Real Science Friday: The Energy Order of the Universe
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "Arguing that entropy is
somehow a problem for evolution is like saying that airplanes cannot fly due to
the laws of physics, while they are zooming over our heads. Yet another Wrong
Science Friday classic..."
Worshipping yourself as usual, Alate_One? Thank you for
another false analogy.
The show is called real science. For those who
trust God and his truth not your best guess. Let's just throw out that
second law of thermodynamics for you. :hammer:
"You believe God (revelation) or you believe man (speculation)." J. Vernon McGee
This universe is winding down. You'd better find
yourself a place in the new one (Isa 65:17).
For the benefit of Alate_One (so interested in truth).
"Entropy and disorder? In countless
publications, examples are given which illustrate that when the entropy of a
system increases, the amount of disorder also increases; in other words, the
orderliness is diminished. This idea has unfortunately also been extended to
biological systems..." Full text:
Energy
"A very important concept in
physics is the conservation of energy. This principle
states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
There are a lot of different kinds of energy; heat,
light, sound, and electricity are all forms of energy.
We can change one type of energy into another and we can
move energy from one place to another, but the total
quantity of energy in the universe is constant and
cannot be changed.There
is also a conservation principle of mass. Mass is the
property of an object to resist a change in its motion.
Things that possess a lot of mass are very heavy; things
with little mass are light. We can move mass from place
to place, and transform one kind of mass into another
(by a chemical reaction for example), but, just like
energy, mass cannot be created nor destroyed. So both
mass and energy are conserved. In fact, Einstein was
able to demonstrate that all energy possesses an
equivalent mass, and vice versa. To put it another way,
mass and energy are really the same thing manifesting in
different ways. This is the meaning of Einstein’s famous
equation E=mc2. We can combine these
principles into the conservation of mass-energy.
Colloquially speaking, the amount of “stuff” in the
universe is constant.
Conservation of mass-energy is
exactly what we would expect on the basis of Scripture.
First, the Bible indicates that no new material can come
into existence. This is indicated in
John 1:3
and
Genesis 2:2.
John 1:3
states that all things were made by God, and nothing has
come into existence apart from Him. Furthermore, God
ended His work of creation by the seventh day of the
creation week, according to
Genesis 2:2.
Since only God can bring new things into existence from
nothing, and since God ended His work of creation by the
seventh day, no new material will come into existence
today.
Second, the Bible suggests that
nothing will cease to exist. This is because God is
upholding all things by His sustaining power (Hebrews
1:3) and by Him
all things consist (Colossians
1:17). Neither
matter nor energy will cease to exist, because God is
sustaining them, and since nothing new will come into
existence, we can conclude that the amount of material
in the universe is constant. Of course, the Bible makes
room for miracles—supernatural interventions by God, but
miracles (by definition) do not conform to the laws of
physics; they are exceptions by their very nature. The
universe itself obeys the law of conservation of
mass-energy..." Full text:
The Universe Confirms the Bible
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "Still having fun
whitewashing those sepulchres [sic]?"
Always on the wrong side of truth aren't you, PB?
Remember? Those Pharisees who were offended by the truth of the Bible?
(Mt 15:12; 21:45; Lu 16:14). Who is the
white-washed sepulcher? Who is the lawless, unclean, hypocrite? (Mt
23:27-28)--Let the reader decide.
"Circular reasoning:
One answer is circular reasoning: many scientists
believe the world is old because they believe most other scientists think the
world is old..."
The evolution connection:
It is noteworthy that most (though not all) of the
scientists who believe in billions of years also believe in particles-to-people
evolution. Evolution requires vast ages. It couldn’t possibly have happened on a
mere 6,000-year time scale, because such profound changes would then have to be
happening so rapidly that we would not only see massive transformations all
around us, we would have historical records of many examples. Yet, we have never
seen life evolve from non-life, nor have we ever seen a living organism evolve
into another kind with greater specified complexity. These “uphill” changes just
aren’t observed; indeed, they seem to be impossible..."
The big-bang connection:
I have found that most people who believe in billions
of years also believe in the “big-bang theory.” The big bang is a secular
speculation about the origin of the universe; it is an alternative to the Bible.
The big bang attempts to explain the origin of the universe without God. It can
be considered the cosmic equivalent of particles-to-people evolution. Sadly, a
lot of Christians have bought into the idea of the big bang, without realizing
that it is based on the anti-biblical philosophy of naturalism (there is no God,
nature is all there is or ever was). Furthermore, they are generally not aware
that the big bang contradicts the Bible on a number of points and has many
scientific problems as well.
According to the big bang idea, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old;
whereas the Bible indicates that the universe is about 6,000 years old. For
those who claim to believe the Bible, this difference alone should be sufficient
reason to reject the big bang. It is wrong about the age of the universe by a
factor of over two million! But it is not just a problem of time scale; the
Bible gives a different order of events than the current secular opinion...
Future of the Universe:
The big bang is a story about the alleged past, but it
is also a story about the alleged future. According to the currently favored
version of the big bang, the universe will continue to expand indefinitely and
grow colder. Usable energy will become increasingly scarce, and will eventually
cease altogether, at which point the universe will die a “heat death.” At this
point, no “heat” will be left, so the universe will have a temperature close to
absolute zero everywhere. No life will be possible at that point since no usable
energy will exist.
Heat death is a rather bleak scenario, and quite different from the future the
Bible teaches...
