Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
25 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, PaulK (3 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,628 Year: 18,664/19,786 Month: 1,084/1,705 Week: 336/518 Day: 12/88 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "In the end there must have been a creator"
Floris O
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 69 (6723)
03-13-2002 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Cobra_snake
03-12-2002 9:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics state:

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

So I think that there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning, and that an eternal oscillating universe does not seem very feasible.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-12-2002 9:38 PM Cobra_snake has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Philip, posted 03-13-2002 3:11 AM Floris O has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-13-2002 10:53 PM Floris O has not yet responded

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 3009 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 17 of 69 (6724)
03-13-2002 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Floris O
03-13-2002 2:30 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Floris O, posted 03-13-2002 2:30 AM Floris O has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-16-2002 4:26 PM Philip has not yet responded

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 69 (6773)
03-13-2002 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Floris O
03-13-2002 2:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Floris O:
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.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Floris O, posted 03-13-2002 2:30 AM Floris O has not yet responded

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 69 (7037)
03-16-2002 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Philip
03-13-2002 3:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
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?


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Philip, posted 03-13-2002 3:11 AM Philip has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by riVeRraT, posted 02-15-2005 11:40 PM Darwin Storm has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12997
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 20 of 69 (183856)
02-08-2005 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by TrueCreation
03-11-2002 6:16 PM


Do you still Believe it?
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 03-11-2002 6:16 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 21 of 69 (183879)
02-08-2005 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Cobra_snake
03-12-2002 9:38 PM


quote:
I believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics state:
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

So I think that there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning, and that an eternal oscillating universe does not seem very feasible.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-12-2002 9:38 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
jsmall
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 69 (185358)
02-14-2005 10:23 PM


2nd law of Thermo
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


Message 23 of 69 (185454)
02-15-2005 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Floris O
03-11-2002 11:50 AM


I am, therefore God is?
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Floris O, posted 03-11-2002 11:50 AM Floris O has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ramoss, posted 02-15-2005 8:28 AM Aximili23 has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3122
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 24 of 69 (185465)
02-15-2005 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Aximili23
02-15-2005 7:42 AM


Re: I am, therefore God is?
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Aximili23, posted 02-15-2005 7:42 AM Aximili23 has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 206 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 25 of 69 (185716)
02-15-2005 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Darwin Storm
03-16-2002 4:26 PM


We are doomed

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-16-2002 4:26 PM Darwin Storm has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 206 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 26 of 69 (185718)
02-15-2005 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Floris O
03-11-2002 11:50 AM


Hypothetical for you
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Floris O, posted 03-11-2002 11:50 AM Floris O has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2005 1:53 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 28 by Sylas, posted 02-16-2005 2:05 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 34 by mikehager, posted 02-16-2005 11:38 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 69 (185744)
02-16-2005 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by riVeRraT
02-15-2005 11:43 PM


Re: Hypothetical for you
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).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by riVeRraT, posted 02-15-2005 11:43 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by riVeRraT, posted 02-16-2005 6:09 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 3547 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 28 of 69 (185745)
02-16-2005 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by riVeRraT
02-15-2005 11:43 PM


Re: Hypothetical for you
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by riVeRraT, posted 02-15-2005 11:43 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 206 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 29 of 69 (185754)
02-16-2005 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
02-16-2005 1:53 AM


Re: Hypothetical for you
Funny you answered, I wasn't talking to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2005 1:53 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 02-16-2005 6:14 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2005 11:41 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15440
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 30 of 69 (185756)
02-16-2005 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by riVeRraT
02-16-2005 6:09 AM


Re: Hypothetical for you
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by riVeRraT, posted 02-16-2005 6:09 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by riVeRraT, posted 02-16-2005 7:16 AM PaulK has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019