Laws of Physics and Evolution

[Graham4C]

Hi everyone,

I would like to get peoples comments on an article. I think the argument is strong, what do you think?:




The Big Bang is widely accepted as an explanation for our origins. What most people overlook, however, is that it does not sit well with the laws of science. In remembering that the laws of science can be demonstrated and proved again and again while the Big Bang is only a theory with no evidence, we have to go with what science points out. The laws broken by the Big Bang theory are listed briefly below.

The conservation of mass-energy
This law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It rather changes from one form to another. Evolution states that all the matter and energy in the Universe came from nothing.

The first law of thermodynamics
This law states that energy and can change from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. It is almost identical to the conservation of mass-energy.

The second law of thermodynamics
This law is also called the law of entropy. It states that, in an energy exchange, some energy is always lost – in the form of heat and light for example. It also means that everything tends towards disorder. Evolution has the Universe changing from a state of disorder (Big Bang) into a somewhat orderly state.

Newton’s first law of motion
Probably one of the biggest flaws of Evolution is that it contradicts this law in particular. Newton’s second law states that “an object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.” According to the Theory of Evolution, a tiny dot containing all the matter in the Universe began to spin. It spun faster and faster and then exploded into the Universe we see today. According to the observable proof of Newton’s second law, this could not have happened.

Newton’s third law of motion
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” The Big Bang has only one reaction (explosion) and no opposite reaction at all never mind one of equal strength.

The conservation of Angular Momentum
Because the outside of an object spins faster than the inside, if the object explodes, the pieces will all be spinning in the same direction. Therefore if the Big Bang was true, all the matter in the Universe would be spinning in the same direction. If Evolution and the Big Bang are true, then why are 3 of the planets in our solar system spinning backwards in relation to the others? Why are many of the moons spinning backwards? Why are entire galaxies spinning backwards? The argument that they have slowed down and have started spinning the other way cannot be used. This is because space is a frictionless environment and to assume that this has happened is again breaking Newton’s first law.

 

[random_guy]

Hi everyone,

I would like to get peoples comments on an article. I think the argument is strong, what do you think?:

It may seem strong until you understand science.

The Big Bang is widely accepted as an explanation for our origins. What most people overlook, however, is that it does not sit well with the laws of science. In remembering that the laws of science can be demonstrated and proved again and again while the Big Bang is only a theory with no evidence, we have to go with what science points out. The laws broken by the Big Bang theory are listed briefly below.

Several problems. BB is a theory with evidence, so there's the first lie. It predicted the CMB, and it also predicted non-uniformities in the CMB. There's redshift and expansion as observational evidence. Also, BB is a theory on what happened after the singularity, it doesn't concern where the original energy/matter came from. So right of the bat, the article is wrong.

The conservation of mass-energy
This law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It rather changes from one form to another. Evolution states that all the matter and energy in the Universe came from nothing.

Evolution says nothing about matter and energy or the origins ofth Universe. For a "scientific article", it sure doesn't get any science right.

The first law of thermodynamics
This law states that energy and can change from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. It is almost identical to the conservation of mass-energy.

And the same answer applies.

The second law of thermodynamics
This law is also called the law of entropy. It states that, in an energy exchange, some energy is always lost – in the form of heat and light for example. It also means that everything tends towards disorder. Evolution has the Universe changing from a state of disorder (Big Bang) into a somewhat orderly state.

Same answer as above. Evolution and BB are not connected theories. Also, Earth is not a closed system since we get energy from the Sun. Example, put some salt water in a box and heat it up till the water evaporates. We're left with crystal salt formations, which is orderly. According to you, this is impossible, but that's because you're not taking into account the energy that was put into the system, and the water that evaporated.

...fake science...

Again, all my comments still apply. Evolution is biological science, and has little to do with any of the points brought up (also the points brought up are wrong since it ignores basic physics).

If this is the best Creationists can do, then it's not surprising that no major scientific organization takes Creationism seriously. Articles with false information is sure to be a turn off for potential converts.

EDIT: If you think any of my points are not valid, pick the strongest point in the article, and we'll discuss just that. Throwing out a bunch of false assertions (not you, but the article) just makes it more time consuming for people to refute each one. That's the machine gun approach, give out enough false information and hope someone forgets to refute one.

 

[Dannager]

Hi everyone,

I would like to get peoples comments on an article. I think the argument is strong, what do you think?:

The argument is nonsense, and was clearly written by someone without the first iota of scientific understanding. random_guy's objections to it are correct.

 

[Mallon]

Ditto to everything that's been said. It is obvious that the author who wrote this article has little training in physics. Celestrial retrograde rotation is accounted for by astral impacts, not necessarily God's creative whim. Which sounds more scientific? Which proposition can be tested, even if only in theory?
Because this is an attempt at a scientific article, I think random_guy has done a well enough job refuting it. His refutation stands until someone can use science to contradict him.

