Celtic Heroes

Whoa Vrealen hold on... When i said prediction... I think you totally missed my point... I meant that if creation was true you would expect the laws of thermodynamics to be there. The bible even talks about them thousands of years before they were even called the laws of theodynamics. While evolution tries to explain it, creation expects it. Do you get my point?

I am just going to address c14 as it is late. All what he said about c14 dates being changed because their subjects had been in water(just one example didnt feel the need to copy down all of them) tells me that C14 dates can be changed depending on the conditions it is in. This in my opinion makes C-14 unreliable. Also even if C14 is correct that is one point for evolution while as far as i know every other reliable geologic clock points to creation.

Oh and just so you know guys I don't want to hear why you didnt reply to my arguments; i just want to hear you replie to them.

Whoa Vrealen hold on... When i said prediction... I think you totally missed my point... I meant that if creation was true you would expect the laws of thermodynamics to be there. The bible even talks about them thousands of years before they were even called the laws of theodynamics. While evolution tries to explain it, creation expects it. Do you get my point?

Ahh, ok. My apologies. :/ Um... Would you mind showing me where the prediction for the laws of thermodynamics are?

I am just going to address c14 as it is late. All what he said about c14 dates being changed because their subjects had been in water(just one example didnt feel the need to copy down all of them) tells me that C14 dates can be changed depending on the conditions it is in. This in my opinion makes C-14 unreliable. Also even if C14 is correct that is one point for evolution while as far as i know every other reliable geologic clock points to creation.

It is unreliable for some things but the majority is very accurate. Even if one object somehow becomes invalid, we can compare to other readings and reach an average. That is the point of multiple sources.

Which other geological clocks are you referring to?

Oh and just so you know guys I don't want to hear why you didnt reply to my arguments; i just want to hear you replie to them.

Sorry, I just do not like to repeat. :/ Dersu's post basically had everything I wanted to say regarding carbon dating and geological clocks. Anything further, as you can see, I reply myself.

Whoa Vrealen hold on... When i said prediction... I think you totally missed my point... I meant that if creation was true you would expect the laws of thermodynamics to be there. The bible even talks about them thousands of years before they were even called the laws of theodynamics. While evolution tries to explain it, creation expects it. Do you get my point?

Ahh, ok. My apologies. :/ Um... Would you mind showing me where the prediction for the laws of thermodynamics are?

I am just going to address c14 as it is late. All what he said about c14 dates being changed because their subjects had been in water(just one example didnt feel the need to copy down all of them) tells me that C14 dates can be changed depending on the conditions it is in. This in my opinion makes C-14 unreliable. Also even if C14 is correct that is one point for evolution while as far as i know every other reliable geologic clock points to creation.

It is unreliable for some things but the majority is very accurate. Even if one object somehow becomes invalid, we can compare to other readings and reach an average. That is the point of multiple sources.

Which other geological clocks are you referring to?

Oh and just so you know guys I don't want to hear why you didnt reply to my arguments; i just want to hear you replie to them.

Sorry, I just do not like to repeat. :/ Dersu's post basically had everything I wanted to say regarding carbon dating and geological clocks. Anything further, as you can see, I reply myself.

I was not referring to dersus post; i was referring to when u didnt respond to both laws of thermodynamics. I will gladly show you biblical references and geologic clocks but.. I will do so tomorrow. I am very tired. Sorry for the delay.

You mean this post?

Ok: first off, any objections you may have about the bible being credible have probably been asked(and answered) already. One book that may answer a lot of your question is "Evidence that demands a verdict". I think its by Josh McDowell.

Second: magixal it doesn't seem to me that you know what the laws of thermodynamics are. Yes they apply to hear but they apply to many other things as well. I should point out that creations fits perfectly with both laws. For instance creation says that everything is decaying or getting worse. It also says that no energy can be created or destroyed; that it can just change form.

Ok lets review the laws of thermodynamics as quoted from unlocking the mysteries of creation: first law: energy is conserved. All existing processes of nature merely change energy from one form to another. In nature, energy is neither created or destroyed. Matter itself(which is potential atomic energy) maintained at a constant level. Processes change matter and energy from one form to others but the total quantity of energy in the universe remains the same. Okay lets stop for a moment. (This is me again). Lets say the molecule is eternal. If it was then the energy in the universe would be all used up and we would be dead. Even if the molecule was not eternal the world would be a lot closer to a heat death than it is. Okay back to unlocking creation: Second law: energy dissipates. As processes in natural energy occur, the total energy reservoir is reduced to simpler life forms with a consequent increase in what has been termed entropy. As energy is used it becomes less available for further use. Part of the energy spent to produce something is always lost by radiation, friction, or other effects. It becomes non-recoverable heat dissipating in space. Ultimately, as things are going, the entire universe will end up being filled with a stagnant mass of low level heat energy.
Okay back to me: evolutionists say things are going up: a true law of science says that as things go on they go down. I think i heard that you are right vraelen;(not sure and im to lazy to grab another science book; i have two open in front of me lol) there might be a slight chance to overcome one of the laws of thermodynamics(on second thought i will get it). Ok yeah there could be a chance that you could overcome the second law but it is about as likely that a bunch of monkeys on typewriters could reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare without error 15 quadrillion times in a row.


