Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[genuineoriginal]

Let's review...

1) The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another but can be neither created nor destroyed.

You seem to have educated yourself since our last discussion.
This is much better than what you had been trying to claim previously.

2) The law of conservation of mass is an extrapolation (consequence) of the FLoT.

Conservation of mass works very well for chemical reactions in a closed system, since the number of protons, electrons, and neutrons at the end match the number at the start.

How do we know this?

3) Because Einstein's equation, E = mc² can be manipulated to extrapolate m = E/c² to obtain the mass - energy equivalence. While mass and energy are equivalent this equivalency is not routinely (rarely, if ever) considered when discussing the FLoT (i.e., mass and energy remain separate "entities" (though theoretically possible, one is not usually considered to change into the other).

You have nicely explained why a mass-energy equivalence remains a theory, which proves that it should never be conflated with the law of conservation of energy.

4) Since mass (matter) and energy are equivalent (3) then the law of conservation of mass is a corollary of the law of conservation of energy (1 & 2).
5) The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant (1) then by the law of conservation of mass (2) the total mass of an isolated system is constant.

And then you dive right back into science fiction.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I am not trying to argue with anyone, or take sides, but just trying to find out what y'all are concluding.

Me too. I'm not sure what the essence of the disagreement between those two is.

The entire discussion on the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of mass, and E=mc² began when @Silent_Hunter claimed God creating matter violated the first law of thermodynamics.
I pointed out at that time that the universe was not a closed system to God, so He could add matter and energy to it without violating a law that only applied to closed systems.

Also, on an atomic level, particles pop into and out of existence, as energy fluctuates at that point. Why? Because all particles are waves, and when two waves pass one another, they superimpose their energies, and create a temporary particle - as I understand it, and then as the waves travel on, the "particle" returns to energy.

Electrons are just standing waves around the atom.

Photons are particles and waves, as shown by the photoelectric effect where photons must be of big enough size/energy to dislodge the electron of a metal.

But in God's accounting system, (matter + energy) remains constant, just like all the forces in the universe add up to zero, and all the momenta in the universe too add up to zero, because for one force in one direction, there is an equal and opposite force in the opposite direction.

Einstein was enthralled by the simplicity of it all.

Quantum physics matches the Bible a lot closer than Special Relativity.
As we know now, human speech creates waves in the air, and by extrapolation we can state that God's speech creates waves in the quantum field of the universe.
Those waves in the quantum field take the form of matter and energy to our perceptions.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I don't understand his opposition . . .
the point is the total energy/mass NEVER changes.

You keep thinking that the universe is a closed system.
To God, the universe is not a closed system and He is able to create energy and matter through His word.

 

[genuineoriginal]

[MENTION=4345]genuineoriginal[/MENTION] what are qualifications regarding thermodynamics? Have you studied it and worked with it?

Unless we both agree to the reliability of the authority you are appealing to, there is no point in asking.

Argument from authority
An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or the argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.

Cognitive bias
The argument from authority is based on the idea that an expert will know better and that the person should conform to the expert's opinion. This has its roots in psychological cognitive biases such as the Asch effect. In repeated and modified instances of the Asch conformity experiments, it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likelihood of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was incorrect.

Further, humans have been shown to feel strong emotional pressure to conform to authorities and majority positions. A repeat of the experiments by another group of researchers found that "Participants reported considerable distress under the group pressure", with 59% conforming at least once and agreeing with the clearly incorrect answer, whereas the incorrect answer was much more rarely given when no such pressures were present.​

I stated, "It can be argued that the first law of thermodynamics is a subset of the law of conservation of energy, but not the other way around."
@Silent_Hunter stated, "The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems."
We are now in agreement.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Unless we both agree to the reliability of the authority you are appealing to, there is no point in asking.

Argument from authority
An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or the argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.

Cognitive bias
The argument from authority is based on the idea that an expert will know better and that the person should conform to the expert's opinion. This has its roots in psychological cognitive biases such as the Asch effect. In repeated and modified instances of the Asch conformity experiments, it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likelihood of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was incorrect.

