Julia Sweeny

Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Julia Sweeny

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
OK....

Common sense....

Our scientific theory on the formation of the entire universe lacks all common sense.

"About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation."-umich.edu

Let me disect this statement.

About 15 BILLION years...ok, give or take acouple HUNDRED MILLION. Some sources say 12, some 14. We only have about 8,000 years of recorded history. A billion years is alot to be "off." Can we be a TAD more accurate?

A tremedous explosion: Have you EVER seen an explosion CREATE anything? If I blow up a car, I dont get a hundred tiny little motorcycles....

"All the matter in the universe was containted in one point"....a single point? Like a "only a few millimeters across" I think common sense and reason would argue that this is pure stupidity.

"Prior to this event" Well if there was no "time" there was no "prior" I think common sense would say there was no event.

"Pure Speculation" Yup, I agree there. All there is, is pure speculation.

Chew on that for awhile......

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
"Common sense" would also

"Common sense" would also say that the Earth is flat, and the sun revolves around it. Always remember, today's "common sense" is tomorrow's "nonsense."

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


jester700
Posts: 105
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
1) It was a rapid expansion,

1) It was a rapid expansion, not an explosion.
2) LOTS of stuff that we can't wrap our minds around are absolutely true. DNA, atoms, and all the other "micro" stuff. Timescales of evolution & geology, the scale of interstellar distances, and other "macro" stuff. We evolved to process information within our limited frame of reference. So "common sense" really doesn't work well for this stuff.

I provisionally accept these things because brainiacs much smarter than I who dedicate their lives to the subjects come to these conclusions by following where evidence leads, however great or skimpy that evidence is. Science has been more often correct historically than any other worldview, so I'll stick with it.


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:"Common

MattShizzle wrote:
"Common sense" would also say that the Earth is flat, and the sun revolves around it. Always remember, today's "common sense" is tomorrow's "nonsense."

REALLY? I think it was "common sense" that made people realize the world wasnt flat. Hey you guys are the ones slinging that word around supporting your cause. I was just showing you somthing that dosnt make a lick of sense.

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
jester700 wrote:1) It was a

jester700 wrote:
1) It was a rapid expansion, not an explosion.

Tell me, what caused this "expansion". Does a tiny "dot" only a few millimeters across yeild the contents of a non-ending universe? I think the PHD's were ridiculed about the word "explosion" and had to change it to "expansion" which in esessence is the same thing.

jester700 wrote:
1)2) LOTS of stuff that we can't wrap our minds around are absolutely true. DNA, atoms, and all the other "micro" stuff. Timescales of evolution & geology, the scale of interstellar distances, and other "macro" stuff. We evolved to process information within our limited frame of reference. So "common sense" really doesn't work well for this stuff.

So, dont ever use it in an argument with me. Like I already said, you guys are the ones on this forum and website saying we use "common sense" and "logic" to support our beliefs. Just a quick FACT. Interstellar distances are only accurate up to 100 light years away. The distance between the earth and sun varies, making precise distances impossible to measure. You know, give or take a hundred million miles. So when they say a star is a million light years away, they are guessing. Measuring a star 10 light years away is equivalant to setting up to surveying levels side by side 18 inches apart and measuring a point 10 miles away. 100 miles for 100 light years and so forth. Also, the speed of light is no longer a constant. It can be slowed down and even stopped. So..... Chew on that for a bit.

jester700 wrote:
1) I provisionally accept these things because brainiacs much smarter than I who dedicate their lives to the subjects come to these conclusions by following where evidence leads, however great or skimpy that evidence is. Science has been more often correct historically than any other worldview, so I'll stick with it.

You blindly accept those of you who are "smarter" than you with no question? So what is the differnce between the PHD in the background of science and the PHD from seminary? They are BOTH very educated, dedicated and "smarter" than us. This tells me that you have been taught over the years WHAT to think and not HOW to think. As long as Mr. PHD science dude say it, it must be true. If only you knew the political hierarchy in the scientific community...geez do I even need to go there. I dont think you would get it. Anyways, I guess ignorance is bliss.

