Creationism and Darwin

[Freedom Lover]

As the debate rages over Creationism and the theory of evolution, there is one question I have that no one seems to want to address on the evolution side of the equation.

One of science's basic laws is that "matter can neither be created or destroyed". Therefore, where did the matter come from that resulted in all that was, or all that is now? It had to come from somewhere, sometime. But if matter can not of itself be created then simple logic demands that someone had to create it out of nothing. As Bill O'Reilly would say, "What say you?"

 

[no1tovote4]

As the debate rages over Creationism and the theory of evolution, there is one question I have that no one seems to want to address on the evolution side of the equation.

One of science's basic laws is that "matter can neither be created or destroyed". Therefore, where did the matter come from that resulted in all that was, or all that is now? It had to come from somewhere, sometime. But if matter can not of itself be created then simple logic demands that someone had to create it out of nothing. As Bill O'Reilly would say, "What say you?"

Matter was created when the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed the Great Sneeze.

(I fear the coming of the Great Handkerchief).

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[deaddude]

Matter has always existed, as has energy. The amount of energy in the universe is constant. The amount of matter is constant.

 

[manu1959]

As the debate rages over Creationism and the theory of evolution, there is one question I have that no one seems to want to address on the evolution side of the equation.

One of science's basic laws is that "matter can neither be created or destroyed". Therefore, where did the matter come from that resulted in all that was, or all that is now? It had to come from somewhere, sometime. But if matter can not of itself be created then simple logic demands that someone had to create it out of nothing. As Bill O'Reilly would say, "What say you?"

simple logic would tell you that it has always been there......or since it is constant.....were is the matter comming from that allows the earths popolation to increase at a greater rate than it is dying?

 

[deaddude]

simple logic would tell you that it has always been there......or since it is constant.....were is the matter comming from that allows the earths popolation to increase at a greater rate than it is dying?

Simple, not all populations are experiencing growth. True the HUMAN population is growing, but other species are dwindleing. So the matter which once made up a tree or a whale can eventually make up a human being.

 

[Freedom Lover]

The question still remains unanswered! Another law of science states that order can not be created out of chaos on its own. Therefore. matter could not come into being without some creating force since something can not come from nothing. The resulting order that ensued, according to the scientific law, had to have a guiding force to direct it or the chaos would still be in place and life as we know it, therefore, would not exist.

 

[Hobbit]

The question still remains unanswered! Another law of science states that order can not be created out of chaos on its own. Therefore. matter could not come into being without some creating force since something can not come from nothing. The resulting order that ensued, according to the scientific law, had to have a guiding force to direct it or the chaos would still be in place and life as we know it, therefore, would not exist.

Ack! Entropy and thermodynamics make my head hurt.

 

[Max Power]

The question still remains unanswered! Another law of science states that order can not be created out of chaos on its own.

Umm, what law is that one, exactly?

 

[Max Power]

As the debate rages over Creationism and the theory of evolution, there is one question I have that no one seems to want to address on the evolution side of the equation.

One of science's basic laws is that "matter can neither be created or destroyed". Therefore, where did the matter come from that resulted in all that was, or all that is now? It had to come from somewhere, sometime. But if matter can not of itself be created then simple logic demands that someone had to create it out of nothing. As Bill O'Reilly would say, "What say you?"

There are plenty of possibilities. First of all, that law is not exactly a law, as matter can become energy and vice versa.

You should open your mind to possibilities that are not of this Universe. Does that include God? Absolutely. There are other possibilities too (which may or may not preclude the existance of God). Perhaps time is cyclical, and our Universe came after the destruction of a previous one.

Or perhaps our Universe is nothing more than an input of energy from a black hole in another universe (this is known as a white hole).

Science does not (yet) posit the answers to these questions. "What was there before the big bang?" is not a scientific question, but just a postulation... at this point in time.

 

[Hobbit]

Umm, what law is that one, exactly?

The law of entropy. The chaos in an object is never eliminated, only moved to another object. According to this law, the universe will one day reach a state of entropy so high that life as we know it will no longer be capable of surviving. So just think, every time you hit something, set something on fire, or otherwise add the the randomness within an object, you are contributing to the end of the universe.

 

[Max Power]

The law of entropy. The chaos in an object is never eliminated, only moved to another object. According to this law, the universe will one day reach a state of entropy so high that life as we know it will no longer be capable of surviving. So just think, every time you hit something, set something on fire, or otherwise add the the randomness within an object, you are contributing to the end of the universe.

The role of entropy in cosmology remains a controversial subject. Recent work has cast extensive doubt on the heat death hypothesis and the applicability of any simple thermodynamical model to the universe in general. Although entropy does increase in an expanding universe, the maximum possible entropy rises much more rapidly and leads to an "entropy gap," thus pushing the system further away from equilibrium with each time increment. Complicating factors, such as the energy density of the vacuum and macroscopic quantum effects, are difficult to reconcile with thermodynamical models, making any predictions of large-scale thermodynamics extremely difficult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

As the debate rages over Creationism and the theory of evolution, there is one question I have that no one seems to want to address on the evolution side of the equation.