Further, humans have been shown to feel strong emotional pressure to conform to authorities and majority positions. A repeat of the experiments by another group of researchers found that "Participants reported considerable distress under the group pressure", with 59% conforming at least once and agreeing with the clearly incorrect answer, whereas the incorrect answer was much more rarely given when no such pressures were present.​

I stated, "It can be argued that the first law of thermodynamics is a subset of the law of conservation of energy, but not the other way around."
@Silent_Hunter stated, "The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems."
We are now in agreement.

This is a terrible answer. The question was fairly simple, have you studied thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is typically part of an engineering curriculum. That is where I studied it. Like many branches of science, it takes time and effort to understand the subtleties of thermodynamics. Flat Earthers and 9/11 truthers are clear examples of people not understanding the science of what they are attempting ti discuss. So I was curious if you had formal education in thermo or if you are self taught. Why is it necessary for you to resort to an appeal to authority argument?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Let's review...

1) The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another but can be neither created nor destroyed.

You seem to have educated yourself since our last discussion. This is much better than what you had been trying to claim previously.

Your statement goes directly to what I said about your reading comprehension level. "Why?", you ask. Well, because it is a copy and paste from one of my prior posts to you (#296). In fact, the EXACT SAME quote appears in at least one earlier post (#264). What's really sad it you aren't even a little bit embarrassed about it and clearly illustrates you haven't the first clue what you're talking about.

2) The law of conservation of mass is an extrapolation (consequence) of the FLoT.

Conservation of mass works very well for chemical reactions in a closed system, since the number of protons, electrons, and neutrons at the end match the number at the start.

This is exactly right but it does not stop there, it works for ANY reaction in a closed system... even when matter is converted to energy as in a nuclear detonation. EVERYTHING in a closed system, even if in a somewhat different form is STILL in the system.

How do we know this?

3) Because Einstein's equation, E = mc² can be manipulated to extrapolate m = E/c² to obtain the mass - energy equivalence. While mass and energy are equivalent this equivalency is not routinely (rarely, if ever) considered when discussing the FLoT (i.e., mass and energy remain separate "entities" (though theoretically possible, one is not usually considered to change into the other).

You have nicely explained why a mass-energy equivalence remains a theory, which proves that it should never be conflated with the law of conservation of energy.

The mass - energy equivalence isn't "just a theory" and it isn't conflated with the laws of conservation of mass or energy... it is an interrelationship you just don't seem to be able to comprehend. Like I said, I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

4)Since mass (matter) and energy are equivalent (3) then the law of conservation of mass is a corollary of the law of conservation of energy (1 & 2).

5) The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant (1) then by the law of conservation of mass (2) the total mass of an isolated system is constant.

And then you dive right back into science fiction.

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, genuineoriginal.

The entire discussion on the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of mass, and E=mc² began when @Silent_Hunter claimed God creating matter violated the first law of thermodynamics.

I pointed out at that time that the universe was not a closed system to God, so He could add matter and energy to it without violating a law that only applied to closed systems.

And I pointed out how creationists conveniently isolate and immunize their-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity from examination? Which begs the question, how can creationists even make the claim, "Mydeitydidit!!!", without even the slightest evidence of its existence? Perhaps you've heard of ”Special Pleading”; no? (see post #267}.

Quantum physics matches the Bible a lot closer than Special Relativity.

:rotfl: If you actually understood why this statement is funny, you'd be laughing too.

As we know now, human speech creates waves in the air, and by extrapolation we can state that God's speech creates waves in the quantum field of the universe. Those waves in the quantum field take the form of matter and energy to our perceptions.

You're an idiot.

