|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "In the end there must have been a creator" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Floris O Inactive Member |
quote: Here we go with the second law of thermodynamics again. That lawy states that in a closed system entropy will increase. The earth is per definition not a closed system. Have you ever seen the sun in the sky? Well, that's input of energy. Here's a quote from Dawkins: "'Dollo's Law' states that evolution is irreversible. This is often confused with a lot of idealistic nonsense about the inevitability of progress, often coupled with ignorant nonsense about evolution 'violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics' (those that belong to the half of the educated population that, according to the novelist C. P. Snow, know what the Second Law is, will realize that it is no more violated by evolution than it is violated by the growth of a baby)." -- quote from The Blind Watchmaker Chapter 4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4722 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
The energy of the sun, despite what Asimov and others speculate, appears (in my meager perspective) so much more explosively random and deteriorating upon the earth ... Should not that such immense random solar energy require a complex 'tuning', 'dampening' and/or relativistic mechanism to both harness and decrease geo-entropy, at least in the initial phases of geo-materialization?
The complexity of the earth vs. the explosive simplicity of the sun. Entropy vs. Energy/Gravity/other mechanisms?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
quote: I believe you are slightly confused with my argument. I never claimed that the 2nd Law violates evolution, I claimed (perhaps incorrectly) that it is inconsistent with an oscillating universe. "But this is different from "losing" energy. It just means that the energy available for work is reducing. The amount of energy is the same, it just takes different form." Yes, you are indeed right. Although it DID sound like it, I did not mean to imply that the universe is losing energy. "I have had this explained to me, but I don't understand it well enough at the moment to explain it to you." That's fine with me. I'm not quite ready to get into all of this cosmological stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, the sun is very complex. It is also very much in a state of flux, and the effects of such a flux are readily apparent hear on earth. For example, the magnetic poles of the sun fluctuate every 22 years. Sun spots create magnetic storms that can and have knocked out whole power grids (in 1988? in Canada, a large portion of their electrical grid was knocked out due to an electromagnetic storm caused by a solar flare.) The sunspot cycle peaks usually every 11 years. However, between 1645 and 1705 , sunspot activity abruptly decreased, (called the Maunder minimum) and the earth experienced a mini-ice age, with extremely cold winters.As for the mechanics of the sun, and its supposed equilibrium, current theory hold that the sun did fluctuate greatly for the first billion years or so after its birth before gravity, pressure, ect came into equilibrium. Not quite sure what you are trying to get at in your arguement though. Are you trying to state that because the suns "seems" simple and that the earth "seems" complex that there needs to be some outside intelligence at work? Astronomy has provided wonderful pictures of stars in various stages of their life cycle. All seem to form quite nicely by themselves under the influences of known universal forces, such as gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces, as well as electromagnetic forces.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Hey, T.C. I was browsing through old posts when I came upon this one and a quote that you presented.
TrueCreation writes: "Aside from the fact that this theory only raises more questions such as how did the creator came into existence, it also doesn't really make the creator very powerful. He only had to "pull the switch" which would "start off" the universe. From that point on everything would only follow the laws of physics and the universe became more and more complicated. So if that's the creator you believe exists, you might as well ignore him and get on with your life."--Doesn't make him very powerful, that is, if you believe in a deistic God, which I do not, and it is a matter of opinion (as is analogous to your stament that the creator is not very powerful), here is a little bit and it is also a bit appealing to those of the ID argument:
Second, why is it that the universe is so near the critical rate of expansion? To see what this means imagine you had a machine which made universes. On this machine you would have two dials. One dial would control the expansion force of the Big Bang. The other would control gravity, the force which pulls everything back together. Set the dials to whatever you wanted and out would come a universe. After a few billion attempts you would find it to be a very boring experiment! In fact in order to get a universe which would produce carbon-based life those two dials need to be set quite precisely. If you set the gravitational force too high, then the universe would appear but within a microsecond gravity would pull everything back together into the opposite of a Big Bang, a Big Crunch! If you set the expansion rate too high, then the universe would expand at such a rate that gravity would be unable to form stars and galaxies. In fact in order to get a structure within the universe these dials need to be balanced to within one part in 1060(1 followed by sixyty zeros!). In Paul Davies' words, that is the same accuracy as shooting a target 1 centimetre square on the other side of the universe -- and hitting it! Do you still believe this quote to be true? Where did you get the info? Is the chance that slim?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4754 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
quote: The laws of physics break down at the Planck measurements, so there's nothing to say that the Second Law holds sway.There's also an interesting theory that entropy can increase infinitely through multiple, separate Big Bangs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jsmall Inactive Member |
I don't think the 2nd law should preclude an oscillating universe. If there is enough mass that is close enough to slow down expansion, as the universe eventually contracts, the volume decreasing would keep things pretty lively. Eventually it would all collapse again and things would be pretty hot.
And even protons have a lifespan (10^60 years or so?) but at the new cosmic egg, all matter wuold break down again into it's constituent parts quarks, strings whatever. But it all seems to be moot, since it looks like we will not be oscillating. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aximili23 Inactive Member |
There are lots of people who are willing to accept that everything in this universe is "governed" by the laws of physics and that it all began on a very small and simple scale. "But," they say, "I won't accept it that something comes from nothing; in the end there must have been a creator." My problem with this argument is that it says: because the universe exists, in fact because anything at all exists, there must be a creator. It seems easier to just accept that maybe something can come from nothing, rather than postulate a creator that conveniently defies physics and causality. By the way, does the Big Bang theory really say that something came from nothing? Doesn't it say that everything came from a singularity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
It might not be from a singularity.. the ekopyrotic model has to different multi-dimential membranes colliding. That model is slightly different than the standard model, and has some different predictions that we do not yet have the techniques to be able to test (but are working towards it)
This message has been edited by ramoss, 02-15-2005 08:44 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Sun spots create magnetic storms that can and have knocked out whole power grids (in 1988? in Canada, a large portion of their electrical grid was knocked out due to an electromagnetic storm caused by a solar flare.)
Imagine what is going to happen when a big enough one hits us, and it makes it through the thicker parts of our protective atmosphere, and wipes out every single electronic device known to man?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Hypothetically speaking for you, let's say you die one day (duh!) and then your at the pearly gates of heaven standing in front of that dumb guy called God Almighty, who spoke the universe into existance with his words.
What you going to tell him? Just hypothetical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What you going to tell him? Just hypothetical. Hypothetical for you: One day you die and you're surprised to find yourself before the Mighty Wicker Throne of Zongo, a little-known god worshipped only by a band of pygmies in deepest Africa. Turns out that this guy is the creator of the universe, all the other gods were fairy tales, and he's none-too-happy to see yet another jerk-off from Earth who has never heard of him. What are you going to tell him? Just hypothetical(ly).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5259 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Hypothetically speaking for you, let's say you die one day (duh!) and then your at the pearly gates of heaven standing in front of that dumb guy called God Almighty, who spoke the universe into existance with his words. What you going to tell him? Me tell anything? No way; I'll be asking; or even better I'll just be listening. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Funny you answered, I wasn't talking to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well you aren't likely to get an answer from someone who hasn't posted here in nearly 3 years. So if you didn't want answers from anyone else. what was the point in posting ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024