[_ Old Earth _] Does God Exist? (short version)

[Jen Rose]

Does God Exist?
BY DAVID C. PACK

Over thirty-seven years ago, I learned of absolute proof that God exists. My studies lasted 2 1/2 years. I came to realize that I did not have to accept His existence “on faith.†Since that time, science has learned much more and the “case†for God’s existence has become far stronger than at any time in history. This booklet presents numerous absolute, immutable proofs that God does exist. After reading it, you will never again doubt the answer to this greatest of questions! Some proofs will amaze you. Others will inspire you. Still others will surprise or even excite you. all of them will fascinate you with their simplicity. We will first examine some traditional proofs and then consider material that rests on the cutting edge of scientific understanding, before returning to established proofs. You will learn from biology, astronomy, chemistry and mathematics.

Creation or Evolution?

There is an all-important question that is inseparable from the question of God’s existence. The question of whether life on earth exists, because of blind, dumb luck and chance, through evolution, or because of special creation by a Supreme Being, cannot be avoided in studying the existence of God.

Did all life on earth evolve over millions of years, as evolutionists assertâ€â€or did an all-powerful God author it at creation? Most people assume evolution is true, just as those who believe in God assume His existence. I also studied this questionâ€â€evolution vs. creationâ€â€in depth, during the same period that I sought to prove God’s existence.

I learned that it takes far more “faith†to believe in the intellectually chic and fashionable evolutionary myth, than it does to believe in the existence of God. In fact, I learned that evolution is based entirely on faith, because no facts or proof have ever been found to support it! (We have prepared a thorough and most inspiring, 32-page, magazine-sized brochure, Evolution – Facts, Fallacies and Implications, that complements this booklet. Those who read this powerful publication will never again doubt the scientific case for Creation!)

Faith and Proof

Faith does play a role in the life of a Christian. For the person who truly wants to seek God and learn to please Him, notice:

“But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him†(Heb. 11:6). Faith is vital to a Christian. In fact, without it, no one can please God. Notice, this verse says that those seeking God “must believe that He is.†A deep belief in God, who “rewards†all who “diligently seek Him,†requires proof of His existence. After proof has been established, thenâ€â€and only thenâ€â€can one have faithâ€â€absolute confidenceâ€â€that what he does is being recorded in God’s mind, to be remembered when he receives his reward. If you are uncertain that God exists, because proof of that existence has not been firmly established, then, under fire, your faith will wane or disappear.

But Which God?

The apostle Paul wrote, “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things…howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge†(I Cor. 8:5-7).

The religions of this world have created many gods of wood, stone and other material. Others exist only in the minds of men. The ancient Greeks alone served 30,000 gods and modern Hindus worship 5 million gods! Truly, there are, and have always been, “gods many, and lords many.†Yet, the God of the Bible created all the materials that men use to design their own gods. But, as Paul said, “there is not in every man that knowledge.â€Â

Such unnecessary ignorance and confusion!

The God of the Bible has shown the way to peace, happiness and abundant life for all people willing to study His Instruction Book. Doing this would rid mankind of the confusion and evils that encompass this world. But, it is not our purpose here to prove that the God of the Bible is the one true God of creation. (Read our free booklet BIBLE AUTHORITY…can it be proven?)

What Science Tells Us

Be willing to examine science. As we reason, do not suppose or hope. Stand on indisputable facts. We will see facts from a broad array of different kinds of science. They will demonstrate that an all-powerful Supreme Being, of infinite intelligence, carefully provided more than sufficient proofs to remove all doubt that He exists.

The Bible is God’s instruction to mankind. He expects all who are willing to read the Bible, to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good†(I Thes. 5:21). Surely this God would not then expect us to assume His existence, while instructing us to prove everything else from His Word!

Before beginning this study, remember, assumptions do not count! Neither do superstitious myths or traditions based on ignorance! What can be known from science? Only accept facts. Think rationally and clearly. Then accept what can be proven!

