Evidence For And Against Evolution

[JasAnMa]

Except that they do. All the time.
A chaotic cloud of matter in space will turn into ordered spheres through gravity,

I would love for proof that ordered spheres are actually produced. It's assumed they do since there are planets but that in no way proves gravity made all planets and stars.... All that means is gravity holds them together. If I'm wrong then there should be an example demonstrating this behind numbers on a chalk board.

 

[JasAnMa]

Again you need to support this claim. You are using the overly simplistic version of the 2nd Law for an isolated system. The Earth is not an isolated system.

Ok let's try again. 1. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. 2. Total entropy in a closed system can never decrease. Now if you believe the universe was created, since it is a closed system, you run into the first law. If it is eternal then by now all the energy would have been uniformly distributed thus we wouldn't be here. There is no force inside space time that can overcome either of these laws. That is what I was poorly trying to say at 2am.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok let's try again. 1. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. 2. Total entropy in a closed system can never decrease. Now if you believe the universe was created, since it is a closed system, you run into the first law. If it is eternal then by now all the energy would have been uniformly distributed thus we wouldn't be here. There is no force inside space time that can overcome either of these laws. That is what I was poorly trying to say at 2am.

Come on now! I am sure you have heard of Einstein. There goes number one.

The universe, as we know it, had a beginning. That does not mean it was created. And as strange as it seems as close as we can measure the total energy of the universe is zero. There are both positive and negative energy and they appear to balance out.

"I don't know therefore God" is never a valid argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would love for proof that ordered spheres are actually produced.

It's assumed they do since there are planets but that in no way proves gravity made all planets and stars....

The way gravity works, formation of planets and stars, including their eventual spherical shape, is mathematically inevitable. Black holes even, are pretty much an inevitable thing considering the workings of gravity.

All that means is gravity holds them together. If I'm wrong then there should be an example demonstrating this behind numbers on a chalk board.

In case you haven't notice, these days we have rather powerfull telescope with which we can observe other places in the universe in astounding detail in some case.

The theory of planetary and solar system formation, being a good scientific theory, off course makes testable predictions. Many of which we can test right here in our backyard. Some of which we can test by peeping into space through giant telescopes.

One such prediction is that in the early stages, there is an accretion disc through in which proptoplanets form and which orbit the young star while clearing the "debris" in their orbital path like some kind of vacuum cleaner.

Here's a picture of exactly such a thing, discovered by the chines

But note that even without this, or before we had such pictures, we already had very good and testable evidence that this is how celestial bodies form.

Likely, you feel like you can't accept this because it goes against your dogmatic religious beliefs.

The sooner you realise that it's not reality that is incorrect when it doesn't match up with your beliefs, the better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would love for proof that ordered spheres are actually produced. It's assumed they do since there are planets but that in no way proves gravity made all planets and stars.... All that means is gravity holds them together. If I'm wrong then there should be an example demonstrating this behind numbers on a chalk board.

Gravity forms spheres because that is the lowest potential energy shape. No intelligence required.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok let's try again. 1. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. 2. Total entropy in a closed system can never decrease.

Earth is not a closed system.
Ever heared about this thing called "the sun"?
It delivers workable energy to the earth 24/7 and has been doing that for some 4.5 billion years now and will continue to do so for many more billions of years.

Now if you believe the universe was created, since it is a closed system, you run into the first law.

The laws of physics, are the laws of the universe. Removing the universe, also removes the physics of the universe. Meaning that you can't invoke them in that context on the count that they don't actually exist yet.
And when they exist - then they apply IN the universe, which is where they exist.

So no, in a context where the universe doesn't exist, one doesn't run into these laws since they also don't yet exist.

If it is eternal then by now all the energy would have been uniformly distributed thus we wouldn't be here.

Space-time is some 13.7 billion years old. So it's not eternal. Not in its present expanding form anyway.

There is no force inside space time that can overcome either of these laws.

Why would there have to be?

That is what I was poorly trying to say at 2am.

It's still not making any sense though.

 

[JasAnMa]

Why would you expect anything to be any different? If you want to claim a magical difference the burden of proof is upon you. There were volcanic deposits in the past too. You are terribly confused at best. Once again, that is a volcanic deposit. You cannot compare that to sedimentary deposits.

If you can look around the Earth at the devastating events like earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, and hurricanes and still assume they play no significant role in geological processes... That seems more magical than the proposal that they do.

Come on now! I am sure you have heard of Einstein. There goes number one.

