God or Big Bang/Evolution: Where do we Come From?

[Master Fox]

you clearly do not understand dark matter, dark energy, or any of the concepts behind the accelerating expanding universe.

dark matter has absolutely nothing to do with the expansion. dark matter was proposed to solve the spiral galaxy spinning arms problem. dark matter exists within galaxies.

dark energy was proposed to solve the accelerating expansion problem, but there is no "dark energy rim" at the "edge of the universe." there is no such thing as the "edge of the universe." dark energy is a fundamental part of spacetime itself, as shown by inflationary cosmology.

you should really stop pontificating on matters over which you have no knowledge whatsoever. read "the fabric of the cosmos" by brian greene.

Heh...shows how much you know. I didn't just say "hey, this consept of dark matter and dark matter is interesting, I think I'll make stuff up about it and use it in a debate". No, I read all the stuff I put up here, dating from the year 2001 to recently up to last week. Your comparing what I stated to your sources and books you have read that are 5 years old and older and you call them recent and your saying "its not in the sources I've read, this Master Fox must not understand anything and is just obviously BSing to me". The main thing your sorce lacks is 'what is making these galaxies have this accelerating behavior?'

I've been reading and reading before I typed up my last post...and most of these discoveries were made last week and earlier this year and guess what? Dark Matter has been added to the hypothises of the accelerating expansion of the universe as an antigravity that is pushing it outward.
Another source says that dark matter was never found within a galaxy except if the galaxy passes it. They found a Super Nova that was slowing down because it got close to a small bit of Dark Matter but its tragectory (spl?) and speed got the supernova passed the Dark Matter, which cause it to accelerate away from the Dark Matter (yes, they did say "Dark Matter"). Another article, a 2002 article, stated that they haven't found Dark Matter nearby but have found dark matter for beyond the galaxies.
The only thing I did think of was this:

1. The Big Bang occurs
2. The Expansion of the universe occurs because of big bang
3. Matter forms into bodies such as planets, stars, black holes, moons, astroids, comets, etc.
4. Smaller Bodies begin orbiting around larger bodies, forming systems and galaxies
5. Faster moving galaxies bang reach outer Dark Matter barrier
6. Galaxies on return collide with other Galaxies that haven't reached the Dark Matter barrier
7. last 2 galaxies collide, the gravity of the Black hole will be so emmense that the new galaxy will fall into the black hole.
8. Inner universal Dark Matter is pulled into the Black Hole and the outer dark matter pushes the body into the origin point
9. Big Bang occurs again when when 30% of the matter in Black hole are gravity based matter and 70% is Inner Dark Matter
10. steps 2 - 9 are forever repeated again in a never ending, never starting process.
There is no start point and no end point, the universe was never created...it has existed forever

And that's because the universe has a process of a life but all the matter was there forever. To say otherwise will bring up too many questions and all the scientific discoveries would have been for nothing, because it would bring the question, how did matter come into existance and the creationist will be saying that God created it. To make the claim that its impossible for the Universe to collapse on itself is just ignorant. No where in your own nor my sources say it was impossible, yours said it was just unlikely for now. I'd say your the one being an ignorant kid here, acting as though your sources are law...your closed minded.
I challenged your source, which had many holes in it I might add, I found articles that filled in those holes so now I admit that it is possible for the Galaxies to be accelerating away, the fill being antigravity, which they said was Dark Energy, emiting from Dark Matter. I checked your source twice and they claimed they were didn't know the cause. The closest article said it was Dark Matter, and that Dark Matter is a key element in the Accelerating, though it also deccelerates them as well. How about you go check out my sources and do research on Dark Matter and the Expanding Universe on that very site.

And you have yet to comment on Galaxies Colliding and the Galaxy heading towards our own Galaxy.

And lets also get back on topic as Crimson King said!


...This researcher believes that the accelerating Expansion of the universe disproves the Big Bang Theory and has come up with another theory (scientific theory, not religious).

Also, I don't believe that Space Time are in the universe. I believe that universe is inside space-time...and technically, space is infinite and time is just a word and the universe ends with the outer most bits of matter.

Please stop insulting those you understand so little about. Albert Einstien made so many amazing discoveries in his time it's quite remarkable. Everything from the way space time exists to the principles of relativity to new states of matter was achieved by this man and I'm not even scratching the surface. If you understood the article Snex posted you would have seen that if anything what Albertien Einstien had proposed, "Dark Energy", which he considered his biggest blunder, may be in fact completely true. Before telescopes of the caliber of the Hubble were made there was no reason to believe the universe was expanding at all, so the scientific community assumed it wasn't. If it wasn't, then some force created by some existing energy had to be stopping the gravitational force from all mass to bring everything together. When it was discovered that galaxies are moving away from each other "dark energy" was shut down because there was no need for it to exist anymore. That is why Einstien called it his biggest blunder. Then when examples of acceleration of galaxies away from each other started to emerge dark energy came back to play.

Well I've done a lot of research on Albert Einstien and shockingly found out that he strongly believed in God and any scientific discover he found that disproves God's existance (or at least the Bible), he has discarded, save for one on which he accidentally released. Same goes for Isaac Newton, who withheld all his discoveries until one of his friends found them all in a big thick book and coaxed him to release it...which he eventually did obviously, though he said he believes the Bible over his own research. Wiki is only one source I have found this information...some of them being TV documentaries like the History Channel and Discovery Channel. I don't know if some of the internet sources still exist however. BTW, even the greatest of minds make mistakes.

As for the Dark Matter bit, this Idea of its use was theorized by someone else instead... for this situation anyway. The 2 groups that found about the expansion's acceleration came up for its use here.

Theorists have known since the 1920s that the universe was expanding. They wondered if that expansion would go on forever, or if common gravity might eventually win out and pull everything back together in a sort of Big Crunch.

Then in 1998 two separate groups hunting faraway supernovae found several that were dimmer than they should have been, indicating that the universe is not just expanding, but accelerating.

The supernovae are of a particular variety, known as Type IA, that all shine with the same intrinsic brightness. Astronomers use them as "standard candles," their observed brightness revealing their distance. Light from the objects is analyzed to determine how much the waves have stretched, which bears an exact relationship to how much the universe has expanded since the light left its source -- the exploded star.

The 1998 finding of an accelerating universe was initially met with disbelief by its discoverers. Once digested -- in some cases only in the last couple of years by skeptics -- its profound implications for the composition and fate of the cosmos brought the term dark energy into common use.

Meanwhile, theorists had already figured out that an accelerating universe would necessarily be preceded by a period of deceleration, which would have followed an initial phase of rapid inflation associated with the Big Bang.

Here is why things must have slowed down:

"Early on the universe had lots of mass in a small volume," explains John Blakeslee of Johns Hopkins University. "The pull from gravity must have been enormous." As the universe expanded, gravity would have become less effective over the larger distances, and dark energy would have taken over.

One previously detected supernova, at about 10 billion light years away, supported this idea when reported in 2001, but the object proved difficult to study. The Hubble observations presented today also support the switch, said Blakeslee, lead author of a paper on the findings that will be published in the June Astrophysical Journal.

Had the universe always been accelerating, the supernova that's 8 billion light-years distant would have been dimmer, Blakeslee said in a telephone interview.

"It's not conclusive at all," Blakeslee said of his work. Another 20 or so very distant supernova are needed to make a strong case, he added.

Those 20, and then some, will not take long.

Hubble's new eyesight "should allow astronomers to discover roughly 10 times as many of these cosmic beacons as was possible with Hubble's previous main imaging camera," Blakeslee said.

I guess the both of you need to be updated because the both of you are claiming I'm disrespective scientific geniuses by saying all this but I'm actually repeating one was stated from 4 years ago to now. Infact, The Hubble is now equipped to track Dark Matter. etc. etc.