The Most Perfect Clock

For many years, until 1967, Naval Observatory astronomers “observed†the motion of the earth, in relation to the heavens, to accurately measure time. All clocks in this country were set in relation to these very precise measurements. It was God who made this Master Clock of the Universe! He set the heavens in motion and mankind learned how to use its wonderful accuracy. As marvelous as this Great Clock is, the story does not end here.

The First Law of Thermodynamics

What is the truth of modern science regarding the origin of all matter in the universe? Do scientists tell us that it has always existed? Or have they determined that there was a moment in time in which all matter came into existence? The answer to the second question is, yes! But what is the proof that this is true?

The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine originâ€â€a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.


The First Law of Thermodynamics

What is the truth of modern science regarding the origin of all matter in the universe? Do scientists tell us that it has always existed? Or have they determined that there was a moment in time in which all matter came into existence? The answer to the second question is, yes! But what is the proof that this is true?

The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine originâ€â€a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.

With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with the discovery of radium in 1898 by Madame Curie, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has a weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until eventually the end product becomes the heavy inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time. While the process of uranium turning into radium is very long, the radium turns into lead in 1,590 years.

What are we saying? There was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It breaks down. This means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, all of themâ€â€uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and othersâ€â€have not existed forever. This represents absolute proof that matter came into existence or, in other words, matter has not always existed!

This flies directly in the face of evolutionary thoughtâ€â€that everything gradually evolved into something else. Here is the problem. You cannot have something slowly come into existence from nothing! Matter could not have come into existence by itself. No rational person could believe that the entire universeâ€â€including all of the radioactive elements that prove there was a specific time of beginningâ€â€gradually came into existence BY ITSELF!

Through your own efforts, try to build somethingâ€â€anythingâ€â€from nothing. Even with your creative power engaged in the effort, you would never be able to do it. You will not be ableâ€â€in a hundred lifetimes of tryingâ€â€to produce a single thing from nothing! Then, can any doubter believe that everything in the entirety of the universe, in all of its exquisite detail, came into existence completely by itself? Be honest. Accept facts. This is proof that the existing natural realm demands the existence of a Great Creator!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorderâ€â€or a condition known as entropy. This bears some explanation and we will consider several examples.

Remember that evolutionists teach that everything is constantly evolving into a higher and more complex order. In other words, they believe things continue to get better and better instead of worse and worse.

If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If a ball is placed on a hill, it will always roll downhill and not uphill. Energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable energy to unusable in the performing of that task. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy levelâ€â€where less and less energy is available for use.

When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is winding downâ€â€moving toward disorder or entropyâ€â€not winding up or moving toward more perfect order and structure. In short, the entire universe is winding down!

Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other. Consider: “Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, ‘It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question atever that the second law of thermodynamics is true’†(Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, p. 35).

Like a top or a yo-yo, the universe must have been “wound up.†Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God!

 

[reznwerks]

faith

Do you realize how many times you had to use the word "faith" as evidence. of proof? Do you realize how many times you had to use the phrase "you must believe" as evidence of proof? Real proof requires neither. Using the bible and passages are fine to offer as evidence if it is a provable or reliable textbook. It is not. We know nothing of the authors other than first names. We know the bible has been copied multiple times and its work cannot be tested for accuracy. We know the bible is full of errors, contradictions. and failed prophecy. Pointing to problems and as yet not understood the total workings of evolution etc is not proof of a God. It means there are things man does not yet understand. Not knowing does not default to proof of the supernatural. You said it take far more faith to believe in the evolutionary "chic" evolutionary myth than it does to believe in God. How so? 98 percent of those who study evolution accept it as fact. Why ? Because of the evidence. We have hard evidence that we can see and test to come to this conclusion. I don't understand how it is easier to accept what is not seen or cannot be tested as being more reliable than what is there. Obviously you have copied this article or gotten most of he info from somewhere else not that it matters. Most of your claims for God and debunking evolution have been debunked and I have provided the links at those posts in order for anyone to compare. If you still want to retain your beliefs after reviewing the evidence that is fine but in my opinion you do so despite the evidence not because of it.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Wow there are so many things wrong in that essay that I don't know where to begin. I'll try the beginning for starters then:

The Most Perfect Clock

For many years, until 1967, Naval Observatory astronomers “observed†the motion of the earth, in relation to the heavens, to accurately measure time. All clocks in this country were set in relation to these very precise measurements. It was God who made this Master Clock of the Universe! He set the heavens in motion and mankind learned how to use its wonderful accuracy. As marvelous as this Great Clock is, the story does not end here.

