1/29/09

The First Commandment of Thermodynamics

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , , ,

16 comments:

  1. Andrew T.January 30, 2009 at 8:31 AM

    I agree with you on the following two points:

    1. Atheists should not use the First Law of Thermodynamics as a refutation of the kalam cosmological argument. The best science we have suggests that the laws of the universe (including the FLoT) formed at the Planck time, 1x10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, and that therefore, nothing prior to that time is knowable. Thus, the honest atheist answer to "who or what created the universe," is "I don't know."

    2. Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are indeed buffoons.

    ReplyDelete
  2. zilchJanuary 30, 2009 at 9:07 AM

    Andrew: you say-

    Thus, the honest atheist answer to "who or what created the universe," is "I don't know."

    Your question presupposes a "creation", which presupposes a "creator". A better phrasing would be "how did the Universe come to be?" My answer would be "I don't know."

    And yes, Comfort and Cameron are buffoons. But they've marketed their buffoonery quite well, and are in no discomfort, at least materially.

    ReplyDelete
  3. LeslieJanuary 30, 2009 at 9:59 AM

    I don't think Comfort and Cameron are buffoons, but I would readily accept that they are not adept apologists. They have, however, done other things in the Christian realm that I think are quite useful - for example, their work on evangelism is nice.

    Lest we be uneven however, the RRS isn't exactly a shining example of the side they represent. To be honest, I'm not sure why you would choose either of those groups for a debate on the existence of God.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Andrew T.January 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM

    Zilch: Point taken, although I'm reasonably comfortable with the fact that we tend to anthropomorphize things. When my 6-year-old son asks me, "What made the world?" I don't instantly think that he wants a theological debate. :)

    Leslie: I'm terrified if you think that what Comfort and Cameron does is good evangelism. Seriously. I mean, I'm not a Christian or anything, but if I were, I sure wouldn't want those guys as my public face.

    Similarly, I agree with you that the RRS isn't a shining example of atheism, either. And I think it's obvious why you would pick two sets of extremists for a publicly televised debate that would otherwise be of very low interest to the public.

    ReplyDelete
  5. zilchJanuary 30, 2009 at 12:37 PM

    Andrew: what you said. I was just nitpicking, in case any of the theists here were inclined to jump on "creation". Actually, as you know, it's difficult indeed to frame that question without introducing assumptions: even my version, "how did the Universe come to be", assumes that there was something or some time "before" the Universe "came to be", whereas it might well be that all talk of "before" is meaningless.

    Leslie: sorry, Ray and Kirk are buffoons. I will admit that Brian is an arrogant prick, though.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mark CoteJanuary 30, 2009 at 3:35 PM

    Yeah brian is a prick.
    But you know, i think Ray and cameron honestly have a desire to do what they think is right, so I'll give them that, and I'll bet they are great fathers and husbands, but yeah, a bit bufoonish. But good peeps, unlike Ted Haggard and Benny Hinn. But then again I think Carrot-top is funny so what do i know.

    ReplyDelete
  7. LeslieJanuary 30, 2009 at 8:34 PM

    Well, I guess I don't know every single evangelistic thing they've done, but for example, I've seen them talk to people I'd be pretty uncomfortable talking to and do a great job with it. What really stuck out in my mind though was a show I saw once with them discussing how to talk to your family about your beliefs. It was a very good lesson on that particular form of evangelism. If you're looking for someone to evangelize to atheists, no, they're not who I'd want. But if you're looking to reach out to the average person, I'm fairly confident that they know what they're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ChadJanuary 31, 2009 at 12:21 PM

    Hello all,

    I agree that Cameron and Comfort should stick to evangelism. That is obviously their strength. And while I don't always agree with their methods and/or arguments, I do believe they are sincere.

    I believe Leslie is correct: Comfort and Kirk are great for reaching the average joe and sharing the simple gospel message.

    However, like Mark, I think "Carrot-Top is funny" as well!

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousJanuary 31, 2009 at 4:20 PM

    Hello! :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. metalozJanuary 31, 2009 at 4:30 PM

    "When my 6-year-old son asks me, "What made the world?" I don't instantly think that he wants a theological debate. :)"

    Love this point and I think its the case with most adults also.
    Wouldnt mind seeing a thread on the children side of things as on this point.

    ReplyDelete
  11. SkalkoFebruary 1, 2009 at 6:33 AM

    When thermodynamics is used in a debate of this nature I have to cringe. The whole Unmoved Mover argument is pointless when dealing with the cosmic censorship that prevent us from knowing the state of the universe at a time just following the Big Bang as previous commentors have mentioned. The second law of thermodynamics does not refute evolution.

    "The Bible predicted the First Law of Thermodynamics", the bible and every other creation myth.

    Saying the universe is finite in either time or space is also troublesome as our concept of time and space depends on our time and space frame of reference within the universe and more importantly that we can observe it at all. In short, one can not claim a finite universe because one can not observe the universe as a whole

    ReplyDelete
  12. TestingFebruary 3, 2009 at 6:32 AM

    "In short, one can not claim a finite universe because one can not observe the universe as a whole"

    And since Hubble proved (see also the "Hubble's Law of Red Shifts") that the universe is expanding if you rewind the clock what is your natural conclusion?

    While you can't observe the universe as a whole, you can observe what it's doing right now and extrapolate. It was because of Hubble that Einstein was forced to admit, in conjunction to his own theory of relativity, that God exists.

    Regarding evolution: your argument is basically that since we cannot observe the whole of the universe, then we should ignore all evidential physics. By the same argument, since we do not observe the all of the transitional forms (or ANY for that matter) in the fossil records, then we should ignore all biology?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Andrew T.February 3, 2009 at 8:41 AM

    Jared makes two points, one on cosmology ("if you rewind the universe, what do you think you get?"), and one on biology ("we don't see any transitional forms"). Let me try to address both, although with the caveat that I am not a scientist.