 

[blazedaces]

Heh...shows how much you know. I didn't just say "hey, this consept of dark matter and dark matter is interesting, I think I'll make stuff up about it and use it in a debate". No, I read all the stuff I put up here, dating from the year 2001 to recently up to last week. Your comparing what I stated to your sources and books you have read that are 5 years old and older and you call them recent and your saying "its not in the sources I've read, this Master Fox must not understand anything and is just obviously BSing to me". The main thing your sorce lacks is 'what is making these galaxies have this accelerating behavior?'

Sorry, but it still sounds like you’re just making “stuff up about it”. Read the sources a little bit more alright, because it’s obvious you have yet to understand what is dark energy.

I've been reading and reading before I typed up my last post...and most of these discoveries were made last week and earlier this year and guess what? Dark Matter has been added to the hypothises of the accelerating expansion of the universe as an antigravity that is pushing it outward.
Another source says that dark matter was never found within a galaxy except if the galaxy passes it. They found a Super Nova that was slowing down because it got close to a small bit of Dark Matter but its tragectory (spl?) and speed got the supernova passed the Dark Matter, which cause it to accelerate away from the Dark Matter (yes, they did say "Dark Matter"). Another article, a 2002 article, stated that they haven't found Dark Matter nearby but have found dark matter for beyond the galaxies.

Unless you have a source for such a weird claim I’m not even going to consider it. Dark matter is just matter we currently can not perceive. That doesn’t mean it acts that much differently then real matter, though I admit we do not know, I see no reason to include dark matter in such things.

You need to re-read your sources and try reading other more reliable ones. So far you’ve taken all your information from the same source. Why do you doubt only other’s sources and not your own? Why haven’t you compared your source with other ones in hopes of discovering the truth in the matter? You still sound like you’re making half of this up. The only relation to dark matter that dark energy seems to have is that recently discoveries have shown that the universe appears to be “flat”. For this to be true the matter/energy ratio should be in such a way to display this phenomena, so dark matter needs to exist to replace the dark energy proposed.

The only thing I did think of was this:
And that's because the universe has a process of a life but all the matter was there forever. To say otherwise will bring up too many questions and all the scientific discoveries would have been for nothing, because it would bring the question, how did matter come into existance and the creationist will be saying that God created it. To make the claim that its impossible for the Universe to collapse on itself is just ignorant. No where in your own nor my sources say it was impossible, yours said it was just unlikely for now. I'd say your the one being an ignorant kid here, acting as though your sources are law...your closed minded.
I challenged your source, which had many holes in it I might add, I found articles that filled in those holes so now I admit that it is possible for the Galaxies to be accelerating away, the fill being antigravity, which they said was Dark Energy, emiting from Dark Matter. I checked your source twice and they claimed they were didn't know the cause. The closest article said it was Dark Matter, and that Dark Matter is a key element in the Accelerating, though it also deccelerates them as well. How about you go check out my sources and do research on Dark Matter and the Expanding Universe on that very site.

And you have yet to comment on Galaxies Colliding and the Galaxy heading towards our own Galaxy.

And lets also get back on topic as Crimson King said!

We’re not saying it’s ignorant to assume the possibility that the universe will collapse on itself does exist, we’re just saying there’s much more evidence for everything else. Why does the universe have to go through this cycle for creation not to come into play? Can’t one just as easily say that the matter was always there, even if it were at a single point at one time?

Dark energy does not come from dark matter, why are you mixing up separate issues? Instead of providing long-winded sources for us to read that have useless information containing big words and quotes from people we don’t know about, how about citing specific sections just saying what you want to say?

The reason no one wants to comment on the collision of galaxies is because it’s irrelevant to what happens in the rest of the universe. Why should it seem surprising that through the randomness of the universe even large enough masses as whole galaxies are colliding when we see it on the small scale all the time? If an explosion happens from the center and radiates outward random motion will cause some of those particles to come together later on and we’re not even bringing gravity into that picture. Also, that source predicts our galaxy to collide with another one in 10 billion or more years. Why do we care about this and why haven’t you noticed it’s just a hypothesis. If dark energy exists then we have no idea if that will happen at all.

...This researcher believes that the accelerating Expansion of the universe disproves the Big Bang Theory and has come up with another theory (scientific theory, not religious).

Like I said, your source uses lots of fancy wording and quotes lots of people, but not once did it actually explain what’s going on and why hydrinos should create more energy.
Again, try and look up information you find in one source in another one to find out what is true behind the matter. This source seems a lot more reliable and brings up both sides of the issue: http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Hydrino

Read it and more importantly read the quotes from other respectable scientists at the end. Notice one of the first lines in this article state “This theory has not, as yet, been accepted by the physics community.” If the theory isn’t going to be accepted yet then the evidence is not yet viable enough and I think even the main scientist himself might know this. It’s after all just research at this point and theory. Lots of people have made up claims of impossible contraptions to create lots and lots of energy that always seem to be wrong. Cold fusion is a good example.

Also, I don't believe that Space Time are in the universe. I believe that universe is inside space-time...and technically, space is infinite and time is just a word and the universe ends with the outer most bits of matter.

Read a single book about the subject. You’re literally making stuff up right now.

Well I've done a lot of research on Albert Einstien and shockingly found out that he strongly believed in God and any scientific discover he found that disproves God's existance (or at least the Bible), he has discarded, save for one on which he accidentally released. Same goes for Isaac Newton, who withheld all his discoveries until one of his friends found them all in a big thick book and coaxed him to release it...which he eventually did obviously, though he said he believes the Bible over his own research. Wiki is only one source I have found this information...some of them being TV documentaries like the History Channel and Discovery Channel. I don't know if some of the internet sources still exist however. BTW, even the greatest of minds make mistakes.

The greatest minds might make mistakes, but if they haven’t been discovered by the greatest of scientists stop acting like you’re the one to do it. You seem to be keen on doubting every source except your own.

Why is their belief in God something to add to the discussion? Why is it relevant? Albert Einstein believed in God, but none of his discoveries disproved his existence. This sounds to me more like Darwin, who actually hoped he was wrong in his deathbed. Einstein was very happy with pursuing science as much as he could through his life as well as having a strong faith in God.

As for the Dark Matter bit, this Idea of its use was theorized by someone else instead... for this situation anyway. The 2 groups that found about the expansion's acceleration came up for its use here.

I guess the both of you need to be updated because the both of you are claiming I'm disrespective scientific geniuses by saying all this but I'm actually repeating one was stated from 4 years ago to now. Infact, The Hubble is now equipped to track Dark Matter. etc. etc.

The theory that the inflation period could have been faster, but was slowed down by dark matter is irrelevant to the rest of our information. What point were you trying to make? It doesn’t say in that source who came up with the ideas of dark matter and dark energy, so why did you state that? They just applied what was known to come up with another theory about the earlier universe. It doesn’t change anything.

I only said you were disrespecting Einstein because you said that his biggest blunder was the assumption that the universe was static, which wasn’t at all. It was obvious you had just misread what was earlier stated.

If dark matter can not be seen, then the Hubble, a telescope that captures sources of light is not going to see it. Other ways may be found, but I think there’s a better chance we’ll bring dark matter into our calculations and just observe their effects instead. We currently have never seen protons, neutrons, or electrons, but we know them to exist because certain phenomena could not be explained without them.

I only suggest that you stop assuming that you’re always right and start accepting the possibility that you’re wrong. If you come in trying to understand the truth instead of claiming it then you can get closer to it instead of never moving from your current position.

