Evidence for The Creator: Entropy

you cannot say things take billions of years until humans have been observing it for billions of years

 

Then by that reasoning you can't say electons exist until humans have observed an electron (hint: they are too small to be directly observed). You can't say O.J. Simpson killed his wife unless a witness saw him do it. We can't say black holes exist unless someone has seen one directly. We can't say anything about what the sun is made of unless someone has been there and saw it. We can't say the Roman empire existed unless we have a witness who saw it.

 

https://phys.org/news/2008-02-electron.html
FEBRUARY 22, 2008
Electron filmed for first time ever

 

How do we know that what we are seeing is indeed an electron and not something else? I'm also moving the goalposts. We have never seen a quark before.

 

I gave the link to the peer reviewed film. Some people refuse to believe anything no matter what the evidence.

 

So, you diagree with Robert Allen, too.

 

“Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you don't understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don't understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn't bother you anymore.” ~Arnold Sommerfeld

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

Scroll down to #9. You may need the others for your other posts.

 

A link is not a rational rebuttal. It is an argument of authority, to debate by proxy.

I have presented my own arguments, in my own words. Any rebuttals should address those.

If someone does not understand the topic so as to debate it intelligently, they should inform themselves, first, and not rely on Google searches and arguments by proxy.

 

I'll repeat some points made earlier, about entropy, and reaffirm that it is evidence of a creation event, not atheistic naturalism.

Entropy functions in any system, open or closed. The micro system of our solar system is able to support life (constantly dissipating, devolving, and dying), in a micro system of sun warmed energy, infused into the earth's atmosphere. But this source is winding down, and will burn out, leaving the system cold, dead, and lifeless. That is entropy, in action.

Something (or Someone), 'wound up' this system, and set the stars on fire, so light and heat could provide the very narrow window of conditions for life to survive. But it is winding down, like everything else in the universe. Entropy, as the overriding principle in the universe cannot be ignored or denied.

If entropy must constantly and continuously increase, then the universe is remorselessly running down, thus setting a limit (a long one, to be sure) on the existence of humanity. To some human beings, this ultimate end poses itself almost as a threat to their personal immortality, or as a denial of the omnipotence of God. There is, therefore, a strong emotional urge to deny that entropy must increase. — Isaac Asimov

 

Entropy rules, in our universe, with an iron fist. Nobody and nothing can escape its reach, and the simple fact of universal entropy makes the big bang, abiogenesis, and common ancestry impossible. There is nothing and nobody, in a godless universe, to 'create' order from randomness and chaos. There is nothing and nobody to 'create' life, and the amazing complexity and diversity we observe. ONLY an Intelligent Designer, with Extra-Natural Ability, could have ordered the universe, winding down, as it is, under the inescapable effects of Entropy.

 

Why? What good is repeating an argument instead of addressing the questions and concerns? If you get an email from a Nigerian prince who wants to access your bank account to deposit money, do you get any more convinced if we just sends you the same email again?

Depends on what you mean by "functions". You can certainly calculate entropy in any system, but the rule that entropy cannot decrease is only true in closed system. Other than that, yes, the sun is "winding down" and will burn out, albeit over billions of years.

This seems to be an assertion without evidence, if the universe started in an ordered state (like in the big bang, where all matter and energy was in a small volume), there would be no "winding up" required.

I would agree with Asimov, the appeal to a god in this case seems largely an emotional one. So far, you haven't been able to provide the evidence you mention in the title.

What is your evidence that the ordered universe was ordered from randomness and chaos? That seems like an assertion without evidence from your part. Without that unjustified assumption, the intelligent designer is no longer needed to explain any of your supposed evidence. Ignoring my comments again will not make the flaws in your argument go away.

 

Citing an authoritative source isn't playing fair. Got it.

 

I know it's in vogue to ignore the results of science - even science that has stood up to constant testing for 150 years!

But, yours is one of the more hilarious dodges I've seen on these boards. You can't answer the arguments from science, so you ask people to make up their OWN arguemtns!!!

And, the cite was from Scientific Amerian NOT google.

 

You can't get something from nothing.
Chance is not a creative force.

Perhaps the most common observation made by human beings is that 'this did not all happen by chance'.
People separated by thousands of miles and thousands of years all made the same exact observation - this did not all happen by chance. The fact that this did not all happen by chance is the foundation for all religious beliefs.

As creative beings, we recognize created things. Only human beings can recognize an arrowhead as something that did not happen by chance. As makers of things, we recognize made things.

You cannot get something from nothing, and chance is not a creative force. Nothing increases in functional complexity by chance. (see the 2nd law of thermodynamics) You can drop a wheelbarrow of bricks a thousand times a day for ten billion years, and they will never fall into a straight, plumb column, let alone a double helix.

I believe in natural selection, but then again, natural selection part in parcel of extinction, not evolution. Natural selection is nothing more or less than extinction by degrees. Darwinian evolution is based on the idea that chance is a creative force. I find that idea to be easily dismissed.

 

Many people today believe that the worst problem on Earth is human beings multiplying, filling the Earth and subduing it.
Then they ask, when was I an enemy of God?

You had one job.

 

There is a force that exists as you describe within nature.. "Reverse Entropy" or Negative Entropy happens - going from simple to complex - and then back again - the circle of life exists.

I think we could associate this force with God - Just not your God.

 

Nothing decreases in entropy by chance, ever. Chance is not a creative force.

 

What a ridiculous post - The first part is OK - and you would be correct - many people do believe that this is a problem - and they would be correct - demonstrably so.

Then they do what ? how is recognizing that humans are having an negative impact being an enemy of God ?
Have you lost your marbles ?

Even if one believed in a quazi literal interpretation of the Bible - you are taking the proclamations in Genesis way out of context.

The idea that everyone else shares your and extremist and somewhat bizarre perspective - such that you can just assume this premise without substantiation - is what is ridiculous.

Then of course it is always ridiculous to assume what God thinks for him - the "unforgivable sin" according to Jesus IMO.

Did the lord sit down with you for tea the other day tell you his thoughts mate ?
Or perhaps it was the dark one .. pretending to be the Lord

Methinks you have been duped !

 

Your posts lose so much impact when you add in the little snarky ad hominin attacks. You should try to grow out of that. Use this forum to practice and improve yourself.

 

Do attempt to substantiate/ prove your claim (which its not true btw - not even close)

 

I did not engage in any ad hom fallacy. You are mistaking logic and reason and reality for fallacy.

 

There is nothing about evolution that would suggest you can get something from nothing. On Earth, entropy is defeated by our sun, which pours incredible amounts of new energy onto us.

Chance is only one element in evolution. Whatever you say about chance may or may not apply to evolution, as you leave out factors like natural selection.

Are you claiming that god is spending his time making new more resiliant bacteria?

Is god making new more successful viruses over and over again as we work to survive?

Science has an answer that has been rigorously tested for 150 years and for which there has never been a successful falsification.

Religion has no meaningful answer at all, unless you want to claim that god is perpetually making and sending out new diseases to attack us.

 

Good post - and interesting perspective .. I have often wondered "If I were God" - and wanted to entertain myself - going around - doing little experiments - one on this world - another on the next - what would that look like ?

Would I watch that experiment continuously ? probably not - perhaps check in from time to time to see how things are progressing .. like watching / playing a super cool version of one of those build an empire computer games.

God is the ghost in the machine - never quite sure what it is up to

 

This is a woeful misunderstanding of entropy as it applies to chemical reactions and increasing complexity in biological structures. There is nothing about entropy that prohibits the evolution of life any more than it prohibits life reproducing and growing in the first place.