The universe, as we know it, had a beginning. That does not mean it was created. And as strange as it seems as close as we can measure the total energy of the universe is zero. There are both positive and negative energy and they appear to balance out.

"I don't know therefore God" is never a valid argument.

Einsteins theory says mass and energy are the same. This does not do away with the first law in the least. And you can say the universe came into being without being created but matter can't spontaneously pop into existence that would break the first law. Perhaps an example to show this process does indeed happen would sway me.

 

[JasAnMa]

Earth is not a closed system.
Ever heared about this thing called "the sun"?
It delivers workable energy to the earth 24/7 and has been doing that for some 4.5 billion years now and will continue to do so for many more billions of years.



The laws of physics, are the laws of the universe. Removing the universe, also removes the physics of the universe. Meaning that you can't invoke them in that context on the count that they don't actually exist yet.
And when they exist - then they apply IN the universe, which is where they exist.

So no, in a context where the universe doesn't exist, one doesn't run into these laws since they also don't yet exist.



Space-time is some 13.7 billion years old. So it's not eternal. Not in its present expanding form anyway.



Why would there have to be?



It's still not making any sense though.

Ok, so in no space/time, there was suddenly with no cause, an event that simultaneously produced the Continuum and the laws that govern those properties? I want to make sure we're on the same page then I will proceed with this line of thought.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok let's try again. 1. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Wrong. Matter can be destroyed if it is turned into energy.

2. Total entropy in a closed system can never decrease.
Now if you believe the universe was created, since it is a closed system, you run into the first law.

What does the *actual* statement of the first law say? It says that the total mass/energy of a closed system is the same for any two times. It compares the amount of mass and energy at one time to the amount of mass and energy at another time and says that they will be the same.

Putting aside the issues surrounding finding the total energy in a curved spacetime, this statement is always between two *times*. And ALL of time is part of the universe. There was no 'before the universe

If it is eternal then by now all the energy would have been uniformly distributed thus we wouldn't be here.

Precisely what do you mean by the term 'eternal'. Does it mean 'for all time'? And, in that, are you assuming that time itself is infinite?

Why would you assume that the energy would have to be uniformly distributed 'by now' even if there is an infinite amount of time? NO law of physics requires such.

There is no force inside space time that can overcome either of these laws. That is what I was poorly trying to say at 2am.

Forces are part of the laws. The laws are about the forces. The law of the conservation of mass and energy says something a bit different than what you seem to think it does. AND the second law of thermodynamics is NOT a fundamental law: it is a statistical law based on the underlying movements of the atoms. And, in fact, for a closed *finite* system, the second law *cannot* hold for an infinite amount of time: there *will* be approximate repeats of conditions, which violates said 'law'.

 

[Polymath257]

If you can look around the Earth at the devastating events like earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, and hurricanes and still assume they play no significant role in geological processes... That seems more magical than the proposal that they do.

Who said that they don't play a role? They most certainly DO and this is well understood and acknowledged in geoloogy.

Einsteins theory says mass and energy are the same. This does not do away with the first law in the least. And you can say the universe came into being without being created but matter can't spontaneously pop into existence that would break the first law. Perhaps an example to show this process does indeed happen would sway me.

Once again, the first law, even as described by Einstein, compares the total energy between two *times*. if time itself is not infinite into the past (as is described in the basic Big Bang model, based on Einstein's ideas), then there is no violation of conservation of energy because there is no *time* 'before'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you can look around the Earth at the devastating events like earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, and hurricanes and still assume they play no significant role in geological processes... That seems more magical than the proposal that they do.

Einsteins theory says mass and energy are the same. This does not do away with the first law in the least. And you can say the universe came into being without being created but matter can't spontaneously pop into existence that would break the first law. Perhaps an example to show this process does indeed happen would sway me.

What!? No one assumes that storms etc. have no effect.

And you specifically stated mass. The First Law of Thermodynamics is about conservation of energy, at least try to use the laws appropriately. And matter can and does pop into existence. Google search "the Casimir Effect". You are forgetting that there is negative energy too. Negative energy is normally in the form of gravitational potential energy.

And why are you talking about the Big Bang? That has nothing to do with evolution.

Lastly a comment you made reminded me of the most famous rant on YouTube. Caution, there may be an f-bomb or two dropped in this video along with just a smidgen of harsh language:

Not to be taken personally.

The most famous part starts at the five minute mark.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, so in no space/time, there was suddenly with no cause, an event that simultaneously produced the Continuum and the laws that govern those properties? I want to make sure we're on the same page then I will proceed with this line of thought.