 

[busterdog]

Ditto to everything that's been said. It is obvious that the author who wrote this article has little training in physics. Celestrial retrograde rotation is accounted for by astral impacts, not necessarily God's creative whim. Which sounds more scientific? Which proposition can be tested, even if only in theory?
Because this is an attempt at a scientific article, I think random_guy has done a well enough job refuting it. His refutation stands until someone can use science to contradict him.

Whether or not there was formal training in physics, physics teaches that the Big Bang either violates the laws of physics or originates out of something beyond the law of physics.

What the author has done is to restate the old Sunday School problem of how do you create something of nothing, unless you are God?

As for the last two points 1. the jury is out on the opposite reaction; 2. angular momentum is arguable, but not completely convincing, since the whole event was so unlikely in the first instance.

 

[random_guy]

Whether or not there was formal training in physics, physics teaches that the Big Bang either violates the laws of physics or originates out of something beyond the law of physics.

What the author has done is to restate the old Sunday School problem of how do you create something of nothing, unless you are God?

As for the last two points 1. the jury is out on the opposite reaction; 2. angular momentum is arguable, but not completely convincing, since the whole event was so unlikely in the first instance.

Except the BB doesn't teach something from nothing. It teaches that there was something, and how that something changed over time. Again, the problem isn't with the theory, it's with people attacking their own version of the theory. It's just like Creationists who attack evolution by saying it's impossible since evolution teaches dirt->humans. However, if you feel that this is incorrect, why don't you point out where in the BB does it say something from nothing. Good luck with that seeing how almost no Creationist even know what the BB theory is or what it says.

EDIT: I predict that all the TEists will pick b), and all the Creationists will pick a). The difference is the TEists will have scientific reasons why the article is wrong, and will be able to point it out. The Creationists will pick a) because anything that attacks evolution is good. That's why we never see Creationists denouncing theories like wind blowing the Flood waters to Mars, or evolution includes the origins of life. They must show solidarity, even if the science is wrong.

 

[Dannager]

Whether or not there was formal training in physics, physics teaches that the Big Bang either violates the laws of physics or originates out of something beyond the law of physics.

First, no, the Big Bang does not violate the laws of physics. Please read up on the Big Bang at a reputable source.

Second, the title of this thread is "Laws of Physics and Evolution". The Big Bang shouldn't even be mentioned here as it has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Mallon]

EDIT: I predict that all the TEists will pick b), and all the Creationists will pick a). The difference is the TEists will have scientific reasons why the article is wrong, and will be able to point it out. The Creationists will pick a) because anything that attacks evolution is good. That's why we never see Creationists denouncing theories like wind blowing the Flood waters to Mars, or evolution includes the origins of life. They must show solidarity, even if the science is wrong.

Well, there is an easy way to test that prediction: encourage those who voted (a) to explain their scientific arguments against your rebuttal.

 

[notto]

According to the Theory of Evolution, a tiny dot containing all the matter in the Universe began to spin. It spun faster and faster and then exploded into the Universe we see today.

Wherever you are getting your information on the big bang from, ask for you rmoney back.

Can you provide a reference for this little gem?

 

[shernren]

The last three are particularly flagrant abuses of basic kinematics. Other than the very erroneous understanding of the Big Bang (as if it was some sort of cosmic space-time grenade), it is quite obvious that the laws are being misused. Analyzing the explosion of a stationary bomb into multiple fragments is high-school or college level physics but according to those arguments a bomb could never explode.

 

[artybloke]

This law states that energy and can change from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.

This law is also called the law of entropy. It states that, in an energy exchange, some energy is always lost – in the form of heat and light for example.

Can anybody see the contradiction here? Energy is not lost in entropy - it's "redistributed" until there is a state of equilibrium (that is, the same level of energy over the whole universe.) But there's no loss of energy overall.

And strictly speaking, the phrase "in a closed system," should also be there. The earth is not a closed system.

It's hardly convincing evidence if they can't even get the law right, is it?

 

[Melethiel]

Oh, my poor brain...the blatant abuse of the Laws of Physics in this article! It seems pretty obvious that the author has little to no training in physics.

 

[random_guy]

Well, there is an easy way to test that prediction: encourage those who voted (a) to explain their scientific arguments against your rebuttal.

Sounds easy enough, but I doubt anyone would be willing to take up the challenge. The article is wrong on so many different levels, from definitions to understanding theories.

Would any of the Creationists that pick a) want to try to defend their choice, or now that you guys know this article is nothing more than misinformation, would you like to change your choice?

 

[busterdog]

Can anybody see the contradiction here? Energy is not lost in entropy - it's "redistributed" until there is a state of equilibrium (that is, the same level of energy over the whole universe.) But there's no loss of energy overall.

And strictly speaking, the phrase "in a closed system," should also be there. The earth is not a closed system.

It's hardly convincing evidence if they can't even get the law right, is it?

Sometimes you need to read the words of a brother with grace to understand that they are indeed on the right track.