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


JRV
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
VoR, I think most of us

VoR, I think most of us essentially sit back and let science unfold the story of how the Universe came into existence, and subscribe to the theory that is the most accepted among legit thinkers. You know what the funny thing is, though? IT DOESN'T MATTER! What influence does it have on my day-to-day life that the Big Bang may or may not have occurred, an almost unimaginably long time ago, even if it was "started" by something snapping its metaphorical fingers? None. You act as if disproving the Big Bang -without using any numbers, interestingly- should have a huge impact on how we live our lives.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
JRV wrote: You act as if

JRV wrote:
You act as if disproving the Big Bang -without using any numbers, interestingly- should have a huge impact on how we live our lives.

...or that it would somehow prove the existence of God.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Ah, we can add the false

Ah, we can add the false dichotomy fallacy now! Laughing out loud


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Voice of Reason

Voice of Reason wrote:
le]REALLY? I think it was "common sense" that made people realize the world wasnt flat. Hey you guys are the ones slinging that word around supporting your cause. I was just showing you somthing that dosnt make a lick of sense.

No, the common belief and perception of the world was that it was flat. It's curvature is not easy to detect until one is at a great height from the surface of the Earth, which few get to do. It wasn't until Eratosthenes of Cyrene, a versatile scholar (lived from 275-195 BC) deduced that the Earth was round and calculated the diameter. Many scoffed at this notion. The commmon man "knew" the Earth was flat but there were a few scholars that suspected (based on experiments) that it was indeed round and their works influnced Christoper Columbus to take his famous voyage of discovery. Common sense did not discover this fact, Science did.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Talking Dog
Talking Dog's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
I think that "fact" about

I think that "fact" about the earth and was created in 6 days makes way more sense than an explosion that makes thing gradually drift form the point of the explosion.

On another note I don’t rely on something as trivial as a newspaper to get my info. I like to go outside and light a bush on fire to get my daily info. Subsequently I’m not on very good terms with my neighbours.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Pascal


jester700
Posts: 105
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Voice of Reason wrote: Tell

Voice of Reason wrote:

Tell me, what caused this "expansion". Does a tiny "dot" only a few millimeters across yeild the contents of a non-ending universe? I think the PHD's were ridiculed about the word "explosion" and had to change it to "expansion" which in esessence is the same thing.

No idea. Doesn't matter to me. I mean, it DOES - I'd LIKE to know. But I don't know if we CAN know. But it does't affect me.

You think wrong. An explosion is of an object into existing space. he expansion was of space itself.

Quote:

So, dont ever use it in an argument with me. Like I already said, you guys are the ones on this forum and website saying we use "common sense" and "logic" to support our beliefs. Just a quick FACT. Interstellar distances are only accurate up to 100 light years away.

Do we say "common sense"? I think it's "logic" and "rational thought". That's different from common sense. The first has you go where the evidence leads, even if it DOES go against "common sense". The second echoes majority thought to some degree.

Science KNOWS there are limits to accuracy, but to note that at every turn results in ponderous language in already difficult subjects. That a fossil is 450 or 500 million years old is a great range of accuracy (and I made that number up; I dunno the actual ranges), but it can still tell us a lot compared to a fossil 300-330 million years old.

Quote:

You blindly accept those of you who are "smarter" than you with no question? So what is the differnce between the PHD in the background of science and the PHD from seminary? They are BOTH very educated, dedicated and "smarter" than us. This tells me that you have been taught over the years WHAT to think and not HOW to think. As long as Mr. PHD science dude say it, it must be true. If only you knew the political hierarchy in the scientific community...geez do I even need to go there. I dont think you would get it. Anyways, I guess ignorance is bliss.

No, BLIND faith is for theists. I do question, but I know the limits of my questioning ability, unlike, say, Kent Hovind, who comes off like a moron. Here's my thinking:
1) Science WORKS. Not always. Not perfectly. But much of the time, and better all the time. This is because it is self correcting. Mistakes are eventually corrected, theories polished, etc. We know more now than we ever did, and will know even more next year. Contrast that with theism. They THINK they already have all the answers. Yet look at history - time and again books like the bible have been proven wrong by science, and the god of the gaps gets a bit smaller.
2) Theology ThDs agree on stuff even less than scientists do. A Catholic ThD and a protestant ThD use the same book and come to very different conclusions. AND there isn't a constant influx of evidence on which to base NEW conclusions. Thus, they rarely change their minds, since they already "know" the answers. Yet Hindu, Christian, Jewish, and Atheist biologists all agree on evolution - at least the main points.
3) I don't think ThDs are "smarter" than me. They spent years studying and learning the nuances of fairy tales. Maybe I can get a ThD in "spider man".

