Conservation of energy

[The Tanager]

I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.

Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?

(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal

(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 89 by For_The_Kingdom]

There isn't any alternative, abiogenesis would have to be true if God doesn't exist; that's the point.

Another point is that if abiogenesis is true, God may still exist, but not the creator God described in the Bible.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Bust Nak; long time no see...what in the heck is going on with ya, brethren?

Why would you think that? your conclusion does not follow.

First, answer me this; could abiogenesis be false? Yes or no?

The same way evolution is true now, with reproduction, variation, inheritance and selection, changing (perhaps more importantly, splitting) groups of organisms over time; resulting in a "tree of life" with each leaf coming from a common root. It would help if you could explain why you'd think evolution can't be true if God does not exist and abiogenesis is false.

Ok, now answer me this; if God does not exist, and abiogenesis is false...how would life originate, much less evolve?

That depends on what exactly is encompassed by the term "abiogenesis," panspermia can be considered an alternative.

Panspermia is still under the "abiogenesis" umbrella. It is still life from nonlife, regardless of many slick little terms you want to use to describe it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Another point is that if abiogenesis is true, God may still exist, but not the creator God described in the Bible.

But that is an entirely different subject, isn't it? Intelligent design won't get you to Christian theism..but it will get you to theism (or deism), in general.

But don't worry, you will eventually get to Christian theism...small steps, not leaps and bounds.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 78 by For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 78 by For_The_Kingdom]

Right, and when it was discovered that the universe began to exist, it was like, "But wait, how can all matter and energy begin to exist, when matter cannot be created nor
destroyed".

The universe began to exist in it's current configuration at the moment of the big bang. That matter/energy began to exist with the big bang is entirely YOUR interpretation. The big bang was the explosion of energy that resulted in the creation of the UNiverse. Prior to the creation of the universe matter/energy existed in a super compressed form referred to as the initial singularity. Or at least in a state close to a conceptualized true singularity. A very compressed form of energy. Just as all of the matter/energy that has disappeared into a black hole once existed in our universe prior to being compressed into a singularity, or something close to a true singularity, and disappearing from our plane of existence. It still exists. It's just that we can on longer perceive it. It's gone somewhere else, just as the matter/energy that comprise our universe, apparently, came from somewhere else.

Let's put this all into perspective with an analogy. Two men have walked through a long series of doors, and behind every door they have discovered something which explained the conditions that existed prior to the door they just went through. Now they are are standing before a door which is currently locked. This is not new. Most of the previous doors were locked until they figured out a way to open them. One man says, "I'll bet there's something more to learn beyond that door." The other man say's, "I KNOW what's beyond that door. There is a fifty foot tall dragon with huge wings, purple and green scales, and glowing red eyes behind this door. And the dragon created all of the other doors. So the question becomes, which man is more LIKELY to be to be closer to the truth?

And if that analogy is not clear enough for you, it is observed that there is an unbroken chain of cause and event leading into the past. Doors that open leading us to interesting answers concerning what occurred previously. We are currently standing in front of a locked door that is the big bang. I am pointing out that there is no reason not to suppose that that the big bang is not just another effect of a previous cause, and that the chain continues on. Perhaps eternally. You insist that because we do not yet know what is behind the big bang, the cause previous to the big bang represents the first cause. And this first cause, you insist, is an invisible omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being, who exists outside of time and space, and creates universes with a word. Which makes the claim of a fifty foot tall dragon with huge wings, purple and green scales, and glowing red eyes seem almost plausible in comparison. In fact however, both the answers represent nothing more than make believe. They have been entirely imagined into existence and declared to be true.

So what CAUSED the big bang? The tiniest vibration of a single quantum bit would cause it. Or it maybe that the occurrence of a true singularity is not possible, and at a critical moment of collapse the collapsing mass blew up in a different direction. The way that black holes disappear from our plane of existence.

So obviously, you would need to come up with a theory to explain such an effect, and you can only do that with either a pre-big bang scenario, or a transcendent cause scenario (God).

There is already a cause for the big bang on the table. The big bang occured when a state known as a singularity, a condition where all of the matter/energy of the universe was crushed down so small that all time and space were eliminated. Or at least to a state approaching a theoretical singularity. Prior to that, presumably, there occurred a period of gravitational collapse. We have examples of this occurring naturally in our universe. We refer to them as black holes. Black holes represent physical evidence. Making up answers and declaring them to be true is both pointless and useless.

And if we use the Occams Razor principal, we want to look for the simplier cause first, which would indeed be the pre-big bang scenario...but the problem with that is simple; there isn't any scientific evidence supporting it, because if there was, the scenario wouldn't be haunted by the infinity problem.

Occam's razor predicts that the simplest answer is likely to be the right answer. Does an invisible omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being, who exists outside of time and space, and creates universes with a word really seem the simplest answer to you?

So we have evidence AGAINST the first law of thermodynamics, so now we can only "alter" the law...and we do this by stating that the first law if still cool, but it only comes into play after the universe began to exist...now that the universe exists, the first law certainly applies...as energy cannot in fact be created nor destroyed.

None of the current laws of physics have ever been discredited. At least not yet. Except, of course, in believer make believe.

Um, I didn't just make it up. From the time we began this dialogue, I've been mentioning the infinity problem every single time, haven't I? That isn't me making things up, that is me pointing out a fatal flaw in your theory.

And by fatal, I truly mean fatal.

But you haven't really addressed the cause of God problem, have you?" Because believers declare this to be a mystery. A theologically dead end from which no answers can ever be expected.

Either God has existed eternally, which destroys your argument that infinity is impossible, or God "came into being" at some point. Did God create Himself? Or was there an earlier creator Being? How long has THIS creator being been around?

What is the cause of the "first" cause?

God either began to exist, somehow, some way, which means there was a cause prior to your "first cause,"or He has existed eternally. And that is the fatal flaw in YOUR declaration that infinity is impossible. You have yet to address this problem. Which is what I meant by spinning your wheels and blowing smoke.

