Evolution, Entropy, the Big Bang, and the Second Law

[KinSlyr]

Captain Pooshoes

Lyramel

Swap "nothing" with "everything" and you've got it right.

this is unconscionable! how dare you call into question something in print! on the INTER WEB!! what did that snappy poster ever do to you?

[Naid Sanders]

The Big Bang Theory Does not explain how everyything came to be! As far as I know, the big Bang only showed that everything came a massive minute object that exploded to be everything that is here in this word. yet it still did not say where this massive object came from. and why the hell did it explode? how long had it been in that state before it exploded? perhaps, most importantly, would be the question of how big the emptiness was before big bang happened, and if this phenomenon is still happening in other "nothing" spaces...

scientists announced that they can re-enact the big bang in their laboratories, by bombarding an atom, their laboraties had created huge ammounts of energy. but before they can create the universe, they would need an atom ande a huge ammounts of energy, almost similar to their minuscle universe. hence their experiments still cannot answer other countries' power shortage problems. and the big bang seem to fail answering, how nothing suddenly had everything.

another curious belief of the big bang is that nothing exploded to become everything... if this is the case, nothing sure does have a knack of creating stuff up in thin air! IF THIS WERE EVEN POSSIBLE, PEOPLE OUGHT TO CONSIDER USING THIS THEORY TO FEED THE HUNGRY! surely, without even any equipment, anybody can create something out of nothing (I mean, this is what this idea implies, right?)

[KrsnikRyu]

O_o

[shnag]

very well written, although, the irony is, the only people who likely read it are ones who agreed with you begin with.

Creationist will never budge, no matter how many holes there are in their thinking, they ignore it. However, they will always try to find the tiniest holes, or even create their own logic to try to prove their point.

[VoijaRisa]

Lyramel

Think again.

Naid Sanders

The Big Bang Theory Does not explain how everyything came to be!

Nor does it need to. It only explains things within a certain span. Gravity doesn't have to explain where mass came from. Atomic theory doesn't have to explain where atoms came from. Etc...

Naid Sanders

As far as I know, the big Bang only showed that everything came a massive minute object that exploded to be everything that is here in this word.

Not an explosion. (See previous link)

Naid Sanders

and why the hell did it explode?

Leading theories atm suggest some sort of external pressure gradient. Not that you'd know what that means.

Naid Sanders

how long had it been in that state before it exploded?

Impossible to say since the Big Bang itself destroyed all information on the subject.

Naid Sanders

would be the question of how big the emptiness was before big bang happened, and if this phenomenon is still happening in other "nothing" spaces...

It wasn't because it wasn't "empty". All of space was there in the immensely dense state. Thus it wasn't empty so your question makes no sense.

Naid Sanders

scientists announced that they can re-enact the big bang in their laboratories, by bombarding an atom, their laboraties had created huge ammounts of energy. but before they can create the universe, they would need an atom ande a huge ammounts of energy, almost similar to their minuscle universe. hence their experiments still cannot answer other countries' power shortage problems.

Try bitching about the military before you start whining about scientists. The military uses trillions more in expenses, resources, manpower, etc...

Naid Sanders

and the big bang seem to fail answering, how nothing suddenly had everything.

Again, it wasn't "nothing". Thus, there's nothing to explain here.

Naid Sanders

IF THIS WERE EVEN POSSIBLE, PEOPLE OUGHT TO CONSIDER USING THIS THEORY TO FEED THE HUNGRY!

Again, b***h to the military first.

Naid Sanders

anybody can create something out of nothing (I mean, this is what this idea implies, right?)

No. That's not what the Big Bang implies. Go read that first link and get some intelligence next time.

[If]

Thank you so much for writing this! The laws of thermodynamics were never covered in my high school physics class, so I was never introduced to the actual equation and what it means. I knew that creationists had to be equivocating the s**t out of the usual wording of the second law, but up until I read your post, I never knew exactly how.

[KinSlyr]

shnag

very well written, although, the irony is, the only people who likely read it are ones who agreed with you begin with.

Creationist will never budge, no matter how many holes there are in their thinking, they ignore it. However, they will always try to find the tiniest holes, or even create their own logic to try to prove their point.

valid point here. creationists aren't looking for evidence that disproves their ideals... their looking for evidence that supports it. which, surprisingly enough, even makes finding evidence of a "big bang" seem easy.

It's the same as the scientific method... Only Backwards! (it's a revolution?)

[KinSlyr]

BTW, the Blue Footed Boobie is AWSOME!!! and is it alright if i link people to this thread? intelligence must not be wasted.