I DON'T know the hierarchy in science. I DO know that there are revisions in mainstream science all the time, and I find this encouraging - and this is evidence for my rational mind that it's working - maybe not optimally - but it's working. I contrast that with the fact that the Catholic church still preaches against condoms in Africa and only apologized for the Galileo boo-boo in, like, the 1980's.

Puke on THAT.


ellechero
ellechero's picture
Posts: 47
Joined: 2006-07-24
User is offlineOffline
t's as if you jumped in over

t's as if you jumped in over your head and now you're pissed that you can't breathe water.

The universe is ofen quite counter-intuitive and a skeptical, inquisitive mind must accept that what seems obvious from their particular perspective is not always a good description of the actual nature of things. The solution is to look which is how scientists occupy their time.

"If I blow up a car, I dont get a hundred tiny little motorcycles...."

That statement betrays a truly cosmic level of ignorace. If your "weapons" are truth and reason I suggest you sharpen the latter and stop representing that ranting represents an instance of the former. You should be well-aware of the concept of a straw man argument. If you're not, it's when someone cannot understand or effectively argue against the subject of debate and they create a silly imitation of the real subject that they can easily tear apart. Sorry if that's review to you, but it seems that you have a real issue with strawmanophilia.

The big bang, as it's called is, indeed, a theory. It's a theory that was developed out of the process of examining the available evidence and taking it to it's logical conclusion. I assure you, it has nothing to do with producing many tiny vehicles from one larger vehicle.

As for blindly accepting the authority of PhD's, that is another straw man and I suggest you take up guarding cornfields as you're demonstrating a real talent for their creation. It is not the authority of a person's education that makes a scientific theory generally accepted but their work on that particular theory. Saying that science blindly follows a PhD's authority is akin to saying a customer blindly follows the authority of a plumber's wrench. If the water heater works, it works, the wrench is merely a tool used to reach the desired result.

When one reaches conclusions about the validity of a theory without the proper tools, we get motorcycles exploding into cars.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
MrPeters wrote:Common

MrPeters wrote:
Common sense....

Our scientific theory on the formation of the entire universe lacks all common sense.

"About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation."-umich.edu

Let me disect this statement.

About 15 BILLION years...ok, give or take acouple HUNDRED MILLION. Some sources say 12, some 14. We only have about 8,000 years of recorded history. A billion years is alot to be "off." Can we be a TAD more accurate?

A tremedous explosion: Have you EVER seen an explosion CREATE anything? If I blow up a car, I dont get a hundred tiny little motorcycles....

"All the matter in the universe was containted in one point"....a single point? Like a "only a few millimeters across" I think common sense and reason would argue that this is pure stupidity.

"Prior to this event" Well if there was no "time" there was no "prior" I think common sense would say there was no event.

"Pure Speculation" Yup, I agree there. All there is, is pure speculation.

Chew on that for awhile......

Wow, are you ever misinformed.

Read, understand, chew on it, get back to me:

First let me start off by saying that I?m certainly no cosmologist, but I think you?ll find that it certainly doesn?t take a Stephen Hawking to refute the intellectually devoid horror that is fishdontwalk.com.

Let?s dive right in on the creationist?s assault on the Big Bang:

http://fishdontwalk.com/aviewer.asp?i=7

fishdon?twalk wrote:
The Big Bang

The Big Bang! What is the Big Bang?


Apparently it is one of the most misunderstood and straw-manned scientific theories out there, as we shall soon see.

Quote:
The "Big Bang" is the popular secular explanation for the origin of the Universe. It is interesting to note that the term "Big Bang" is not popular with its proponents. The term "Big Bang" was assigned by Sir Fred Hoyle, who gave it mockingly. A few years ago a nationwide contest was held to solicit suggestions for coming up with a better name for the Big Bang (I entered but did not win). Eventually, the powers that be decided they would stick with the Big Bang label.

Right off the bat, things have gone horribly wrong. The Big Bang theory is not a secular explanation at all, it is a scientific one ? and there most assuredly is a difference. The theory itself originated back in 1927 when a Catholic monk named Georges Lema?tre independently derived a set of equations (now known as the Friedmann-Lema?tre-Robertson-Walker equations) from Einstein?s theory of general relativity. These equations coupled with observations of the recession of spiral nebulae led Lema?tre to theorize that the Universe began as a point or ?primevial atom?.

