Community > Science & Philosophy

Previous 1 2 … 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 … 49 50 Next

Topic: Creation vs. Evolution.
Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 05/25/12 10:41 AM
i don't believe in the big bang theory, i believe that the universe is just a big recycler. maybe multiple big bangs, but not one big bang that started everything. Mass can be converted into energy, but then later it can be turned back into mass again. that is why i think the universe recycles everything and could be trillions of years old. The Second Law of Thermodynamics invalidates that theory. The end result of all energy is entropy and entropy is a byproduct of all processes. Entropy cannot do work and cannot be turned back into matter.

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Fri 05/25/12 10:42 AM
this can be argued with the theory that our universe is expanding according to science. By expanding, they mean that its travelling outwards, the scientists don't mean that there is more matter observed over time. As I said, this would break one of the basic laws of physics, the law of conservation of energy/mass. Hallelula! Atheists also believe in miracles, the spontaneous creation of matter from nothing that breaks well established and scientific laws of physics. Welcome to the world of the supernatural :) lol there is no proof that it came from nothing. just a speculation from scientists, like the god theory. if it fits, it must be true. I don't believe in either, by the way... Sorry I don't get the argument that matter or energy just always existed. There had to be an origin. So whats the origin of your divine deity?

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Fri 05/25/12 10:45 AM
The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change (hence, its quantity is "conserved"). The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in an isolated system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. This can be argued with the theory that our universe is expanding according to science. Ummmm....no. The Second Law of Thermodynamics invalidates that law. Now if you said "Conservation of Mass and Energy", you would be correct. Spider theres also dark matter to take into consideration in that theory of the expanding universe whats forcing the universe to expand?

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Fri 05/25/12 10:46 AM
The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change (hence, its quantity is "conserved"). The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in an isolated system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. This can be argued with the theory that our universe is expanding according to science. You beat me to it. We do not know that the universe is a closed system and there is strong evidence that that it is NOT a closed system. We do not understand dark energy which is estimated to be around 96% of all the energy in this universe. Most of what has been written about this topic in textbooks up to a decade or so ago is now proven to be false. The universe is not mostly made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Many items appear to come and go from our universe leaving an open system. There is reason to believe that Creation (the big bang) is one of many. God may have been playing with firecrackers and we are just a "pop" ... or a dud that spewed us out.

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Fri 05/25/12 10:49 AM
Mass can be converted into energy, but then later it can be turned back into mass again. that is why i think the universe recycles everything and could be trillions of years old. True, I believe the universe is ancient too, but how do you think that mass or energy first appeared trillions of years ago? Science relies on the fact that we cannot create energy or mass out of nothing, in a closed environment, the total ALWAYS remains constant.(Its a scientific law) i don't have that answer, that seems to me to be a question that can never really be answered. i don't really question where or when the universe started, that is just to complex and something we don't have the knowledge to answer right now. everything they think is just a guess, and will be for a long time to come. Aaaah, so you agree that you have no answer to the inexplicable observation of matter existing, you believe the universe is full of energy that just was there and you do not understand how it got there. You believe in a force that just appeared out of nowhere and yet God seems far-fetched to you?