Right, that is the Standard Model of the big bang, and no one is saying that the singularity was just sitting there for eternity and waiting to expand, either. But again, it goes right back to the infinity problem (which isn't going anywhere, btw).

The theoretical initial singularity that caused the big bang must have gone through a process of becoming a singularity, or a state approaching a singularity. We see that black hole singularities (or a state approaching a singularity) occur when gravity causes matter/energy to undergo collapse and become super compressed. So we have our example. According to Stephen Hawking (may peace be upon him) black holes will, over the course of trillions of years, eventually evaporate back out the way they came. If this is true, then conditions inside a black hole ARE NOT the complete elimination of time. It also gives rise to the possibility that our universe will eventually evaporate back out the way IT came. That will represent the death of the universe. But the energy will not have been destroyed, just returned back the way it came. I wouldn't wait around for that.

Infinity problem.

Cause of the first cause problem. Which inevitably comes down to a necessity for the existence (or at least the concept) of infinity.

This is what I meant by we both agree, but for different reasons. Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. This indicates that it is infinite in duration. You have declared
that infinity is illogical, but yet have declared the existence of a first cause. And this really IS entirely illogical. If the first cause came into being by some method, then
there was an earlier cause. If the first cause has always existed, then infinity has been established.

That is the oscillating theory, which was proven wrong a long time ago.

Absolutely nothing has been "proven." The oscillating universe theory prevailed for several decades. And then it was observed that the universe is still expanding and accelerating in its expansion. Most astrophysicists had previously assumed that the expansion of the universe should have slowed due to gravity. What we currently have are two competing mysteries. One is called dark matter, and one is called dark energy. First, there is every possibility that these things are actually the same phenomena. Because matter IS energy.

Matter that returns to its original state of energy will be in the form of radiation, some of it moving at the speed of light. Radiation causes expansion. There is matter in between the galaxies. It's extremely diffuse, but the amount of space between galaxies is enormous. And matter is energy. If this matter is currently in the process of giving up its energy, then that explains the currently observed expansion of the universe. Matter within the galaxies however, is being recycled due to gravity. Causing even more gravity. So we are still left with the theoretical possibility that the energy between the galaxies, referred to as "dark" energy because it does not shine and is extraordinarily difficult to detect, represents the energy which is currently driving the expansion of the universe, and will eventually be used up. With no expansive force between the galaxies, gravity should cause the galaxies to begin to be pulled together by gravity. Gravity will cause the universe to contract. But you see, both the heat death model of the universe, and the oscillating universe model, are simply possibilities. You need to stop trying to skip to the end of a book that can't yet be written and then declaring that you know the ending.

Yes it was. According to the standard model, the universe (all natural reality) began to exist. There was no matter, no energy, no space, and no time prior to it. It was because of this discovery that they had to postulate a pre-big bang scenario, which is where the "steady state" and "oscillating" model came from.

Wikipedia
Multiverse
The multiverse (or meta-universe) is a hypothetical set of various possible universes including the universe which humans live in. Together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, the physical laws and the constants that describe them. The miscellaneous distinct universes within the multiverse are called the "parallel universes", "other universes" or "alternative universes".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

What you are claiming is anything but a done deal. "They" are postulating that there is far more than what we can currently detect. Carl Sagan referred to it as the "cosmos." Everything that exists.

Everything that actually exists. As opposed to everything the we can currently detect. The ancients thought that the universe represented the few thousands of stars visible to the naked eye. They were wrong by a factor of many trillions. In more recent times it was believed that the Milky Way represented the entire universe. Until the early 20th century when it was discovered that the Andromeda Nebula was actually the Andromeda Galaxy. We now know that there are hundreds of billions of other galaxies. Because scientific research is ongoing. Religion however is based on dogma. Dogma is fixed.

This was all out of desperation. They knew the implications of a cosmic beginning.

Science operates without consideration of religious assumptions. If religious assumptions are true and valid, than science and religion should overlap. But that is not really occurring.

What does answering the question of "how technology work" have to do with the first law of thermodynamics?

The very fact that you would ask such a question establishes your profound lack of understanding the basic nature of science.

No common understanding ot the laws of physics and quantum mechanics, then no working technology. Most of the early scientists were quite religious. Einstein was devoted to his religion of Judaism as a boy. By the end of his life however he was the consummate agnostic. His view of reality changed as his understanding of the way the universe ACTUALLY works changed. Virtually ALL of the leading scientists today are, at best, skeptical of religion, and at worst, avowed atheists. Or maybe it's the other way around.

But you see, technology is BASED on working physics. Edison used the trial and error method for coming up with many of his inventions. Modern technology is much too complicated and sophisticated to be based on pure trial and error any longer. An actual understanding of what is possible and why is essential. Which is what makes Christians texting back and forth on their computers and smartphones that science doesn't know what it is talking about so maddeningly ironic.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Christians on the other hand are completely nonplussed at the undeniable fact that they have an ongoing record of being right in their most important claim that has an accuracy rate which currently stands at zero for two thousand years.

?

Christians have been making an unrealistic claim for 2,000 years, and have an unbroken record of being wrong for 2,000 years. Is that clear enough for you? And yet even an unbroken empty claim record of 2,000 years fails to be recognized or acknowledged by the UNfailingly gullible.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The concept of God runs into the same problem with the infinity "thingy," by the way.

It doesn't, actually...because no one is saying that God endured through infinite time.

No one, and most definitely not you, is explaining how God came to be at all. Despite much prompting. If God is eternal, than He is of infinite duration. Infinite duration is possible. If God came into being, than what was the cause of God? And if God was caused, than God is the effect of a prior cause. God is NOT the first cause.

Who said that God operates(ed) outside of time?

infinity
[in-fin-i-tee]
noun,
1. the quality or state of being infinite.
2. something that is infinite.
3. infinite space, time, or quantity.
4. an infinite extent, amount, or number.
5. an indefinitely great amount or number.

eternity
[ih-tur-ni-tee]
noun,
1. infinite time; duration without beginning or end.
2. eternal existence, especially as contrasted with mortal life:
the eternity of God.