So like it or not, the first to propose such a thing was a theist, a Catholic monk no less. Obviously Lema?tre didn?t think his proposal conflicted with his belief in God, unlike certain fundamentalists who insist upon placing scriptural limits on their God?s creation.

In the end, unless one wants to say that physics, mathematics and telescopes are strictly and solely for the secularists or atheists; one ought to rethink how they couch the theory and science in general.

Shockingly, it is correct that Hoyle coined the phrase ?Big Bang?; what isn?t shocking is that the author of this piece doesn?t seem to understand or even care why proponents of the theory take some issue with the term. The Big Bang, as it is currently uderstood, was not an explosion, but a rapid expansion from an enormously hot and dense point. This expansion agrees with the Friedmann-Lema?tre-Robertson-Walker model of general relativity and our empirical observations, which we?ll get into a bit later.

Quote:
According to the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago (BYA), a clump of mass and energy was floating around and then it suddenly exploded producing very high temperatures. It slowly cooled to produce hydrogen and helium gas. About 10 BYA stars were formed from this cooling gas, and eventually galaxies were formed. When these stars aged, some became supernovae (violent star explosions) which eventually produced new stars! (Our sun is taught to be a 3rd generation star). Fragments from these supernovae are thought to have been the source for the Earth and planets in our solar system (why are these fragments nearly spherical and not disorderly chunks?) Our solar system is typically taught to have originated 4.6 Billion years ago.

Actually, current figures put it closer to 13.7 billion years ago, and we aren?t talking about a ?clump? of mass-energy floating around in space. First, space or more accurately space-time as we understand it and know it today weren?t manifest yet, and this ?clump? contained all of the matter-energy (not matter and energy ? the two are equivalent) in the entire universe. The rest of the author?s description is grossly simplified and generic, but accurate enough.

Oh, and btw, stars and planets are spherical (though not perfect spheres ? they spin and therefore bulge in the center) due to gravity, and anyone with a high school education ought to know this (watch as this fundamental lack of understanding continues to play out in the rest of the author?s arguments). Hell, anyone with common sense ought to know this. Imagine building a skyscraper miles high ? what do you think is going to happen? Eventually the building will be crushed under its own weight and pulled toward the center of mass of the planet ? this is what makes planets and stars spherical on a much larger scale. Smaller objects like boulders, houses and pebbles can be irregularly shaped, because the mechanical strength of the material is sufficient to overcome the force of gravity ? this is not the case for massive objects.

Quote:
Science problems with the Big Bang:

Atheists typically sneer at any suggestion that miracles occurred in the past (a miracle is defined as an event that contradicts natural laws of science). They associate miracles with religious beliefs and arrogantly say that miracles have no place in the discussion of science. I believe proponents of the Big Bang believe in miracles; miracles that require greater faith than believing in a Supernatural God with intelligence and abilities that far exceed our intelligence and abilities.

So finally, we cut to the chase. How sad that the best a theist or creationist can typically do is cry, ?Well, your beliefs are just as much faith based as mine!?, then cross their arms in a huff and think they?ve won some point. When your best argument is that others share faith similar to the faith you are so confident in and proud of, you must know you?re fighting a losing battle.

Suffice it to say though, there is nothing miraculous, faith-based or even convoluted about the Big Bang theory.

And again, I find it ridiculously disingenuous to paint the Big Bang as an atheist theory or something that only atheists believe. The fact of the matter is the entire Catholic Church is officially on board with the theory, as are a multitude of people from other faiths. Only fundamentalists, typically Christians, seem to have a real problem with it in this day and age.

Quote:
Science Problem #1: Where did the original matter and energy that existed before the Big Bang come from?

Here is miracle #1 for the atheist. Atheists believe a miracle occurred 15 billion years ago when matter and energy created itself from nothing. These atheists should be aware of the First Law of Thermodynamics that teaches matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed. Their faith in miracles allows them to skirt around this Law of Science.

Actually, you?ve got things reversed. It is theists who insist upon a creation ex nihlo, from literally nothing. Are you now positing that God didn?t create the universe from nothing, that He didn?t simply say ?Let there be Light? and make it so, or that God Himself must have had a creator? No, I think not. The theist position IS one of creation ex nihlo, an atheist wouldn?t be caught dead believing something that foolish.
What baffles me, is that you?ve actually answered your own question here, and are simply too thick to realize it. You?ve simply projected your own problems onto the atheist, which is sadly typical.