The Assumptions of Naturalism and Uniformitarianism:
A belief in naturalism and uniformitarianism can cause
a person to make a vastly inflated estimate of the age of the earth and
universe. Recall that naturalism is the belief that nothing exists outside of
nature. In this view, the universe and everything in it came about by the same
kinds of processes observed within the universe. Naturalism is, of course, an
unbiblical concept since the Bible makes it clear that God created the universe
supernaturally...Naturalism often leads to exaggerated age estimates when
applied to supernaturally created things...
The distant starlight problem:
...The argument that distant starlight disproves the
biblical account of creation and supports an old “big-bang” universe is based on
faulty reasoning.
First, notice that the distant starlight argument is based on the fallacious
assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism. It assumes that the light got
here entirely by natural means, and traveled at a constant rate, over a constant
distance, with time also being constant. Of course, it is possible that God may
indeed have used “natural means” to get the light here. It may also be that some
of the things assumed to be constant in time (such as the speed of light) are
indeed constant, but is there any logical reason why we would automatically know
beforehand that these must be the case? Remember that God created the lights in
the sky to give light upon the earth. This happened during the creation week
where God was creating in a supernatural way...
Light travel-time: a problem for the big bang:
There is another fatal flaw in using a light
travel-time argument like distant starlight to reject the Bible in favor of the
big bang. Such an argument is subtly self-refuting. This is because the big bang
also has a light travel-time problem!...
Attempts at compromise:
The belief in billions of years has a stranglehold on
our culture today—even within the church. Many professing Christians have been
taken in by the fallacious distant starlight argument or other eisegetical
claims involving anti-biblical assumptions. As a result, many Christians have
compromised; they have attempted to “add” the billions of years to the Bible...
...Ultimately, the Bible teaches that God created in
six days and the secular opinion is that the universe evolved over billions of
years. Each of us must decide whether we are going to trust the secular opinions
of human beings, or the clear teaching of the Bible...[T]he Bible has always
been correct when it touches upon astronomy...
The evidence confirms a young universe:
Even now, the scientific evidence is very consistent
with what the Bible teaches about the age of the universe. Why then do many
secular scientists believe that the evidence points to a multi-billion-year-old
universe? People who believe in the big bang generally interpret the evidence
according to the big bang (sometimes without even realizing it). In other words,
they simply assume that the big bang is true and they interpret the evidence to
match their beliefs...
The Horizon Problem:
In the big-bang model, the universe begins in an
infinitely small state called a singularity, which then rapidly expands.
According to the big-bang model, when the universe was still very small it would
have developed different temperatures in different locations. Let’s suppose that
point A is hot and point B is cold. Today, the universe has expanded and points
A and B are now widely separated.
However, the universe has an extremely uniform temperature at great
distance—beyond the farthest known galaxies. In other words, points A and B have
almost exactly the same temperature today.
The critic may suggest that the big bang is a better
explanation of origins than the Bible since biblical creation has a light
travel-time problem—distant starlight. Such an argument is not rational since
the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. If both models have the
same problem in essence, then that problem cannot be used to support one model
over the other. Therefore, distant starlight cannot be used to dismiss the Bible
in favor of the big bang..." Full text:
The Age of the Universe Pt. 1
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: [Pharisees] "...[G]race...rises
above the Law..."
You are a high-handed sinner. The grace of God
and his good news is only good for those who receive Christ. It is very
bad news for the rest.
We are free--to obey. If you love the Lord, you
proclaim his agenda not your own (Jn 14:15).
"Who is the lawless, unclean, hypocrite? (Mt 23:27-28)] "Let God
decide..."
"He will judge the world in righteousness and the
peoples in his truth (Ps 96:13)." You lack righteousness and truth.
And you don't seem interested in either.
[Big Bang/naturalistic evolution] "Is history an "opinion"?"
Someone said "History is His-Story". He was there
(Ge 1:1). I'll go with what he has to say. You believe man's next
best guess--evolution. We believe in the Big Bang.
It just hasn't happened yet.
"Praise God that we are not meant solely for the natural world..."
We will be fitted with bodies fit for heaven or fit for
hell (Geraci). You'd better get yourself a robe of righteousness (Job
29:14).
[Naturalists] "overestimate" the age of the universe?
“'By saying the universe looks
old, you are trusting that dating methods can give us an
apparent old age for the universe...' When people
say the universe has “apparent age,” usually they are
assuming, for whatever reason, that the universe “looks
old.” I have often found that, unconsciously, such
people have already accepted that the fallible dating
methods of scientists can give great ages for the earth.
So if they believe what the Scripture says about a young
universe, they have to explain away this apparent great
age.
Does the universe really look
old, or have we simply been indoctrinated to believe it
looks old? Would the Creator God of the Bible, who does
not lie, really deceive us into thinking that the
universe looks old—when according to the Bible’s account
of history, He created it only about 6,000 years ago?
What would a “young universe” look like, anyway?"
Mature for her "Age", Answers in Genesis.
"[Y]ou are saying it is possible that God is a liar
who uses the medium of the universe itself to create
false assumptions in His creation?"
"God didn’t make Adam a baby—He
made him an adult. And when He created the universe, He
created it fully functional, with the appearance of
age—even though it wasn’t old..." Full
text:
Mature for her "Age"
"[P]roblematic literalism that keeps you in the dark
ages."
What reason does the Bible give
you to believe otherwise?
"[A]re you just cutting and pasting without
comprehension..."
Remember, we spoke about those
leftist ad hominem and poisoning the well tactics of
yours that never helped your arguments.
"...[I]t must be true since it's from AiG?"
I know you can focus on issues rather than attempting
to discredit Christians.
"How about it, Serpent
?"
You reveal your unbelief (2 Chr. 36:16).
Real Science Friday: The
Energy Order of the Universe