ChatterBank1 min ago
big bang/evolution
10 Answers
Have been reading some info saying that the Big Bang theory is impossible as is evolution due to the fact it violates the laws of thermodynamics? any ideas. I read this on the Enlightenment Website
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by commonsense. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Take a look at this site for an argument against the creationists oft stated claim that evolution/big bang violates the laws of thermodynamics.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.ht ml
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.ht ml
Lazygun, What you have provided is the virtual "missing link".
The essential problem faced by creationists boils down to their refusal to take their argument to its logical conclusion. If everything was created then why stop at 'God'? 'God' is presented as an explanation for that which remains to be explained; an explanation that (thanks to the scientific method of revealing the true nature of reality) continues to erode in the tide of our continually expanding realm of knowledge.
The only acceptable explanation for the existence of 'God' I have been able to find is that 'God' was created and exists solely within the mind of the believer. Behold the lie so apparent in the midst of what they chose to believe without examination, question or rational explanation.
The essential problem faced by creationists boils down to their refusal to take their argument to its logical conclusion. If everything was created then why stop at 'God'? 'God' is presented as an explanation for that which remains to be explained; an explanation that (thanks to the scientific method of revealing the true nature of reality) continues to erode in the tide of our continually expanding realm of knowledge.
The only acceptable explanation for the existence of 'God' I have been able to find is that 'God' was created and exists solely within the mind of the believer. Behold the lie so apparent in the midst of what they chose to believe without examination, question or rational explanation.
The idea is that the cause has to be greater than the effect and alot of people believe that cause to be God, or a creator. This doesnot mean that there is nothing behind him/her/it. I do believe in God or a creator, just dont agree with the manmade religion that has followed. Take the new testament, need I say anymore.
commonsense, Your conjecture, "that the cause has to be greater than the effect", defies Newton's 3rd Law
That is precisely the point commonsense, whether the cause is greater than the effect (creation) or less than (evolution)
But as Mib points out - if humans are created by a greater force (whether or not you follow human religion) that greater force must itself have been created by a greater force - etc. etc.
It's the old "turtles all the way down story".
Getting back to the original point about violation of the laws of thermodynamics - it may very well be that the big bang does - the reliability of most of the physics we are familiar with is unreliable in the sort of conditions that we envisage in the first moments of creation.
But if you heard the screach of tyres and the sound of a collision and rounded the corner to see two cars embedded in each other what would you think?
That's where we are with the big bang we "hear" the echo, we "see" the galaxies shooting away. These days denying the big bang makes about as much sense as denying your name - Even Fred Hoyle (the great steady state proponant)accepted it before he died.
But as Mib points out - if humans are created by a greater force (whether or not you follow human religion) that greater force must itself have been created by a greater force - etc. etc.
It's the old "turtles all the way down story".
Getting back to the original point about violation of the laws of thermodynamics - it may very well be that the big bang does - the reliability of most of the physics we are familiar with is unreliable in the sort of conditions that we envisage in the first moments of creation.
But if you heard the screach of tyres and the sound of a collision and rounded the corner to see two cars embedded in each other what would you think?
That's where we are with the big bang we "hear" the echo, we "see" the galaxies shooting away. These days denying the big bang makes about as much sense as denying your name - Even Fred Hoyle (the great steady state proponant)accepted it before he died.
1.MATTER AND ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED
2.THINGS MOVE IN A DIRECTION FROM ORDER TO CHAOS
3.THINGS ARE AT A MAXIMUM AT ABSOLUTE ZERO
Everything in the universe has been caused by something. We can trace every effect back to it's cause, even the First Cause. For example if you are wearing a wool jumper you can trace the cause and effect back to the sheep, back through the sheep's ancestry to the first created sheep and to the Creator Himself. It follows directly from the first law of thermodynamics and is embodied in Newton's laws of motion. No exceptions to the law of cause and effect have ever been observed.
Therefore, the "Big Bang" theory also violates the law of cause and effect by creating matter and energy out of nothing.
It is directly at odds with the second law of thermodynamics that states things move from order to chaos. The "Big Bang" violates the first law of thermodynamics by creating matter and energy out of nothing. It violates the second law by creating an ordered universe from an explosion. It violates the third law too, raw energy added to an open system is not a recipe for increased organisation. It violates the law of cause and effect by creating matter and energy out of nothing. YOU CAN ONLY COME TO ONE CONCLUSION CAN'T YOU?
1. It violates the first law of thermodynamics because nothing INSIDE of the universe is capable of bringing the universe into being.
2. It violates the second law for reasons already discussed; the big bang would have produced more chaos not order. If you claim the universe is infinitely old or had no beginning then it would have reached a state of complete disorder with no energy left. As it has not it proves that it is not infinitely old and did have a beginning.
2.THINGS MOVE IN A DIRECTION FROM ORDER TO CHAOS
3.THINGS ARE AT A MAXIMUM AT ABSOLUTE ZERO
Everything in the universe has been caused by something. We can trace every effect back to it's cause, even the First Cause. For example if you are wearing a wool jumper you can trace the cause and effect back to the sheep, back through the sheep's ancestry to the first created sheep and to the Creator Himself. It follows directly from the first law of thermodynamics and is embodied in Newton's laws of motion. No exceptions to the law of cause and effect have ever been observed.