Atheists are very well aware of the first law of thermodynamics, and it is this very concept that makes what theists propose, a creation ex nihlo, ridiculous.

Creation ex nihlo is a classic failure of human perception.

No painting comes to exist without a painter, no building is built without an architect, etc. Seems logical enough, but do these people create from literally nothing or is it more accurate to say they assemble existing materials? For no painter starts with nothing - they start with blank canvass and paint. No builder starts with nothing, they start with brick, mortar and blueprints. Something never comes from literally nothing.

Looking at things from the perspective of a First Cause argument, which theists are quite fond of, for something to exercise influence on the universe this causal agent must have already existed. Something nonexistent can't serve as a causal agent; thus causality must assume existence. Theists arguing for a creation of the universe ex nihlo, however have their logic backward - that existence assumes causation.

What the atheist can offer is a scientific explanation that meshes with conventional logic.

If we take matter-energy to be eternal, uncaused - as our best science seems to suggest (see the first law again), then existence is simply axiomatic. The universe just is, and the Big Bang becomes more or less a transitional event. The universe as we know it began with the Big Bang, but the matter-energy was always there, it must have been - to say otherwise turns all of physics as we understand it on its head.

We know that matter-energy is conserved - always, in every instance we have ever observed or theorized about. It is but a simple and very reasonable extrapolation to then say that matter-energy has always been, and it is empirically evident. There is no need to postulate a creator or a creation ex nihlo.

Not only does science point to existence being axiomatic, but simple logic does as well, because ?nothing? is an incoherent concept. ?Nothing? is not lack, not empty, not the void, not darkness, not the absence of anything, because the absence of anything would still be something. So again, the concept of creation from literally nothing makes no sense, because ?nothing? quite literally cannot exist.

In the end, the theist is reduced to demanding to know why there is something rather than nothing ? but this too begs the question, because it presumes that nothing or non-existence ought to be the natural state of things. This is like presuming the sky is supposed to be green and then citing the fact that it is blue as evidence for a Creator.

A scientist does not ask "why is there something rather than nothing", but rather "why SHOULDN'T there be something rather than nothing". There isn't anything about the universe that suggests it shouldn't be here and be exactly as we observe it be.

All of that aside, current quantum theories may in fact have room for our universe coming from what would be perceptually (not literally) nothing. Such theories included the universe arising from a quantum vacuum fluctuation that propagated itself, proposed by Ed Tyron in the early 1970s and a variation upon this proposed by Alex Vilenkin in the 80s that was dubbed quantum tunneling.

The most lucid theory going at the moment was proposed by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, and is often dubbed the ?no boundary proposal?. Their view provides a description of the universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it ? pretty much what I?ve laid out above. For Hawking, this description is timeless, for as one looks at earlier and earlier times, they find that the universe is not eternal, but has no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of Planck time (10-43 seconds), our classical understanding of space-time is reduced to quantum soup. In Hawking's exact words:

?The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.? - A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

Whew. We?re just getting warmed up here.

Quote:
Science Problem #2: How did order arise from disorder?

Here comes miracle #2 for the atheist. Their faith in the Big Bang allows them to ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The 2nd Law of Thermo teaches which way a process will go. It teaches that in a closed system like our Universe it will go from order to disorder.

What does the Big Bang preach to its disciples? The Big Bang teaches that the Universe went from disorder to order!

It teaches disorderly helium and hydrogen gas formed orderly solar systems. Someone can believe that if they chose to, but they should never teach it is a scientific position.

This is just plain ridiculous, and again all too familiar.

The Big Bang most certainly does not violate the second law of thermodynamics either, nor does evolution (I never get tired of hearing that one). Theists and creationists would do themselves a gigantic favor to stop pontificating on subjects they clearly have no understanding of.

First of all, entropy is not a measure of order or disorder, per se, nor does it stipulate that ordered systems are not possible, even for a closed system.

Let me assure you that what follows is greatly simplified, but I wanted to take a look at the actual energy states of the universe, pre and post Big Bang.

The total mass-energy of the universe is constant (1st law of thermodynamics). Entropy is a spread in the distribution of energy over quantum states (from a quantum standpoint) or phase space (from a classical standpoint) over time. In more basic terms, entropy is a measure of the "quality" of heat or available energy. It is essentially the thermodynamic principle that gives us equilibrium and states that systems tend to move toward equilibrium - i.e. a hot or cold object tends to reach the temperature of the environment it is in. (Note that while in general systems move toward equilibrium, it is still possible to move away from equilibrium at points within the system where there are energy gradients).