I don't understand his opposition to my carefully explained description of the conservation of energy/conservation of mass relationship in regard to the first law of thermodynamics (FLoT). Through some as yet unexplained lack of reading comprehension skill he thinks I'm saying the FLoT IS the mass - energy equivalency of E = mc². If energy is conserved (remains constant) in a closed system then mass is conserved (remains constant) in a closed system. For the purpose of the discussion, it matters not that matter and energy are equivalent through Einstein's equation; the point is the total energy/mass NEVER changes.

You keep thinking that the universe is a closed system. To God, the universe is not a closed system and He is able to create energy and matter through His word.

What part of "CLOSED system" (nothing goes in... nothing goes out) are you having difficulty understanding?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Hi, CM :wave2:

This is a terrible answer. The question was fairly simple, have you studied thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is typically part of an engineering curriculum. That is where I studied it. Like many branches of science, it takes time and effort to understand the subtleties of thermodynamics. Flat Earthers and 9/11 truthers are clear examples of people not understanding the science of what they are attempting ti discuss. So I was curious if you had formal education in thermo or if you are self taught. Why is it necessary for you to resort to an appeal to authority argument?

He doesn't know.

If you've read our interaction, you know I've done all I can to explain (part of) the first law of thermodynamics to him. Perhaps you, if you're up to it, can do a better job. I'm almost certain he has a St. Jude medal around his neck.

Good seeing you.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Thermodynamics is typically part of an engineering curriculum. That is where I studied it. Like many branches of science, it takes time and effort to understand the subtleties of thermodynamics.

Did they teach it to you correctly, or did they claim conservation of energy, conservation of mass, and the Theory of Special Relativity are all parts of the First Law of Thermodynamics?

I was curious if you had formal education in thermo or if you are self taught. Why is it necessary for you to resort to an appeal to authority argument?

Your curiosity is based on an appeal to authority.
I merely pointed that out.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life

Maybe you should try a different way?

What part of "CLOSED system" (nothing goes in... nothing goes out) are you having difficulty understanding?

You keep thinking that the universe is a closed system.
To God, the universe is not a closed system and He is able to create energy and matter through His word.

I can keep repeating this, but you seem to be having a problem with the words "not a closed system".
Since the universe is not a closed system to God, He is able to create energy and matter through His word.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your statement goes directly to what I said about your reading comprehension level. "Why?", you ask. Well, because it is a copy and paste from one of my prior posts to you (#296). In fact, the EXACT SAME quote appears in at least one earlier post (#264). What's really sad it you aren't even a little bit embarrassed about it and clearly illustrates you haven't the first clue what you're talking about.

This is exactly right but it does not stop there, it works for ANY reaction in a closed system... even when matter is converted to energy as in a nuclear detonation. EVERYTHING in a closed system, even if in a somewhat different form is STILL in the system.

The mass - energy equivalence isn't "just a theory" and it isn't conflated with the laws of conservation of mass or energy... it is an interrelationship you just don't seem to be able to comprehend. Like I said, I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, genuineoriginal.

And I pointed out how creationists conveniently isolate and immunize their-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity from examination? Which begs the question, how can creationists even make the claim, "Mydeitydidit!!!", without even the slightest evidence of its existence? Perhaps you've heard of ”Special Pleading”; no? (see post #267}.

:rotfl: If you actually understood why this statement is funny, you'd be laughing too.

You're an idiot.

What part of "CLOSED system" (nothing goes in... nothing goes out) are you having difficulty understanding?

Special Pleading is "a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception."
-Wikipedia

I have already logically provided justification for the exception, SH, yet you have ignored it, bringing your arguments close to if not exactly an argument from ignorance.

"I, Silent Hunter, cannot imagine how someone's-personally-preferred-deity-did-it without violating the laws of physics, therefore my opponents arguments are special pleading."

A SUPERNATURAL creator is not subject to the NATURAL laws.

Supernatural literally means beyond nature.

A creator is not subject its creation, because in order to create (ie, bring something into existence when/where it previously did not), one must first exist.

As for the last part of your response, while I agree with some if not most of what GO is saying, my belief is that God is not part of the universe, which He created as a closed system, which does not include Himself, though He, as its Creator, can interact with it.