You seem to be attempting to make the case that infinity and eternity are two separate concepts. But they are not. Both deal with the concept of limitless time, except that the concept of infinity is not restricted merely to a contemplation of time. You can't undermine one without undermining the other.

The argument against infinity holds true regardless of any particular theory of time.

Only if you convolute the meaning of infinity and eternity to indicate that God exists eternally, but not infinitely. A claim which has no meaning, by the way

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
I am reasonably sure that the universe doesn't not operate according to your declarations. Eternity is an incomprehensible question.

You call it incomprehensible, and I say regardless of what you call it, the fact remains; either natural reality is eternal, or it isn't. Either yes or no.

There are questions for which a definite yes or no answer are not yet possible. All I can tell you is that is has been observed through countless experiments that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from form to form. Which makes it eternal, apparently, according to the known laws of physics. This would indicate that natural reality is eternal, YES.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
It means that there is more to the cosmos than what we can perceive. But we know that this is true already, because the material, the information, in a black hole has also
disappeared off to somewhere that we cannot perceive. Given the incredible rate at which we are learning however, this does not mean that we can NEVER perceive these other states of existence.

Infinity problem.

Misappropriating the concept of eternity problem.

I am not necessarily using time, though..I am more focused on events within time...and I am saying that there couldn't have been an infinite amount of events within time which lead to the big bang event, in time.

I have no means of speaking meaningfully of events which are not within time, I am afraid. But then, I am not someone who makes advocates making stuff up and declaring it to be true. I don't mind make believe actually. I do mind confusing make believe with reality however.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
For_The_Kingdom has spoken. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I don't know.

Pick any number you choose. If God is omnipotent, then he can always add an extra angel if He chooses to do so. Therefore the answer is that there is no limit to the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Unless of course you choose to put limits on what God can accomplish. You made Him up in the first place, so please feel free.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
We are not the first to grapple with the question of infinity. What came before eternity is not a question I am capable of answering.

All you need to do is give one example of infinity being traversed, or collected. Just one.

Energy can neither be created or destroyed. That implies, at least, that it is infinite. You believe that God is eternal. That implies that He has existed infinitely. Which of us
is corect? My statement is based on observation and experimentation. Your statement is based on what you have imagine to be true. Observation versus make believe.

There is a difference is living in eternity (which is possible)...and living in eternity within time (which is impossible).

You need to understand the difference, and then holla at me.

"Who said that God operates(ed) outside of time?" - Ouote: For_The_Kingdom.

"No one is making the case that God existed eternally in time." - Quote: For_The_Kingdom, post 75 of this string

These sorts of vague responsces can make for misunderstandings.

There is no difference. Infinity deals with an unending number. Eternity deals exclusively with time unending. It's the same idea, except that one word is a bit more
exclusive. Words are not the property of the religious and philosophers to reinterpret at their whim.

And the universe is like one big car..it was designed with a finite amount of usable energy in the system (and systems within the system), energy that has been running out from the time it was "wounded up".

When you wind up a clock you put energy potential on the mainspring. It eventually runs down. Rivers also hold potential energy. And we turn that energy into electricity. So the energy is always there, it's simply a matter of learning to retrieve and utilize it.

Because the universe is not "running down." Energy is simply changed from form to form. The universe is however expanding. So energy is spreading out. If this were to continue indefinitely then theoretically the quanta could reach a point in which it can no longer interact with itself. But it is energy that is driving the expansion. Gravity is unrelenting, and it is patient. Gravity never "runs down."

No one is denying the fact that the universe is expanding, nor is anyone denying the fact that energy changes form. My point of contention is; the universe couldn't have been "changing forms" forever, and it couldn't have reached low entropy from the initial high entropy state.

The initial state of the universe was, it is believed, something approaching a state of infinitely low entropy. What caused the initial low entropy state? Compression. All the different forms of energy were compressed into a single entity we call the singularity. What causes compression on such a massive scale? Gravity.

One is logically impossible (changing forms forever), and one is naturally impossible (high degrees of order from high degrees of disorder).

This is a misunderstanding of what represents order, and what represents disorder. Believers seem to consider the present state of the universe "ordered." But the universe was in perfect state of order at the initial singularity. Everything had been compressed down to a single thing, presumably by gravity. That's as orderly as it gets. The universe is currently moving to a state of disorder. Things are spreading out. But there, lurking in the background, is gravity, unrelenting, which is constantly working to pull everything back together again. One possibility is that gravity and energy are perfectly balanced, allowing each to prevail over the other for a time.

And unfortunately for you and your position, there is no answers from logical reasoning nor scientific naturalism that will allow you to adequately address those two concerns.

I believe that I just did. You on the other hand seem to be insisting that God is eternal, but not infinite. And that is confused. Where did God come from? You won't say.

Because you have no logical answer to that question.

How a star is formed is irrelevant to the discussion. Red herring.

Apparently you didn't like the answer. But the point is matter is changed into energy, then clumps together under the force of high speed collisions and gravity to become matter again, and then eventually is converted back into energy. This seems to be an observation that conflicts with your suppositions.

Um, based on the evidence I have that matter and energy couldn't have existed forever. Now, I agree that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but that law comes into play AFTER the universe began to exist. Once it began to exist, it cannot be created nor destroyed (naturally, that is).

But you give no evidence for that. You have simply declared it to be true.

Something which began to exist cannot logically say "I was here all of this time". Illogical.

You began to exist. Were you here all of this time? Only as particles. Which is what the universe is made of. You suppose that the universe was created whole cloth. I recognize that everything which has occurred since the big bang has been a series of cause and effect events. I see no reason not to suppose that the big bang is not simply an effect event from an earlier cause in a long and, perhaps, unending chain of cause and effect events. I have no evidence that it is otherwise. But then, I am not prone to simply making things up and declaring them to be true. Which happens to be the defining trait of religion.