And plus3, to me it still sounds as if ur trying to make excuses not to have to debate his points.

Um... I am not sure where you got the external molecule from... Energy and matter are the same thing and have many forms. A molecule could break, another could form, but there is always going to be the same amount of energy/matter.

Is the atom eternal? Well, that is unknown. Eventually forces may tear it apart, wear it down, etc. But it does not just add on to some giant unusable collection of waste. Electrons are constantly moving and transferring between matter, atoms move, everything moves.

Water is the perfect example. Through photosynthesis and respiration, H20 separates and reforms. Water itself is constantly forming hydrogen bonds due to polarity which gives it the "moving" quality.

I am not sure how else to explain this but we are certainly not heading towards a grand universal death anytime soon.

Ok i actually had written down biblical references to the laws of thermodynamics. You must have just missed it.

Anyway: first law: Collosians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2-3, 2 Peter 3:5 &7, Psalm 148:5-6, Isaiah 40:26, and Nehemiah 9:6.
Second law: Psalm 102:26. While the second law has fewer verses it would also be in accordance with the fall if man in the garden of Eden.

Ok as for geological time clocks:
1: interplanetary dust:if the universe was billions of years old there should have been 54 feet of dust on the moon when we landed. Instead there was only an eighth of an inch to 3 inches of dust. This would take less than 8000 years to stack up.
2: juvenile water: when volcanoes erupt, some if the material they send up is water. To produce all the water that is in our oceans, lakes and streams it would have taken only 340 million years. This means that 340 million years ago there would be no oceans. But what is funny is that evolutionists tell us that 340 million years ago it was the age of the fishes. See a problem? Also the popular idea of the origin if life tells us that the oceans were full of water at least 2000 million years ago.
3: Comets: when a comet passes the sun some of its matter is blown away. Because of this comets will eventually disintegrate. Because of this all the short-period comets would be gone in as little as 10000 years. Yet there are still up to 5 million comets still in our solar system. This makes it look as if the solar system is about 6000 years old.
4: Oil pressure: over time an oil deposit will lose its pressure because even the densest rocks are porous. If oil deposits were there for more than 5000 years, all the pressure would be gone. And yet there is still tremendous pressure in the oil deposits.

This science book that i am getting these from has at least 14 more geologic clocks that i could list, and i am sure that i could get others off the Internet.

Pardon me Vrealen, i don't think i explained myself well enough. I should have said eternal atom. But what i meant by eternal is that if evolution is true then it didnt have a beginning. Every cause has an effect but obviously you must have an uncaused first cause. If god did not create them, then how did the atoms get there?

Regarding the verses, only psalm 148:5-6 even comes close to what the first law says... and that is by a VERY loose interpretation. The full version being:
1 Praise the Lord from the heavens;
praise him in the heights above.
2 Praise him, all his angels;
praise him, all his heavenly hosts.
3 Praise him, sun and moon;
praise him, all you shining stars.
4 Praise him, you highest heavens
and you waters above the skies.
5 Let them praise the name of the Lord,
for at his command they were created,
6 and he established them for ever and ever—
he issued a decree that will never pass away.

That is not really a prediction and by reading that, I would not know it could be applied to the first law of thermodynamics without someone pointing out similarities. The sun, the moon, stars (more suns...), etc are not exactly eternal but I guess you are saying this establishes the idea that things can be eternal?

Now, regarding those points, only the magmatic water and oil pressure relate to geological processes. However, I will reply to all of the since the solutions are relatively simple.

1: interplanetary dust:if the universe was billions of years old there should have been 54 feet of dust on the moon when we landed. Instead there was only an eighth of an inch to 3 inches of dust. This would take less than 8000 years to stack up.

No, completely incorrect. You have to understand that there are thousands of factors that could affect the amount of dust (and other materials) on a celestial body and any pattern that exists is always subject to change. Other debris could impact the moon, leaving materials behind or taking some with it if it escapes the moon's gravity. Debris with a large enough gravitational field could even take away dust from the moon or the moon can take dust from other objects, etc etc.

