Question for the YECs

[GenemZ]

Your premises are flawed.

1. Matter can be created. It can also be destroyed. It is the sum total of matter and energy that remains constant. Remember e=mc^2? That details the relationship. 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.

Please, cite an example of what you refer to? What 'matter" has been created in this way that you speak of? I am not sure we are using these terms in the same manner.

It is known that a tiny element of matter (atom) can hold a great amount of energy. Its unlocking that energy that releases the energy which is already there, not creating it. Is that what you speak of?


.

 

[metherion]

Several of the supercolliders that are used to smash particles together to deconstruct them have also been used to 'crash' massless particles together to make other particles to observe how they are formed, and such.

Again, this isn't my field (if you're wondering what is, it's chemical engineering, not particle physics), so it's not something I'm an expert in, but I do know it's been done. Cooling systems on supercolliders were occasionally given to us as example thermodynamics problems to show us just how but some of the numbers we'd run into could be, so that the whole 'this number is huge, it can't be right' factor wouldn't come up.

As far as high energy goes... I did some checking and apparently temperatures to successfully 'make' electrons from massless particles can get to be about, oh, 10^10 kelvins. Which is 10^10 -273.15 Celcius.


Metherion

 

[GenemZ]

Lets assume the definition of the universe is the existence of matter

I believe you have created a new definition. Please, stay with established definitions. We just wandered off into matter being eternal, rather than address the original question (which was abandoned rather quickly). Yes, the universe consists of matter. But the universe consists of things made from matter. The question was about the universe being eternal, not simply matter.

it still has no bearing the age of the states of that matter. My age is not determined by the length of time the particles that make me up have existed, otherwise we'd all be billions of years old (according to current universe beginning dating fun times). Likewise, to look at recent thread here, the dating of ice cores is not determined by the age of the water, but by the length of time it has been in that state.

Jesus made water into wine, instantly. Yet? Wine must be aged first to produce a great vintage as this wine was. Jesus created something new that appeared to be old, but was not. Therefore, God can create an effect surrounding something he created and you could never know its true age. Maybe he does not want us to know the true age of something at times for reasons he has willed to be in his plan.


The reason certain scientist insist that this earth is billions of years old is because they must give the theory of evolution the room it needs to appear to be viable. They can not authoritatively prove the age of this planet to be that old. Their theory demands that it be so. So, its dogmatically "assumed."



.

 

[metherion]

The reason certain scientist insist that this earth is billions of years old is because they must give the theory of evolution the room it needs to appear to be viable. They can not authoritatively prove the age of this planet to be that old. Their theory demands that it be so. So, its dogmatically "assumed."

This is flat out wrong. The reason the age of the planet is said to be old is because of the radioactive dating methods. Not carbon dating, this is more uranium and potassium/argon and a few others. It has NOTHING to do with giving 'evolution the time it needs'.

Metherion

 

[Assyrian]

That's fine for the unbeliever to believe. Not good for the believer though. God holds believers to a different standard. God does not appreciate it when a believer says he is a liar. For the unbeliever to do so, its expected.

I thought this was about apologetics?

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?

 

[GenemZ]

This is flat out wrong. The reason the age of the planet is said to be old is because of the radioactive dating methods.

How can they verify that this method is accurate? There may be variables that they have no means to see which are involved.

Not carbon dating, this is more uranium and potassium/argon and a few others. It has NOTHING to do with giving 'evolution the time it needs'.

Billions of years passed, and uranium can keep its charge? Can it ever lose its charge? Then, how powerful was its charge when first created?

Is all uranium we find the same age? What if in the distant past there were some sort of unexpected type of oscillation effect that we could not observe that took place? it could never be factored in because it would require being there from the beginning and having thirty thousand years of recorded observation to see its effect take place? That from thirty thousand years on, what appears to us to be measured a thousand years, may have only been a few years from that point.. and then another oscillation once again occured at a one hundred thousand year mark, giving yet another decay rate? How can we be sure that what we assume is consistent must take place over great stretches of time? What if uranium turned sour, so to speak? We were never there to observe its consistency.

Uranium as it was originally created new may have contained some unknowable elements that acted on its decay rate, and once depleted, there were changes in how fast or slow the decay rate took place. The use of such means to determine age of an object is based upon what is knowable for today's conditions - based upon an assumed measure of consistency we can observe - may not be the accurate indicator we seek. Man has not been observing creation long enough to turn their assumptions about certain things into absolutes. We can only assume a decay rate remains consistent at all times. But, water keeps getting cooler ...and then it freezes. Before man actually observed water freezing he could only assume it would simply keep getting colder and colder as a liquid. We can only see back in time so far. We have no idea how the nature of things may have changed over time.