Wait, so the configuration of the human body; you call that disorder?? I wholeheartedly disagree.

If the human body were composed of a single element, THAT would be order. But the human body is made up of eleven primary elements, and roughly sixteen trace elements. Most of these elements were created in the explosions of stars. Stars mainly convert hydrogen, with one proton, into helium, which contains two protons. Order to disorder. When stars blow up however, they spread disorder throughout the galaxy. Which is necessary for life. Life is a result of disorder.
https://askabiologist.asu.edu/content/atoms-life

DNA/RNA, take your pick. Either way, where did the information contained in the DNA/RNA come from? DNA is a code, a biological code for life...and codes have programmers. You need someone to write the code...which leads you right back to intelligent design, but on a molecular level.

Does the wind and rain have a programmer? What about earthquakes? The answer is NO. Things occur naturally in accordance with quantum mechanics. Biology is simply an ongoing experiment in chemical change and the rearrangement of elements into molecules of ever increasing complexity. Recent experiments indicate that RNA can be created naturally in outer space conditions.

When the RNA molecule attaches itself to another very simple molecule, under the right conditions, it replicates itself and the entire molecule. We can see this occur today and we call the call the result viruses. Viruses can also be very complex, replicating themselves through the nearly infinitely more complex molecule DNA. Viruses serve no purpose. They do not respire and they do not excrete. Because they are not living, and therefore they do not die. They have to be broken apart, or deprived of the conditions that allow for replication. Viruses are a type of proto life. The existence of some type of proto life was necessary to evolve into early forms of true life. And that was the early bacterias.

Well, I can't tell you where an uncaused cause came from, but I can prove that one

You can't "prove" it at all. Because you have no actual physical evidence. You can only declare it to be so.

Right, and if you enter an abandoned building and you see a hot cup of coffee on a table, you would know that the cup wasn't sitting there for eternity. The heat is leaving the cup and it isn't coming back.

Reheating the cup is as simple as subjecting it to another energy source. Because the higher state of energy represented by the hot coffee will quickly reach equilibrium with the lower state of heat energy in the building. The molecules in the coffee are moving faster than the molecules in the building. But they will equalize. The heat index in the building will rise by a tiny percentage of a degree. Due to the law of equal but opposite reaction.

Are you familiar with the way a diesel engine works? A diesel engine takes fuel, which can be in a fairly cold state, and raises it to a high state of heat entirely through compression. Because when you compress things the molecules tend to become excited through proximity. Quantum mechanics at work. The molecules get hot because they contain positively and negatively charged particles, which causes them to be attracted or repelled by each other. The basis of quantum mechanics.

Diesels have no spark plug to ignite the fuel. They work entirely through compression. You know what else compressess things? Gravity. Which is why the center of the earth is made up of molten magma, and why stars burn.

It is the same concept with the universe..in the same way the heat (energy) is leaving the cup, all of the energy within the universe is becoming disordered, unbalanced...the
entropy is steadily becoming higher and higher...but the whole thing started with astronomical MATHEMATICAL precision.

So its been wounded up with mathematical precision, and over time, the battery has been running out and it will get to a point at which there will be no usable energy left to keep the thing going.

This is a FACT.

All energy is usable energy.

Gravity compresses things. This is a FACT. Consider this. Gravity is the weakest of the forces. You constantly overcome gravity with your muscles. But give this a try. Hold a ping pong ball at arms length from your body. Gravity will overcome your muscles in very short order. Because gravity is unrelenting. The universe is currently expanding because of the force of energy. But the energy is dissipated as it spreads out. And gravity is always there waiting to reel it in again.

Again, it couldn't have been changing forever.

Again, not according to observation and experimentation.

Its been losing energy throughout its duration of existence, you know what happens to a system that is losing energy that isn't being replaced with more energy? The system dies..

The universe is expanding, this is true. And as the universe expands the energy become more diffuse, and less energetic. Except in the clumps of concentrated areas of matter/energy that we call galaxies. Billions of galaxies.

According to the heat death model, if the universe continues to expand forever, then the universe will experience heat death. Unless there is a force that can pull everything back together again and cause the energy to become more energetic. Do we perceive such a force?. Yes in fact we do. It's called gravity. Do we perceive any time in which energy existed in a state of nearly infinitely low entropy? Yes we do. We call it the big bang.

Then you agree with me that unless there is some kind of external "intervention", the system will die.

Gravity represents this "intervention." Perhaps. This is not a question that will be directly answered for billions of years. We might work out a more well developed answer through ongoing observation and experimentation well before that, hopefully.

Gravity seems a likely candidate for intervening to reenergize the universe. What is your likely candidate for an external "intervention" that will continue to sustain God? Get to work and make something up.

Then you agree with me..I think..

I seriously doubt it. But then, clearly you did not understand what I have been saying.
Or you simply choose to ignore it.

So basically, you are asking "What is the cause of the uncaused cause"? Cant help you with that one, buddy.

That's because an uncaused cause is not part of our experience. Declaring that there must be an uncaused cause requires an assumption which cannot be sustained by observable evidence. It is assumed into existence. It is make believe.

Infinite regression however eliminates the problem of an uncaused cause. It is very hard to conceive of though.

Yeah, and if I asked you to explain the origins of your computer, and you can't use any external intelligent design agent as your answer, how will you explain it? Remember, the answer has to lie solely within the computer.

How will you explain it?

There are things which require external intelligent design, and things which occur naturally and require no external intelligent design. Watches are one type of example. Tornadoes are another type example. Did God design tornadoes? No! Did humans design tornadoes? No! Tornadoes are the result of the differential between warm humid air from the Gulf of Mexico, and cold dry air from Canada. The cause of this differential is the sun. Did the sun design tornadoes? No! The sun is the result of quantum mechanics in action. Quantum mechanics occurs because matter/energy interacts
with itself to cause change. There is a external cause all right, but it is naturally occurring. It's called the sun.

