• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

You Don't Understand...

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Doesn't it? Unless there is a driving force helping it?
Yes, either a physical force or a colloquial force can "help" can cause local lessening of entropy.

For example a the physical force of gravity can overcome the natural tendency of gas to dispense. That occurs in star formation, planetary formation, and can be observed every day because our atmosphere does not fly off into space.

A colloquial force would be one like natural selection, which along with variation are two of the main driving forces of evolution.

In neither of them is a "god" required.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, either a physical force or a colloquial force can "help" can cause local lessening of entropy.

For example a the physical force of gravity can overcome the natural tendency of gas to dispense. That occurs in star formation, planetary formation, and can be observed every day because our atmosphere does not fly off into space.

A colloquial force would be one like natural selection, which along with variation are two of the main driving forces of evolution.

In neither of them is a "god" required.
I dislike such colloquial ideas.
Pressure force tends to distribute things evenly, gravity force seeks to concentrate things (also True for other forces like capillary forces, osmotic gradient forces etc.). The most likely distribution of matter in a system changes depending on which forces dominate. Second law simply states that most likely distributions are more likely to be observed. So it really does not have much of a relationship with complexity at all.
There is a huge confusion on this issue among popular literature.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Isn't it more than just a tad of hypocrisy for some to condemn "assumptions" in science whereas assumptions are paramount within religions? We can't even get close to somehow proving there's only one god and yet some religions are 100% based on that.

Just to be clear, I am not in any way anti-religion.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I dislike such colloquial ideas.
Pressure force tends to distribute things evenly, gravity force seeks to concentrate things (also True for other forces like capillary forces, osmotic gradient forces etc.). The most likely distribution of matter in a system changes depending on which forces dominate. Second law simply states that most likely distributions are more likely to be observed. So it really does not have much of a relationship with complexity at all.
There is a huge confusion on this issue among popular literature.

I know, people misuse scientific terms quite frequently. And I have even heard Flat Earthers try to claim that the Earth's atmosphere violates the Second Lot of Thermodynamics. And if one goes relativistic gravity is not even a true force. It is more akin to the Coriolis Effect. But I was trying to communicate in terms that he could understand. Of course I have never seen a creationist get the SLoT right at any rate.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
No, the term ‘supernatural’ comes from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- (beyond, or outside of) + natura (nature).

So if it’s “outside of” nature, then it can’t be part of it.

Best wishes

And yet the people who called demons supernatural also believed they were invisible vapors that could be trapped in bags and were heavier than air.

As I said, the way they meant "nature" in the phrase "supernatural" is completely different from what scientists mean when they say "nature." When scientists talk about nature, they are talking about the observable world. If supernatural beings interacted with our world, then they would be a part of nature, because their effects would be observable.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
But we know that there are black holes and really don't know how they origin

There are numbers of different types of blackholes...how many types there are, I don’t really know, as I am neither an astronomer, nor an astrophysicist.

But the one I am familiar with Stellar Blackhole is that when a very massive star run out of hydrogen for thermonuclear fusion (or Stellar Nucleosynthesis, of which there are several types of SN), it either explode as in Supernova, or the gravity of star‘s very massive core, the star’s upper layers would collapse into the core, thereby creating blackhole. And anything that past the blackhole’s Event Horizon will get pull in and eventually become part of the dead star’s core.

So in Stellar Blackhole, the gravity collapse of star’s core is where blackhole originated.

As to Supermassive Blackholes within the centre of galaxies, you will have to ask someone with more knowledge than that I currently possess.

I can speculate that a galaxy’s supermassive blackhole (SMBH) might have originated from older generations of multiple massive stars, so probably multiple blackholes joined pulling each other to create increasingly larger blackhole, when the galaxy was younger.

The alternative origin for SMBH would be massive volume and very high density of molecular cloud of gases, could have cause gravity collapse, so instead of forming a star in such collapse, the collapse resulted in a supermassive blackhole.

As I said I am only speculating about the SMBH’s origins, so I’d need to read and research a bit more on the subject of SMBH.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Then I have to wonder....do you believe God is the "driving force" behind all biological complexity?
If it produces life, yes. If it kills, steals and destroys, it is a perversion of what God created. Like love and sex.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Yes, either a physical force or a colloquial force can "help" can cause local lessening of entropy.

For example a the physical force of gravity can overcome the natural tendency of gas to dispense. That occurs in star formation, planetary formation, and can be observed every day because our atmosphere does not fly off into space.

A colloquial force would be one like natural selection, which along with variation are two of the main driving forces of evolution.