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 05/25/12 10:49 AM
So whats the origin of your divine deity? 1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. 2. A causal loop cannot exist. 3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. 4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. Regardless of if you believe in God or a material universe, you have to believe that something has always existed. If you state that a material cause has always existed, that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy and I'm sure a number of other laws. If God exists as a being outside of time and space, that does not violate any laws of science. It's not something we can fully comprehend, but noncomprehension does not mean nonexistence.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 05/25/12 10:49 AM
i don't believe in the big bang theory, i believe that the universe is just a big recycler. maybe multiple big bangs, but not one big bang that started everything. Mass can be converted into energy, but then later it can be turned back into mass again. that is why i think the universe recycles everything and could be trillions of years old. The Second Law of Thermodynamics invalidates that theory. The end result of all energy is entropy and entropy is a byproduct of all processes. Entropy cannot do work and cannot be turned back into matter. there is many forms of energy, not just one. If a star blows up, it creates new stars and solar systems out of it. it takes energy to create new particles and elements, we just have to figure out how this process works. they create new particles from energy all the time from cern, when the smash atoms together.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 05/25/12 10:52 AM
So whats the origin of your divine deity? 1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. 2. A causal loop cannot exist. 3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. 4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. Regardless of if you believe in God or a material universe, you have to believe that something has always existed. If you state that a material cause has always existed, that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy and I'm sure a number of other laws. If God exists as a being outside of time and space, that does not violate any laws of science. It's not something we can fully comprehend, but noncomprehension does not mean nonexistence. doesn't mean they exist, either... i do believe that, no matter what, energy has always existed in one form or another.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 05/25/12 10:52 AM
i don't believe in the big bang theory, i believe that the universe is just a big recycler. maybe multiple big bangs, but not one big bang that started everything. Mass can be converted into energy, but then later it can be turned back into mass again. that is why i think the universe recycles everything and could be trillions of years old. The Second Law of Thermodynamics invalidates that theory. The end result of all energy is entropy and entropy is a byproduct of all processes. Entropy cannot do work and cannot be turned back into matter. there is many forms of energy, not just one. If a star blows up, it creates new stars and solar systems out of it. it takes energy to create new particles and elements, we just have to figure out how this process works. they create new particles from energy all the time from cern, when the smash atoms together. Yes, that true. Were you trying to make a point or just stating the obvious? Did your really think saying "stars blow up" would invalidate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Fri 05/25/12 10:53 AM
this can be argued with the theory that our universe is expanding according to science. By expanding, they mean that its travelling outwards, the scientists don't mean that there is more matter observed over time. As I said, this would break one of the basic laws of physics, the law of conservation of energy/mass. Hallelula! Atheists also believe in miracles, the spontaneous creation of matter from nothing that breaks well established and scientific laws of physics. Welcome to the world of the supernatural :) lol there is no proof that it came from nothing. just a speculation from scientists, like the god theory. if it fits, it must be true. I don't believe in either, by the way... Sorry I don't get the argument that matter or energy just always existed. There had to be an origin. So whats the origin of your divine deity? Good question, you see I have no problems with impossibilities and supernatural inexplicable events. The scientific inability to explain some things can often be a pointer towards the supernatural. In the same way as some believe energy always existed , I believe God always existed. I believe BOTH VIEWS involve a miracle because physics cannot explain the origin of matter.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 05/25/12 10:55 AM
Mass can be converted into energy, but then later it can be turned back into mass again. that is why i think the universe recycles everything and could be trillions of years old. True, I believe the universe is ancient too, but how do you think that mass or energy first appeared trillions of years ago? Science relies on the fact that we cannot create energy or mass out of nothing, in a closed environment, the total ALWAYS remains constant.(Its a scientific law) i don't have that answer, that seems to me to be a question that can never really be answered. i don't really question where or when the universe started, that is just to complex and something we don't have the knowledge to answer right now. everything they think is just a guess, and will be for a long time to come. Aaaah, so you agree that you have no answer to the inexplicable observation of matter existing, you believe the universe is full of energy that just was there and you do not understand how it got there. You believe in a force that just appeared out of nowhere and yet God seems far-fetched to you? no, i believe we don't know. by my thinking, there has always had to be energy, no matter how small or big. just because nobody knows how something started, that is no reason to just make things up. would it be hard for you to believe god is a form of energy?

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 05/25/12 10:59 AM
So whats the origin of your divine deity? 1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. 2. A causal loop cannot exist. 3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. 4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. Regardless of if you believe in God or a material universe, you have to believe that something has always existed. If you state that a material cause has always existed, that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy and I'm sure a number of other laws. If God exists as a being outside of time and space, that does not violate any laws of science. It's not something we can fully comprehend, but noncomprehension does not mean nonexistence. doesn't mean they exist, either... i do believe that, no matter what, energy has always existed in one form or another. That violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So you have to decide if you are going to ignore one of the laws accepted by science or if you are going to abandon that belief.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Fri 05/25/12 11:01 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 05/25/12 11:02 AM
this can be argued with the theory that our universe is expanding according to science. By expanding, they mean that its travelling outwards, the scientists don't mean that there is more matter observed over time. As I said, this would break one of the basic laws of physics, the law of conservation of energy/mass. Hallelula! Atheists also believe in miracles, the spontaneous creation of matter from nothing that breaks well established and scientific laws of physics. Welcome to the world of the supernatural :) lol there is no proof that it came from nothing. just a speculation from scientists, like the god theory. if it fits, it must be true. I don't believe in either, by the way... Sorry I don't get the argument that matter or energy just always existed. There had to be an origin. Why? That violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So you have to decide if you are going to ignore one of the laws accepted by science or if you are going to abandon that belief. This is just hand waving. All cosmological models start with energy, what state of entropy varies on the model.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 05/25/12 11:01 AM
i don't believe in the big bang theory, i believe that the universe is just a big recycler. maybe multiple big bangs, but not one big bang that started everything. Mass can be converted into energy, but then later it can be turned back into mass again. that is why i think the universe recycles everything and could be trillions of years old. The Second Law of Thermodynamics invalidates that theory. The end result of all energy is entropy and entropy is a byproduct of all processes. Entropy cannot do work and cannot be turned back into matter. there is many forms of energy, not just one. If a star blows up, it creates new stars and solar systems out of it. it takes energy to create new particles and elements, we just have to figure out how this process works. they create new particles from energy all the time from cern, when the smash atoms together. Yes, that true. Were you trying to make a point or just stating the obvious? Did your really think saying "stars blow up" would invalidate the Second Law of Thermodynamics? your going by the assumption that the law is 100% correct. we have not even been out of our solar system yet, and people are thinking we know everything. there are trillions of galaxies out there, each with billions of stars. what we know right now is a very, very small fraction of what there is to know. i have my views on things, just like you have your views on god. neither can be proven, so why get testy like that?