[Redem]

KinSlyr

and is it alright if i link people to this thread? intelligence must not be wasted.

That's what they're for.

[ASTRAL BODIES IN Y0 HOUSE]

NO SUCH THING AS "EVOLUTION."

SORRY.

[A Confused Iguana]

Any creationist wanting to be devious should begin with fine-tuning and the lack of population III stars. 3nodding

[TheGiantPotato]

I'm not sure how deep into physics studies you've gotten, but one of the newer ways to define "life" is to refer to it as the "anti-entropic tendency/force". Sometimes this definition extends to the entire evolutionary process which is not restricted to things living as we know them but any process which follows iterative processes in which the rules change each iteration, thus evolving as a system such as stellar formation, for example.

This involved a somewhat newer definition of evolution as a process not strictly related to life, either.

As far as your creationist/evolutionist arguments go, there is no way to prove either with certainty, as an omnicient being could have placed this world in motion so as to completely fool us and make evolution seem to be the course, set the Big Bang up with absolute foreknowledge in which case creation and evolution are one event, or have plugged us all into our own private Matrix in which we can endlessly push against the invisible fence of simulated reality yet never find a boundary through with to cross into the real world.

So effectively this is our reality and thereby the faith vs science argument is moot in my view. Which is why I can maintain my own faith and spirituality and not have it interfere with science at all. That is an advantage that a few religions have over others as some call their followers to question and contemplate things, and others set absolute boundaries.

As a side note, I have always found it compelling that the Genesis story follows steller and biological evolution step-by-step, though it was written ages ago. Believe what you will about the nature of God, but it certainly seems that someone before us knew quite a bit about the way the ordered world works. Its striking, really. Forgive me if I digress, but I've always thought this interesting... I'll put it here, though it shoudl probably get its own thread:

1. Identification and coalition of mass ("The earth was without form and void; and darkness was the face of the deep." wink
2. Stellar ignition (the famed "let there be light" wink
3. Initial stellar wind pushing back the haze and accelerating inter-planetary definitions ("divided the light from darkness" as well as the following "firmament" statements)
4. Planetary cooling and tectonic definition (the bit where he makes dry land appear)
6. Monocellular and plant life (the whole grass and herbs thing)
7. Stellar sweeping, being the process where stellar wind and planetoids act together to clear the nearby space of debris by pressure and gravity interactions (God makes the stars appear, visible now if the nearby debris are mostly cleared)
8. Initial marine animal life (fishes in the sea)*
9. Terrestrial animal life (animals on the land)
10. Man

*The one here I've put an asterisk is that he also put birds into play at this point. That is the one thing that seems out of order. The way it is stated it is clearly within the same phrase as the fish.

Despite the single inconsistency here, we do have an amazingly close approximation to what we have derived ourselves from completely secular emperical and theoretical models as being the stellar, planetary and biological evolutionary processes which occured here in our solar system. Again, sorry to post this here out of its own thread, but I figured you might be interested.

[Raw_fishFood]

TheGiantPotato

As far as your creationist/evolutionist arguments go, there is no way to prove either with certainty, as an omnicient being could have placed this world in motion so as to completely fool us and make evolution seem to be the course, set the Big Bang up with absolute foreknowledge in which case creation and evolution are one event, or have plugged us all into our own private Matrix in which we can endlessly push against the invisible fence of simulated reality yet never find a boundary through with to cross into the real world.

No, you're right, there's no way to be certain about anything. Reality may just be the peanut butter covering the bread of some trans-dimensional being's sandwich. However, the evidence points to neither a universe created already in motion or some sort of Matrix scenario. Being as this thread seems to be more concerned with what is observable/concrete, probably best to leave such philosophical wondering for another thread. 3nodding

TheGiantPotato

So effectively this is our reality and thereby the faith vs science argument is moot in my view. Which is why I can maintain my own faith and spirituality and not have it interfere with science at all. That is an advantage that a few religions have over others as some call their followers to question and contemplate things, and others set absolute boundaries.

As long as you leave your God out of the science lab, I've got no problem with that. 3nodding

TheGiantPotato

As a side note, I have always found it compelling that the Genesis story follows steller and biological evolution step-by-step, though it was written ages ago. Believe what you will about the nature of God, but it certainly seems that someone before us knew quite a bit about the way the ordered world works. Its striking, really. Forgive me if I digress, but I've always thought this interesting... I'll put it here, though it shoudl probably get its own thread:

1. Identification and coalition of mass ("The earth was without form and void; and darkness was the face of the deep." wink
2. Stellar ignition (the famed "let there be light" wink
3. Initial stellar wind pushing back the haze and accelerating inter-planetary definitions ("divided the light from darkness" as well as the following "firmament" statements)
4. Planetary cooling and tectonic definition (the bit where he makes dry land appear)
6. Monocellular and plant life (the whole grass and herbs thing)
7. Stellar sweeping, being the process where stellar wind and planetoids act together to clear the nearby space of debris by pressure and gravity interactions (God makes the stars appear, visible now if the nearby debris are mostly cleared)
8. Initial marine animal life (fishes in the sea)*
9. Terrestrial animal life (animals on the land)
10. Man

*The one here I've put an asterisk is that he also put birds into play at this point. That is the one thing that seems out of order. The way it is stated it is clearly within the same phrase as the fish.