Well that's wrong in many many ways. For one, the Earth is not a perfect clock, it's orbital motion is changing, constantly, the days are changing in length, there are gravitational anamolies that change our revolutionary period etc etc.
Furthermore there is the problem with the idea of a clock at all, as it is dependant on location, a clock 500 LY away at a closer or further point from Sag A will run faster or slower, respectively, compared to a clock on earth. It's all relativity.

This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine originâ€â€a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.

So because matter and energy cannot be spontaneously brought into existence it proves that...matter and energy were spontaneously brought into existence.
If anything what he's saying here is that matter and energy can't be created so there ISN'T a god who could have created it. :roll:
Since the Big Bang theory states nothing about what the universe was like before it existed aside from a state of incredible density and really weird temporal properties, then he's attacking a strawman.

This represents absolute proof that matter came into existence or, in other words, matter has not always existed!

Yes it happened when a star went supernova, the collapse of a large star made from the hydrogen that condensed shortly after the big bang, simultaneously imploded and exploded creating a nebula full of unused fuel, and heavy elements.

Remember that evolutionists teach that everything is constantly evolving into a higher and more complex order. In other words, they believe things continue to get better and better instead of worse and worse.

If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If a ball is placed on a hill, it will always roll downhill and not uphill.

Strawmen and misconceptions abound in these sentences. Evolution says nothing about complexity, something that is simple and works has more kids than something that doesn't. Changes in complexity are due to environmental pressures making simplicity bad.
Increasing complexity = increased chemical activity = increased waste heat = increased entropy.

 

[keebs]

The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine originâ€â€a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.

This is stupid...your using post-Big Bang mechanics to "prove" something that relies on pre-Big Bang mechanics...there's a difference. Oh, but that's just one of the many, many errors you base your argument on. If you'd like me to write a full refutation, I will...but I don't feel like doing it now.

 

[Drew]

Does God Exist?
BY DAVID C. PACK

When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is winding downâ€â€moving toward disorder or entropyâ€â€not winding up or moving toward more perfect order and structure. In short, the entire universe is winding down!

Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other. Consider: “Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, ‘It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true’†(Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, p. 35).

Like a top or a yo-yo, the universe must have been “wound up.†Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God!

This material preys on the scientific illiteracy of the general reader. The second law of thermodynamics states that things tend to increasing states of disorder in a closed system. Is the earth a closed system? Obviously not. Sunlight continually streams in, effectively adding energy to our little blue marble and guaranteeing that it is quite simply not a closed system.

OK, now for the interesting part. Is any proponent of the "2nd law does not allow for evolution" argument willing to counter my assertions? Not to dance around them, not to question my faith, not to call me a "fool", not to engage in confusing rhetoric, but to seriously and directly engage my claim about the closed system business. If shown to be wrong, I will retract.

 

[Barbarian]

Take a hint from another Christian; you don't need bogus arguments to believe.

You just need faith. Have some faith in Him.

 

[lovely]

Interesting thread...

Syntax said:

Well that's wrong in many many ways. For one, the Earth is not a perfect clock, it's orbital motion is changing, constantly, the days are changing in length, there are gravitational anamolies that change our revolutionary period etc etc.
Furthermore there is the problem with the idea of a clock at all, as it is dependant on location, a clock 500 LY away at a closer or further point from Sag A will run faster or slower, respectively, compared to a clock on earth. It's all relativity.

Drew said:

This material preys on the scientific illiteracy of the general reader. The second law of thermodynamics states that things tend to increasing states of disorder in a closed system. Is the earth a closed system? Obviously not. Sunlight continually streams in, effectively adding energy to our little blue marble and guaranteeing that it is quite simply not a closed system.

