[geocentrism] Re: The Big Bang
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:20:17 +0100 (BST)
Dear Rob,
You stated that, "I think you were wrong. Jack's statement was: "This is the
problem that creationists have when dealing with evolution. Evolution
contradicts the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics." However, my point was concerned
with the fact that Jack never actually said, "organic evolution," and the term
"evolution" is freely used with regard to the universe and inorganic things
within it.
You mention "'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy'," as if they were somehow proven
to exist, but have just not been observed. They are, in fact, fudges; fixes.
They are "necessary" to maintain Newton's law of universal gravitation, which
we have no reason to proclaim is universal at all. We proclaim it thus and then
see that the result we get does not work. Instead of then questioning Newton's
"law" we invent something to "explain" away the discrepancy, because we just
"know" that the law is right. At least I have a basis for saying that I "know"
something is right, or rather, that something cannot be right, because I rely
upon the Bible, but you, ultimately, rely upon nothing, other than your
obsessive desire to deny God.
You question things like,
"How did the Galaxies form?
How did the Sun, Earth and Moon form?
How did life arise?
How did human beings come to be?"
and then say that the answer a Christian (or Jew, or Muslim) would give you is
"no answer."
Why not? I thought that science was concerned with keeping an open mind, and
exploring ideas and suggestions. Of all possible answers to your questions, the
fact that God created everything ex nihilo is perfectly allowable.
You accuse others on this forum of having closed minds (or, at least, you imply
that they do), but really your own mind is hardly receptive to open discussion,
is it?
Neville.
"Glover, Rob" <Rob.Glover@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neville Jones said:
"In his video presentation to students at ICR entitled, "The Origin of
Life," which I thoroughly recommend to anyone who has not got a copy, Dr.
Duane Gish states that "first of all, we acknowledge that energy is not a
problem; we have plenty of energy coming from the Sun." He then goes on to
show that the same energy source will obliterate amino acids in a "primordal
atmosphere of methane and ammonia" even more quickly than they could be
formed by lightning strikes. And that the only way of saving such amino
acids as were produced by Dr. Stanley Miller, was by way of a trap. Thus,
your own criticism could be directed back at you."
My criticism was how Creationists, including Gish, happily promulgate their
own version of the second law of Thermodynamics. I really don't want to get
sidetracked into an evolutionary debate. This is a Geocentrism forum is it
not? If I wanted to debate evolution, I'd go to talkorigins.
Neville Jones said:
"Furthermore, perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought Jack was talking about the
"Big Bang," which tends to imply that he was applying the 2nd law of
thermodynamics to the universe as a whole, in this instance."
I think you were wrong. Jack's statement was: "This is the problem that
creationists have when dealing with evolution. Evolution contradicts the 2nd
law of thermo-dynamics." I have shown that this is not the case, and it was
based on a misunderstanding by Jack (I do not criticise him for this, I
simply state it was a misunderstanding) of what the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics actually is.
Neville Jones said:
"Your point about the tomato having seeds inside it is, of course, straight
from Genesis."
From talkorigins.org, in fact. What is your point here? Does the fact that I
used a tomato seed example, mean I prove Genesis to be correct? I don't
think so.
Neville Jones said:
"I think you will agree that, by definition, the universe is a closed
system. Jack's point seemed to me to be one of the undeniable order we
observe in the universe and that, therefore, how could this order come about
in a closed system from a "Big Bang"? The "Big Bang" itself could not have
produced any, for that would be contrary to all theories of explosions."
"As regards Jack's point about matter being created (transformed is a better
word) from energy, I accept your observation. Ultimately, though, matter and
energy has to come from somewhere. Again, Genesis tells us that God created
everything that there is ex nihilo.
The naturalistic alternative is that it all was initially contained within a
mathematical singularity. More than this comes down to faith and personal
belief, and in this way Jack's position, to which you make the comment,
"Argument from Personal Incredulity is a risky one to make," is completely
justified, because, ultimately, you are going to have to come down to
exactly the same line."
This comes back to the point I made to Jack. I make no claim to know what
started the Universe. Evidence, both physical and theoretical, indicates it
arose from a singularity, with an infinitely high temperature, and underwent
a period of rapid inflationary expanding, which explains both the intrinsic
homogeneity of the Universe (i.e. it looks the same everywhere at the very
largest scales) and the localised inhomogeneities (galaxies.) Evidence for
this has been detected in the 'ripples' in the cosmic microwave background,
for example.
I am the first to acknowledge there are a _lot_ of unanswered mysteries
about the Universe. I would be worried if there weren't. These are areas
where scientific research is still very active, with no definitive answer in
sight. In particular, we lack a theory of Quantum Gravity which would tell
us how the Universe behaved in the first nanoseconds after the Bang, where
the universe was at a very small scale and temperatures and energy densities
were so high that subatomic particles could not yet form. We do not yet know
what 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy' actually is, but the evidence is
strongly saying to us that it's out there. I'd love to tap into a scientific
book of two hundred years hence.
The essential difference is I do not claim to know the answers. Jack,
ultimately does make that claim, as his position is based on the Bible - his
answer is 'Goddidit.' And that is the general Christian Fundamentalist view.
How did the Galaxies form? -Goddidit.
How did the Sun, Earth and Moon form? - Goddidit.
How did life arise? -Goddidit.
How did human beings come to be? -Goddidit.
To me that is no answer. They read more to me people being satisfied with
not understanding the world,and using a 'God of the Gaps' argument. For
example, I can envisage previous generations thinking like this:
How do mountains, valleys form? - Goddidit.
What causes earthquakes, volcanoes, floods? - God is angry.
Why does it rain? - God makes it rain.
What makes the Sun shine? - God makes it shine.
What is that big light in the sky? - God.
To me it should be no more threatening to religions to teach children that
ourselves and the great apes share a common ancestor, than to teach them
what the big light in the sky really is. But I don't expect you to agree
with me.
Neville Jones said:
"(I'm glad you stayed on.) "
There are a lot of questions on Geocentrism I've posed during my time here
that I'd like to see answers to. That's why I'm here.
Rob.
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied,
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended
recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all
copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
