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

[Silent Hunter]

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.

On the FLoT... "What Silent Hunter is pointing out is the implications of those laws. What he says is correct." - CabinetMaker (post #332)

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.

That you don't see this for the special pleading it is then nothing CabinetMaker has tried (is trying) to clarify will make any difference to you.

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.

The evidence is all around you.

Romans 1:19-21

As predicted.

The rest of your post is simply a compilation of christian arguments from ignorance.

 

[CabinetMaker]

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.


Just like this:

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

I am using YOUR requirements for God inside the system. Your argument is actually much easier to make if you include God with in the system boundary. That way everything that God is and can do is already included within the system and it remains in balance no matter what. Once you put God outside then you have to deal with what crosses the system boundary. In thermodynamics, system boundarys are very specific. In a closed system, mass and energy CAN NOT cross the system boundary.

Would you care to create a new definition of system boundary for us?

 

[genuineoriginal]

As predicted.

The rest of your post is simply a compilation of christian arguments from ignorance.

It is obvious that you refuse to accept the vast amount of evidence for God's existence because it does not fit into your worldview.

 

[Silent Hunter]

On the FLoT... "What Silent Hunter is pointing out is the implications of those laws. What he says is correct." - CabinetMaker (post #332)

That you don't see this for the special pleading it is then nothing CabinetMaker has tried (is trying) to clarify will make any difference to you.

As predicted.

The rest of your post is simply a compilation of christian arguments from ignorance.

It is obvious that you refuse to accept the vast amount of evidence for God's existence because it does not fit into your worldview.

There is no evidence for the existence of your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity because it lies, by your own admission, outside of any evidence, the supernatural is unobservable and untestable.

 

[genuineoriginal]

In thermodynamics, system boundarys are very specific. In a closed system, mass and energy CAN NOT cross the system boundary.

Yes, mass and energy cannot cross the system boundary using natural laws.
The boundary is defined by whether mass or energy can cross the boundary.

Would you care to create a new definition of system boundary for us?

No, I am quite happy with the definition of the boundary for a closed system.

I am using YOUR requirements for God inside the system.

God does not need to be inside the system that blocks the passage of mass and energy.

Your argument is actually much easier to make if you include God with in the system boundary. That way everything that God is and can do is already included within the system and it remains in balance no matter what. Once you put God outside then you have to deal with what crosses the system boundary.

God's Word is not constrained by the boundary, therefore God does not need to be included in the system boundary.
God is not part of the system, but He created the system and He makes modifications to the system.

Here is an example:

Matthew 14:15-21 15 And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals. 16 But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat. 17 And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes. 18 He said, Bring them hither to me. 19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. 20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. 21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.​

According to the law of conservation of mass, the five loaves and two fishes would have been divided up and would have fed 8-12 people with no leftovers.
However, there were more than five thousand witnesses that saw that the five loaves and two fishes feed a multitude of people and that the amount of mass in the leftovers was greater than the amount of mass in the original loaves and fish.

Was Jesus inside the system? Yes.
Were the loaves and fish inside the system? Yes.
Were the people fed inside the system? Yes.
Were the leftovers inside the system? Yes.
Was there more mass in the system at the end than at the beginning? Yes.

You can claim that the feeding of the multitude never happened because it violates the law of conservation of mass.
I claim that the supernatural power used to feed the multitude is not subject to any natural constraint, such as the law of conservation of mass.

 

[genuineoriginal]

There is no evidence for the existence of your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity because it lies, by your own admission, outside of any evidence, the supernatural is unobservable and untestable.

Did I ever state that the supernatural is unobservable?
I don't think so.
The supernatural has been observed throughout history.

The supernatural is untestable if you have to use natural laws to try to test it.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yes, mass and energy cannot cross the system boundary using natural laws.
The boundary is defined by whether mass or energy can cross the boundary.

No, I am quite happy with the definition of the boundary for a closed system.

God does not need to be inside the system that blocks the passage of mass and energy.

God's Word is not constrained by the boundary, therefore God does not need to be included in the system boundary.
God is not part of the system, but He created the system and He makes modifications to the system.

Here is where you run into a problem. You stated that for God to be in the system we would have to have a set of equations that convert God's word into mass and energy. You have not solved this problem you created. At some point, God's word MUST be converted into mass and energy either within the system or in order to cross the system boundary. System boundaries in thermodynamic systems DO NOT deal with information flow. When, where and how are God's words converted into mass and energy? Answer that question or admit that it is a special pleading against thermodynamics as currently taught in engineering programs. There is no shame in honestly admitting that it is a special pleading based on faith. Takes much courage to do so.

According to the law of conservation of mass, the five loaves and two fishes would have been divided up and would have fed 8-12 people with no leftovers.
However, there were more than five thousand witnesses that saw that the five loaves and two fishes feed a multitude of people and that the amount of mass in the leftovers was greater than the amount of mass in the original loaves and fish.