Not quite. Technically, the singularity isn't an event at all. So even in classical general relativity, your statement isn't correct.

Second, when quantum effects are brought in, we *know* of many events that occur *within the universe* that are uncaused.

But more relevantly, if we consider the whole of space and time together (as modern physics does), then spacetime as a whole *cannot* be caused simply because time is part of spacetime.

 

[Polymath257]

I would love for proof that ordered spheres are actually produced. It's assumed they do since there are planets but that in no way proves gravity made all planets and stars.... All that means is gravity holds them together. If I'm wrong then there should be an example demonstrating this behind numbers on a chalk board.

Spheres are the form that produces the least energy for a gravitational system. So, energy tends to be released (which, by the way, explains the second law aspects here) and the system tends to form into spheres. This is proven mathematically from the laws of gravity.

 

[JasAnMa]

Not quite. Technically, the singularity isn't an event at all. So even in classical general relativity, your statement isn't correct.

Second, when quantum effects are brought in, we *know* of many events that occur *within the universe* that are uncaused.

But more relevantly, if we consider the whole of space and time together (as modern physics does), then spacetime as a whole *cannot* be caused simply because time is part of spacetime.

Please take me at what I'm saying and don't read into it as me lining you up for something. I should've done this earlier...I think it's foolish to argue any point until both parties know exactly where the other stands.
Ok, so the singularity isn't an event... What would the proper term for that be? And could you show me an example of an uncaused quantum effect?

 

[Polymath257]

Please take me at what I'm saying and don't read into it as me lining you up for something. I should've done this earlier...I think it's foolish to argue any point until both parties know exactly where the other stands.
Ok, so the singularity isn't an event... What would the proper term for that be? And could you show me an example of an uncaused quantum effect?

The term 'singularity' is a description of what happens as some physical variable approaches some value, saying that some other physical variable becomes undefined.

In the case of the Big Bang, we are considering what happens as time approaches the 'start' (there actually isn't a time for the 'start': only times after it). As this happens, several other variables, like density, get very large. And what we find is that if general relativity is correct (and it may not be in this situation), that time itself cannot even be for the 'start' or before. There is literally only 'after'.

Most quantum events are technically uncaused: the precise event is not determined by previous events. So, for example, the time of decay of a radioactive atom is uncaused: the atom that decays now and the atom that decays in a million years are *identical* except in their position. There is literally NOTHING that determines whether one atom will decay now or in a million years.

Ultimately, from quantum mechanics, the universe is probabilistic, not deterministic. Most quantum events are uncaused in any classical sense of the word 'cause'.

 

[SkepticThinker]

One cannot believe in evolution as currently explained and the Bible at the same time. Here's something more about evolution: findings appear to refute speculations by some scientists that Neanderthals and humans interbred in more recent times. Now isn't that interesting? Really? Neanderthal: 99.5 Percent Human

Those articles are pretty outdated.

Here is some more recent, updated information:
Interbreeding
DNA: Genotypes and Phenotypes
Neanderthal DNA in Modern Human Genomes Is Not Silent
Genetic data on half a million Brits reveal ongoing evolution and Neanderthal legacy

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't know that much yet about hermit crabs and exactly how they are born. But that doesn't really make a difference when it comes to humans. It only speaks of the fabulous majesty of God's creation. How it all transpired I surely cannot say. But humans are uniquely different in that they do not instinctively make clothes.

What do you think the significance of that is .... ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Try again, I must have missed it. Should be easy for you. By the way, it seems that ocean fossils were found in the tops of some mountains. And of course many wonder, how can that be so?

This is an old creationist canard:
CC364: Marine fossils on mountains


It can be so if one is familiar with the process by which mountains are formed.
Mountains: How Are They Formed? - Universe Today
Mountains Information and Facts

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again you leave yourself without foundation as usual by just saying the article is out of date. Meantime archaeological evidence is being discovered leading many to conclude it verifies what the Bible says.

Such as?

 

[Jose Fly]

It's a bad argument to go against the idea that geological processes have been at least close to the same food millions of years? That's a huge assumption. And I do realize that there was Ash in the deposit below the volcano, there were many other sediments as well and they were deposited rapidly as well as peat. We have direct evidence that sedimentary rock can firm quickly and very little to think it forms slowly.

That make no sense whatsoever. Your argument seems to be "Mt. St. Helen's quickly laid down layers of volcanic ash and mud, therefore geological processes haven't been the same for millions of years".

You're going to have to explain that one.