Therefore, the "Big Bang" theory also violates the law of cause and effect by creating matter and energy out of nothing.
It is directly at odds with the second law of thermodynamics that states things move from order to chaos. The "Big Bang" violates the first law of thermodynamics by creating matter and energy out of nothing. It violates the second law by creating an ordered universe from an explosion. It violates the third law too, raw energy added to an open system is not a recipe for increased organisation. It violates the law of cause and effect by creating matter and energy out of nothing. YOU CAN ONLY COME TO ONE CONCLUSION CAN'T YOU?
1. It violates the first law of thermodynamics because nothing INSIDE of the universe is capable of bringing the universe into being.
2. It violates the second law for reasons already discussed; the big bang would have produced more chaos not order. If you claim the universe is infinitely old or had no beginning then it would have reached a state of complete disorder with no energy left. As it has not it proves that it is not infinitely old and did have a beginning.
2. It violates the second law for reasons already discussed; the big bang would have produced more chaos not order. If you claim the universe is infinitely old or had no beginning then it would have reached a state of complete disorder with no energy left. As it has not it proves that it is not infinitely old and did have a beginning.
3. It violates the third law because if you add raw energy to an open system it is not a recipe for increased order. Therefore the big bang or primeval soup could not have produced life.
4. It violates the law of cause and effect because the big bang creates matter and energy out of nothing.
5. It is mathematical nonsense. The chances of a single molecule of protein-like substance forming by accident is 10 to the power of 320 to 1.
6. 27.5 billion tons of sediment reach the seas each year which means the continents are being eroded each 14 million years. You say the continents have existed for 1 billion years which means the continents would have been eroded over 70 times and produced a covering of 18.5 miles but the average depth of sediment is .56 miles. Where has it all gone?
7. The earth's magnetic field is decaying, showing the earth would not have been able to support life 10,000 years ago.
8. The moon is still not yet in thermal equilibrium, it would be if it was anything like the age you claim.
3. It violates the third law because if you add raw energy to an open system it is not a recipe for increased order. Therefore the big bang or primeval soup could not have produced life.
4. It violates the law of cause and effect because the big bang creates matter and energy out of nothing.
5. It is mathematical nonsense. The chances of a single molecule of protein-like substance forming by accident is 10 to the power of 320 to 1.
6. 27.5 billion tons of sediment reach the seas each year which means the continents are being eroded each 14 million years. You say the continents have existed for 1 billion years which means the continents would have been eroded over 70 times and produced a covering of 18.5 miles but the average depth of sediment is .56 miles. Where has it all gone?
7. The earth's magnetic field is decaying, showing the earth would not have been able to support life 10,000 years ago.
8. The moon is still not yet in thermal equilibrium, it would be if it was anything like the age you claim.
9. Roche law shows the earth/moon system cannot be more than 2 billion years old.
10. The amount of lunar dust shows the earth to be only a few thousand years old.
11. Short term comets would have completely evaporated in less than a million years. (The so-called "Ort cloud" of potential comets circling the planetary system is really no answer, just imagination!)
12. Over 100 million globular clusters in the Milky Way are moving so fast that they would have escaped the Milky Way in about 1 million years. As they are still within it the universe must be quite "young".
13. The lack of distortion in the spherical shape of globular clusters shows they have not been around for anything like billions of years.
14. The missing matter shows the same as above.
15. Spiral galaxies have not completed anything like 100 rotations but a maximum of 2 according to observations of the spirals.
16. Bridges between galaxy clusters would not be there if they were more than half a million years old. Indeed, they would have been touching each other.
17. The "missing mass" problem cannot be satisfactorily explained.
18. The rate of the slowing down of the earth's rotation shows the earth cannot have supported life 300,000 years ago.
19. The amount of nickel in the oceans tells us the earth is no more than 9,000 years old.
20. Radiometric dating ages are shown to be fantasy because of the reduction in c. This throws into question the whole atomic time scale.
10. The amount of lunar dust shows the earth to be only a few thousand years old.
11. Short term comets would have completely evaporated in less than a million years. (The so-called "Ort cloud" of potential comets circling the planetary system is really no answer, just imagination!)
12. Over 100 million globular clusters in the Milky Way are moving so fast that they would have escaped the Milky Way in about 1 million years. As they are still within it the universe must be quite "young".
13. The lack of distortion in the spherical shape of globular clusters shows they have not been around for anything like billions of years.
14. The missing matter shows the same as above.
15. Spiral galaxies have not completed anything like 100 rotations but a maximum of 2 according to observations of the spirals.
16. Bridges between galaxy clusters would not be there if they were more than half a million years old. Indeed, they would have been touching each other.
17. The "missing mass" problem cannot be satisfactorily explained.
18. The rate of the slowing down of the earth's rotation shows the earth cannot have supported life 300,000 years ago.
19. The amount of nickel in the oceans tells us the earth is no more than 9,000 years old.
20. Radiometric dating ages are shown to be fantasy because of the reduction in c. This throws into question the whole atomic time scale.
1 to 10 of 10