I also have a 1,00,000,000 (or even longer) year old empty promise of a macro biological change that is said to have occurred, and will occur within living organisms.

If the step by step process of life arising from organic compounds is still unanswered in 2,000 years, then I will join you in your skepticism. If I can still remember what the
argument was.

So apparently, you don't buy my religion (Christianity), and I don't buy your religion (evolution). And lets face it, evolution/abiogenesis is a religion.

All religions have some appeal to some kind of supernatural intervention in common. Science makes no such appeal. Science in fact works under the assumption that everything works according to natural processes which ultimately can be understood. If the supernatural exists, than that assumption is invalid. Science does not operate on an appeal to the supernatural. Science is not a religion.

Religions are dogmatic. Dogma is poisonous to science.

So can voodoo naturalism. Those macro-changes can be whatever you want it to be...reptile to bird...snake to spider...fly to penguin.

This statement is simply ignorance in action. Snakes do not evolve into spiders. Pigs can evolve into whales however, given enough time. Modern pigs are fully evolved of course, as are whales. But their linage can be traced back to a common ancestor, genetically. Just as humans and chimps are 96% the same genetically. Humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The record is there in the genes. A physical record, as opposed to made up assumptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanze ... n_ancestor

Read the definition for infinity and eternity again. Notice that they are essentially interchangeable. Religion may attempt to co-op one meaning for its purposes. But the
dictionary definitions of the word are essentially the same. Both deal with the concept of time without beginning or end. As I said, this is hardly a new concept.

infinity
[in-fin-i-tee]
noun,
1. the quality or state of being infinite.
2. something that is infinite.
3. infinite space, time, or quantity.
4. an infinite extent, amount, or number.
5. an indefinitely great amount or number.

eternity
[ih-tur-ni-tee]
noun,
1. infinite time; duration without beginning or end.
2. eternal existence, especially as contrasted with mortal life:
the eternity of God.

God existed for an eternity, but not eternity within time. Do your homework on philosophical definitions of eternity, and then get back with me

What we actually observe is that cause and effect extends back as far as it is currently possible to interpolate. And recognizing this frontier, the big bang, is relatively new. We once, and until rather recently, thought that the Milky Way galaxy was the extent of what existed. It was thought to be eternal. Why? Because we didn't yet have better evidence.

Before that, for all of human existence, the visible stars were the limits of the universe. Currently our fronteers are receding at a rapid rate. But if science should produce,
during our lifetimes, concrete evidence for those things which precipitated the big bang, the CAUSE of the big bang, then you will simply take to your computer and denounce the explanation to the world as a lie, if the answer is anything other than a supernatural one. All the while using a device which thoroughly establishes that science has some glimmering of what it is talking about.

What was the singularity doing before it expanded?

This is an interesting question. If the mass reached a state of a true singularity, then nothing should occur, ever. Because time would have stopped. Which may indicate that such a state is impossible. It has certainly resisted all attempts to explain it through physics. According to Stephen Hawking, black holes will eventually evaporate back out the way they came, in the form of what is termed Hawking radiation. That would seem to indicate that time DOES NOT STOP in a black hole, only slows to a near stop. From our perspective. Because you see, the passage of time continues outside of the black hole. Making change possible.

Its been observed that the energy cannot be destroyed from the moment it originated.

We don't observe a discreet beginning for the universe in the same way that we don't observe a discreet beginning for you. Only cause and effect at work.

The argument against infinity holds true regardless of any particular theory of time.

Only among those who have declared it to be true.

Who said that God operates(ed) outside of time?

According to Christians, there exists an invisible part of them called the immortal soul, which when they die will go to be with an invisible Being who dwells in an invisible
realm. Since this invisible realm is invisible and has been constructed entirely within the imagination of believers, I am afraid that I am unable to speak on the conditions that exist there with any certainty.

God cannot be shown to have any physical reality. The concept of God exists in your head, and your head is subject to the same constraints as time as are the rest of us.

I will leave it to you to explain how God has existed eternally, but not infinitely.

Wikipedia
Eternity
Eternity in common parlance is an infinitely long period of time. In classical philosophy, however, eternity is defined as what exists outside time while sempiternity is the

concept that corresponds to the colloquial definition of eternity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity

Religion/philosophy has defined into existence boundaries on infinity. And like everything else concerning religion, this has simply been made up and declared to be necessarily true. Necessarily true so as to conform to religious assumptions. But the assumptions are largely based on make believe and error, and not physical observable fact.

It would have actually had to begin with a "form" that was unusable, change to a form that is usable (currently), and is now going back to a form that is unusable. But we know that ain't how entropy work.

Energy is energy. All that is needed is the ability to change the energy into a form that is usable. PLants don't actually live on sunlight. They have to convert the energy from
the sun into sugar first. They then convert the sugar into other forms, one of the by products of which is oxygen. No oxygen, no animals.

As I have already pointed out, perfect order existed when all of the energy/matter was condensed into a single point called the singularity. A single thing is as orderly as it
gets. We could only exist in the disorder that occurred as matter clumped together after the big bang.

You don't get organized order from disordered chaos..that doesn't happen anywhere in nature and it certainly couldn't have happened to the universe as a whole.

Believers look at the symbiotic nature of of Earth's ecosystems and see the sort of order that implies an intelligent design. In much the same way as looking at the night sky and that concluding that the Earth is the center of the universe. This is a very uninformed way of looking at things. Reasons for reaching this conclusion are obvious, but they are wrong as it turns out. The Earth does NOT have regular seasons for planting and for reaping because an intelligent designer has decreed to to be so. The seasons are the result of the Earth's wobble which causes the northern hemisphere to lean towards the sun for a few months, and then lean away from the sun for a few months. Which causes a period in which more more sunlight reaches the surface in the northern hemisphere, and then a period in which less sunlight reaches the northern hemisphere as the north points away from the sun. This occurs just in just the opposite fashion in the southern hemisphere. Back and forth. This wobble causes a prime growing time to occur for plants part of the year, and a dormant time for the plants for part of the year. All other creatures on planet Earth have had to learn to adapt to this very regular cyclical wobble which is in fact regulated by the moon. No intelligent intervention is need. Make believe naturally arises from lack of knowledge of what is actually occurring and why. But here in their 21st century make believe is for children and the uninformed.