 

[snex]

side note: albert einstein did not believe in a personal god. he was a pantheist, meaning he believed that the laws of physics themselves were god. also, darwin did not wish he was wrong on his deathbed, nor did he recant his theory.

 

[blazedaces]

side note: albert einstein did not believe in a personal god. he was a pantheist, meaning he believed that the laws of physics themselves were god. also, darwin did not wish he was wrong on his deathbed, nor did he recant his theory.

It's almost hard to believe how strongly believed this myth has become. You're the first person who ever told me otherwise, honestly. Perhaps I've just been unlucky. This site breaks apart the fallacy of the story in many ways showing how absolutely no part of the story can even stem from the truth: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2193

I'm glad that's cleared up because I'm tired of hearing the "Darwin repented" story as an excuse against evolution.

 

[Hawk Eye]

There is just entirely too much evidence in this world to prove evolution as a fact, that believing anything other wise is just being foolish. A great way to see how evolution works is by looking at the homologous structures of two completely different animals. Take for instance a Human Being, and a Whale. Looking at the bone structure of the Human hand and the Whale fin...

The bone structure, or general placement of the bones shows that the whale and the person have similar ancestory. How else could an x-ray of a whale fin show what appears to be a slightly mis-shapin human hand.

 

[Dylock9]

I'm Evolution, no intelligent design, no creationism. I am also a Catholic (btw)

maybe I don't know enough about modern physics, but I still think that without better evidence than I have heard, it is impossible to credit the origin of the universe to a mysterious big bang. It's pretty much the same as creditting creation to the literal bible story. Unless you have solid evidence, you can't have any answer worth repeating. As far as I know, the expansion of the universe is the greatest (if not the only) evidence of a big bang. One can't guess that the universe came from a single point because of it's position and speed billions of years later.

Also, in the case of evolution, as I posted on page 25 I think, there is really no conflict between christianity and evolution. So even creationists should be able to believe in evolution, because they are fundamentally different arguments. If you're talking about origins, then there is always a possibility that the origin of our world is quite different than we imagine. I think even a creationist would have to acknowledge hard evidence. For example we can tell which plants came from common ancestors, not just because of logic and chemical evidence, but because we have fossils as well. At this point, the origin of the plant isn't really a mystery. We know where it came from, how it changed, and around what time and why the change took place. The same is true for human beings, so the shear weight of evidence takes the debate out of evolution and makes it scientific.

As for the whale bone, most creationists have problems relating a whale bone's change to evolution. I think it's better to explain the logic than just show a diagram.

 

[snex]

As far as I know, the expansion of the universe is the greatest (if not the only) evidence of a big bang.

cosmic microwave backround radiation
ratio of hydrogen/deuterium/helium present
COBE satellite data
WMAP satellite data

those and the expansion are the 5 pillars, supported on all sides by plenty of minor things.

 

[blazedaces]

I'm Evolution, no intelligent design, no creationism. I am also a Catholic (btw)

maybe I don't know enough about modern physics, but I still think that without better evidence than I have heard, it is impossible to credit the origin of the universe to a mysterious big bang. It's pretty much the same as creditting creation to the literal bible story. Unless you have solid evidence, you can't have any answer worth repeating. As far as I know, the expansion of the universe is the greatest (if not the only) evidence of a big bang. One can't guess that the universe came from a single point because of it's position and speed billions of years later.

Also, in the case of evolution, as I posted on page 25 I think, there is really no conflict between christianity and evolution. So even creationists should be able to believe in evolution, because they are fundamentally different arguments. If you're talking about origins, then there is always a possibility that the origin of our world is quite different than we imagine. I think even a creationist would have to acknowledge hard evidence. For example we can tell which plants came from common ancestors, not just because of logic and chemical evidence, but because we have fossils as well. At this point, the origin of the plant isn't really a mystery. We know where it came from, how it changed, and around what time and why the change took place. The same is true for human beings, so the shear weight of evidence takes the debate out of evolution and makes it scientific.

As for the whale bone, most creationists have problems relating a whale bone's change to evolution. I think it's better to explain the logic than just show a diagram.

Where do you learn anything, eh? Are you just born knowing about all the things around you? Honestly, I'm sick and tired of hearing this. There's online sources and books on the subject every way you turn from looking things up online to bookstores to libraries. Why do you assume becuase you've never heard of evidence that it doesn't exist?

 

[Panik]

Big Bang/Evolution were God's doings. The End!

 

[Semmeh]

Big Bang/Evolution were God's doings. The End!

Please explain why. I also don't think that one liners such as yours are appropriate in the Debate hall.

The Big Bang/ Evolution being God's doing goes against the Bible. One reason is that in Genesis, God created the Sun on the fourth day, after He created the earth. That therefore goes against evolution. The sun was created first and then our Solar System followed.

 

[Rici]

Big Bang/Evolution were God's doings. The End!

That's not what the Old Testament says. It's just an easy way out to say that God made this universe. First of all God created Earth, and not the ''Big Bang"... Also, Evolution is just changing yourself to your envirement. Imagine you not liking broccoli, and you are put on a farm where they only can eat broccoli, trust me, you'll eat. Same goes for Evolution. (that's why women got shorter feet then men, so they can stand closer to the sink ).

I want some proof from you, this statement is nothing without it.

 

[Panik]

Well it depends, noone has any proof. Don't you people get it yet?! I put a one liner, because this topic isn't even worth discussing. These religious debates will never be won, because the believers won't accept some vague facts and research, and the non believers won't accept that anything can happen like this because it relies purely on faith and no actual proof. This isn't an attack on you Ricardos, but more on Semmeh for attacking the one line answer. I suppose you want something to ponder eh? Here:

(I'm assuming you both take what is in the bible literally.)

1. How do we know how long a day for God is?

2. How do we know that the big bang was not caused by God, show me the scripture that states that he didn't. Couldn't he have created the Earth and the Sun through this action?

3. I don't really think evolution was God's doing, I just thought it we be interesting for someone to say that.

4. If the bible is meant to be read and comprehended literally, then what and why is Revelations even a book in the Bible.

This topic deserved a one line answer because the answer didn't and still doesn't matter. I'm not saying the guy who started this thread is a moron, I just know that this won't be solved EVER.

 

[Semmeh]

Assuming that you take "parts" of the Bible literally.

1. How do we know how long a day for God is?

The Bible states in 2 Peter 3:8

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (NIV)

Basicly what this is implying is that God can't be held down by the laws of the universe. God exists outside of time and space.

2. How do we know that the big bang was not caused by God, show me the scripture that states that he didn't. Couldn't he have created the Earth and the Sun through this action?

As I stated above. In the event of the Big Bang, the Sun would have come first, then the earth would follow afterwards. This then goes against scriptures. Genesis 1: 14-19

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the Fourth day. (NIV)

So both sides are against you.

3. I don't really think evolution was God's doing, I just thought it would be interesting for someone to say that.

Heh, a while ago, I said that pigs could indeed fly. I didn't really mean it, I just thought it'd be interesting for someone to say that.

4. If the bible is meant to be read and comprehended literally, then what and why is Revelations even a book in the Bible.

It's one's choice to take it literally. I do. One also has the choice to take the Bible literally. From the looks of it, you only seem to take some parts of the Bible literally, not the whole book.

It's human nature to debate with one another about different topics. If you don't think it's worth your time to debate in the topic, then you shouldn't have posted at all.

 

[Panik]

Thank you for this knowledge Captain Debate!

 

[CStick]

religion and the idea of divine power and presence originated back in the early times of man. Simple things such as rain, natural disasters, etc., which all have logical and proven explanations, were explained through religious ideas. Such explanations to naturally-occurring things or incidents which have scientific explanations (no matter how far-off they may sound) can be applied to occurrences in the bible.