Was Jesus inside the system? Yes.
Were the loaves and fish inside the system? Yes.
Were the people fed inside the system? Yes.
Were the leftovers inside the system? Yes.
Was there more mass in the system at the end than at the beginning? Yes.

You can claim that the feeding of the multitude never happened because it violates the law of conservation of mass.
I claim that the supernatural power used to feed the multitude is not subject to any natural constraint, such as the law of conservation of mass.

If only there was an equation that related mass and energy. Wouldn't that solve the problem? If energy could be converted to mass then total mass and energy of the system remains in balance. Interestingly, E=mc^2 does relate mass and energy. So it would seem to me that I do not need to claim that the miracle never happened based on thermodynamic principles.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Here is where you run into a problem. You stated that for God to be in the system we would have to have a set of equations that convert God's word into mass and energy. You have not solved this problem you created. At some point, God's word MUST be converted into mass and energy either within the system or in order to cross the system boundary. System boundaries in thermodynamic systems DO NOT deal with information flow. When, where and how are God's words converted into mass and energy? Answer that question or admit that it is a special pleading against thermodynamics as currently taught in engineering programs. There is no shame in honestly admitting that it is a special pleading based on faith. Takes much courage to do so.


If only there was an equation that related mass and energy. Wouldn't that solve the problem? If energy could be converted to mass then total mass and energy of the system remains in balance. Interestingly, E=mc^2 does relate mass and energy. So it would seem to me that I do not need to claim that the miracle never happened based on thermodynamic principles.

Is information physical? Is consciousness physical?

 

[Stripe]

I think I'm caught up.

There is no evidence for the existence [of God] because [He is], by your own admission, outside of any evidence, the supernatural is unobservable and untestable.

This is not an accurate description of the God of the Bible and an unfair analysis of what GO would say in a broader discussion.

You could say that there is no evidence for God because the evidence in GO's posts in this thread is beyond our ability to measure.

But you're overreaching by declaring Christians "stupid" because they don't agree with your assertion that matter and energy have always existed.

 

[Silent Hunter]

There is no evidence for the existence of your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity because it lies, by your own admission, outside of any evidence, the supernatural is unobservable and untestable.

Did I ever state that the supernatural is unobservable? I don't think so.

Is your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity supernatural? Does your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity "live" outside of the Universe? If you answer "Yes" to one or both of these questions then your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity lies beyond anyone's ability to observe and test.

The supernatural has been observed throughout history.

Yeah, there are many anecdotal "testimonies", all without one shred of testable evidence.

The supernatural is untestable if you have to use natural laws to try to test it.

Isn't it convenient how special pleading solves so many problems in your religion and, when confronted with contradictions in your "worldview", you can invoke, "My-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity can do anything because it is supernatural".

 

[Stripe]

That you don't see this for the special pleading it is then nothing CabinetMaker has tried (is trying) to clarify will make any difference to you.

To be fair, Cabinethead's approval is usually a massive clue that you've gotten something dramatically wrong.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Here is where you run into a problem. You stated that for God to be in the system we would have to have a set of equations that convert God's word into mass and energy. You have not solved this problem you created. At some point, God's word MUST be converted into mass and energy either within the system or in order to cross the system boundary.

God's Word crossed the boundary that energy and mass could not cross and was converted into mass and energy within the system.

System boundaries in thermodynamic systems DO NOT deal with information flow.

System boundaries in thermodynamic systems do not deal with God's Word, either.

When, where and how are God's words converted into mass and energy?

When God's Word was converted into mass and energy, that mass and energy became part of the system and was constrained by the boundaries of that system.

Answer that question or admit that it is a special pleading against thermodynamics as currently taught in engineering programs.

It is not a special pleading.
Thermodynamics as currently taught in engineering programs do not account for God's word.

There is no shame in honestly admitting that it is a special pleading based on faith. Takes much courage to do so.

There is no shame in honestly admitting that the natural laws that man has codified are incomplete.
It doesn't even take much courage to admit that we still have a lot to learn about the universe.

If only there was an equation that related mass and energy. Wouldn't that solve the problem? If energy could be converted to mass then total mass and energy of the system remains in balance. Interestingly, E=mc^2 does relate mass and energy. So it would seem to me that I do not need to claim that the miracle never happened based on thermodynamic principles.

What kind of energy was converted into pieces of loaves and fishes in the account?

Matthew 14:15-21 15 And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals. 16 But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat. 17 And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes. 18 He said, Bring them hither to me. 19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. 20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. 21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.​

The only energy mentioned is the small amount of kinetic energy used by Jesus to break apart the loaves and fish.
That is not enough to be transformed into the amount of mass described.
So, where do you claim the energy came from and how was that energy converted into mass in the form of pieces of loaves and fish?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Is information physical? Is consciousness physical?