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Fri 05/25/12 11:03 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 05/25/12 11:05 AM
your going by the assumption that the law is 100% correct. Not even. He is not even wrong. He is taking a descriptive law. (please look up what it means for something to be descriptive vs proscriptive) that applies to closed systems, and applying it without regard to context to the whole of existence. The entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Why would the law detail what kind of system if it did not matter? It does matter. We have you guys playing at physicist and you have no clue how these laws came into being. All of science is descriptive, we learn based on what we find, we do not find a creator, we find nothing which requires a creator, and thus make no assumptions about creators in creating models of reality.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 05/25/12 11:04 AM
So whats the origin of your divine deity? 1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. 2. A causal loop cannot exist. 3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. 4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. Regardless of if you believe in God or a material universe, you have to believe that something has always existed. If you state that a material cause has always existed, that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy and I'm sure a number of other laws. If God exists as a being outside of time and space, that does not violate any laws of science. It's not something we can fully comprehend, but noncomprehension does not mean nonexistence. doesn't mean they exist, either... i do believe that, no matter what, energy has always existed in one form or another. That violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So you have to decide if you are going to ignore one of the laws accepted by science or if you are going to abandon that belief. i've never went by the accepted rules of science. i believe what i believe, right or wrong. just like your fantasy about a god.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Fri 05/25/12 11:06 AM
So whats the origin of your divine deity? 1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. 2. A causal loop cannot exist. 3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. 4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. Regardless of if you believe in God or a material universe, you have to believe that something has always existed. If you state that a material cause has always existed, that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy and I'm sure a number of other laws. If God exists as a being outside of time and space, that does not violate any laws of science. It's not something we can fully comprehend, but noncomprehension does not mean nonexistence. doesn't mean they exist, either... i do believe that, no matter what, energy has always existed in one form or another. That violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So you have to decide if you are going to ignore one of the laws accepted by science or if you are going to abandon that belief. i've never went by the accepted rules of science. i believe what i believe, right or wrong. just like your fantasy about a god. They are misapplying the laws. This entire line of reasoning is a straw man.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 05/25/12 11:07 AM
your going by the assumption that the law is 100% correct. Not even. He is not even wrong. He is taking a descriptive law. (please look up what it means for something to be descriptive vs proscriptive) that applies to closed systems, and applying it without regard to context to the whole of existence. The entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Why would the law detail what kind of system if it did not matter? It does matter. We have you guys playing at physicist and you have no clue how these laws came into being. All of science is descriptive, we learn based on what we find, we do not find a creator, we find nothing which requires a creator, and thus make no assumptions about creators in creating models of reality. that law may change in a hundred years, when we learn more about the universe. the law may fit now, but we also have limited knowledge on it. all of our knowledge comes from our KNOWN universe, what we do not know, we cannot comprehend.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Fri 05/25/12 11:08 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 05/25/12 11:09 AM
You beat me to it. We do not know that the universe is a closed system and there is strong evidence that that it is NOT a closed system. Metal smacking down the straw man in very simple terms. Nothing happens without energy. It really is simple. We may not understand it, but it is without rebuttal. No one can fashion an argument that is internally consistent about cosmology without energy being available.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 05/25/12 11:09 AM Edited by mightymoe on Fri 05/25/12 11:10 AM
So whats the origin of your divine deity? 1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. 2. A causal loop cannot exist. 3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. 4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. Regardless of if you believe in God or a material universe, you have to believe that something has always existed. If you state that a material cause has always existed, that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy and I'm sure a number of other laws. If God exists as a being outside of time and space, that does not violate any laws of science. It's not something we can fully comprehend, but noncomprehension does not mean nonexistence. doesn't mean they exist, either... i do believe that, no matter what, energy has always existed in one form or another. That violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So you have to decide if you are going to ignore one of the laws accepted by science or if you are going to abandon that belief. i've never went by the accepted rules of science. i believe what i believe, right or wrong. just like your fantasy about a god. They are misapplying the laws. This entire line of reasoning is a straw man. i'm thinking he doesn't really understand how many different forms of energy there is. and most are completely different from each other.