Einstein's theory could also apply to light. Which could support a young earth point of view as to how we can see light so many light years away. Gravity can possibly pull it in, and change the rate of time. If this is the case, then the universe is possibly a closed system. Directing the gravitational pull towards the center. Which may solve the entropy issue as well. Just something to consider...

However, that being said, I would not use any of this to attempt to prove there is a God.

 

[Drew]

Einstein's theory could also apply to light. Which could support a young earth point of view as to how we can see light so many light years away. Gravity can possibly pull it in, and change the rate of time. If this is the case, then the universe is possibly a closed system. Directing the gravitational pull towards the center. Which may solve the entropy issue as well. Just something to consider...

However, that being said, I would not use any of this to attempt to prove there is a God.

Einstein's theory does indeed describe the relationship between gravity and light. And the physical influences of gravity on light have been seen experimentally many times. Gravity does affect time - this has been demonstrated many many times. There is no controversy (at least in the mainstream scientific community) about this. I am doubtful whether such facts can be used to support a Young Earth point of view. Can someone give more details. My fear about these debates is that they are simply too complex to be seriously (and I mean seriously) dealt with on a discussion board. Intelligent people spend years studying these questions...

Notwithstanding what I just said, I will claim to know 2 things here. First, the idea that there is a "centre" to the Universe is misleading and widely, if not universally (no pun intended) rejected by cosmologists. I know this seems to violate common sense, but there is an analogy to a 2-dimensional case involving an "expanding balloon"- I will spare you the grisly details (you can look it up on the Web, I suppose).

Second, I have not claimed that the Universe is not a closed system. I suppose it could be. What is important, however, in regards to evolution here on the Earth, is whether the Earth is a closed system. And I will offer a flagon of October ale to anyone who can show that it is such.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

The rule is, as velocity increases, clocks in a different frame of reference will move faster the closer they are to us.
So at:

Point C                       Point A                                     Point B

It can be the same time but when moving at 3/5ths c going from C -> B, a clock at Point A will be moving faster than a clock at point B. The affects of this would become evident if we or the universe around us were not moving in a uniform fashion(which is away from us). The conditions that would cause the universe to be billions of years older than the earth would be almost immediately apparent to ground observers, who would be able to see stars exploding constantly.

 

[lovely]

I think the answer that you looking for is that Earth is not a closed system. Although, as we both suppose, the Universe could be.

I would say that the presupposition that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to a closed system isn't necessarily true. It is observable that entropy does exist in open systems, however, there can be outside influences as you suggest...such as the sun. Due to energy supplied by the deterioration of another system, energy can be added decreasing entropy, but it can also be harmful which deteriorates, and increases entropy. Teleonomy exists in life, not matter. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is observable in open systems, and the presupposition that it does not apply isn’t accurate. This neither supports, nor disproves evolution.

The issue of our galaxy being the center is highly debatable, I agree. Observable are the redshifts of galaxies, that they are quantized, and that the universe is isotropic. The balloon experiment is not “observable†and indicates that the Universe is isotropic from every point, not just our galaxy. This is a theory, it should be looked into farther, but questioned until we have observable evidence.

 

[Drew]

Hi Lovely (and others):

The following material is from the astronomy department at Cornell University (which I would tend to consider a reliable sourse). I have bolded several sentences.


This idea has been put forward by many people to try to prove that evolution is impossible. However, it is based on a flawed understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, and in fact, the theory of evolution does not contradict any known laws of physics.

The second law of thermodynamics simply says that the entropy of a closed system will tend to increase with time. "Entropy" is a technical term with a precise physical definition, but for most purposes it is okay to think of it as equivalent to "disorder". Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.

However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system - one that does not have anything going in or out of it. There is nothing about the second law that prevents one part of a closed system from getting more ordered, as long as another part of the system is getting more disordered.

There are many examples from everyday life that prove it is possible to create order! For example, you'd certainly agree that a person is capable of taking a pile of wood and nails and constructing a building out of it. The wood and nails have become more ordered, but in doing the work required to make the building, the person has generated heat which goes into increasing the overall entropy of the universe.