How do we know that God caused the great flood that washed the world away? What if there was just a very rainy season, and a river basin suffered extreme flooding?

What about the exploding bush? Things like this happen all the time, like wildfires in the western region of the US.

Evolution and the big bang have too much proof and logic for me to believe in divine creation. However, what makes this argument pointless is because of interpretation. As science advances and develop, so do new points that, regardless of their intent or contradiction to other religious documents, can defend the idea of divine presence, but cannot discredit or disprove scientific theory (mainly because the only way to do this would require God itself). One of these points would be like: "God created the infinites, but none of these actually exist until they are manifested", which basically puts science as something (or the infinite collection of possiblities from science) that God created but didn't exist until life developed to a state that is able to be manifested, discovered and developed. As stupid as that may sound, it doesn't let any side win.

 

[Duke]

Ok, I'm dedicated my first post in the Debate Hall to a topic that is really important to me. I don't see how the Christians are trying to prove to the non-religious that God not only exist but that he created the universe and all things. With a bible that has been translated and even edited by those translators to back up that God who is already questionable. You guys are coming at it all wrong, don't try and prove God because that is far to hard to do and without speaking with the spirit of God you will not convince anyone of his power. Instead, you have to prove the other possiblities wrong or highly improbable leaving God as the only option.

There are several things that prove evolution to be highly improbable; not impossible but highly improbable. Just like with DNA matching you can't 100% prove someone is a murderer by, only, matching DNA because scientist can only figure out if a fraction of the DNA match or else they would take centuries to get through all of the DNA. I like to take the same approach with this debate. I am working from this website if you want to read something of higher reading level so people like snex can't pick at my ungrammatical and simple post then please do. http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html. If you don't read the whole thing atleast check out the main points. I think one of the main, if not the main, reason why evolution is not likely is because the second law of the thermodynamics claims that things get disorganized and not more organize...to put it in the simplest way. If you put a bunch of pingpong balls on a table in a triangle and come back in five years becuase of this law you will find that the ping pong balls have instead of making themselves into a tighter more organized triangle they will be less organized, further apart, rolled off the table ect...come back in 10 more years you won't find them to be in a perfect triangle without an outside force or greater knowledge affecting them. I don't see how you can see humans and think we have become so immensely complex and organized without some outside force or greater knowledge acting upon us. How can you guys follow Darwin who coined up (or atleast exercised) the thought of evolution and forget about this law when it has been around longer than this theory of evolution. Also, please explain to me how you think splitting nucleuses could have suddenly formed a complex brain. A brain isn't something you just get from evolution even evidence of gaining one brain cell from a nucleuses would be good enough for me let alone a whole brain. The eye is another example how could an eye go through evolution when you need all the parts to work. The eye would have been worthless...did these single celled organisms just start sprouting fully funtional eyes? Consequently, through the process of evolutioin the eye would have been discarded because it would have had to apeared all at once. There are so many other arguements that continually lower the probability that evolution is what started all living things. Not to mention if we all came from the same line wouldn't eating carrots and be steak be cannibalism? And those who think that we are just to closely related to the monkey to not have evolved then how come we have some of our genetics that left behind in the monkey. If according to evolution we are always getting better and we used to be monkeys then why do we still have monkeys no the earth?! Wouldn't have nature discarded that line of genetics in the 'natural' process of evolution? My main point here though is the second law of thermodynamics so even if I explained it poorly it doesn't mean that the law is null and void...you have just made be look like an idiot you wouldn't be proving me wrong though. </8 year old blabbering>

 

[blazedaces]

Alright, so you thought a theory most accepted by the scientific community was flawed by a law of science? First of all, we have what is called a sun, which sends lots of energy to our planet at all times, making it a non-closed system. How does life flourish? Even if it didn't evolve it continues to grow. Also, that website completely mistates the second law of thermodynamics. Systems tend towards a state of higher entropy, meaning they take the more statistically favored tendency. If cells continue to split and make more (like we see clearly) then when they are copied it's the second law that would say sometimes the copying is errored and the DNA modified. This slow modification of DNA causing the bad modifications to not survive and easily see the good modifications survive causes evolution to occur.

It's basically as if you have a bag of watch parts, and you keep shaking it. Every time two pieces happen to come together they stay that way because in evolution the positive attributes have a tendency to stay that way. Over time more and more of the watch would be completed.

Why should monkeys not be seen today? First of all, we evolved from apes, not monkeys. Second of all, we evolved from extremely ancient apes that literally don't exist today. At some point our ancient ancestors split into different species. There are lots of ape species today, and we are a descendant of them.

Your website first begins by saying there are no transitional fossils, but then names about 10 of them. Why does this make sense?

Why exactly are you trusting this site? It looks put together by an eight-year-old.

 

[Duke]

Alright, so you thought a theory most accepted by the scientific community was flawed by a law of science? First of all, we have what is called a sun, which sends lots of energy to our planet at all times, making it a non-closed system. How does life flourish? Even if it didn't evolve it continues to grow. Also, that website completely mistates the second law of thermodynamics. Systems tend towards a state of higher entropy, meaning they take the more statistically favored tendency. If cells continue to split and make more (like we see clearly) then when they are copied it's the second law that would say sometimes the copying is errored and the DNA modified. This slow modification of DNA causing the bad modifications to not survive and easily see the good modifications survive causes evolution to occur.

Ok you said that we are getting energy from the sun and this is true but it doesn't mean it is making things organized. In the second law entropy is on part of it and as an affect of this it should cause disorganization. Just because the sun is giving us energy doesn't mean it is supporting all organization there is disorganization all around us which are all proof of the second law. When you paint your house over time the sun, which is the very source of our energy as you say, drys out the paint and its rays cause it to crack and wear out. Furthermore, the law is still true with the sun as it will not last forever. The sun will run out of energy. And just because life flourishes doesn't mean we all evolved from apes we flourish because of sexual reproduction and genetics we recieve from our parents.

EDIT: If you understood the laws of thermodynamics than you would have known that the sun is not providing us any energy that isn't already available. The sun doesn't produce the energy like your saying it is. It already has the energy, in the first law states that during any reaction the total energy in the universe remains constant. So, the sun isn't creating energy. Second, yes the sun gives us heat and energy but that doesn't mean things are becomeing more organized it is infact the opposite. It doesn't matter in any circumstance without outside knowledge being applied or force then things will become more disorganized not more organized.

 

[snex]

if the second law of thermodynamics states that things always get more disorganized, why do oil and water separate when left alone?

please stop making false claims about science. the 2LoT nonsense has been debunked several times, many of them on this very board, and you should have been taught 2LoT properly in high school. come back when you have a legitimate criticism.

 

[Duke]

You think I have the second law of thermodynamics wrong? The reason why oil and water don't mix is because the water is held together by hydrogen bonds and can interact efficiently with anything that has well developed permanent charges; that's why it can dissolve electrolytes so well.
Oils on the other hand are non polar, simply because the difference between the electronegativities of H and C are so small. These molecules interact by London (of van der Waals) dispersion forces and are induced dipole - induced dipole interactions. These interactions become stronger as more molecules are bound together, at least up to some critical size. These interactions are also strongest between molecules with similar polarizabilities.
Look at anything to see the affects of entropy. If you have a car after many many years of use is it going to become in better condition? No, it will instead less efficient and some parts may be broken. Look at the big picture snex even if you find one little thing that you think goes against a law of science it doesn't mean it isn't true in the big picture. That oil and water example is not a sufficient example at all. Just because oil and water don't mix that does not mean they are becoming more organized; it is just a reaction when the two are put together. So when I try to put water into a solid metal box by throwing the solid metal box into a pool and I find that the water won't go into the solid metal box...they just won't mix! I guess I have found a loop hole in the second law of thermodynamics, good try but it doesn't work.

