Originally posted by Nygdan
The theory of gravity does not explain gravity on the sub-atomic scale. Most physical 'Laws' infact break down at that level and the effects need to
be re-interpreted in 'quantum' version of the theory. The 'laws' of phsyics are no inviolate.
They are theories, which are nothing more than hypotheses, which are based upon observations of the natural world. They aren't facts. The theory
of gravity is, and will allways remain, a theory, for example. Similarly, the theory of evolution will allways remain a theory, never a fact.
That is incorrect; you may want to refresh your memory with a good reference on scientific method. A Hypothesis
is merely a temporary and
tentative expanation of observed events or phenomena but which has not been proved; a Theory
is a proven hypothesis that has been verified by
many scientists in different places. A Law
is similar to a mathematical postulate, in that it is usually expressed as a single mathematical
formula and is universally accepted as true at face value, because it has always been observed to be true.
Thus, the "theory" of Gravitation has universally been accepted as Law
because it has always been observed, in the natural world, to be
We were discussing the Laws and Theories related to the discussion of Evolution vs Creationism, weren't we? The whole subject of Quantum Physics and
M Theory or String Theory, if you like doesn't really enter in to our debate.
How can creationism be said to be scientific? it posits the miraculous actions of a god at a distance. Anything requireing miracles and the
like to explain it can't be said to be scientific.
The scientific investigation of the creation of our world and universe is no different than yours, although we start with a different hypothesis than
you do. But to be a true hypothesis, it must posses the possiblilty of being wrong, so it requires as much discipline and integrity, scientifically
speaking, as does your own. There is much evidence for the creation of our own planet, geologically and archeologically, so it's not like we're
making it up as we go along.
How about, since you keep changing your topic and avoid the questions, you demonstrate that evolution actually does violate the laws of
thermodynamics, and we'll start from there eh?
I'll answer that, if Josh doesn't mind. The theory of evolution not only violates the first law of thermodynamics, it violates the second law as
well. Here's how:
The first Law of Thermodynamics states : Nothing is now coming into existence or going out of existence; matter and energy may be converted into one
another, but there is no net increase in the combined total of what exists.
In other words, energy and matter can not be created from nothing. You can change matter into energy ( water into steam ) you can change energy into
matter (steam condenses back to water) but you can not create water out of empty air. Evolutionists believe either that the Big Bang began the
universe when a mass of matter smaller than the period at the end of a sentence, suddenly exploded and sent matter and energy cascading through the
universe, creating planets, galaxies, etc, etc; or they believe that the Big Bang started everything from basically nothing. Either way, you violate
the 1st law; the only difference is that in the first argument you have to ask them, "Now, just where did that original matter come from,
anyway."?Remember, under the rules of the 1st Law, there is no net increase in the amount of matter and energy, so how in the world did enough matter
and energy come from to populate the entire universe with the trillions of stars and billions upon billions of galaxies and other matter, like the
earth for example.?
The Second Law states : The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.
Or put more simply, everything in the universe is running down; every system, left to itself, will tend to move from organization and stability to
disorganization and chaos.
Evolution flies in the face of this law, for in evolution, life emerges from non-life; life doesn't get more and more disorganized, it gets more and
more organized and stable. The one-celled ameoba metamorpasises into a fish; the fish into an amphibian and so on and so on until the amoeba is now an
ape who evolves into a man. The whole idea is anathema to scientific theory. The 2nd law is not just broken it's shattered.
If you ask me, it takes alot more faith to believe in Evolution Theory than Creation Theory; with Creation Theory, you at least can explain why the
scientific laws do not hold.
Grace & Peace,