The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy states that
“The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.”
What sort of implications would this have on the creation vs. evolution debate?
If something originally came from nothing as evolutionists insist, (or they must argue for eternal matter instead of an eternal God) then why do we not observe new matter popping up like popcorn in a kettle?
If new matter would pop up like popcorn that would be proof that matter can be created out of nothing - EX NIHILO - aka: Creationism.
Basicly, the energy from the big bang formed the first atoms - Hydrogen and Helium (which are the most simple)
After that gravity took over and formed stars which use Hydrogen as fuel to created Helium. However the hotter it gets and the more stress it is put into atoms; certain atoms combine and form more complex atoms.
yadda yadda…
What does this have to do with evolution ?
Incidentally, if the total amount of mass/energy were fixed, then this would prove the non-omnipotence of god, coz he wouldn’t be able to add or take away any of it. Unless of course the reality of the nature of god were beyond human understanding, in which case people should stop saying things about him/it.
the laws of conservation have nothing to do with
evolution because they are two totally different things.
Evolution is possible because it deal with small
events, (births) and that is an open system,
the universe is the whole thing and that is a closed system.
Peter Kropotkin"the laws of conservation have nothing to do with
evolution because they are two totally different things.
“Evolution is possible because it deal with small
events, (births) and that is an open system,
the universe is the whole thing and that is a closed system.”
C: Strange argument…
K: not at all. One of the bogus arguments against evolution is
that it violates the second law of thermodynamics,
which is essentially conservation in the universe.
the second law states that: heat cannot flow from a colder
body to a hotter body, Or said another way: The entropy of
a isolated system not at equilibrium will TEND to increase
over time, approaching a maximum value"
The universe is a totally system and a closed system (at least we
think so, but if it is not, then it is not the whole thing, a universe)
Evolution is about an open system and thus not in violation
of the second law of thermodynamics. Two different things.
Nope, because life is an open system. Entropy doesn’t
play a part because of that fact. The name of the game
is energy. A closed system cannot get any energy from an
outside source and thus will wind down, entropy is the
technical term for it. But life can get energy from an
outside source (thus an open system) so life/evolution is
possible.
You didn’t get it… you said people were using this to argue that evolution is not possible… doesn’t the same arguemtn they present supposed life is not possible ?
I think that Creationism inserts a God that is not limited to physical dimensions. Thus, creation would not violate the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. Yet, the purely naturalistic evolutionist believes the exact same thing; that is, that energy created more energy and matter created more matter. Maybe some believe in a slightly different version; that is, that matter and energy were always there. By arguing for either you insist that matter and energy are gods unto themselves. Your gods are unintellgible and mine is omniscient. As a result, you must necessarily insert eons of time - eternity. How am I (and many other intelligent Christians. I do not say all Christians are intelligent because there are some that live in my house that arent. I do suggest that many proponents of evolution do not posses a high intelligence.) the irrational one when I believe that the vast expanse of the universe and the many intricacies and complexities which characterize it were created by an omniscient God? How can someone be so utterly absurd that they would imply that matter and energy are gods? You would like to argue that evolution is correct based on scientific research. There is nothing wrong with that and everything right. However, to insist that there is no God requires more faith, I believe, than it does to believe that there is a God. Evolution presents huge problems to the fundamentals of religion, that is true. I think that what we really need to answer before carrying the debate over scientific matters any further is the belief in Eternal Matter and Energy or Eternal and Transcendent Being. Those who cannot get past this very essential step have no business declaring themselves logical. Answer where does your FAITH come in. Stop declaring everything to be scientific. At the beginning of all things origins is a faith that is REQUIRED.
I know already, Carpathian, that you will tell me to post in the Philosophy forums. However, this is to be expected of most evolutionists because they have a tendency to avoid the tough questions on technical grounds, at least in my experience. What do you believe?
Your attitude is typical of someone who has an agenda other than expressly stated. Rather than refute my ideas concerning evolution you avoid them. As usual in my brief history in the forums, you abandon reason in favor of complacency.
A point of order - I thought that you said that this forum was for the discussion of natural sciences, and that the philosophy forum was for discussing philosophy. I’m just trying to understand what, if anything, you are trying to say…
Either way contesting evolution with bogus evidence should stop.
And trust me i only reacted this way cause i had just about enough of ID/creationism for a life time.
Perhaps, but you defined ‘just about enough’ for yourself, so you have only yourself to blame. It’s your lack of tolerance or capacity to just ignore certain people(s) that has got you into this mess.
no siatd its the fact that some people just can’t accept defeat… and i believe i struggled enough and brought forth enough evidence to refute ID and the discussion still continues… why ?
You would like me to debate philosophy? In reality, the debate between creation and evolution is the greatest debate in philosophy. On this very debate hinges all others. On this very debate rests the foundations (or lack therof) for morality, ethics, and the belief in absolutes (or lack therof) that are so fundamental to philosophy.
you said people were using this to argue that evolution is not possible… doesn’t the same arguemtn they present supposed life is not possible ?