And chemical evolution as it relates to cells and DNA is another problem for naturalists

DNA is an evolutionarily advanced state of RNA.

Origins of DNA --Shows How Life Could Have Evolved on Early Earth or Alien Planets
September 02, 2014
"Scientists continue to investigate the development of self-replicating, intricate sets of chemistry — in other words, life — from the chemical compounds thought available on early Earth. Out of this mixture of prebiotic chemicals, two nucleic acids — RNA and DNA — emerged as champions. Astrobiologists want to understand the origin of DNA and its genetic cousin, RNA, because figuring out how life got started here on Earth is key for gauging if it might ever develop on alien planets. New research intriguingly suggests that DNA, the genetic information carrier for humans and other complex life, might have had a rather humbler origin. In some microbes, a study shows, DNA pulls double duty as a storage site for phosphate. This all-important biomolecule contains phosphorus, a sometimes hard-to-get nutrient."

"Today, these two types of biomolecules serve as the genetic information carriers for all Earthly biota. RNA on its own suffices for the business of life for simpler creatures,
such as some viruses. Complex life, like humans, however, relies on DNA as its genetic carrier."

"Many researchers think RNA must have preceded DNA as the genetic molecule of choice. RNA is more versatile, acting as both genetic code and a catalyst for chemical reactions.

Explicating the rise of DNA as a genetic material directly from RNA, however, is tricky. Compared to RNA, DNA needs significantly more supporting players for it to work well in a biological setting."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... anets.html

It has been discovered that the nucleic acids that compose RNA form naturally under outer space conditions. Which raises the possibility that the Earth was seeded with the RNA molecule early on.

You continue to receive this explanation. You may not like this explanation. But continuing to declare that science has no explanation is fraudulent. I could provide pages and pages of this sort of technical information from various sources, but then you would call it "bio-babble," and refuse to read it.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Rocks contain plenty of energy. We simply do not yet have the technology to be able to convert rocks to fit our energy needs.

And?

Rocks contain large amounts of energy. We don't currently have the technology to extract energy in a usable form from rocks, but such a practice is perfectly feasible. It would depend on whether or not the energy involved in converting rocks into energy made the effort practical.

But my point is, the energy couldn't have been changing forever, and you need an "intelligence" mechanism to get the kind of entropy needed for us to be even having this discussion.

Did you observe this statement to be true? Or did you make it up and declare it to be true.

Wikipedia
law of Conservation of Energy in physics
In physics, the law of Conservation of Energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant — it is said to be conserved over time.[1] This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another. For instance, chemical energy is converted to kinetic energy when a stick of dynamite explodes. If one adds up all the forms of energy that were released in the explosion, such as the kinetic energy of the pieces, as well as heat and sound, one will get the exact decrease of chemical energy in the combustion of the dynamite. Classically, conservation of energy was distinct from conservation of mass; however, special relativity showed that mass could be converted to energy and vice versa by E = mc2, and science now takes the view that mass–energy is conserved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

I did not make this law up and declare it to be true. It has been observed to be true through many forms of experimentation. It's called a law because it is understood to be immutable.

Unless you can tell me where the high entropy came from, and how can any event come to past if there were an infinite amount of events which preceded it, then everything you say is irrelevant.

High entropy occurs as matter/energy spreads out and interacts with itself in a less energetic fashion. Gravity however gathers matter/energy back together and returns it to a lower state of entropy. Examples of this are called black holes. And theoretically, the initial singularity that resulted in the big bang.

Where is the gas in your vehicle when the tank is on "E"? Somewhere in the atmosphere, right? So what? It being "somewhere out there" isn't helping you in your gas situation, is it? No, it isn't.

The energy isn't gone, it has just been converted to a form that I am (currently) no longer able to use. I am currently unable to use the energy that is beaming down on me from the sun as well. It feels good on my face (sometimes, at least), but it will not sustain my life. Plants on the other hand have the ability to convert the energy in the sunlight into a chemical form of energy that DOES sustain their life. It's called sugar (Cn(H2O)n). Happily, I can then feed on the plants to sustain my own life. I am especially fond of broccoli, cauliflower and carrots. I'm stealing their sugar. Hopefully the plants don't mind too much, because animals produce the CO2 that plants need, and are very helpful in spreading around plant seeds. Part of that symbiotic nature of the Earth's biosystems that I mentioned earlier. Both plants and animals take advantage of the conditions that prevail.

Its been losing energy throughout its duration of existence, you know what happens to a system that is losing energy that isn't being replaced with more energy? The system dies..

It hasn't been "losing energy" because energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted into other forms of energy. The energy is currently spreading out, however.

People starve to death. And yet the energy they need to sustain them is all around them. But people are developed biologically to be able to utilize the energy when it is in a particular form. On the starship Enterprise they convert energy into food with devices called the replicators. Science fiction certainly, but theoretically, a perfectly reasonable possibility. A steak dinner and a baked potato with all the fixings is simply a matter of the proper arrangement of protons, neutrons and electrons. Any old protons, neutrons and electrons would do the job, as long as they are in the right configuration. And if they are in that correct configuration, our bodies can break them down and extract energy from them. The point is, the system only dies if deprived of the sort of energy that it requires. The energy is NOT GONE.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
There is absolutely no evidence that cause and effect do not represent an unbroken chain into the past.

?

Yes, you have demonstrated very clearly that you do not get this. And that is because it has been largely assumed by humans pretty much forever, that EVERYTHING has a beginning. But the truth is that we observe that NOTHING has a discreet beginning. Everything is a continuation of that which went before it. Cause precedes effect without fail!