In neither of them is a "god" required.
Yes.... so beautifully designed that requires a Creator. IMV.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes.... so beautifully designed that requires a Creator. IMV.
No. There is no evidence of design. If anything when it comes to life there is not even evidence of an "Intelligent Designer". What we see is the work of an "Incompetent Designer". When I went to college I moved into a house with a bunch of other science nerds. Two of them were computer engineers and they had bought the earliest personal computer available and then added features to it. It was a classic kludge where parts were added to parts and it worked. Just barely. We see that with life where parts are readapted from previous uses since it is all but impossible to start over from scratch. The housemates computers were of the same order. It would take too much investment on their part to do it right so like life, they were forced to get along with what they had.

ID proponents cannot even properly define "Design". They definitely do not have any evidence for it since they cannot properly test it. Do you remember about being told that science is based upon a testable hypothesis. Early on scientists learned the value of a testable hypothesis. It is very important in the sciences to have the guts to put your idea into such a form and then giving it to the world and saying:

"Here! Break this."

And that is what other scientists try to do. If they break it we learn from it. If they don't we can be reasonable sure that the idea is very close to being correct. Scientists want to know if they are wrong. ID believers only want to believe. That is a weakness since any idea that humans come up with is very very likely to be wrong. v If you are so afraid to test your idea then you have no way to know how to fix it. And by definition, if an idea cannot be tested there is not any evidence for it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Again, as the OP suggested, two different viewpoints looking at the same evidence. :)
No, the evidence only supports one side right now.

You cannot claim to have evidence if all that you have is an ad hoc explanation. Scientists realized that those were dead ends a long time ago. They do not bring any advances.

What is your testable hypothesis? It cannot be based on something that we already know. That would be just trying to fit a poor reasoning to the present observations. Why can't anyone on the ID side properly define their terms? Their definition of "design" is almost as bad as that of creationists with "kind".. Define your terms properly. And come up with a reasonable test and then you can discuss evidence.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Again, as the OP suggested, two different intelligent viewpoints looking at the same evidence. :)
Actually its not.
One is science, the other is personal opinion. The second cannot be said to be intelligent but stems from scientific ignorance.
The arguments of the OP also has been refuted quite convincingly by myself and many others.

Frankly I teach thermodynamics to graduate and undergraduate students every year and do research on things like entropy minimization, exergy maximization for energy conversion processes. I am sorry, but I cannot take your opinion on this matter of what the 2nd law is and is not very seriously.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
No, the evidence only supports one side right now.

You cannot claim to have evidence if all that you have is an ad hoc explanation. Scientists realized that those were dead ends a long time ago. They do not bring any advances.

And yet thee are scientists that disagree with you who know so much more than you do.

Repeating a statement of "no, the evidence only supports one side" without testable evidence that there isn't a Creator" doesn't make it so. Just go to your garage and say "I am a car" and see if you change... wait a minute, do you identify yourself as a car?

So.... we are back to the OP. :D
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Actually its not.
One is science, the other is personal opinion. The second cannot be said to be intelligent but stems from scientific ignorance.
The arguments of the OP also has been refuted quite convincingly by myself and many others.

Frankly I teach thermodynamics to graduate and undergraduate students every year and do research on things like entropy minimization, exergy maximization for energy conversion processes. I am sorry, but I cannot take your opinion on this matter of what the 2nd law is and is not very seriously.

I disagree.

Just a cursory googling I find that John M. Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering , The Pennsylvania State University says it does.

Astrophysicist Dr. Lisle Ph.D. believes it does.

There is even one that went from evolutionist to creationist because of it.


Back to the OP :)
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I disagree.

Just a cursory googling I find that John M. Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering , The Pennsylvania State University says it does.

Astrophysicist Dr. Lisle Ph.D. believes it does.

There is even one that went from evolutionist to creationist because of it.


Back to the OP :)
Personal opinions of scientists do not matter. Has any of them published any papers demonstrating these claims?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Personal opinions of scientists do not matter. Has any of them published any papers demonstrating these claims?
Is that your opinion? And is it "evolutionists" that are judging the papers? ;) If there was a "creationist panel" to judge papers, would you accept it? Or is bias only a one-way street. :)
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Is that your opinion? And is it "evolutionists" that are judging the papers? ;) If there was a "creationist panel" to judge papers, would you accept it? Or is bias only a one-way street. :)
The "judging" is done on the basis of evidence, thus it is not to ban any publication, idea, or person. Peer review gives other scientists the right to look at what evidence is presented and then they can chime in their own ideas and/or research. I was involved in such a process back in the late 1960's, and it is such tedious work, let me tell ya.
 
Top