The only cosmological implication I can think of that results directly from the 2nd Law is the theory of the "heat death" of our universe - that once our universe reaches equilibrium it will be cold, dark and desolate (if there is not enough dark matter in the universe to halt its expansion and quantum fluctuations don't become large players, that is).

The theory goes that once the universe reaches maximum entropy that there will be no more free energy to sustain motion or life and the temperature of the universe would be around absolute zero. It is important to realize what "heat death" means here - we are talking about maximum entropy for a given state and temperature. It is very possible and indeed many theorize that before the universe began its current expansion that it was also at "heat death" - albeit at a different, state and temperature. We are not necessarily talking about temperature, but free energy - the amount of work that can be extracted from a system
If the system is at maximum entropy it is at equilibrium for that particular state by definition. Change the state (temperature, pressure, volume, etc) and you move away from equilibrium.

Now for some math and thermodynamics, brace yourselves:
Free energy is the amount of work that a system can do - you can think of it as the amount of useful energy in the system; energy that can cause motion, or heat things up. There are two kinds of free energy - Helmholtz and Gibbs.

Gibbs free energy is defined as:

G = H - TS

where G is the Gibb's energy, H is enthalpy*, T is temperature and S entropy.

Any natural process will occur spontaneously if and only if the associated change in G for the system is negative. This means that, a system reaches equilibrium when the associated change in G for the system is zero (ΔG = zero), and no spontaneous process will occur if the change in G is positive (ΔG > 0).

*-enthalpy is heat content.

Helmholtz free energy is defined as:

A = U-TS

where A is the Helmholtz energy, U is the internal energy of the system, T is the temperature and S is entropy.

The total work performed on a system at constant temperature in a reversible process is equal to the change in Helmholtz free energy.

Now, let's do some math.

(In the below <= and >= will be greater than or equal too and less than or equal to. dX will be the partial derivative of the property X.)

The second law states that in a closed system, equilibrium is reached when entropy is maximized:

dS >= dQ/dT

Now, let's examine "heat death". Let's say for simplicity?s sake that prior to the universe expanding, it was at a constant temperature and volume.

A little algebra allows us to write the 2nd law as:

dQ - TdS = 0

One can combine the 1st and 2nd laws in a well known equation (I'll derive this if you are really interested, but it should be well known to people in engineering and physics fields):

dU = TdS - pdV

substituting in the Helmholtz equation:

dA = dQ - TdS - pdV - SdT

If the universe were at constant temperature and volume (say prior to the big bang) we get:

dA(T,V) = dQ - TdS <= 0

So at constant T and V the Helmholtz free energy will seek a minimum - this means that for a spontaneous process to occur the net change in free energy must be zero (equilibrium) or decrease (not yet at equilibrium). Alternatively, one could expand the system and reduce the temperature - and this is what we think happened and is happening now.

So now we have an expanding, cooling system. Similarly we can substitute the Gibb's equation and get:

dG(T,P) = dQ - TdS <=0

This means that as our universe cools and expands to a constant temperature the Gibbs energy seeks a minimum. For a spontaneous process to occur the change in Gibbs energy must be negative (if not yet at equilibrium) or zero (if at equilibrium).

In the two cases I've described - two states of the universe, there would be no free energy available to do work and the system would be essentially static.

That the universe will reach another state of heat death depends on whether or not there is enough dark matter-energy in the universe to halt its expansion. Why the universe began to expand in the first place is a bit of a mystery, but ample empirical evidence tells us that this expansion did indeed occur.
So no, ?disorderly? helium and hydrogen didn?t form the stars, for these gases certainly aren?t what one could ever call disorderly from an entropic point of view. Helium and hydrogen did condense as the universe began to cool, and were coalesced into stars by gravitational forces between the molecules.

Quote:
Science Problem #3: If that clump of matter did expand, what caused it to expand and how much energy was there to spread this matter at such great distances?

Miracle #3 for the atheist. Simply put, gravity would prevent this matter from expanding. Without explaining what caused the matter to expand and create this Universe, the atheist believes in a miracle that violates the laws of Gravity.

I marvel at how a person who doesn?t even know why planets and stars are spherical can presume to now pontificate on the laws of gravity.