 

[genuineoriginal]

my belief is that God is not part of the universe, which He created as a closed system, which does not include Himself, though He, as its Creator, can interact with it.

Yep. :thumb:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Did they teach it to you correctly, or did they claim conservation of energy, conservation of mass, and the Theory of Special Relativity are all parts of the First Law of Thermodynamics?

As far as I can see, you are the only attempting to accuse somebody of making that argument. What Silent Hunter is pointing out is the implications of those laws. What he says is correct.

Did they teach it to me correctly? I have to go with yes. When I applied the laws of thermodynamics to the system being analyzed I arrived at the correct solutions. Generally we did not deal with systems such as atomic bombs that converted matter into energy. But we do have an equation that defines the mass - energy balance.

Your curiosity is based on an appeal to authority.
I merely pointed that out.

Fine. Still doesn't answer the question. Did you study Thermodynamics?

 

[CabinetMaker]

You keep thinking that the universe is a closed system.
To God, the universe is not a closed system and He is able to create energy and matter through His word.

I can keep repeating this, but you seem to be having a problem with the words "not a closed system".
Since the universe is not a closed system to God, He is able to create energy and matter through His word.

You are quibbling over a boundary definition. If somebody doe snot believe in God as the creator then the universe is a closed system. Your position becomes somewhat more interesting. If God is outside the universe then the universe is not a closed system. However, if I move that boundary, which is permissible under the laws of thermodynamics, then I have a new system that includes God and is a closed system. Let the implications of that sink in for a minute.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Thermodynamics is typically part of an engineering curriculum. That is where I studied it. Like many branches of science, it takes time and effort to understand the subtleties of thermodynamics.

Did they teach it to you correctly, or did they claim conservation of energy, conservation of mass, and the Theory of Special Relativity are all parts of the First Law of Thermodynamics?

:doh:

You are indeed stupid-on-steroids. Even after having the concepts explained to you multiple times you STILL don't get it.

One LAST time...

The conservation of energy is the FLoT. It is BECAUSE OF Einstein's equation (E = mc²) that the conservation of mass is a corollary to the FLoT.

If you can't get the concept as I've explained it, perhaps CabinetMaker can get through to you.

I was curious if you had formal education in thermo or if you are self taught. Why is it necessary for you to resort to an appeal to authority argument?

Your curiosity is based on an appeal to authority. I merely ]pointed that out.

I think it can be safely concluded you have no formal education in thermodynamics/engineering/science/physics///.

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, genuineoriginal.

Maybe you should try a different way?

I'm not the one having difficulty understanding simple concepts.

BTW, what type of metal is your St. Jude medal made of?

What part of "CLOSED system" (nothing goes in... nothing goes out) are you having difficulty understanding?

You keep thinking that the universe is a closed system.

Well, even YOU say the universe is a closed system... except...

To God, the universe is not a closed system and He is able to create energy and matter through His word.

I can keep repeating this, but you seem to be having a problem with the words "not a closed system".

Since the universe is not a closed system to God, He is able to create energy and matter through His word.

Let me guess... your "evidence" for this is your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity's "word"... right?

Arguments without evidence are dismissed without evidence. I await your evidence the universe is a closed system EXCEPT to your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You are quibbling over a boundary definition.

Possibly.

If somebody doe snot believe in God as the creator then the universe is a closed system. Your position becomes somewhat more interesting. If God is outside the universe then the universe is not a closed system. However, if I move that boundary, which is permissible under the laws of thermodynamics, then I have a new system that includes God and is a closed system.

We have been speaking about the universe being a closed system in regard to the mass and energy in the universe.
God is neither mass nor energy; God is Spirit (John 4:24).
Therefore, God cannot be included in the current boundary, since it deals only with energy and mass.
God creates mass and energy in our universe using supernatural power: His Word.

You can only include God in the boundary if you can develop a formula that covers the conversion of God's Word to mass or to energy and prove that there is a conservation of God's Word in a closed system.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Special Pleading is "a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc without justifying the exception." -Wikipedia

Let's move that highlight to the appropriate location.

