Evolution vs. Creationism

[Davie Crockey]

I have sat back and watched people debate over this subject for a long time. I have never posted anything because I really don't know much about the subject. I have skimmed through Darwin's Origin of Species, but that is about it. In one of the other debate rooms, someone said, "there are a lot of people on the fence...." Well, I am one of those people. Actually, I have a few questions:

1. I believe that God created us. Is it possible to believe that and believe in evolution at the same time?

2. Why are Creationist and Evolutionist always arguing? Aren't the Bangists (you know the scientist that believe in the Big Bang Theory) the one's with the views that contradict creation?

3. Last question, I promise, I always here that the evidence of Creationists is bogus. Don't they have evidence to "prove" why the earth is 10,000 years old, etc...?

Thanks for your input.

C.

[Navigator]

1. I believe that God created us. Is it possible to believe that and believe in evolution at the same time?

Yes, it is. Evolution only means a change in species over time. Evolution is related yet different than abiogenesis (life from non-life).

2. Why are Creationist and Evolutionist always arguing? Aren't the Bangists (you know the scientist that believe in the Big Bang Theory) the one's with the views that contradict creation?

Actually the Bangist theory, as I understand it, supports the doctrine of [i]ex nihilio[i] (sp?) 'Out of Nothing'.

The main reason I can tell the CvE debate rages is that neither side reads the others material, because both have a certain amount of disrespect for the others motives. Motives that may or may not be true, but are usually an based on an a priori assumption.

3. Last question, I promise, I always here that the evidence of Creationists is bogus. Don't they have evidence to "prove" why the earth is 10,000 years old, etc...?

Both sides claim the others work is bogus. I think both sides exaggerate the claim, though I think the YEC are somewhat deficient in this category.

stands by for the inevitable flames...

[Satan]

Originally posted by Navigator

Actually the Bangist theory, as I understand it, supports the doctrine of [i]ex nihilio[i] (sp?) 'Out of Nothing'.

With all due respect, Navigator, you make it sound as if science is saying that there was nothing, i.e. "no God," and that isn't the case.

Science is saying, we believe that things came about where things did kick off in some manner which is not dependent upon a non-testable entity. They only preclude God from having to be there, but do not say he ISN'T there.

The main reason I can tell the CvE debate rages is that neither side reads the others material, because both have a certain amount of disrespect for the others motives.

Are you saying that I never read creationist views, Navigator?
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, three days, 12 hours, 41 minutes and 30 seconds.
7461 cigarettes not smoked, saving $932.64.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 4 days, 21 hours, 45 minutes.

[Jack Batty]

My 2 cents, ...

Originally posted by Davie Crockey


1. I believe that God created us. Is it possible to believe that and believe in evolution at the same time?

Tricky one - yes and no. If you are to take the Bible as the infallible word of God, then no. Adam and Eve, all the world and its creatures created in 6 days with one day off, etc., just doesn't jive with the theory of evolution. But believing in the existence of God doesn't automatically make you an anti-evolutionist. You just have to take the Bible with a grain of salt.

2. Why are Creationist and Evolutionist always arguing? Aren't the Bangists (you know the scientist that believe in the Big Bang Theory) the one's with the views that contradict creation?

I could be wrong about this one but a "Bangist", as you put it, would be an evolutionist. I doubt there many "Bangist" who will argue that the universe was created in a cataclysmic explosion at which point God took over an started molding woodchucks and platypi.
Is an evolutionist necessarily a "Bangist"? I don't know. Being a Bangist, I'm not really qualified to answer the question. But it seems to me that the two theories have a cozy relationship with each other.

3. Last question, I promise, I always here that the evidence of Creationists is bogus. Don't they have evidence to "prove" why the earth is 10,000 years old, etc...?

I can only cite anecdotally here, but I think all the "evidence" produced to prove that young age of the earth comes directly from scripture. I'm not going to explain circular logic, as I'm fairly sure everybody here is already quite familiar with it.

[Navigator]

Brian,

Ex nihilio, IIRC is a church doctrine that God created out of nothing, something that some say the 'Big Bang' asserts.

I agree with your assessment of the scientific theory.

yer second point, I'll modify that 'some' on both sides never read the other sides argument. Some actually do read both sides, and don't change their minds.

Peace, Brian, I'm trying not to personalize the argument.

[Podkayne]

Originally posted by Davie Crockey
1. I believe that God created us. Is it possible to believe that and believe in evolution at the same time?

That would be between you and your god. What characteristics to you ascribe to your god? Are those characteristics consistent with evolution?

2. Why are Creationist and Evolutionist always arguing? Aren't the Bangists (you know the scientist that believe in the Big Bang Theory) the one's with the views that contradict creation?

Creationism postulates the whole enchilada: God made the universe, the Earth, created all the animals and the people, and people, and He did it all in seven days and He did it a few thousand years ago. (They also tend to believe that there really was a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest, too.)

This view is at odds with much of modern science: astronomy (not just "Bangism" as you call it, but also observational astronomy which tells us things are billions of years old), geology, palentology, molecular biology, etc.

You are correct that any given Bangist (damn, that word is growing on me!) will most likely believe in the theory of evolution. However, Big Bang Theory does not imply evolution. If the Big Bang turned out to be wrong tomorrow (fat freakin' chance, but hypothetically. . .), it would not automatically imply that evolution was wrong. . . and vice versa.

3. Last question, I promise, I always here that the evidence of Creationists is bogus. Don't they have evidence to "prove" why the earth is 10,000 years old, etc...?

