37
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 26:
Line 26: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to the Bible (view source)
Revision as of 00:53, August 12, 2010
, 00:53, August 12, 2010→No counterexamples to the Bible?
:::Now I'm confused. Our critic here is claiming that the First Law (it's a law, mind you) of Thermodynamics states that energy may not be created or destroyed. It contradicts Genesis. Okay...got that. Thermodynamics One contradicts Genesis. But at the same time, how did his big bang theory happen? You can't create or destroy energy, that's what he said. But there had to have been energy created (from nothing, I might add) in order to get a great big bang for his big bang theory, and that's a lot of energy created ''and'' destroyed of which he says can't be created or destroyed. And, while he's defending that little law in science, I'll bet he's ''denying'' Thermodynamics Two because its statements about entropy and energy left to itself seem to contradict evolution. In short, he's stating something came from nothing, leading to things getting better, both of which contradict each of those laws of Thermodynamics.
:::Now I'm confused. Our critic here is claiming that the First Law (it's a law, mind you) of Thermodynamics states that energy may not be created or destroyed. It contradicts Genesis. Okay...got that. Thermodynamics One contradicts Genesis. But at the same time, how did his big bang theory happen? You can't create or destroy energy, that's what he said. But there had to have been energy created (from nothing, I might add) in order to get a great big bang for his big bang theory, and that's a lot of energy created ''and'' destroyed of which he says can't be created or destroyed. And, while he's defending that little law in science, I'll bet he's ''denying'' Thermodynamics Two because its statements about entropy and energy left to itself seem to contradict evolution. In short, he's stating something came from nothing, leading to things getting better, both of which contradict each of those laws of Thermodynamics.
:::Makes the case for "In the beginning, God created..." even stronger, doesn't it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:33, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
:::Makes the case for "In the beginning, God created..." even stronger, doesn't it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:33, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
::::I'm not claiming that "something came from nothing" in the Big Bang. The sum of the energy contained in the mass of the universe equals the sum of gravitational potential energy in the universe. This is quite an easily calculable conclusion which suggests that the net energy in the universe is zero. So, while I agree with the "came from nothing" statement, I disagree with the "something". If you are going to throw out unscientific phrases, you should say "A net nothing came from nothing". The zero-energy universe is becoming more and more studied, and may well be a plausible explanation for cosmogenesis.
This explanation is in contradiction to the Creation story, in which light was created with no negative energy counterpart.
A caveat; the zero-energy universe is still in the preliminary phases of study, and may turn out to be false. However, in 20 years, I can guarantee scientists will have a clearer understanding of the beginning of the universe, while theists will response with "*shrug* God did it".
In response to the statement about how "goofy spacetime manifold never existed", are you saying that there is no spacetime currently?