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
We come from stardust. We are a naturally forming chemical composite of the heavy elements manufactured in exploding stars that has then been subjected to billions of years of biochemistry.

Unsupported assertion.

Wikipedia
Nucleosynthesis
Nucleosynthesis is the process that creates new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons, primarily protons and neutrons. The first nuclei were formed about three minutes after the Big Bang, through the process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. It was then that hydrogen, helium and lithium formed to become the content of the first stars, and this primeval process is responsible for the present hydrogen/helium ratio of the cosmos.

With the formation of stars, heavier nuclei were created from hydrogen and helium by stellar nucleosynthesis, a process that continues today. Some of these elements, particularly those lighter than iron, continue to be delivered to the interstellar medium when low mass stars eject their outer envelope before they collapse to form white dwarfs. The remains of their ejected mass form the planetary nebulae observable throughout our galaxy.

Supernova nucleosynthesis within exploding stars by fusing carbon and oxygen is responsible for the abundances of elements between magnesium (atomic number 12) and nickel (atomic number 28).[1] Supernova nucleosynthesis is also thought to be responsible for the creation of rarer elements heavier than iron and nickel, in the last few seconds of a type II supernova event. The synthesis of these heavier elements absorbs energy (endothermic process) as they are created, from the energy produced during the supernova explosion. Some of those elements are created from the absorption of multiple neutrons (the R process) in the period of a few seconds during the explosion. The elements formed in supernovas include the heaviest elements known, such as the long-lived elements uranium and thorium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

This is "stardust." It represents the formation of the heavier elements as the result of massive star explosions. Elements that life requires to function.

Wikipedia
Biochemistry
Biochemistry, sometimes called biological chemistry, is the study of chemical processes within and relating to living organisms.[1] By controlling information flow through
biochemical signaling and the flow of chemical energy through metabolism, biochemical processes give rise to the complexity of life. Over the last decades of the 20th century,
biochemistry has become so successful at explaining living processes that now almost all areas of the life sciences from botany to medicine to genetics are engaged in biochemical research.Today, the main focus of pure biochemistry is on understanding how biological molecules give rise to the processes that occur within living cells, which in turn relates greatly to the study and understanding of tissues, organs, and whole organisms[4]—that is, all of biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry

You asked for it. Will you now read it?

The problem is not that these things are unknown, the problem is that you refuse to accept them.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Every question is a valid question. Not every question necessarily has a valid answer however. Why we exist is like asking why God exists. Got an answer?

Because existence is necessary.

If existence must necessarily be the result of a creation or a creator, explain God's existence to me. If no creation for God was necessary, then the claim that creation is necessary for existence is contradicted and is meaningless.

2+2=4...that is true..but it isn't physically true, is it? So, we have at least one thing that can be true without being physically true? So that is one stab in your theory right
there. Want another?

Timepass
Nerd Humor
Fun
How can you prove 2+2 is not equal to 4?
2 Answers
Kunal Anil Wagh
Answered Jun 10 2014 · Author has 71 answers and 123.1k answer views
Originally Answered: How can you prove 2+2 is not equal to 4?
Consider this equalities and modifications:

-20 = -20

16-36 = 25-45
adding (+81/4) on both sides

16-25+( 81/4) = 25-45+(81/4)
this is in the form of (a-b)^2 = (a^2 - 2.a.b + b^2)

{4 - (9/2) } ^2 = {5 - (9/2) } ^2
Taking root on both sides, we get:

{4 - (9/2) } = {5 - (9/2) }
Adding +9/2 on both sides,
we get:

4 = 5

OR

2+2 = 5
https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-prove ... equal-to-4

It's is always possible to play games with concepts. Like declaring that eternity and infinity are not the same thing

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Unless we have experience with something we have no reason to suppose that idle conjecture is valid. Philosophically anything "could" be true.

Wrong, yet again.

You cannot provide physical evidence for the existence of God. The best you can do is provide physical evidence for the existence of the universe. Which was never in question. The CAUSE of the universe is the ongoing subject of debate, and considerable conjecture. I have gotten gifts every year for Christmas for as long as I can remember. And yet that does not establish the existence of Santa. I have been successful in establishing ongoing relationships with people my entire life. Some of them not yet born when I was a child. And I suspect that might play a role in the whole gift getting thing. The point here is, other answers are possible for the existence of the universe besides the one you made up.

Right, and I will include macroevolution and abiogenesis on the long list of things that aren't possible within science/nature.

Life does not arise from nonliving matter. Life is COMPOSED of non living matter.

As for macroevolution, genetic studies that show conclusively that the modern genetic makeup of different animals can be traced and connected into a family linage that extends to a common ancestor in the past, is about as good as such "proof" ever gets. There was a time when people vehemently denied that they had a genetic linage that extended to people of other races. Not because it wasn't true, but because they didn't want it to be true.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The authors of the Bible were ancient bronze age sheep herders.

They were largely ignorant about much of anything that we would consider common knowledge today. They were not stupid however. There were certainly some excellent engineers in ancient times.

Why would those folks have ever concluded that the universe began to exist?

Because they were ignorant, and believed that many things had discreet beginnings. By which I mean popped into existence as the result of an an uncaused event. And it simply is not true. Every event is the result of an earlier cause, as far back as we can observe. And that is inevitably when the make believe begins to take shape.

You can't traverse cause/effect relations all the way back to past eternity. Has to be at least the 10th time I've said this.

Well, we are currently blocked by the closed door which is the big bang. But we have gotten around obstacles before. That's what science does. As opposed to simply declaring what is behind the closed door and walking away all self satisfied.

Oscillating theories didn't outlive the 80's.

This has been an open question for decades. Stephen Hawking predicts that black holes will eventually evaporate back out the way they came. So maybe that is our ultimate fate. The chances of surviving the trillions of years it would take to reach that point is pretty much out of the question, I am afraid. There is no real reason to suppose that the universe will continue to expand eternally. Because that would require the ongoing introduction of energy, which cannot be created. But the fact that the initial singularity that formed the universe consisted of massive amounts of compressed energy/matter gives us our best clue. Gravity.