EDIT: Even if you did find a loop whole in the second law it doesn't mean that it doesn't have an affect on evolution...ok so oil and water won't mix boohoo so what? Look at everything else that entropy has an affect on.

 

[snex]

you miss the point completely, as all creationists do. 2LoT has nothing to do with how "organized" something is. 2LoT deals only with energy interchange. i can cite millions of examples of things that get more organized with less energy. you are simply misusing the 2LoT. stop doing it. the bible prohibits bearing false witness.

once again, come back when you have a legitimate criticism.

 

[Lanowen]

[QUOTE="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Misconceptions_about_modern_evolutionary_biology]Entropy

Another misconception is the claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The second law holds that in a closed system, entropy will tend to increase or stay the same. The misconception is that entropy means "disorder" and evolution means an increase in order (thus, a decrease in entropy). This is a misunderstanding of both entropy and evolution. "Entropy" does not mean "disorder" in a generic sense. For one thing, there is no such thing as "order" in a generic sense (any set of objects may be ordered in any number of ways; disorder from one perspective may be order from another). Secondly, entropy refers specifically to differences in useable energy; an example of which is temperature differences. (See entropy for a more precise discussion.)

What appears to be a violation of the second law is not evolution (meaning, the development of new species of life) but rather life itself. But the existence of life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics for two reasons. First, the second law of thermodynamics applies only to a closed system. Earth is not a closed system because it receives an energy input from the sun. However much life may proliferate on earth, the energy of the sun does dissipate over time.

Second, as James Clerk Maxwell argued, the second law is not deterministic, it is probabalistic (see Statistical mechanics). For example, molecules within a container move at different velocities; the temperature of the contents is an average. The more time passes, the greater the probability that differences in temperature within the chamber will even out. This fact does not mean that at any given moment there is a small chance that differences in temperature will increase. As Louis Menand has observed, Darwin's theory of natural selection operates in an analogous fashion: at any given moment most of the members of a species vary little from the average form. Nevertheless, at any given moment there are deviations from the average, and it is the natural selection of specific deviations that leads to a new species. In other words, Darwin applied the same statistical approach to biology that Maxwell applied to physics (Menand 2001: 197-199).
[edit]

Organization

When they consider rocks that just sit there, some people may think it is obvious that matter cannot organize itself. Matter, in fact, organizes itself in numerous ways. Crystals such as diamonds and snowflakes can and do self-organize. Likewise proteins fold in very specific ways based on their chemical makeup. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. While the chemical conditions on the relatively young Earth 3.5 billion years ago, when life evolved, are still being debated, the spontaneous synthesis of amino acids has been shown for a wide range of conditions, in such settings as the Miller-Urey experiment.[/QUOTE]

It is good to review a reliable source before posting.

The Wiki page I quoted from would be helpful.

 

[Duke]

The thermodynamic entropy S, often simply called the entropy in the context of thermodynamics, is a measure of the amount of energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work. In simpler terms, it is also a measure of the disorder and randomness present in a system. In thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, it is a key physical variable in describing a thermodynamic system. Entropy is "a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work" within a closed thermodynamic system

I don't know who the heck on the wikipedia staff wrote up what you posted but that is the crappiest wikipedia entry I have ever seen. So I have decided to use Wikipedia to contradict Wikipedia. I think you're right it is definitely a good idea to review a reliable source. Let's all go to Wikipedia for all our scientific knowledge and not go to scientist for knowledge on science. And you don't actually think that quote by James Clerk Maxwell means anything just because its in wikipedia? I could show you a quote of Darwin himself talking about the downfall of the idea of evolution.

i can cite millions of examples of things that get more organized with less energy. you are simply misusing the 2LoT. stop doing it. the bible prohibits bearing false witness.

If you could cite millions of things that get more organized with less energy then I could cite a vast amount more of things that get less organized with less energy. I am not misusing entropy or the second law of thermodynamics. Even if you somehowprove science wrong which your not I still have many viable points that argue the probability of evolution to be very low; my math teacher who majored in teaching with knowledge on thermodynamics told me that if you made a pile of coins three feet high over the whole state of Texas and then put one red coin in the midst of that huge pile and told a blind man to pick only one coin he would have a greater chance of picking that red coin then evolution creating every living thing from splitting nucleus in the amount of time given. And, snex, using some capitals at the beginning of sentences would be nice. EDIT: Stop trying to resort to tactics like telling me I'm sinning because I'm bearing false witness just to get me to feel sorry? Or to loose confidence in my debating so that I won't sin I guess? Just debate snex, leave the preschool antics to argueing with your mom because she makes clean you room everyday.

 

[snex]

I don't know who the heck on the wikipedia staff wrote up what you posted but that is the crappiest wikipedia entry I have ever seen. So I have decided to use Wikipedia to contradict Wikipedia. I think you're right it is definitely a good idea to review a reliable source. Let's all go to Wikipedia for all our scientific knowledge and not go to scientist for knowledge on science. And you don't actually think that quote by James Clerk Maxwell means anything just because its in wikipedia? I could show you a quote of Darwin himself talking about the downfall of the idea of evolution.

wikipedia is written by users, not by professionals.

once again, entropy deals with energy transfer, not "disorder." people make this mistake because the most common example for explaining entropy is an ideal gas at constant volume. but just because higher entropy in an ideal gas at constant volume yields higher disorder does NOT mean that it is so in all cases. i have already given you one such example. i can give plenty more.

you seriously have no clue as to what you are talking about with the 2LoT. if your flawed interpretation were true, then life itself would be impossible. all humans start as a single cell and grow into full humans. clearly order is increasing. there is no difference whatsoever between this case and evolution. i challenge you to show a REAL physical equation that prevents beneficial mutations from building up in species. i guarantee you cannot do so.

now that you have been corrected 4 times, are you going to start obeying the 10 commandments and stop bearing false witness? i doubt it.

If you could cite millions of things that get more organized with less energy then I could cite a vast amount more of things that get less organized with less energy. I am not misusing entropy or the second law of thermodynamics. Even if you somehowprove science wrong which your not I still have many viable points that argue the probability of evolution to be very low; my math teacher who majored in teaching with knowledge on thermodynamics told me that if you made a pile of coins three feet high over the whole state of Texas and then put one red coin in the midst of that huge pile and told a blind man to pick only one coin he would have a greater chance of picking that red coin then evolution creating every living thing from splitting nucleus in the amount of time given. And, snex, using some capitals at the beginning of sentences would be nice.

its irrelevant how many examples you can cite that get less organized with higher entropy. i am not claiming such examples do not exist. i am telling you that entropy has nothing to do with organization, and you are continuing to deny the reality of physics.

and your math teacher is an idiot and speaking outside of his field. he clearly does not understand biology. learn biology from biologists. tell him to show his work next time, because he is merely blowing smoke out of his ***.

 

[Crimson King]

Snex, use capitalization.

I could show you a quote of Darwin himself talking about the downfall of the idea of evolution.

This is a common misconception. Most people will believe this because it supports their arguement. However, visiting Apologetics Press - Did Darwin Repent? shows the falacies in the claim, including testomonies by Darwin's daughter.

 

[Duke]

once again, entropy deals with energy transfer, not "disorder." people make this mistake because the most common example for explaining entropy is an ideal gas at constant volume. but just because higher entropy in an ideal gas at constant volume yields higher disorder does NOT mean that it is so in all cases. i have already given you one such example. i can give plenty more.