2: juvenile water: when volcanoes erupt, some if the material they send up is water. To produce all the water that is in our oceans, lakes and streams it would have taken only 340 million years. This means that 340 million years ago there would be no oceans. But what is funny is that evolutionists tell us that 340 million years ago it was the age of the fishes. See a problem? Also the popular idea of the origin if life tells us that the oceans were full of water at least 2000 million years ago.

No, while this is a geological process, there is another process that encompasses the movement of water: The water cycle. Not the rubbish middle school or high school version but the complete map of water movement in the biosphere. Water goes in the atmosphere, deep underground, disperses to form other molecules, and so many other places. Even if the ocean only took 340 million years to form, which I have not really verified yet, it would cycle everywhere since water molecules are constantly forming and breaking apart.

3: Comets: when a comet passes the sun some of its matter is blown away. Because of this comets will eventually disintegrate. Because of this all the short-period comets would be gone in as little as 10000 years. Yet there are still up to 5 million comets still in our solar system. This makes it look as if the solar system is about 6000 years old.

Uh, the universe does not simply stand still. Things are constantly moving, bumping into each other, colliding to form a larger mass (creation of our planet), etc. The amount of comets in our solar system is really no way to measure the age of anything.

4: Oil pressure: over time an oil deposit will lose its pressure because even the densest rocks are porous. If oil deposits were there for more than 5000 years, all the pressure would be gone. And yet there is still tremendous pressure in the oil deposits.

Ok, this one is simple. First, fossils really do not give any indication for the age of the planet especially when we have strong indications that lead us to know the Earth was uninhabitable for a few billion years. Next, even if a very tiny amount of pressure is lost through various pours, crude oil is organic matter that is still decaying and will produce gas. Hence the build up of pressure in the first place. Whatever loss there may be for pressure, the creation of gas may offset if not overcome it which probably, as mentioned before, led to the build up.

Every cause has an effect but obviously you must have an uncaused first cause. If god did not create them, then how did the atoms get there?

Lol, do not get carried away picking at all these scientific ideas. I could ask the same thing about creationism: If God created the universe, what created God? We both would not know the answer to either question but the difference is, we continue to modify our understanding of such complex ideas through investigation with science. The answer for creationism will always be "God did it" and there are no more questions after that.

The explanation for how different atoms were created is part of the Big Bang. See the following wiki link and look at the beginning of the overview. Basically energy was converted and transformed to create different types of matter through various cosmological/astronomical phenomena. That is the very simplified version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The laws of thermodynamics do not contradict evolution, but they do contradict the big bang.

I will eventually get to everyone above but I am currently reading about the above idea.

The majority of the scientific community, and that is by no means a super majority but well above , actually find that the laws of thermodynamics does not contradict the Big Bang. Again, I am not a physicist but here is the explanation from what I understand.

The Big Bang theory states that there was a sudden burst of energy and matter that began expanding since the dawn of time and is still expanding at an unknown rate. Therefore, even as the entropy increases, the size of the universe also increases to accommodate this, and many other, changes.

Think of it like a party in one room of the house (a house that could expand indefinitely I suppose). More and more people come, rearrange themselves in the room, and it becomes more and more disordered. However, this house is constantly Getty new editions and as the party goes on, people move into other rooms of the house and diffuse. The amount of entropy (people) can stay the same or increase but there will always be enough room to accommodate them in a house that is constantly expanding.

Here is a better explanation from Mano Singham:
"In more technical terms, if we consider the universe to be a sphere of radius R that is increasing, the maximum allowable entropy increases as the square of R, while the actual entropy of the universe increases less rapidly, only linearly with R. Thus even if the initial universe was at maximum entropy for its size, as the universe expands its entropy can increase while still being easily able to accommodate the increasing order we see. In fact, calculations done assuming that there exist ten planets per star, 100 billion stars for every galaxy and 100 billion galaxies (which are our best current estimates) show that the ordering of the planets produces changes in entropy of only one part in 1011 of the total current entropy."

With that explanation, yes, we are heading towards an increasing disorder and randomness but the universe is continuously expanding as well. Therefore, we can see an increase in order and entropy within the universe that can go on indefinitely unless the universe can only expand to a certain amount, at which point, the best guess is that the universe would simply collapse into another super dense particle. We obviously have not reached that point though.

Um... no, I wasn't leading to the second law at all, I was talking about the first. Where did the energy come from? Now, usually this is where people avoid the question and counter with: where did god come from? That is exactly the point of a god: it contradicts the first law. Our universe's existence is a contradiction of its own law.

I only addressed the second law of thermodynamics because that is where most, if not all, of the controversy exists. It is also what EdElric was specially leading towards.

I don't really care much about where the main controversy is, I am raising my own if I have to. First law, not second.