Because a First Cause is necessary.

Despite what ignorant ancient people supposed, first causes are not ever actually experienced.

We never observe sentient life come from nonliving material, either; but that hasn't stopped most of you people from believing in that stuff.

All life, including sentient life, is MADE from non living material. Like it or not.

Quora
Is an atom living or non-living?

Originally Answered: Is an atom a living entity?
According to Biologists, a system is said to be alive when it displays the following properties.

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.

Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.

Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.

Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms. Or "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold."

As a single atom possesses none of these qualities, it cannot be said to have life.
https://www.quora.com/Is-an-atom-living-or-non-living

Just because you choose to call the intelligent designer "Santa" doesn't take away the "intelligent designer" element from it.

Just because someone declares that Santa has magic does not mean that we ever actually encounter any flying reindeer either. In the same way that declaring that God is omnipotent means that we ever actually encounter any flying reanimated corpses.

Oh, so using modern science and working technology, explain how sentient life originated on this planet...conduct and experiment and get me some observable, testable results.

You said you could...so lets do it.

I DO remember acknowledging that I cannot provide a step by step explanation of how life arose from non living organic compounds. I DON'T remember ever suggesting that I could do that. If I could do that, I certainly would not post it here. That would be Nobel worthy.

Biologists are fully convinced that they will eventually be able to do exactly what you are suggesting, however. What will be the point? (Well, besides a Nobel prize) Believers will simply declare it to be untrue anyway. The way they have simply declared evolution to be untrue. Not that you would understand such "biobabble" if you bothered to read it. Which you wouldn't.

I think I just got this in under the wire, sizewise. No part two.

[Bust Nak]

Bust Nak; long time no see...what in the heck is going on with ya, brethren?

Life's been busy, but the good kind of busy.

First, answer me this; could abiogenesis be false? Yes or no?

Yes, abiogenesis could be false, there are two groups of alternatives: life was created supernaturally, or arose naturally elsewhere in the universe then found its way to Earth afterwards. Looking at your reply, it is now clear that the latter group of possibilities also count as abiogenesis to you.

Ok, now answer me this; if God does not exist, and abiogenesis is false...how would life originate, much less evolve?

It seems every possible natural explaination for the existence life is grouped under abiogenesis to you. In which case, if God does not exist and "abiogenesis" is false, life cannot originate.

Panspermia is still under the "abiogenesis" umbrella. It is still life from nonlife, regardless of many slick little terms you want to use to describe it.

As above, with you treating "abiogenesis" as an all encompassing term for all natural explanation for life, it seems hardly worth mentioning that all possibly explanations for life can be placed under either natural or supernatural.

Keeping in mind that the term is typically restricted to the life from nonlife process happening on Earth, this explains why people here are incredulous to the suggestion that evolution cannot be true without neither God nor abiogenesis.

It seems what you really meant to suggest is that evolution cannot be true without supernatural nor natural life, i.e. without life. Have you had said that instead then it would not have been controversial.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Life's been busy, but the good kind of busy.

Good, good...well, if your busy, good life was the party..then I guess these up and coming exchanges with me is the hang-over...

Yes, abiogenesis could be false

Now, now, now, hold it right there. One thing at a time. Can both abiogenesis AND God's existence...can both be false? Yes or no.

, there are two groups of alternatives: life was created supernaturally, or arose naturally elsewhere in the universe then found its way to Earth afterwards. Looking at your reply, it is now clear that the latter group of possibilities also count as abiogenesis to you.

Pretty much...yeah

It seems every possible natural explaination for the existence life is grouped under abiogenesis to you.

Right..same rain, different umbrella.

In which case, if God does not exist and "abiogenesis" is false, life cannot originate.

Thanks for putting aside your biases, and simply letting logic/reasoning/truth take its course.

As above, with you treating "abiogenesis" as an all encompassing term for all natural explanation for life, it seems hardly worth mentioning that all possibly explanations for life can be placed under either natural or supernatural.

Well let me put it to you this way, old friend; I challenge you or ANYONE to name any other possible explanation to explain the origins of life..and the challenge is; the explanation given cannot be natural or supernatural.

I challenge anyone to come up with a third alternative to natural/supernatural. I will wait.

Keeping in mind that the term is typically restricted to the life from nonlife process happening on Earth, this explains why people here are incredulous to the suggestion that evolution cannot be true without neither God nor abiogenesis.

Oh, I see. But you also see where I'm coming from, too?

It seems what you really meant to suggest is that evolution cannot be true without supernatural nor natural life, i.e. without life. Have you had said that instead then it would not have been controversial.

Um, it goes without saying. "Evolution cannot be true without supernatural nor natural life" is the same as saying "Evolution cannot be true without God or abiogenesis (natural life)."

It is the same thing.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 94 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Um, I've noticed that my infinity/infinite regress problem (which is my main beef of your argument) is continually being unaddressed. If you can't address the problem, then there is nothing else to say.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 94 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Um, I've noticed that my infinity/infinite regress problem (which is my main beef of your argument) is continually being unaddressed. If you can't address the problem, then there is nothing else to say.

I've noticed that you seem to be attempting to define eternity as something which is not infinite. And that is the cause of your confusion.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[quote="For_The_Kingdom"]
[quote="Tired of the Nonsense"]


Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[Bust Nak]

Can both abiogenesis AND God's existence...can both be false? Yes or no.

Depends on what you mean by those terms, suffice to say supernatural AND natural origin of life cannot both be false.

If I have to give a yes/no answer, I would say yes, abiogenesis and God's existence can both be false: Panspermia is the third alternative.

Um, it goes without saying. "Evolution cannot be true without supernatural nor natural life" is the same as saying "Evolution cannot be true without God or abiogenesis (natural life)."

That's the problem right there, they are not the same thing under the typical understanding of abiogenesis, the term exclude panspermia, considered an natural alternative to abiogenesis.