Please repeat this one more time because I didn't fully understand what you said the first time. Did you not read in my post from Wikipedia ITSELF that entropy does involve disorder.

you seriously have no clue as to what you are talking about with the 2LoT. if your flawed interpretation were true, then life itself would be impossible. all humans start as a single cell and grow into full humans. clearly order is increasing. there is no difference whatsoever between this case and evolution. i challenge you to show a REAL physical equation that prevents beneficial mutations from building up in species. i guarantee you cannot do so.

How would life itself be impossible you seem to forget one thing about entropy. This randomness and disorder can be controlled by an outside force or knowledge being applied. I guess someone didn't pay attentin when their mommy taught them about sex because the single cell is 1. Recieving energy and force by its mother. 2. Atleast this single cell came from a human and ends up a human not starts out a fish and turns into a lizard. Com on now I'd expect better from you snex.

now that you have been corrected 4 times, are you going to start obeying the 10 commandments and stop bearing false witness? i doubt it.

Gosh dangit snex stop it you're making me feel bad. I edit my last post just before you posted your comeback filled post with no real evidence against entropy just read the edit so I don't have to repeat myself because, unlike you, I don't like to repeat myself.

its irrelevant how many examples you can cite that get less organized with higher entropy. i am not claiming such examples do not exist. i am telling you that entropy has nothing to do with organization, and you are continuing to deny the reality of physics.

If it is irrevelant then don't say that you can cite SOOO many millions of things that get organized with less energy. Entropy does involve randomness and disorder read the explaination of entropy in my last post.

and your math teacher is an idiot and speaking outside of his field. he clearly does not understand biology. learn biology from biologists. tell him to show his work next time, because he is merely blowing smoke out of his ***.

Great I'll told him you thought so. Because it is illegal for anyone to speak of anything that is outside of their field. I'd like to see you show your work...so far I have recieved no work to back up the smoke coming from your defecation filled hole.

EDIT: Eric, I didn't see your post. I'm not talking about this rumored death bed confession there is a quote that it just Darwin explaining the one thing that could prove evolution wrong.

 

[Acid Bath Slayer]

I don't know who the heck on the wikipedia staff wrote up what you posted but that is the crappiest wikipedia entry I have ever seen. So I have decided to use Wikipedia to contradict Wikipedia. I think you're right it is definitely a good idea to review a reliable source. Let's all go to Wikipedia for all our scientific knowledge and not go to scientist for knowledge on science. And you don't actually think that quote by James Clerk Maxwell means anything just because its in wikipedia? I could show you a quote of Darwin himself talking about the downfall of the idea of evolution.

1. Wikipedia has a staff, however, the main contributors to the site itself is its audience. Wikipedia is edited, mostly, by the general public. I have an account, even you can get one. It's free.

2. Quotes don't really prove anything. It's an argument from authority. Unless, the quote is a precise explanation.

The thermodynamic entropy S, often simply called the entropy in the context of thermodynamics, is a measure of the amount of energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work. In simpler terms, it is also a measure of the disorder and randomness present in a system. In thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, it is a key physical variable in describing a thermodynamic system. Entropy is "a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work" within a closed thermodynamic system

This is a very vague, very misleading comment. The problem here is that this is perpetuating the fallacy that thermodynamic entropy is indeed the same as disorganization, while in reality, thermodynamics has very little to do with order in any system. There is a probably a reason someone has added, or included the phrase "in simpler terms," because these are very simple terms creating a very inaccurate and imprecise article. Many people have already noted this and have directed their concerns to the entropy;Talk page on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Entropy/Disorder

Read this talk page, they discuss the problems in using the word disorder, as people are clearly misinterpreting it.

With increased entropy, we may see increased uncertainty, but that does not exactly denote disorganization. Also, if we are to take this definition as true, any observation of increased organization out of "disorder" would deny the second law. What about whirlpools, tornadoes, neutral mutations, the formation of a star, the birth of a child, or any other increase in order for that matter.

In thermodynamic physics, the term entropy is directly related to the amount of useable energy or the ability for heat to flow in a closed system. Nothing suggests that order can not increase, nor does anything suggest that entropy can not decrease given the ability of flowing heat and energy input (the open sytem, i.e. The Universe).

These kind of thermodynamic concerns make alot more sense when talking about a cup of hot coffee and some ice. Not evolution.

 

[snex]

Please repeat this one more time because I didn't fully understand what you said the first time. Did you not read in my post from Wikipedia ITSELF that entropy does involve disorder.

anybody can edit wikipedia, including you. how do i know that you didnt go there and type that in? wikipedia is not a proper source for anything. at best it is a starting point for further research.

How would life itself be impossible you seem to forget one thing about entropy. This randomness and disorder can be controlled by an outside force or knowledge being applied. I guess someone didn't pay attentin when their mommy taught them about sex because the single cell is 1. Recieving energy and force by its mother. 2. Atleast this single cell came from a human and ends up a human not starts out a fish and turns into a lizard. Com on now I'd expect better from you snex.

none of this makes any sense. first of all, as youve already been told, the sun applies vast amounts of free energy to the earth which is exploited by life. the earth also supplies its own internal energy through the decay of radioactive isotopes deep within the crust. not only that, but weather phenomena like lightning also supply energy to the earth's surface. all of these things can account for the start and subsequent evolution of life.

and your "interpretation" of evolution is pathetic. no wonder you think it is impossible. even you cant deny that individuals of a species vary about an average, and that some of these individuals will have more offspring due to their variations, and that therefore these variations will survive into future generations more than their competitors. that is really all that is required for evolution to work. the reason life is so vast today is because it has been going on for 4 BILLION YEARS.

If it is irrevelant then don't say that you can cite SOOO many millions of things that get organized with less energy. Entropy does involve randomness and disorder read the explaination of entropy in my last post.

no. it doesnt. if oil and water natually separate, then either the 2LoT is WRONG, or your interpretation of it is WRONG. either way, your criticism of evolution flies out the window.

Great I'll told him you thought so. Because it is illegal for anyone to speak of anything that is outside of their field. I'd like to see you show your work...so far I have recieved no work to back up the smoke coming from your defecation filled hole.

no it isnt illegal, but it is ignorant and arrogant. your high school math teacher thinks he knows more about biology than practicing biologists with advanced degrees and who do daily research on evolution. you want to see work? go to the library. you will find literally tens of thousands of books, journals, peer reviewed articles, and research dissertations on evolution.

 

[Duke]

1. Wikipedia has a staff, however, the main contributors to the site itself is its audience. Wikipedia is edited, mostly, by the general public. I have an account, even you can get one. It's free.

Thanks for the info

This is a very vague, very misleading comment. The problem here is that this is perpetuating the fallacy that thermodynamic entropy is indeed the same as disorganization, while in reality, thermodynamics has very little to do with order in any system. There is a probably a reason someone has added, or included the phrase "in simpler terms," because these are very simple terms creating a very inaccurate and imprecise article. Many people have already noted this and have directed their concerns to the entropy;Talk page on wikipedia.

I never said it is the same as disorganization. I said it was an affect of entropy. What it means my disorder is not that things will start flying around randomly it just means things will not improve the state in which they are in. Cars will not have bette performance, paint on a house won't get shinier, with the expanding universe the planets won't form a pattern and fish won't become lizards. Sorry for short reply I'm gone to do homework.

EDIT: I wish I could get some help...3 on 1.

 

[snex]

either present the entropic equations for fish evolving into lizards in 100 million years or retract the claim.

 

[Duke]

either present the entropic equations for fish evolving into lizards in 100 million years or retract the claim.

Either you present me the line of evolution from nucleus to human beings or retract your claim of evolution.

 

[snex]

strawman argument. evolution is not based on one simple equation. entropy is. you are claiming that evolution violates the 2LoT, therefore it should be easy to show the equations for it. if you cannot do so, you must retract your claim.

the evidence for evolution is not based on one single simple equation, it is based on numerous lines of complex evidence from several fields of science. evolution is a THEORY, and theories by their nature are complicated.

