP, and I still don't understand what you mean by "If it has no beginning? Nothing could age. It would be eternal. Timeless..." This is what I've been trying to get clarity on.
Originally Posted by genez
For you, maybe. I hope you can reciprocate in kind. For, here again is the original post that I was relating to.
and I was addressing your response to the OP, and your analogy of God making things look old that are new has nothing to do with that, unless I missed the point of your initial response.
Originally Posted by genez
The subject was the existing universe, not matter. You switched topic.
Again, I assume the existence of the universe to be defined by the existence of energy and matter. If you think something different, thats fine, just please explain what you mean by universe so that I know what we are talking about.
Maybe for the sake of clarity, could you reword or summarize your response to the OP? It seems I have misunderstood what you are getting at this whole time.
__________________ "An agnostic is an athiest without balls." - Stephen Colbert
In reference to apologetics, do you ever tell people, such as friends or coworkers, that the universe had a beginning, and that God is the cause for the beginning?
no
If you do think that, then how do you answer someone who asks you how we know the universe has a beginning?
" It's beautiful weather we are having."
__________________ Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth:..."
Romans 3:3-4 "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;"
In reference to apologetics, do you ever tell people, such as friends or coworkers, that the universe had a beginning, and that God is the cause for the beginning?
Not any more.
If you do think that, then how do you answer someone who asks you how we know the universe has a beginning?
I would just direct them to read about science- not creationism. But what the Bible says is simply that it is Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." It is by our faith, not by a new religious made up teaching called Creationism that we understand God as the creator.
Curiously, even the Big Bang theory demonstrates that there was a point in the evolution of the universe when everything was literally transparent. But I digress.
__________________ Proverbs 18:17 The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
THAT IS THE FIRST LAW! The 'loss' of heat energy is... INCREASE IN ENTROPY ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONVERSION! The energy isn't destroyed, merely changes form.;;;
Uhm... how about both? It can be created from energy and destroyed to yield energy.
Don't try to be cute. I was right and you were wrong.
Well, if they can be converted, then for one to be created, the other must be destroyed. And if it can be converted back, then one must be destroyed for the other to be created.
WRONG! Conversion creates or destroys nothing. You fail.
Look, if you're going to try to argue the first law of thermodynamics, don't do it with someone who uses it for a living, capiche? Thermodynamics and heat transfer IS in my field.
Send this to your boss and see if you have a job tomorrow. Frankly, anyone who doesn't know the verbiage of the laws of thermodynamics who works in that field is a disgrace.
Ah, so simply because you BELIEVE it is ridiculous, it can't be true and deserves to be made fun of? And here I thought we still needed research in quantum mechanics and subatmoic particle behavior.
Let me clarify. Anyone who believes we were crapped out of the black hole of a parallel universe or that the the entire universe just popped into existence is an idiot. Quantum that.
Second law of Thermodynamics:
So far, I think I've seen 250 definitions of the 2nd Lot, all of them saying more or less the same thing and phrased differently. I could probably find 50 sources that equate it to the winding down of a watch. Does everyone just get to make up their own definition and call it THE definition? And you wonder why we laugh at you?
But wait! You were accusing me of being ridiculous and violating the first Law when I said the exact same thing earlier!
No, the First LoT states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only it's form can be changed. You said it COULD be created AND destroyed, which makes you WRONG!
why are you ridiculing me for saying the exact same thing you are?
I'm ridiculing you for pretending to be someone who works with thermodynamics for a living but yet who cannot grasp the simple concept of the laws of thermodynamics. BTW. Since melting ice cream demonstrates thermodynamics, does that mean you work at dairy Queen?
You know for certain there is nothing we have not discovered that could possibly lead to a scientific revolution?
I know that something cannot simultaneously be in harmony with the laws of physics while VIOLATING them!
This whole matter decaying from the 2nd Law is garbage.
Again, I haven't seen your Nobel Prize yet. I didn't write the law. I only repeated the law.
To paraphrase, only in the twisted, anti-scientific mind
Excuse me? All of my answers are based on science, and I have demonstrated a more firm grasp of it than you have.
Saying that it's unbelievable and therefor untrue is a logical fallacy called 'argument from incredulity.'
Stating that it is a scientific impossibility and therefore untrue given the boundaries of the physical world is called a logical deduction. Sorry.
Why did I come back here, Lord? Divine preventative suffering is still needed? Or, did I come back to remember why I left? 
Linear Mode
