can someone explain to me?

Question

I'm not here to try and bring anyone down and critisize them for their beliefs. Im not here to try and prove my religion to be superior, but I do have a question that I would like someone to answer or discuss with me about the article below.

What are your opinions on the article?

I love to expand my knowledge and even though im a christian doesn't mean that im close or "narrow" minded.

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/1law.html

Answer 1

Sorry, one look at the author was all I needed to see to discount any validity of his arguments.

This is Chuck Missler, the guy who "disproved" evolution with a jar of peanut butter. The noted plagarist, and Y2K millinialist, he attempts to use his head for numbers (he is an engineer) to try to confuse people with useless statistics based on flawed premises.

Answer 2

Interesting hypothesis! But will you use this "unproven data" to shape your religious beliefs? From this data you can express the theory that anything is possible, from an intervention by a supreme being to spontanious generation of life on this planet. Even evolution is possible by the adding or subtracting (without destroying) of certain molecules/enzymes/whatever that would allow a living creature to improve its overall makeup. The statement that scientists make about sharks fit in here nicely. Sharks haven't changed in millions of years. Why? Because they are already well adapted to survive, while everything around them that they would eat has to change or die. This a good segway into fishes developing legs and moving out onto the land! So I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this article?

I just read the first part concerning the law of physics and then skipped reading the rest because I'm just a cute little dog who must have evolved from a cute little fish!

Answer 3

It's misleading.

1) Scientific Laws are assumptions, very reasonable simple ones, but still assumptions. They have been proved correct so many times where they have been able to be tested, that it is felt safe to assume that they will always hold true. But, for example, Newtons Law of Universal Graviation, was found to break down at the very large scale by Einstein.

2) The article ignores graviational potential energy. If you could add all the gravitational potential energy to the energy of the universe, it is still possible that the net result would be 0.

3) The 'Big Bang' only refers to our observable universe. It does not mean that the universe and its matter=energy is not eternal.

I'm not a physicist so that's all I'll say.

Answer 4

I read that, it just means he is trying to rationalise science with the phase "god make it this way" ...... I would not say he cannot think that way, but then it also mean one thing, if everything is constant, then it is not created by anything, meaning if something or someone is creating something, then it is not constant anymore. Meaning there is not a possibility of one sky daddy creating, which also mean you, a human cannot be created by your sky daddy, because human is also part of energy which neither increase nor decrease. Then the phase "go fore and multiply" is false.

That also mean you are a recycled being and not a freshly created ones, which also mean the part where when you die you stay dead until some 2nd saviour come to earth being false too..... which also means ..... nevermind .....

Answer 5

I'm not a christian and I'm not an atheist either. I don't just believe anything that someone tells me. This article is clearly an attempt to scientifically prove that God exist. You can not scientifically prove the existence of god. An experience with the highest power is your own personal experience. Everyone can't repeat the same steps to prove that god exist. Until science can directly be connected to god. Science and religion should not be mixed.

Answer 6

I don't think you will find that atheism has anything to do with the first law of thermodynamics. This is a law of physics. Atheism is simply the acknowledgement of the fact that there is no evidence available to support belief in a supreme being. These two things are really totally separate issues. What exactly is your question?

Answer 7

The big bang didn't create matter, it was always there, just compressed really tightly together because of gravity. The big bang just spread it all out over the universe. I imagine in a few billion (raised the the million power) years all the matter will spread out as far as possible and then start to collapse back in on itself until it is all in one place again and then "BANG" here the universe goes again.

Answer 8

alright.

the logic behind this article is this: we can't explain what happened, must be god!

i wont even go into the logic fallacies inherent to that argument..

the thing is, part of atheism and agnosticism is acknowledging we don't have all the answers, and aren't about to make up excuses.


one last thing:

"The atheist immediately protests, "If God made the universe then who made God?" The Bible indicates that God is an eternal, transcendent Spirit. Consequently, because time is itself a physical property of the universe which God created, then questions about God's origin are meaningless."

i'm sorry, but the 'bible indicates' is about as credible an argument as 'i saw on this episode of star trek once'..

Answer 9

That particular argument always struck me as a desperate piece of sophistry.

Look at the current issue of Scientific American and the article on the simpler origin for life.

Answer 10

It does not correctly state the First Law of Thermodynamics. Matter and energy cannot be either created or destroyed, but they can be converted from one to the other. That is, we are not limited to matter being converted to solid, liquid or gas. We also have matter converted to energy (hydrogen bomb, for example), and energy converted to matter (photosynthesis, for example).