    1. My understanding of time is that it is a dimension, like length and width and breadth. Thus, physicists talk of us as experiencing a four-dimensional universe (along with postulating "hidden" dimensions, for example, in quantum string theory).

    These dimensions, in turn, came into existence with the Big Bang. So, for example, although it is intuitive to ask "what's outside of the universe?" or "how big was the singularity that produced the Big Bang?" -- those questions are literally meaningless from the standpoint of physics. There are no dimensions outside, or before, the universe.

    Similarly, even if you want to rewind the universe to the Big Bang and t=0 -- which contemporary physics tells us we can't do before the Planck time, but let's play along -- time itself as a dimension came into existence at the Big Bang. Asking what came before t=0 is like asking what's outside the universe; it's a nonsense question from the standpoint of physics, no matter how intuitive it seems.

    Does that help?

    2. With respect to biology, virtually all scientists uniformly believe that transitional forms are "abundant." Now, when I see 99.9% agreement among scientists in a particular discipline, I conclude that the 0.1% of dissenters are cranks. I presume you do likewise; for example, there is far less agreement among cosmologists about the Big Bang theory than there is among biologists about the modern synthesis. So why is it okay for us to go with the overwhelming majority on Big Bang cosmology but not evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  14. kh123April 25, 2009 at 4:42 AM

    "Transitional forms". Right, you mean like how an Australian Aboriginal looks superficially closer akin to an anthropoid ape, as per Darwin's own words? By gar, then he... oh, I'm sorry... it must be closer to a transitional form.

    And yes, when you have that much agreement in any discipline - including racial and hereditary studies in Germany - then you have to conclude: The minority are cranks. I mean, who could disbelieve all those highly skilled German scientists who professed the subhuman status of Slavs and (especially) Jews and Africans, based on the apparent transitional nature of their outward features. To those highly trained professionals, that was an undeniable fact, based on scientific consensus of course...

    Nevermind the fact that you can take any series of objects and construct a cladogram, based on their apparent transitional natures. Try it with a series of man made objects sometime - you'll inevitably show the history of how Corvettes accidentally arose from the prebiotic ooze of Detroit all on their own, with no engineering mind needed. (Well, with GM cars, you may have a case for non-intelligent design...)

    Phylogenetics and paleontology are wonderfully ambiguous games of tic-tac-toe: Nobody gets any closer to finishing (or the truth), but that's ok, so long as the grant money keeps a'flowin... Kind of like the White House.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AaronJune 16, 2009 at 8:20 AM

    "Nevermind the fact that you can take any series of objects and construct a cladogram, based on their apparent transitional natures. Try it with a series of man made objects sometime - you'll inevitably show the history of how Corvettes accidentally arose from the prebiotic ooze of Detroit all on their own"

    Nice straw man.

    I suppose that would be a valid argument if the ONLY basis for transitional forms was purely morphological phenotypic expression -- but it's not. You can do SNP analysis, or look at ERV / SINE data across various generations and even species. (That's pretty much the basis for haplotype mapping)

    The central criticism of Evolution by the creationist/ID folks seems to center around this whole idea of the alleged impossibility of morphological evolution. The problem with this view is that it separates the genes responsible for our physical appearance from those which are responsible for our microscopic/internal workings.
    When you compare genetic data from, for example, an Archaeabacteria and a Eukaryotic bacteria, they can be DRASTICALLY more different genetically than we are from Alligators or Ostriches, depending on which two microorganisms you look at. The primary structure (genetic sequence) of the proteins that make our morphological makeup is no different than the primary structure responsible for "microevolutionary" changes -- it's just when it's transcribed and folded, it happens to make a visible difference.

    Visible transitional forms (Tiktaalik, for example) make headlines because they present a relatively easy concept to grasp; but to think that's ALL the information we have is wholly ignorant.

    "Phylogenetics and paleontology are wonderfully ambiguous games of tic-tac-toe: Nobody gets any closer to finishing (or the truth), but that's ok, so long as the grant money keeps a'flowin... Kind of like the White House."

    ... or like the tithe plates in churches, right?

    Come off it.

    The process of science is a journey TOWARDS truth -- we chip away at this gigantic block of marble (reality), getting rid of explanations and conclusions that don't work or are disproved as we move closer towards the central singularity of truth inside.

    That's the key point here, and one that's often misunderstood -- Science works by DISPROOF; for a given phenomenon, likely explanations are formulated and then tested in ways that provide an opportunity for disproof. (W/R/T evolution -- part of the reason it is such solid science is BECAUSE it has stood up to disproof for so long; and not for lack of trying! ReligiousTolerance.org has a terrific article about this idea: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_disp.htm )

    The essential difference between "Biblical truth" and "Scientific truth" is that biblical truth is based on this notion that its followers believe they already know the exact form, shape, and even color of the truth singularity contained within that giant block of marble, without any real desire to back up their claim (ie. research) beyond simply asserting it.
    Scientists acknowledge that what we know about truth is based on the form that is presently in front of us, and they constantly look for more ways to chip away at that which is NOT true.

    We know VASTLY more about the world around us than we did 100, 50, or even 10 years ago. To say that we are not getting any closer is straight fallacious.

    ReplyDelete
  16. AnonymousJune 25, 2009 at 4:14 PM

    "Furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude that whatever existed “before” that, whatever brought the universe into being, was without matter, or immaterial, or spirit (and timeless, or eternal and space-less or without spatial restrictions)"

    Your supposed conclusion is nonsense.

    "Thus, the Bible stated that energy/matter were brought into being, placed within the box (the universe) and that no more energy/matter is being created."

    Completely irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)