There is a hypothesis that was floated a few years ago regarding what happens at the event horizon of a black hole. The laws of physics break down at this point. One way to deal with it was to say that the information contained in the matter was not lost. This idea had some very interesting implications. I have not heard it in a while so I don't know what the status is. In any case, it implied that information was not energy or mass and that information can be lost.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Is your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity supernatural? Does your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity "live" outside of the Universe? If you answer "Yes" to one or both of these questions then your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity lies beyond anyone's ability to observe and test.

You seem to be putting limits on your own ability to observe that many other people do not have.
The source of your blindness has been identified.

2 Corinthians 4:4 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.​

 

[Silent Hunter]

I think I'm caught up.

Really? You actually bothered to read all of that? x2

There is no evidence for the existence of your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity because it lies, by your own admission, outside of any evidence, the supernatural is unobservable and untestable.

This is not an accurate description of the God of the Bible and an unfair analysis of what GO would say in a broader discussion.

Having been raised in a fundamentalist christian household, I'm more than a little familiar with the "god of the bible". In a "broader discussion" christians tend toward special pleading and "My-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity can do anything", which no amount of reasoned discussion can defeat.

You could say that there is no evidence for God because the evidence in GO's posts in this thread is beyond our ability to measure.

See what I mean?

But you're overreaching by declaring Christians "stupid" because they don't agree with your assertion that matter and energy have always existed.

Well, then it's a good thing I never said that in relation to genuineoriginal's misunderstanding of the FLoT, isn't it?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Is information physical?

Any that I've ever encountered is.

Is consciousness physical?

Yes, since consciousness can be altered by chemistry which acts on the physical brain.

 

[CabinetMaker]

God's Word crossed the boundary that energy and mass could not cross and was converted into mass and energy within the system.

Great! What are the equations that define this conversion?

System boundaries in thermodynamic systems do not deal with God's Word, either.

I was implying the God's word IS information.

When God's Word was converted into mass and energy, that mass and energy became part of the system and was constrained by the boundaries of that system.

Still hoping for the equations that relate God's word to mass and energy.

It is not a special pleading.

Yes, it is. If you cannot provide equations showing how words are converted to mass and energy it can be noting other than a special pleading.

Thermodynamics as currently taught in engineering programs do not account for God's word.

There is no need for it to. We use it as a tool to analyze specific systems for specific reasons to accomplish a desired process. God's word has absolutely nothing to say about a coal fired steam plant. Thermodynamics has plenty to say.

There is no shame in honestly admitting that the natural laws that man has codified are incomplete.
It doesn't even take much courage to admit that we still have a lot to learn about the universe.

That is well understood by scientists. That is why we have the theory of gravity instead of the law of gravity. When we say theory is science we are acknowledging that our knowledge of gravity is incomplete. Scientists well know that their knowledge is incomplete in many areas so work continues.

What kind of energy was converted into pieces of loaves and fishes in the account?

The only energy mentioned is the small amount of kinetic energy used by Jesus to break apart the loaves and fish.
That is not enough to be transformed into the amount of mass described.
So, where do you claim the energy came from and how was that energy converted into mass in the form of pieces of loaves and fish?

Solar energy is the obvious answer. Energy from the sun. It is all the rage today.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Is your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity supernatural? Does your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity "live" outside of the Universe? If you answer "Yes" to one or both of these questions then your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity lies beyond anyone's ability to observe and test.

You seem to be putting limits on your own ability to observe that many other people do not have.

The supernatural, by definition, is unobservable and untestable.

The source of your blindness has been identified.

2 Corinthians 4:4

Yeah, I'm familiar with what Paul thought... it was new age bs then too.

 

[Silent Hunter]

That is why we have the theory of gravity instead of the law of gravity. When we say theory is science we are acknowledging that our knowledge of gravity is incomplete. Scientists well know that their knowledge is incomplete in many areas so work continues.

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated. - Wiki

 

[Stripe]

Really? You actually bothered to read all of that?

I'm now three weeks closer to death. x3

Having been raised in a fundamentalist christian household, I'm more than a little familiar with the "god of the bible". In a "broader discussion" christians tend toward special pleading and "My-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity can do anything", which no amount of reasoned discussion can defeat.

Having been raised in a Christian household, I present evidence for what I believe when asked.

See what I mean?

No. You are involved in a metaphysical discussion regarding presuppositions. It's no surprise that very little of it can be exposed to experimentation.

Well, then it's a good thing I never said that in relation to genuineoriginal's misunderstanding of the FLoT, isn't it?

And yet you elevate your assertion as if it holds some special place. What evidence do you have that matter has always existed?