Or, if you prefer an example that doesn't require conscious human intervention, consider what happens when the weather changes and it gets colder outside. Cold air has less entropy than warm air - basically, it is more "ordered" because the molecules aren't moving around as much and have fewer places they can be. So the entropy in your local part of the universe has decreased, but as long as that is accompanied by an increase in entropy somewhere else, the second law of thermodynamics has not been violated.

That's the general picture - nature is capable of generating order out of disorder on a local level without violating the second law of thermodynamics, and that is all that evolution requires.

 

[Drew]

A follow-on to my previous post.

I did a little internet research (admittedly a risky thing) and found lots of references to sunlight being of low entropy. I suspect that, if true, this suggests that sunlight could be a stimulating force for building up order through natural processes (hence evolution). If sunlight's entropy was high, the argument could be made, I suppose, that high entropy input would not allow for an increase of complexity. So I think I will, at least for the present, take issue with the claim that sunlight will increase entropy. Apparently sunlight is a low-entropy source.

Either way, the real issue as I see it is the claim in the original article that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is observed in open systems (e.g. such as the earth). That may be so. However, there is a world of difference between what can happen and what must happen. And the claim of the creationist has always been that evolution cannot happen because of the 2nd law. What you are saying is effectively that sometimes entropy can increase in an open system. This accomplishes little unless you can make a further argument as to why, in the specific case of the Earth, you would expect the entropy to increase even though sunlight is an input to the system.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

As long as there are increasing amounts of heat wasted due to dropping efficiency, disorder/entropy increases.

 

[lovely]

The simple examples given, could both require an outside input of information. The second example is questionable, based on the presupposition that there is no Designer. I am not ruling that option out, obviously. I stand by my previous post, and that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can be applied to an open or closed system.

The Universe, as a possible closed system, that includes Earth and directly affects Earth, will increase in entropy according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, therefore Earth will also.

 

[cubedbee]

I would say that the presupposition that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to a closed system isn't necessarily true. It is observable that entropy does exist in open systems, however, there can be outside influences as you suggest...such as the sun. Due to energy supplied by the deterioration of another system, energy can be added decreasing entropy, but it can also be harmful which deteriorates, and increases entropy. Teleonomy exists in life, not matter. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is observable in open systems, and the presupposition that it does not apply isn’t accurate.

You obviously don't understand the 2nd law. The 2nd law says that entropy always increases in a closed system. As you note, in an open system, sometimes entropy increases, sometimes it decreases. So that means, entropy doesn't always increase in an open system. That is the opposite of the 2nd law. The 2nd law does not apply to open systems. Period. End of story. No argument possible.

 

[Drew]

The simple examples given, could both require an outside input of information. The second example is questionable, based on the presupposition that there is no Designer. I am not ruling that option out, obviously. I stand by my previous post, and that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can be applied to an open or closed system.

The Universe, as a possible closed system, that includes Earth and directly affects Earth, will increase in entropy according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, therefore Earth will also.

Now honestly Lovely, how can you possibly stand by the claim that the 2nd law applies to an open system? The law is simply not about open systems - it is about closed systems. As CubedBee has pointed out, the argument must stop there. I challenge you to find one person with a Phd. in physics (or chemistry) from a reputable university who will agree with the claim "The 2nd law of thermodynamics can be applied to an open system".

 

[Barbarian]

In the long run, of course, the Solar System is essentially a closed system. Hence, it is increasing in entropy.

However, this does not prohibit temporary and local decreases in entropy, such as you find on Earth.

Such decreases depend on increases in entropy elsewhere, such as that going on in the Sun.

 

[lovely]

To Drew:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.â€Â

Dr. John Ross, Harvard (evolutionist)

And, of course, I can give you lists of many more who surmise creation that also are PhD's from credible universities.

This particular matter can get very involved, it not as simple as making a few statements, and then summing it up to end the argument. We are talking about observable evidence, theory, math, biology, chemistry, etc...all of these things converging. It's actually pretty exciting, and merits discussion.

To simply wave your hand, sum it up, and end of argument, that's just not what science is about. We must question everything, revisit everything...It is not simply about plugging it into your world-view and only allowing the science that supports that to be "valid". Both sides are guilty of this. Its okay to interpret evidence, but we should all be encouraged to look at the theories and discoveries of everyone, and see if they are observable, mathematical, etc.