I have already logically provided justification for the exception...

You're going to have to refresh my memory... how (or in what post) have you "logically provided justification for "Goddidit!!!".

"I, Silent Hunter, cannot imagine how someone's-personally-preferred-deity-did-it without violating the laws of physics, therefore my opponents arguments are special pleading."

A SUPERNATURAL creator is not subject to the NATURAL laws.

Supernatural literally means beyond nature.

A creator is not subject its creation, because in order to create (ie, bring something into existence when/where it previously did not), one must first exist.

The "generally accepted rule, principle, etc." is the FLoT and you don't see how you are not guilty of special pleading? Seriously?

... my belief is that God is not part of the universe, which He created as a closed system, which does not include Himself, though He, as its Creator, can interact with it.

Please explain, in detail, how your statement does not qualify as, "an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc". Your "justification" appeals to something unknown and untestable.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Possibly.


We have been speaking about the universe being a closed system in regard to the mass and energy in the universe.
God is neither mass nor energy; God is Spirit (John 4:24).
Therefore, God cannot be included in the current boundary, since it deals only with energy and mass.
God creates mass and energy in our universe using supernatural power: His Word.

You can only include God in the boundary if you can develop a formula that covers the conversion of God's Word to mass or to energy and prove that there is a conservation of God's Word in a closed system.

Whether God is inside our outside the system boundary, you have the same problem. If God is outside the system and speaks, "Let there be light!" then those words must cross the system boundary as energy and/or mass. So you have the same problem, how are God's Words converted so that they can cross the system boundary?

 

[genuineoriginal]

One LAST time...

The conservation of energy is the FLoT. It is BECAUSE OF Einstein's equation (E = mc²) that the conservation of mass is a corollary to the FLoT.

You were doing so well for a short while, but now you have gone back to believing in that science fiction.

Well, even YOU say the universe is a closed system... except...

If you are looking at whether the existing energy and mass in the universe can increase or decrease the energy and mass in the universe using any natural reaction we are able to identify, then we have to conclude that the universe is a closed system.
The only exception would be God's supernatural power, which is not constrained by the natural laws that God established for our universe.

Arguments without evidence are dismissed without evidence. I await your evidence the universe is a closed system EXCEPT to your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity.

The evidence is all around you.

Romans 1:19-21 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.​

You just refuse to accept the evidence because of your worldview.

Slogans Atheists Should Not Use
“There is no evidence that God exists.” While it would be helpful to the atheist cause if there were no evidence for the existence of God, it is quite embarrassing when atheists utter this line precisely because of the abundance of evidence for God. This may be rooted in a misunderstanding of what evidence is. Evidence is not absolute proof. It is not an end to all discussion. There could be evidence that a certain proposition is true even if that proposition turned out to be false. There could be evidence for the existence of God even if God did not exist. If the existence of God is more probable given a piece of data, then that is evidence of his existence. For example, the fine-tuning of the universe is evidence of the existence of God. This is not because it is knock-down argument. It is just because the existence of God is more probable than it would have been if there were no fine-tuning. There are several other lines of evidence that make it more likely that God exists than it would have been if these lines of evidence were not present. Therefore, this is one of 7 slogans atheists should not use. It is just a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Whether God is inside our outside the system boundary, you have the same problem. If God is outside the system and speaks, "Let there be light!" then those words must cross the system boundary as energy and/or mass.

Your misunderstanding involves the nature of the boundary and the nature of God's Word.
God's Word is not composed of energy nor is it composed of mass, but the boundary applies only to energy and mass and the interactions of the two.

how are God's Words converted so that they can cross the system boundary?

Just like this:

Genesis 1:3 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.​

 

[Stripe]

[MENTION=4345]genuineoriginal[/MENTION] what are qualifications regarding thermodynamics? Have you studied it and worked with it?

Aw, great. Who invited Cabinethead to add nothing of value?