Like I alluded to above, it is a bit of a mystery why the universe began to expand, but that expansion is certainly not a violation of any physical laws, especially gravity. This probably boils down to you erroneously seeing the Big Bang as an actual explosion; you?ve made it clear that you refuse to learn why people who actually understand the theory don?t see it as such in your first paragraph. The energy for this expansion didn?t come from anywhere, it was already there. The singularity the universe we know today originated from contained exactly the same amount of matter-energy it does now.

A simple quantum perturbation could have upset the equilibrium of the proto-universe and set it off on an expansion as I have previously described. We also see what may be an analogous situation and a violation of the ?laws of gravity according to theists? in black holes, which emit Hawking radiation in the form of x-rays and photons ? yes, black holes slowly evaporate, even with all that gravity holding them together.

The point is, even if it is a mystery why the universe began to inflate, it doesn?t change the fact that we have obscene amounts of empirical observations that tell us this is exactly what has happened, and the mere existence of a mystery certainly does not lend any sort of credence to one?s case for a deity. That we don?t know something, means only that we don?t know ? nothing more. Mysteries aren?t a problem for science, rather, science thrives on mysteries. If we already had all the answers, there would be no reason to explore any further.

I can?t believe I?ve rambled on this long without sharing some of the evidence we have for the Big Bang, so allow me to indulge myself:

We have empirical evidence like cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This CMB was predicted as a result of Big Bang theory, it is a remnant of the very young and VERY hot infant universe and was first observed in 1965 by radio-astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who shared the Noble for their discovery.

Then there is the fact that galaxies are moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called Hubble's Law, named after Edwin Hubble who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

Then there?s a little thing called Olber?s Paradox, which is why the night sky isn?t filled totally with starlight and as bright as the sun. The only plausible explanations for this are that distant stars are red-shifted into obscurity because they are traveling away from us at enormous speeds, or that the light from very distant stars hasn?t reached us yet. Both explanations support the inflationary Big Bang model of the universe.

Then there?s the homogeneity and isotropy of the observed universe ? gobs of data showing that our location in the universe is not special or central and that the universe looks the same in all directions ? more support for the Big Bang.

And there?s time dilation in supernovae light curves! This was a direct prediction of the inflationary Big Bang model and has been directly observed several times.

Just read the two links above myself today, at least I learned something from responding to this gibberish.

Quote:
Science Problem #4: The atheist?s 4th miracle....what caused the helium and hydrogen gas to expand then later come together to form stars.....Laws of Physics tell us the gas should keep expanding....not compress upon itself and miraculously form stars planets and galaxies.

We?ve already been over this. What, exactly, is the ?law of physics? that would prevent this, anyway? Planet and star formation is a well documented and well understood concept, and as I?ve already explained, the formation is caused by gravity ? not a miracle.

We can see the formation of stars today in nebulae throughout the universe.

Stars are born in gas clouds like the Eagle Nebula. It is here that dense clouds of gas coalesce and collapse under their own gravity to form a rotating ball. As more and more material is gathered due to the growing gravitational mass of the proto-star, the temperature and pressure and speed of rotation increases. This is very simple high school level physics. Eventually, the central core of this dense cloud of gas and dust will become a star, and the surrounding disk of dust on the central axis may further coalesce into planets.

The star once formed will persist so long as the star maintains its internal pressure against its own gravity, this is done by the nuclear fusion of light elements into heavier ones. When the star runs out of fuel, depending on its solar mass it will either swell into a red giant and then shrink to a white dwarf while ejecting it?s planetary nebula, like for instance the Cat?s Eye nebula, or go supernova, ejecting it?s heavy elements into the universe.

These are well understood concepts, and there is nothing miraculous about them.

As a side note, I?d like to say that I love it when creationists and theists drone on and on about the ?laws of science?, as if they controlled our universe. A physical law or a scientific law is simply a human description of how the universe consistently behaves. Human descriptions based on human observations. Because of this they are open to refinement or outright rebuttal as new observations are made.

IDers and creationist like to ignore this fact, and claim that such laws actually govern or control the universe - for example saying that the laws of chemistry control atomic and molecular interactions, or prevent this or that. Utter bollocks. This is like saying that a reporter covering a political election controls the election's outcome by writing the story. It is ridiculous to think that the laws of science, which are accounts of human observation, control the phenomena and observations they are derived from.