It is hard to have a thorough conversation about it in this forum, especially when its less about science and more about proving or disproving God. It is obvious that I believe in God, and because I am human, I do not always have objective judgement...I think that can be said of people period, no matter what end of the spectrum they are on. In my opinion, God is...I do not need science to "prove" that to me. I believed in God before I ever learned one thing about science...and I still believe after all I have learned. Belief in God is based on imputed faith, not the ever-changing views of scientists.

Listing scientists who support, or don't support, isn't going to convince either of us...there are many on both sides of this...and all with credible credentials, btw...places like Harvard, Berkeley, etc. They all studied somewhere...(Evolutionist, Creationist, Young Earth, Intelligent Design, etc.) Simply attacking credibility is a straw man that has been used too many times, and is wearing extremely thin. It's a ploy that is meant to detract from the actual discussion of science.

I just enjoy talking about science, not presuming myself to be the most intelligent because of the views I hold, just holding them. It is good that there are opposing views. (evolutionists disagree amongst each other, as well as Creationists, ID, YEC. etc.) It spurns us on to learn more and more.

To Cubedbee:

Cubedbee said:

You obviously don't understand the 2nd law. The 2nd law says that entropy always increases in a closed system. As you note, in an open system, sometimes entropy increases, sometimes it decreases. So that means, entropy doesn't always increase in an open system. That is the opposite of the 2nd law. The 2nd law does not apply to open systems. Period. End of story. No argument possible.

I have heard this argument and understand it. I believe it is based on a misunderstanding of the argument I am making. Saying that the law applies to an open system, and is always in force, does not mean that I fail to understand it as it applies to a closed system. If you review my posts, I did not say that entropy aways increases in an open system. The law is in force in open systems as well as closed, and therefore can be applied to both.

 

[cubedbee]

To Drew:
I have heard this argument and understand it. I believe it is based on a misunderstanding of the argument I am making. Saying that the law applies to an open system, and is always in force, does not mean that I fail to understand it as it applies to a closed system. If you review my posts, I did not say that entropy aways increases in an open system. The law is in force in open systems as well as closed, and therefore can be applied to both.

I think we have conufusion because there are two ways the 2nd law is sometimes expressed. I am using this version

1) The entropy in any closed system always increases.

You are using this equally true version:

2) The entropy in any system tends to increase.

Now, from 1) states something that must always happen. So, if we could show the Earth is a closed system, then we would know that entropy would always increase, so we know evolution must be false.

Statement 2) says that something tends to happen. So, even though we know the Earth is a system, we cannot rule out evolution, because the law does not rule out a local decrease in entropy.

So yes, your right in saying "the 2nd law can be applied to open or closed systems" But the implication that "the 2nd law can be applied to open or closed systems to disprove the possibility of evoluion" is false.

 

[Drew]

The simple examples given, could both require an outside input of information. The second example is questionable, based on the presupposition that there is no Designer. I am not ruling that option out, obviously. I stand by my previous post, and that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can be applied to an open or closed system.

The Universe, as a possible closed system, that includes Earth and directly affects Earth, will increase in entropy according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, therefore Earth will also.

Now honestly Lovely, how can you possibly stand by the claim that the 2nd law applies to an open system? The law is simply not about open systems - it is about closed systems. As CubedBee has pointed out, the argument must stop there. I challenge you to find one person with a Phd. in physics (or chemistry) from a reputable university who will agree with the claim "The 2nd law of thermodynamics can be applied to an open system".

Just to show you that I am willing to admit a "mistake", I hereby offficially withdraw the above - specifically the bit about the 2nd law being "about closed systems". As CubedBee has pointed out, and as I have independently verified, the law can be expressed in different ways. So yes, the 2nd law does have something to say about open systems. But my "research" also supports what CubedBee is saying (and which I only read moments ago) - the 2nd law cannot be used as an argument against the possibility of evolution. I am investigating the Ross quote and hope to have something further to add.....