Despite the single inconsistency here, we do have an amazingly close approximation to what we have derived ourselves from completely secular emperical and theoretical models as being the stellar, planetary and biological evolutionary processes which occured here in our solar system. Again, sorry to post this here out of its own thread, but I figured you might be interested.

I'm not sure this is entirely correct. I'm not doubting the order in Genesis (I'll admit I don't know the Old or New Testaments in any greater detail). I'll do some reading and get back to this later.

[TheGiantPotato]

Raw_fishFood

TheGiantPotato

As far as your creationist/evolutionist arguments go, there is no way to prove either with certainty, as an omnicient being could have placed this world in motion so as to completely fool us and make evolution seem to be the course, set the Big Bang up with absolute foreknowledge in which case creation and evolution are one event, or have plugged us all into our own private Matrix in which we can endlessly push against the invisible fence of simulated reality yet never find a boundary through with to cross into the real world.

No, you're right, there's no way to be certain about anything. Reality may just be the peanut butter covering the bread of some trans-dimensional being's sandwich. However, the evidence points to neither a universe created already in motion or some sort of Matrix scenario. Being as this thread seems to be more concerned with what is observable/concrete, probably best to leave such philosophical wondering for another thread. 3nodding

TheGiantPotato

So effectively this is our reality and thereby the faith vs science argument is moot in my view. Which is why I can maintain my own faith and spirituality and not have it interfere with science at all. That is an advantage that a few religions have over others as some call their followers to question and contemplate things, and others set absolute boundaries.

As long as you leave your God out of the science lab, I've got no problem with that. 3nodding

TheGiantPotato

As a side note, I have always found it compelling that the Genesis story follows steller and biological evolution step-by-step, though it was written ages ago. Believe what you will about the nature of God, but it certainly seems that someone before us knew quite a bit about the way the ordered world works. Its striking, really. Forgive me if I digress, but I've always thought this interesting... I'll put it here, though it shoudl probably get its own thread:

1. Identification and coalition of mass ("The earth was without form and void; and darkness was the face of the deep." )
2. Stellar ignition (the famed "let there be light" )
3. Initial stellar wind pushing back the haze and accelerating inter-planetary definitions ("divided the light from darkness" as well as the following "firmament" statements)
4. Planetary cooling and tectonic definition (the bit where he makes dry land appear)
6. Monocellular and plant life (the whole grass and herbs thing)
7. Stellar sweeping, being the process where stellar wind and planetoids act together to clear the nearby space of debris by pressure and gravity interactions (God makes the stars appear, visible now if the nearby debris are mostly cleared)
8. Initial marine animal life (fishes in the sea)*
9. Terrestrial animal life (animals on the land)
10. Man

*The one here I've put an asterisk is that he also put birds into play at this point. That is the one thing that seems out of order. The way it is stated it is clearly within the same phrase as the fish.

Despite the single inconsistency here, we do have an amazingly close approximation to what we have derived ourselves from completely secular emperical and theoretical models as being the stellar, planetary and biological evolutionary processes which occured here in our solar system. Again, sorry to post this here out of its own thread, but I figured you might be interested.

I'm not sure this is entirely correct. I'm not doubting the order in Genesis (I'll admit I don't know the Old or New Testaments in any greater detail). I'll do some reading and get back to this later.

It was intriguing to me. I'd rather not start a huge theological discussion here as they are impossible to make any headway in, as you and I both agreed on above. mrgreen

What is amazing to me is that a document as dated as Genesis could have such well ordered concepts. Of course, this could be entirely coincidence, but it is a very unique creation myth when compared with the others which usually involve instantiated objects and lots of mythical play which is difficult to interpret otherwise. Tales of turtles climbing endlessly up crawfish holes to arrive at our current plain of existence (North American river tribe, don't remember which one) or a retarded giant smashing his mother's egg to have it spill to the east into the ocean are the norms, not a single being guiding a process of ordered creation which parallels stellar and biological evolutionary processes.