law of thermodynamics?

Question

Scientists call it the first law of thermodynamics. Isaac Asimov says that “this law
is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe
that scientists have ever been able to make.”1 What is this law that lies at the base of all
modern science? It is the fact that while you can convert matter to energy (like heat
that results from a burning log), you cannot create energy or matter out of nothing.
So, since we know that our universe is made up of matter and energy, we have to face the
reality that it had to come from somewhere. Despite the incredible advances of modern
science, the fact remains that not one of our scientific theories can even begin to explain
where the energy and matter came from in the first place. Creation is the only plausible
theory that anyone has been able to offer.

Answer 1

I agree with your assertion. I also agree that evolution is not compatible with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which says that entropy always increases, which means that everything wears down; nothing ever gets better on its own without energy + intelligent input. Cars get old and rusty unless someone takes it and adds energy + intelligent input to restore it to its original condition. Some evolutionists like to use an example of a bicycle in a box getting assembled by adding energy. The part they forget is that the assembly of the bicycle requires intelligent input - just adding raw energy will not assemble the bicycle. Likewise, if you put a frog in a blender and turn it on, there you have all the raw ingredients to make a frog. Now stick an electrode in there and give it all the energy you want. How long before the frog is reassembled? It took intelligence to assemble that frog in the first place. Evolutionists want us to believe that simply raw matter, energy and time are all that is required to create life, but these examples prove them wrong.

Answer 2

I get this one a lot.

That only pushes the conundrum back a step. Did God just arrange himself out of nothing? If we allow that to happen, who says that nothing couldn't have arranged itself into, say, a point-like object called a singularity. Why does intelligence have to be involved when intelligence implies order, which implies a preceding source of order...

And if you give God the property of having always existed, that's silly and I will ask why singularities aren't to have always existed.

And if you postulate that God is not bound by these laws, I postulate that the laws of physics may not have been around in the form we know them to govern the singularity.

Both sides of the debate are well, irrational and untestable. If I didn't know better, I'd say we don't exist...but that would just be crazy talk.

EDIT: To the guy above me, evolution and thermodynamics do not disagree. The original hydrogen cloud had very low entropy/high useable energy content, and while the average entropy of the universe always has to go up, if one part happens to get slightly more ordered in the process...to the OP, ask a separate question, and us atheists will clarify.

Answer 3

Occam's razor. The simplest possible explanation is most likely correct.

Atheists say the creation of the universe is a mystery.

Christians say god created the universe and god is a mystery.

Either way, something remains completely unexplained, but the atheist model does not require the assumption of some magical entity.

Just because we don't have a scientific explanation for something doesn't mean god exists, it just means we haven't figured it out yet.

Answer 4

Creationism is for cretins. The educated edify themselves. You cut and paste others' words with no clue as to what they mean instead of learning why scientists have developed their theories.

If you want to argue against something, at least have the brains to read and understand the side you disagree with. You know nothing of evolution (and most other things, I'd hazard a guess...).


.

Answer 5

The universe had a beginning, therefore there must be a cause to it. - Yes, the big bang, see how simple that was. A cell cannot come about by other processes like Abiogenesis (according to cell theory). - And if you were to prove that you would have a Nobel Prize. However, the energy in the universe must have come from somewhere according to the law of causality. - Yes, the previous universe, ad infinitum.

Answer 6

Creation is not a theory.

It's religious nonsense.

...nonsense. Kind of like this "question".

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to a CLOSED SYSTEM.

The earth is an open system... it receives constant energy from the sun.

Answer 7

Yeah it comes from "somewhere"... the causes and conditions that set it into motion to become whatever it is... included your deluded attempts at logic. You assume linear time, you assume there HAS to be a finite beginning point, you assume that you can't know where energy and matter comes from, and according to YOU it just HAS to be some omnipotent creator being...

you're working it all wrong, your logic is failed. Nice try though.

_()_

Answer 8

Creation has everything coming from nothing too. So by your (wrong) idea about physics, creation doesn't have a leg to stand on either. Next?

Answer 9

Explain the last sentence to me. Then explain how you can use the words "Creation" and "theory" in the same sentence without laughing.

Answer 10

Creation isn't an explanation. Its a cop out.