We assume the sun will remain burning for so many years based upon the premise that all things factored in will remain a constant. We can not be certain that if the sun varied a slight amount under a certain temperature level that an unexpected reaction might happen. One that would cause a much more rapid cooling.


What if? What if? What if?


.

 

[GenemZ]

I thought this was about apologetics?

Apologetics has limits.

1 Corinthians 2:14
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the
things that come from the Spirit of God, for they
are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand
them, because they are spiritually discerned."

If something is easily remedied by the shock of finding oneself saved and knowing Christ is alive, then we would be getting the cart before the horse by trying to prove something that can only be understood after one is regenerate.

Apologetics is to straighten out false notions and distortions that have been imposed upon the Bible. For example. The GAP understanding of Genesis eliminates the commonly held notion that this planet is only about six - ten thousand years old. Even after a lucid presentation it may not make a determined unbeliever into a believer even if this were to be grasped as to what the Bible in the original languages reveals concerning creation. Good apologetics it will leave the unbeliever without an excuse for their rejection of Christ by claiming that Christianity is about a young earth creation.

Apologetics is to remove excuses for the unbeliever, and believer. Its not to guarantee making an unbeliever into a believer. Apologetics also helps the growing believer to better see what may have been been denied him prior to learning what is a more accurate presentation by rightly dividing the Word of God.

Having an accurate presentation is not even a guarantee that a believer will believe what he is shown. Just the same, he too is to be left without excuse. His time will come when he stands before the Lord for evaluation for blessing or loss of reward. The unbeliever will be evaluated only to reveal why he is condemned. Apologetics is designed to defend the faith. Its not meant to make people believe. It only helps those who desire to believe truth. Many sadly desire to believe only what feeds their ego and sense of self preservation of acceptance by their peers.




.

​

 

[metherion]

How can they verify that this method is accurate? There may be variables that they have no means to see which are involved.

The fact that all of the dating methods, every last one that can measure back that far, have given consistent methods with the other methods no matter which one it is?

a bunch of what if questions, we can't know back that far questions, and display of not knowing much at all about the field.

Okay, this is where I go on a rant. I'll summarize it in the last line if you don't want to read the whole thing.

SCIENTISTS ARE NOT BLOODY INCOMPETENT. The field is decades old. There has been research and whatnot on this for decades. All the problems any layman to that field and hundreds FAR more complex than you would even know could exist have already been considered, analyzed, accounted for, and dealt with.

Do you REALLY, REALLY, TRULY THINK that a few questions about 'how can you tell' on an internet forum INVALIDATE THE MAIN PRINCIPLES AND NEARLY THE ENTIRE FIELD? That the people who do this are SO INCOMPETENT THEY HAVEN'T CONSIDERED QUESTIONS THAT EVEN PEOPLE NOT IN THE FIELD WOULD ASK?

Before you asked these, have you taken even the slightest look at how these might happen? And if you're going to say 'well, anything could change that could throw it all off', how can you even get out of bed in the morning? What if some small reaction happened with the Earth's magnetic field that causes your legs to snap as the iron in your blood gets pulled down way too fast? Why can all sorts of things that even the experts in the fields would have no idea about happen just because it contradicts your views, yet you trust everything that happens in the day to day as if it WON"T dramatically change JUST LIKE YOU SAY THOSE THINGS YOU DON"T AGREE WITH MUST HAVE?

Scientists are not politicians. Science doesn't have agendas. We don't have hidden meetings where we discuss what spin we're going to put on things. We don't all know exactly how we're going to fix data. WE DON"T. That's why we repeat things, and document how we did them, and what algorithms we applied to the data, so that anyone can repeat it and make sure it's right with the right equipment. Do you honestly, truly think that all the scientists in the radioactive dating area have spun every piece of data and contacted every amateur with the equipment who's tried to do it and had them all fudge the data in the exact same way? How do you justify this?

STOP TREATING US LIKE MORONS. STOP TREATING US LIKE CONSPIRATORS! Stop using the excuse that everything can change, or must have in the past, or whatever, without us knowing and then keep on taking everything in the world done for granted with no fear it ever change or stop just as you insist it must have just to support your worldview!