Quote:
Which miracles are you going to believe, miracles from God or miracles from energy and matter. Both positions have faith, both positions believe in miracles, the choice of where you place your faith is the most important choice you will ever make.

Sorry, but science does not require faith. It takes no faith to believe in gravity or in well understood and documented aspects of our universe which are based on sound reasoning and empirical evidence. Oh, and notice again that the best a theist can ever hope to do is denigrate reasonable positions by attempting to bring those positions down to their own faith based position. You aren?t going to win any battles or converts by crying, ?Well, your beliefs are just as ridiculous and as much faith based as mine!? ? especially when that simply isn?t true.

Also, be sure not to miss the thinly veiled threat as to where one puts their so called faith. Classic!

Quote:
There are many more problems but space is limited. I highly recommend Donald deYoung?s book: "Astronomy and the Bible." You can order it from ICR by calling (619) 448-0900.

I highly recommend that you save yourself $15.95, and simply head over to the Rational Response Squad. Reason won?t cost you a cent.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


ellechero
ellechero's picture
Posts: 47
Joined: 2006-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Fucking beautiful Mr. Five.

Fucking beautiful Mr. Five. Thanks for taking the time!


jester700
Posts: 105
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
As ever, you rock, yellow!

As ever, you rock, yellow!


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
First of all, thanks to

First of all, thanks to Yellow number five for that thorough post of his. This is less ambitious, and just meant to address some of the complete ignorance displayed in this post. I just can't stand people abusing my research area astronomy like this.

MrPeters wrote:

So, dont ever use it in an argument with me. Like I already said, you guys are the ones on this forum and website saying we use "common sense" and "logic" to support our beliefs. Just a quick FACT. Interstellar distances are only accurate up to 100 light years away. The distance between the earth and sun varies, making precise distances impossible to measure. You know, give or take a hundred million miles. So when they say a star is a million light years away, they are guessing. Measuring a star 10 light years away is equivalant to setting up to surveying levels side by side 18 inches apart and measuring a point 10 miles away. 100 miles for 100 light years and so forth. Also, the speed of light is no longer a constant. It can be slowed down and even stopped. So..... Chew on that for a bit.

You have no idea what accuracy and precision mean do you? Every time an astronomer states how far away something is, he/she has to state what method was used to obtain that distance, how accurate the measurement, and what that means for the distance to the object in question. And the parallax method (you know it's called that, right?) works further out than 100 light years, the Hipparchos satellite takes it out beyond 1000 light years. Of course, all those distances come with error bars. Beyond that, we have main sequence fitting, apparent magnitude measurements, kinetic distances, cepheid variables, Hubble's law and type 1a supernova, all of which calibrated against each other. To call that guessing is to completely redefine the meaning of the word.

Then we have the obvious screwup that the numbers you state with regard to the angle don't work out. You're off by an order of magnitude. Embarrassing. Redo the math, then you can act like you know what you're talking about.

It is quite amazing though, the accuracy with which scientists can measure those parallaxes, isn't it? That speaks to the success of science and engineering. What has theology done to gain knowledge of the universe?

MrPeters wrote:

You blindly accept those of you who are "smarter" than you with no question? So what is the differnce between the PHD in the background of science and the PHD from seminary? They are BOTH very educated, dedicated and "smarter" than us. This tells me that you have been taught over the years WHAT to think and not HOW to think. As long as Mr. PHD science dude say it, it must be true. If only you knew the political hierarchy in the scientific community...geez do I even need to go there. I dont think you would get it. Anyways, I guess ignorance is bliss.

Again, you talk like you have a clue about science and the community. Every Mr. PhD science dude has to back up his theories with the evidence. The ThD dude on the other hand argues over details in a book containing myths. In short, science deals with reality, theology deals with myths. Which is more useful?


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: The ThD dude on

KSMB wrote:
The ThD dude on the other hand argues over details in a book containing myths. In short, science deals with reality, theology deals with myths. Which is more useful?

It depends on what you are trying to do. If you want to go to a mythical place its best to use the rules and knowledge of mythology. If you want to do something in the real world, then science is the more useful tool.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Sometimes it's better to use

Sometimes it's better to use mythology if you are trying to get people to do what you want, too.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Sometimes

MattShizzle wrote:
Sometimes it's better to use mythology if you are trying to get people to do what you want, too.

Politicians figured this out long ago.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
No shit!

No shit! Laughing out loud