One of science's basic laws is that "matter can neither be created or destroyed". Therefore, where did the matter come from that resulted in all that was, or all that is now? It had to come from somewhere, sometime. But if matter can not of itself be created then simple logic demands that someone had to create it out of nothing. As Bill O'Reilly would say, "What say you?"

And this raises a question that no one seems to want to address on the creation side of the equation: who created God?

I suspect that we, as human beings, have a very poor understanding of "time". We can only think of time as being a linear thing, much like a train can only move down a very rigid track. Just because the train can only experience the world in 1 dimension does not mean that the world is 1 dimensional. At SOME point, whether you are a creationist or not, there is the concept of a beginning which just begs the question: what happened before the beginning?

As a side note, I would also like to say that evolution does not concern itself with the physical beginning of the universe, only the rules surrounding life. The question you raise in your post should not be posed to evolutionists but probably to astrophysicists instead. Technically speaking, the concepts of evolution and God creating the universe are not mutually exclusive. God could have created the universe and evolution was just the process used to create the diversity of life we see on earth. The only thing I see as being mutually exclusive with evolution is a literal interpretation of days 3-6 of Genesis.

 

[Mariner]

The law of conservation of matter, which you refer to, is no longer one of modern physics' basic laws. It was a basic law of 19th century physics, but was overturned by Einstein's realization that mass and energy are interchangeable (and to calculate the amount, use Energy=mass*c squared, where c is the speed of light in appropriate units). So there is no problem with starting a universe with a big bang. The Bang just has to have enough energy in it to "crystallize," so to speak, into all the matter you want. Physics has pretty thoroughly worked out the whole story down to the first millisecond or so--an astonishing intellectual accomplishment.

In nuclear reactions, mass is converted into energy. Because c squared is a huge number, a tiny amount of matter can be turned into a vast amount of energy. That's why nuclear bombs are so powerful.

The latest science is now looking at multidimensional universes, universes which bud and bubble off one another, foam-like structures of universes, etc. The math and visualization involved in all these theories is beyond me (and most people), but they are rigorous theories.

Mariner.

 

[Gunny]

Matter has always existed, as has energy. The amount of energy in the universe is constant. The amount of matter is constant.

Perhaps you can explain then how the universe is "expanding?" I never have understood how something endless could be exapanding. By your statement, you are saying it is finite and constant: which, by definition could not expand which requires growth.

Just wondering which scientifc theory takes precedence.....

 

[Gunny]

The law of conservation of matter, which you refer to, is no longer one of modern physics' basic laws. It was a basic law of 19th century physics, but was overturned by Einstein's realization that mass and energy are interchangeable (and to calculate the amount, use Energy=mass*c squared, where c is the speed of light in appropriate units). So there is no problem with starting a universe with a big bang. The Bang just has to have enough energy in it to "crystallize," so to speak, into all the matter you want. Physics has pretty thoroughly worked out the whole story down to the first millisecond or so--an astonishing intellectual accomplishment.

In nuclear reactions, mass is converted into energy. Because c squared is a huge number, a tiny amount of matter can be turned into a vast amount of energy. That's why nuclear bombs are so powerful.

The latest science is now looking at multidimensional universes, universes which bud and bubble off one another, foam-like structures of universes, etc. The math and visualization involved in all these theories is beyond me (and most people), but they are rigorous theories.

Mariner.

Ummm....... I don't think so. Before the universe there was ......? Nothing? So nothing managed enough energy and matter, which is something, to have a "big bang"?

Nonsensical.

 

[manu1959]

Simple, not all populations are experiencing growth. True the HUMAN population is growing, but other species are dwindleing. So the matter which once made up a tree or a whale can eventually make up a human being.

at one point there was no earth, no people and no animals...where did that "matter" come from?

 

[Gunny]

at one point there was no earth, no people and no animals...where did that "matter" come from?

That came from the "Little Bang."

 

[USViking]

The question still remains unanswered! Another law of science states that order can not be created out of chaos on its own. Therefore. matter could not come into being without some creating force since something can not come from nothing. The resulting order that ensued, according to the scientific law, had to have a guiding force to direct it or the chaos would still be in place and life as we know it, therefore, would not exist.

Thermodynamics does not forbid local areas
of increasing order, and long as the balance
sheet for the entire universe increases on the
side of disorder.

Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics
applies at its fullest only in a "closed system"-
ie one which does not have an exterior source
of energy, and the Earth is an "open system"
because of the energy it recieves from the sun.

 

[USViking]

Perhaps you can explain then how the universe is "expanding?" I never have understood how something endless could be exapanding. By your statement, you are saying it is finite and constant: which, by definition could not expand which requires growth.

Just wondering which scientifc theory takes precedence.....

There is a finite amount of matter, so in that
sense the universe is not endless. It is endless
in that it exists in infinite space-time, which
is absorbing the expansion.

 

[manu1959]

There is a finite amount of matter, so in that
sense the universe is not endless. It is endless
in that it exists in infinite space-time, which
is absorbing the expansion.

why is there a finite ampunt of matter?

to what certainty do you know this to be fact?