"Ok.
Different subjects that are interrelated. Davis think about this. At
one point , science says, there was an infinitely dense point in
"space". Not the space we now know but just emptiness, that point began
to expand and as it expanded t...he
universe was formed, within that universe planets, moons and stars were
formed. On one of those planets life began spontaneously as a single
celled organism which eventually evolved into who we are today. Now
science says the entire universe is on this path of entropy, moving
toward chaos and eventual termination. How can an entire interconnected
universe be moving toward chaos yet a species within this very same
universe be moving toward continual enhancement or improvement. That
line of thinking is completely counterproductive.
We as humans are fully dependent on what happens within in the universe that is what we
respond to. Why would anyone believe that an infantile portion of the
universe (humans) continue to "evolve" while the rest of the universe
falls apart? That process would be completely useless."

This is from my facebook chat with a Christian acquaintance and then says

"As I said before we can debate this stuff all day and I am fully game. But even common sense wins out in
this discussion. You said you attended church for a while, and didn't
have a great experience. Well I want to invite you again to come and
look more intently into what the Bible says about life. Again if you
are going to be effective and credible in your discussions you are
going to have to understand both sides. I hope you've seen I have been
completely respectful towards your position..."



First i dont see why he could state this so strongly and not have nay evidence. He assumes that because the universe is moving towards entropy then we as animals cannot move towards improvement (evolving).... and then he says it is common sense? 

Can someone enlighten me, is this true? I want to hear it from someone credible...

Tags: Entropy, Evolution

Views: 784

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The universe exists. That’s all anyone really knows for sure.

--an oscillating or cyclic universe still doesn’t answer the question as to how and when the universe began.

--with a force strong enough to shrink the universe into the size of a dime wherefore comes that stronger force to make it expand again? It's a cop out to postulate a new physics to cover ones ignorance by saying it is created by shrinkage, then, an old physics returns with expansion. This is mere mysticism posing as science.

How can there be a singularity that contains the whole universe surrounded by Einstein's curved nothingness beyond? And if the universe is infinite in time and space, singularity is impossible.

Bobby Vee’s Big Bounce Theory:

"Like a rubber ball, baby, that’s all that I am to you...
and, like a rubber ball, I’ll come bouncing back to you."

Houston, we have a problem:

"Another main objection to [the theory] is that a Big Bounce would reverse entropy by
resetting the state of the universe, violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Also, the collapse into a singularity would destroy most of the information in the previous universe.

"...the big bang singularity is the single point from which the entire universe is supposed to
have sprung. It is, in fact, the major sticking point in the big bang theory.” --because, again,
singularity violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics physics.

An “explanation of any given state of the Universe does not address the larger cosmic
question: why is there a succession of states of the Universe? Leibniz, for instance, claimed
that we cannot find in the parts of a thing a sufficient explanation of the whole. It is one thing
to explain why a particular member of a series exists, it is another to explain the existence of
the whole series itself.”.....”Each state of the universe might have an explanation in an earlier
state, plus laws of nature, but that does not tell us why there are any states at all (whether for
infinite or finite time).”

"According to some oscillatory universe theorists, the Big Bang was simply the beginning of
a period of expansion that followed a period of contraction. In this view, one could talk of a
Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang, or more simply, a Big Bounce. This suggests that we
might be living in the first of all universes, but are equally likely to be living in the 2
billionth universe (or any of an infinite other sequential universes."

“To partially grasp this understanding the philosopher must first realise that nothing or nothing equals the absence of any thing including the absence of absence itself. One theory shows that the universe was created from the expansion of heat energy, but the Something from Nothing argument shows that the energy could not have ever existed at all nor could it have come into existence from nothing.”

Some physicists try to get around this conundrum by postulating a non-nothingness that is
nothing. Again mysticism posing as science....”Our new definition of nothing will now read:
nothing is an infinite void, nothing else can exist except for the universe that is
contained within it.”

“...how can a Universe be contained by something that doesn’t exist (the outside of the
Universe), let alone expand into a non-existent place, which is the commonly accepted notion?”

For those who have an insatiable need to go insane read further:

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%20universe%20from.htm
Alfred E. Neuman had it right when he said, "What, me worry?"


That especially applies to the beginning of the beginning of the beginning ad infinitum...
That picture reminds me of George Bush?
I don't think the Republicans appreciated that parallel.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/a_cyclic_universe/

"The ekpyrotic and cyclic models were inspired by the idea, suggested by string theory, that our three-dimensional world is a surface or “brane” embedded in a space (with an extra spatial dimension) separated by a microscopic distance from a second similar brane. A weak, spring-like force holds the two branes together and causes them to smash into one another and bounce apart, perhaps at regular intervals. Each collision is another big bang that produces hot matter and radiation. The branes expand after each collision and the hot matter and radiation spread out. This matter is what ultimately gives rise to galaxies, stars, and planets. The cyclic picture neatly incorporates the mysterious dark matter and dark energy observed in our universe, as well. Dark matter forms at the same time as ordinary matter when the two branes collide. Visible matter is produced on our brane, but invisible or dark matter is produced on the other brane, a leading reason for why we never visibly see it."
My head was in the right space, i am surprised that with such little knowledge that i could reason against it with logic! He used the argument of entropy against evolution and i was confused as to what entropy was and he explained it and i was so lost as to how it affected our planet and such. Thanks for all the great answers and explanations.
An easy way to think about entropy is this: To do work, or to build complexity, one must add energy to the system. To build a chair, I must do work, which requires energy. I get my energy from food, which was ultimately made by plants. Plants got their energy from the sun. Eventually, the sun will burn out (kind of) and lose all of its energy. When that happens, the entire solar system will fall into disorder, or entropy. But as long as we have the sun providing energy for the system, we can do work, or build complexity.
Google searching "low entropy big bang" brings up a lot of interesting stuff.

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service