 

[Acid Bath Slayer]

I never said it is the same as disorganization. I said it was an affect of entropy. What it means my disorder is not that things will start flying around randomly it just means things will not improve the state in which they are in. Cars will not have bette performance, paint on a house won't get shinier, with the expanding universe the planets won't form a pattern and fish won't become lizards. Sorry for short reply I'm gone to do homework.

EDIT: I wish I could get some help...3 on 1.

1. How is disorder an affect of entropy and what does that mean to evolution?
2. Since when has disorder simply meant a lack of improvement? Also note, improvement is subjective, and so seems your conception of order. Metal rusting is very much an ordered process.
3. The 2nd law only applies to closed systems. The earth is open as it receives energy imput from the sun.
4. If a scientist were to observe a fish giving birth to a lizard, this would only serve to help disprove the current scientific theory of evolution.

How would life itself be impossible you seem to forget one thing about entropy. This randomness and disorder can be controlled by an outside force or knowledge being applied.

So, if we give you an instance where your conception of entropy and the 2nd law are clearly mistaken and false, you can simply excuse that away by invoking supernatural entities? So, the order we all see is simply natural disorder wearing the mask of a supernatural power? Talk about nonfalsifiable claims. And it rains only because the the witch doctors do their dance and the rain gods are pleased!

 

[blazedaces]

Listen, Duke. Entropy is a natural statistical outcome to most situations. It comes from statistical reasoning, let me explain. If you have a 500 piece puzzle pieces all in a box there is only one possible way for them all to be in the correct place so that the puzzle is complete, yet there are practically infinite ways for the puzzle to be out of correct order. If you shake the puzzle box while it is closed, you can say that without a doubt chances are it'll out of order (yet the possibility exists it will be in correct order). This is what it means when people say disorder. It's a very simplistic concept involving simple things that act very simply like puzzle pieces. Another thing to note is that though the chances of all the puzzle pieces being in the correct spot is next to nothing the odds that a few puzzle pieces can come together correctly after a while of shaking can easily be plausible. Still, entropy in the universe always increasing has to do with equations derived in chemistry through heat (energy), temperature, and initial heat of formation and a bunch of other things I can't recall at the moment. This refers specifically to available energy that can do work in a system. Both entropies are related very much, they're basically talking about the same thing, but you're thinking about it in the wrong way.

Also, talking about evolution, if you take the puzzle box example, if some pieces come together correctly, then according to evolution and the fact that better fitted spieces survive it's like those pieces stay together. Also, what would you say is more organized... one type of fish in a pond or 5 billion types of fish all over the ocean? See, organized is not a very good word to describe this situation. Do you think a single celled organism has more possible arrangements or a fish containing billions of cells? Even possible arrangements isn't the best way to think of it, but it probably clears it up a little better then "organized".

Seriously though, the second law of thermodynamics is a LAW, not a theory or premonition or some stupid idea. It applies to all cases at all time. If situations existed which disproved the second law then it would not be a law and we would not call it as such. If you want to think of it a little better just think about the most plausible "statistical" outcome in a situation. Which is more likely to happen? This is probably closer to the entropically true outcome then your current view of "less disorganized".

 

[Duke]

strawman argument. evolution is not based on one simple equation. entropy is. you are claiming that evolution violates the 2LoT, therefore it should be easy to show the equations for it. if you cannot do so, you must retract your claim.

I didn't say prove evolution in one equation I said show me the line, or any evidence for that matter, of evolution from where we evolved from single celled organisms to now. It can't be done. Another thing give me anything that gets more organized with less energy. You seem to think since the sun is giving us energy then the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply. When infact it still does, will the sun not run out of gas to burn? Will it not die eventually and then kill everything in the solar system. The second law is still present in the big picture it will not get more organized. This is a rather unbiased website http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm. Entropy does have to do with disorganization.

the evidence for evolution is not based on one single simple equation, it is based on numerous lines of complex evidence from several fields of science. evolution is a THEORY, and theories by their nature are complicated.[/QUOTE]
Again, prove to me the evolution is what created us. And I agree it is a theory therefore it is not set in stone. It is merely a theory entertained and started by Darwin.

Listen, Duke. Entropy is a natural statistical outcome to most situations.

Ok, and the statistical outcome that we evolved from simpler organisms is very unlikely to the point that it might as well be impossible. There is no proof that we evolved from another species. I do believe however that within a species that evolution take part in improving species in the affect of the Darwin birds whose beaks became longer and shorter when needed with the next generation. However, I do not at all think another species was evolved or is an improvement of another species.

It comes from statistical reasoning, let me explain. If you have a 500 piece puzzle pieces all in a box there is only one possible way for them all to be in the correct place so that the puzzle is complete, yet there are practically infinite ways for the puzzle to be out of correct order. If you shake the puzzle box while it is closed, you can say that without a doubt chances are it'll out of order (yet the possibility exists it will be in correct order). This is what it means when people say disorder. It's a very simplistic concept involving simple things that act very simply like puzzle pieces. Another thing to note is that though the chances of all the puzzle pieces being in the correct spot is next to nothing the odds that a few puzzle pieces can come together correctly after a while of shaking can easily be plausible.

I thought that you were argueing for evolution. Again the chance that everything is an evlolution from a single cell organism is so far fetched. And again with this as the human is shaking it outside force or knowledge is acting upon it.

Still, entropy in the universe always increasing has to do with equations derived in chemistry through heat (energy), temperature, and initial heat of formation and a bunch of other things I can't recall at the moment. This refers specifically to available energy that can do work in a system. Both entropies are related very much, they're basically talking about the same thing, but you're thinking about it in the wrong way.

No you are wrong the universe has a set amount of energy. Energy isn't just grabbed out of no where. It has a set amount and when things gain energy they will eventually loose it.

Also, talking about evolution, if you take the puzzle box example, if some pieces come together correctly, then according to evolution and the fact that better fitted spieces survive it's like those pieces stay together. Also, what would you say is more organized... one type of fish in a pond or 5 billion types of fish all over the ocean? See, organized is not a very good word to describe this situation. Do you think a single celled organism has more possible arrangements or a fish containing billions of cells? Even possible arrangements isn't the best way to think of it, but it probably clears it up a little better then "organized".

Exept when you continue to shake the box the pieces will become undone. How is one type of fish in a pond more organized than a 5 billion types of fish in the ocean or visa versa. That was a horrible example to give. Its a matter of those fish will eventually die. That's like asking which is more fruity an orange or an apple you can't measure the organization of those two things. Good try though.

Seriously though, the second law of thermodynamics is a LAW, not a theory or premonition or some stupid idea. It applies to all cases at all time. If situations existed which disproved the second law then it would not be a law and we would not call it as such. If you want to think of it a little better just think about the most plausible "statistical" outcome in a situation. Which is more likely to happen? This is probably closer to the entropically true outcome then your current view of "less disorganized".

Again I thought you were debating for the evolutionist. Yes thermodynamics is a law therefore it has affect on everything including evolution which by the way is just a theory, the imaginations of a scientist. Which is more likely to happen single celled organisms ultimately evolving into humans or some other explaination for our existance.

And to everyone: What I ment by from fish to lizard is that over a period of time the organisms in the water had to come onto the land. Over time evolution will not turn a species into another species for the convenience of walking on land.