I'm sorry to rant like this, but I'm starting to get INCREDIBLY sick of being accused by implication of being an incompetent moron who doesn't actually know anything and works with people who are similarly incompetent morons? That I'm some sort of conspirator who works with other conspirators to deceive the public at large into some anti-God agenda? What? What exactly do you think of us?

I mean, if you were a banker, working of profit/return margins on mortgages, what if someone who doesn't know what credit ratings have to do with interest comes in and says that because he doesn't understand it, you must be swindling him?

What if you're a courtroom stenographer and someone says all your recordings must be invalid because it's POSSIBLE someone swapped the 'e' and 'r' on the ink blocks without you knowing?

What if you're a lawyer and someone who doesn't understand how leading the witness works (like me, I haven't a clue what it means) suddenly decides you must have been and all your cases need to be overturned?
In any of those cases, people who haven't a clue what's actually going on, have no idea what the checks and how things work are, come in without knowing, and are trying to overturn your work on minor things that you've had training and experience to realize. But do it to science and suddenly it's FINE! WHAT THE CRAP?!

Okay, the summary: If you have questions, look at what the experts in its field say. Not experts in other fields, not religious people who claim all sorts of things. Go to the actual scientists and see if they can answer your questions. If you're not in the field and have thought of them, odds are the people who have done this for, I don't know, DECADES have thought of them, answered them, moved on, and done the same to questions you never knew existed. Don't just go 'oh, what if this, what if that, it can't possibly be right, and science is wrong.' It serves no purpose but to make you look like hypocrits and tick us off.

I'm sorry for the rant, but... argh, it's really really annoying to see all this stuff, all this work, all the education hand-waved away just because someone on the internet without an education in it doesn't see how it could work.

Metherion

 

[shernren]

STOP TREATING US LIKE MORONS. STOP TREATING US LIKE CONSPIRATORS! Stop using the excuse that everything can change, or must have in the past, or whatever, without us knowing and then keep on taking everything in the world done for granted with no fear it ever change or stop just as you insist it must have just to support your worldview!

I'm sorry to rant like this, but I'm starting to get INCREDIBLY sick of being accused by implication of being an incompetent moron who doesn't actually know anything and works with people who are similarly incompetent morons? That I'm some sort of conspirator who works with other conspirators to deceive the public at large into some anti-God agenda? What? What exactly do you think of us?

"I don't understand a word they say, but since they reach a conclusion I disagree with, they are obviously wrong."

We're physicists. We gotta get used to this. Sociologically speaking it's only going to get worse.

 

[Siyha]

I believe you have created a new definition. Please, stay with established definitions. We just wandered off into matter being eternal, rather than address the original question (which was abandoned rather quickly). Yes, the universe consists of matter. But the universe consists of things made from matter. The question was about the universe being eternal, not simply matter.

sorry, I missed the established definition. What was it?

Jesus made water into wine, instantly. Yet? Wine must be aged first to produce a great vintage as this wine was. Jesus created something new that appeared to be old, but was not. Therefore, God can create an effect surrounding something he created and you could never know its true age. Maybe he does not want us to know the true age of something at times for reasons he has willed to be in his plan.

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.

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?

The reason certain scientist insist that this earth is billions of years old is because they must give the theory of evolution the room it needs to appear to be viable. They can not authoritatively prove the age of this planet to be that old. Their theory demands that it be so. So, its dogmatically "assumed."

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:

"While all evidence points to an old earth, we need to take into account that God could have just made it that way 6,000 years ago, which is substantiated by a literal reading of Genesis, something that is a relatively new approach to the Bible (only a few hundred years old) showing that fundamentalists reading the story nowadays know way more about how to interpret it than virtually every major church leader for the past 2,000 years!"

But now we're getting off topic.

 

[GenemZ]

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.



Enduring the present moment as we must, GeneZ




.

 

[KWCrazy]

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.

 

[metherion]

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

 

[GenemZ]

Genez postulated the eternity of matter in post #4.

I did?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7362213/#post51506534

No wonder there will be no resolve to this debate when one can not even see what was being said. You failed also to see what I was even responding to.


Why did I come back here, Lord? Divine preventative suffering is still needed? Or, did I come back to remember why I left?






.

 

[KWCrazy]

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!

 

[metherion]

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

 

[Siyha]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Smidlee]

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."

 

[adimus]

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.

 

[KWCrazy]

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.