 

[busterdog]

First, no, the Big Bang does not violate the laws of physics. Please read up on the Big Bang at a reputable source.

Second, the title of this thread is "Laws of Physics and Evolution". The Big Bang shouldn't even be mentioned here as it has nothing to do with evolution.

Actually, no. You read up on it.

You can throw around accusations like you are grading my term paper, but that isn't how it is. All my sources are conventional sources that advocate a big bang. If you want to understand, you will ask. Otherwise, you can pretend to be more educated if that makes you happy.

As for evolution, the issue of entropy is a less precise application, but still a fully rational argument. In fact, there is evidence by some scientists that this is exactly what evolution is: a trend in populations toward less vigor, more entropy, not speciation.

 

[busterdog]

Except the BB doesn't teach something from nothing. It teaches that there was something, and how that something changed over time. Again, the problem isn't with the theory, it's with people attacking their own version of the theory. It's just like Creationists who attack evolution by saying it's impossible since evolution teaches dirt->humans. However, if you feel that this is incorrect, why don't you point out where in the BB does it say something from nothing. Good luck with that seeing how almost no Creationist even know what the BB theory is or what it says.

EDIT: I predict that all the TEists will pick b), and all the Creationists will pick a). The difference is the TEists will have scientific reasons why the article is wrong, and will be able to point it out. The Creationists will pick a) because anything that attacks evolution is good. That's why we never see Creationists denouncing theories like wind blowing the Flood waters to Mars, or evolution includes the origins of life. They must show solidarity, even if the science is wrong.

A concession of an obvious point of agreement would move the discussion along much better.

 

[Graham4C]

I have noticed that many people argue that the Big Bang and Evolution are not connected.
I beg to differ.

Is it not true that most people who believe in Evolution, believe in the Big Bang and vice versa??

It is also interesting how so many people are prepared to point out fallacies in the arguments, but do not provide any so-called correct interpretation.

If you are going to accuse someone of not knowing something, you yourself should provide the correct facts. Otherwise, your argument is not concise.

 

[sfs]

I have noticed that many people argue that the Big Bang and Evolution are not connected.
I beg to differ.

Is it not true that most people who believe in Evolution, believe in the Big Bang and vice versa??

Probably true. So? It's probably true that most people who believe in a literal and inerrant Bible also believe in free market capitalism. That doesn't make inerrancy a part of economics.

It is also interesting how so many people are prepared to point out fallacies in the arguments, but do not provide any so-called correct interpretation.

If you are going to accuse someone of not knowing something, you yourself should provide the correct facts. Otherwise, your argument is not concise.

Random_guy gave a good list of some of the glaring errors in the article. There is no "correct interpretation" of that article: scientifically it's nonsense. What exactly do you want us to provide in its place -- a complete description of the actual scientific theories of the Big Bang, galaxy formation, solar system dynamics, and biological evolution?

 

[random_guy]

I have noticed that many people argue that the Big Bang and Evolution are not connected.
I beg to differ.

Is it not true that most people who believe in Evolution, believe in the Big Bang and vice versa??

Okay, let's apply this logic. Is 1+1=2 connected to evolution? People who accept evolution also accept 1+1=2. Is us landing on the Moon connected to evolution? People who accept landing on the Moon also tend to accept evolution. Is electron bonding related to evolution? People who accept chemistry also accept evolution.

It is also interesting how so many people are prepared to point out fallacies in the arguments, but do not provide any so-called correct interpretation.

If you are going to accuse someone of not knowing something, you yourself should provide the correct facts. Otherwise, your argument is not concise.

I did provide many examples. Pick one of my points and let's debate. It seems that you think evolution includes the Big Bang. Find me scientific references or journals that show this. Not only that, I gave an example of something that goes against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (salt crystal formation) to show why the article's understanding of the Law is wrong. So far, all you have to counter is, "nyah uh". You haven't brought up any scientific points, nor have you defended anything in the article with evidence or examples. All you've used is faulty logic and bad science.

 

[Dannager]

I have noticed that many people argue that the Big Bang and Evolution are not connected.
I beg to differ.

You'd still be incorrect.

Is it not true that most people who believe in Evolution, believe in the Big Bang and vice versa??

Yes, but that's only for the same reason that most people who accept evolutionary theory accept gravity as well. It doesn't make either theory reliant upon the other. Reliance is the important term here.

It is also interesting how so many people are prepared to point out fallacies in the arguments, but do not provide any so-called correct interpretation.

Didn't I suggest reading up on what the Big Bang actually is? Here, if you want an accurate run-down of the Big Bang in layman's terms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang should work as a fine place to start.

If you are going to accuse someone of not knowing something, you yourself should provide the correct facts. Otherwise, your argument is not concise.

My apologies. Please refer to the link I provided. However my point was not necessarily to address the Big Bang, but rather to highlight the fact that the Big Bang and evolutionary theory are not one and the same, and neither does one rely on the other.