 

[snex]

dont you dare try shift the burden of proof duke. YOU are claiming that evolution violates the 2LoT, and the 2LoT is ruled by very simple equations. now either provide those equations that disprove evolution or STOP DISHONESTLY MAKING THE CLAIM.

i am not going to play your game duke. you want to debate? then defend your side. if not, stop posting here. i dont debate with liars.

edit: everybody else, do not fall for dukes trick. he is trying to get away with not defending his claim about the 2LoT. we have all sufficiently explained why his interpretation of it is wrong, and now he is trying to shift the argument onto evolution's claims. DO NOT LET HIM GET AWAY WITH THIS. refuse to debate further until duke provides the entropic equations to back up his claims or admits he is wrong about 2LoT.

 

[Duke]

dont you dare try shift the burden of proof duke. YOU are claiming that evolution violates the 2LoT, and the 2LoT is ruled by very simple equations. now either provide those equations that disprove evolution or STOP DISHONESTLY MAKING THE CLAIM.

i am not going to play your game duke. you want to debate? then defend your side. if not, stop posting here. i dont debate with liars.

edit: everybody else, do not fall for dukes trick. he is trying to get away with not defending his claim about the 2LoT. we have all sufficiently explained why his interpretation of it is wrong, and now he is trying to shift the argument onto evolution's claims. DO NOT LET HIM GET AWAY WITH THIS. refuse to debate further until duke provides the entropic equations to back up his claims or admits he is wrong about 2LoT.

Looks like someone here is feeling the pressure. Weather or not I can provide an equation you still can't provide proof for evolution. I never said that the second law of thermodynamics is ruled by a very simple equation. You didn't come up with any real comeback in this post. The burden of proof is not on me YOU have to prove that evolution is right. Don't tell me to stick to defending my side there are techniques to debating and just because I made an offense shift it doesn't mean I am playing a game or whatever you choose to believe. Again I repeat provide anything that gets more organized with less energy and please provide me with evidence that proves that evolution is correct. I am surprised at you snex that you blew off because you know you can't think of a real comeback and that you have to send off a warning call to your fellow debators as if you're a bunch of meercats squeeling at the site of a falcon.

"FELLOW MEERCATS: Refuse to talk to this things because we cannot provide sufficient evidence for evolution so therefore don't answer at all! Refuse to talk to him until this 15 year old can provide the numbers to the measurement of organization and then fill those numbers into an equation that not even myself, snex, could find the entropy of anything!"

 

[snex]

no duke, you dont seem to get it. YOU are the one came in here blathering about the 2LoT, and now that you have had your *** handed to you on it, you are trying to run away and make us defend evolution. you do not get a free pass duke. either back up your 2LoT garbage or retract it. this debate will not move on until you do one of those 2 things.

stop being dishonest. jesus does not like it.

 

[3.14159]

Looks like someone here is feeling the pressure. Weather or not I can provide an equation you still can't provide proof for evolution. I never said that the second law of thermodynamics is ruled by a very simple equation. You didn't come up with any real comeback in this post. The burden of proof is not on me YOU have to prove that evolution is right. Don't tell me to stick to defending my side there are techniques to debating and just because I made an offense shift it doesn't mean I am playing a game or whatever you choose to believe. Again I repeat provide anything that gets more organized with less energy and please provide me with evidence that proves that evolution is correct. I am surprised at you snex that you blew off because you know you can't think of a real comeback and that you have to send off a warning call to your fellow debators as if you're a bunch of meercats squeeling at the site of a falcon.

"FELLOW MEERCATS: Refuse to talk to this things because we cannot provide sufficient evidence for evolution so therefore don't answer at all! Refuse to talk to him until this 15 year old can provide the numbers to the measurement of organization and then fill those numbers into an equation that not even myself, snex, could find the entropy of anything!"

We don't need proof. We need overwhelming evidence. We've got it.

1) you have the burden to prove your theology right
2) the energy thing assumes a closed system
3) natural selection is logical and proven
4) artificial selection is proven
5) genetic mutations are proven

proving either side is not possible. the side with greatest proof is the side that should be viewed as correct. That is evolution by a long shot.

 

[blazedaces]

Ok, and the statistical outcome that we evolved from simpler organisms is very unlikely to the point that it might as well be impossible. There is no proof that we evolved from another species. I do believe however that within a species that evolution take part in improving species in the affect of the Darwin birds whose beaks became longer and shorter when needed with the next generation. However, I do not at all think another species was evolved or is an improvement of another species.

You're making this idea up out of nowhere. You heard it from one of your friends that has no idea what he's talking about. Do you know an actual number, statistically? No, it's a made up notion by believers trying to argue the theory of evolution. The earth was around for billions of years before life was able form. You don't seem to understand a thing about statistics. Even if the chances were so-called "near impossible" if it's per second then by billions of years of time it's going to happen.

Don't you know the birds with shorter and longer beaks are usually different species? In nature these birds can not reproduce together. Great contradiction there. You're trying to say you believe in micro-evolution, not macro, but in reality they are just the same thing.

I thought that you were argueing for evolution. Again the chance that everything is an evlolution from a single cell organism is so far fetched. And again with this as the human is shaking it outside force or knowledge is acting upon it.

This was just an example trying to make you understand the concept of entropy, which you still don't. What if it was shaking in an earthquake? God, this is ridiculous, even in a stupid example you try to push your crap down our throats.

No you are wrong the universe has a set amount of energy. Energy isn't just grabbed out of no where. It has a set amount and when things gain energy they will eventually loose it.

Wow, you really, really don't understand what is entropy. The entropy in the universe is steadly increasing, which means the available energy for work is steadily decreasing. This IS the second law of thermodynamics at its core. Is the universe not considered a closed system? The more you talk about the second law the less you seem to know about it.

Exept when you continue to shake the box the pieces will become undone. How is one type of fish in a pond more organized than a 5 billion types of fish in the ocean or visa versa. That was a horrible example to give. Its a matter of those fish will eventually die. That's like asking which is more fruity an orange or an apple you can't measure the organization of those two things. Good try though.

Evolution shows that those better fitted to survive will do so... another words, when species come about that happen to survive better, they will. In the puzzle piece example, if combined puzzle pieces represent species that are better at surviving, they would not fall back apart in the shaking of "life". Wow, you still don't get it. The point was to give a horrible example to try and show you organization has very little to do with entropy, you feed right into my example, thank you very much. Organization is too subjective-based and it doesn't show anything about entropy.

You're trying to argue against your own preliminary idea. You're saying the fish will eventually die. If the second law of thermodynamics fully applied to earth and the sun did not exist (excluding the radioactive emition from the earth) then everything would die. That just further shows earth is not a closed system. Life flourishing at the moment does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Heat (energy) is probably what started the very first cell of life you're talking about. Stop even arguing the point of the second law of thermodynamics since you just stated that earth is not a closed system.

Again I thought you were debating for the evolutionist. Yes thermodynamics is a law therefore it has affect on everything including evolution which by the way is just a theory, the imaginations of a scientist. Which is more likely to happen single celled organisms ultimately evolving into humans or some other explaination for our existance.

You've been justifying the second law not applying to things by just saying that a higher power is controlling it, so it's ok. These examples do not exist, that's what I'm telling you. You mis-use the word theory. In scientific terms a theory is practically the same as a law. There's overwhelming proof for evolution. Go read about it yourself. Honestly, this is becoming pathetic.

And to everyone: What I ment by from fish to lizard is that over a period of time the organisms in the water had to come onto the land. Over time evolution will not turn a species into another species for the convenience of walking on land.

Why not? It's a random occurance, but the species on land still survived. Why are there transitional species that we see today surviving both in land and water? Why do amphibians exist today? Slowly, over time, a species came about from a fish that could come out of the water, but the only way for this to happen for survival purposes was that it could still live in water. Why do so many transitional species exist and proof of ones in the past exist if evolution does not? Either the evidence points to the theory or you have to explain away every single piece of evidence by some other means.