Yeah, it's bogus. By all means, check out the talk.origins archive. It concisely and thoroughly documents the errors in many common creationist claims:

http://www.talkorigins.org

Ya know what really butters my toast? When creationists take a thirty-year-old study that has been disproved in the literature ten times and continue use that as evidence. It's even worse when they misinterpret the results of a study, perverting the hard work of people who are dedicated to enriching humanity's store of knowlege. And they have the audacity to call themselves "scientists."

Do they do it out of ignorance, or deliberate malice? I dunno. Which is more insulting? That might be the topic of another Great Debate.

[Freyr]

First, I'd like to preface this by saying that 1)I'm not a Christian and 2)my degree is in Anthropology, so I "believe" in evolution just like I "believe" in gravity.

Davie Crockey wrote:

1. I believe that God created us. Is it possible to believe that and believe in evolution at the same time?

Yes. Quite easy. In fact, this is the view of the Catholic Church. In fact, most of Christianity seems to believe this. Only the people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible do not.

2. Why are Creationist and Evolutionist always arguing? Aren't the Bangists (you know the scientist that believe in the Big Bang Theory) the one's with the views that contradict creation?

The arguement seems to come from the Creationists who insist their viewpoint be given equal time (especially in public schools) since it's just as valid as evolution is. Several courts have ruled that Creationism is not a theory (in the same sense that evolution is) and is tantamount to promoting a religion in public schools.

"Bangists" as you call them, physicists who specialize in astrophysics to the rest of us, have a variety of religious beliefs. Not all of them are Christian, so you'd have to ask them on an individual basis.

3. Last question, I promise, I always here that the evidence of Creationists is bogus. Don't they have evidence to "prove" why the earth is 10,000 years old, etc...?

Most Creationist arguements stand on the Bible as the infallible Word of God as their evidence for a young earth. The evidence as presented by geology, physics and biology overwhelms any evidence the Bible gives. Again, it seems that only the people who insist on a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible believe this. Most other Christians take Genesis (at least up to the point where Abraham enters the story) as mythology.

Otherwise, Creations try to pick holes in evolution. What they have done is show that not all biologists agree on some details of evolution. They ignore the fact that biologists agree that evolution happens, but disagree over details such as it's rate and exact mechanisms. That's sort of like saying that since mechanics will argue over the best way to get maximum preformance out of an engine, automobiles don't exist.

[Mixlplix98]

Greetings. I wish to reply specifically to the OP's third question, as the first two were answered quite admirably by other posters.

David Crockey wrote:
"Last question, I promise, I always here that the evidence of Creationists is bogus. Don't they have evidence to "prove" why the earth is 10,000 years old, etc...? "

One of the pieces of evidence that I find most interesting is the creationsist viewpoint that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution(listen to the collective groans ). The second law basically states that any closed system will tend toward more chaos and disorder. However, evolution asserts that order, i.e. life, was created from the disorder of the primeval Earth. The flaw in this logic is that creationists assume the Earth, and only the Earth, as the closed system. Our planet is anything from closed, receiving energy from the sun. This energy is what drives natural selection, and thus evolution. If the sun did not exist, we would be hard pressed to explain where everyone came from.

Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix

[tracer]

Freyr wrote:

Davie Crockey wrote:

1. I believe that God created us. Is it possible to believe that and believe in evolution at the same time?

Yes. Quite easy. In fact, this is the view of the Catholic Church. In fact, most of Christianity seems to believe this. Only the people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible do not.

And I gotta wonder why these same literalists don't also insist that the sun goes around the Earth (Joshua 10:12-13), that the Earth is flat (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm), and that the Earth is rectangular (Revelation 7:1).

[Sterra]

The sun doesen't cause order, it is merely unfocused energy. Now if something was directing that energy into a ordered state yes, but otherwise the sun and sunlight tends towards entropy like everything else.

[Ankh_Too]

Originally posted by Davie Crockey
1. I believe that God created us. Is it possible to believe that and believe in evolution at the same time?

2. Why are Creationist and Evolutionist always arguing? Aren't the Bangists (you know the scientist that believe in the Big Bang Theory) the one's with the views that contradict creation?

I'll lump these two together even though the evolution of life is not the same thing as the 'evolution' of the Universe. The word is used sometimes for both processes, but they are not parallel cases.

It all depends on how you define "Christian". The conflict in believing in either a Big Bang, or evoluition comes from attempting to reconcile these scientific theories with a literal interpretation of the Bible. If you believe that God created the world in six days then, obviously, you cannot believe in either a Big Bang model or biologic evolution.

I've known plenty of people who describe themselves as Christians, who believe in both a 'Big Bang' model of the universe and biologic evolution. By the same token, I've also known other Christians who claim that you cannot truly be a Christian without a literal interpretation of the Bible. If you think that a literal interpretation of the Bible is a requirement to be a Christian, then it becomes difficult to also believe in the above scientific theories.

However, there are at least a billion Catholics in the world who shouldn't have much difficulty in accepting both a divine causation and any one of the "Big Bang" models of the beginning of the Universe:

[quote]"...in 1981 my interst in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology oganized by the Jesuits in the Vatican... At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God."
Steven Hawking A Brief History of Time.

[Satan]

Originally posted by Navigator

Peace, Brian, I'm trying not to personalize the argument.

Hey, I wasn't even trying to have an argument!

Thanks for the clarification...
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, three days, 19 hours, 29 minutes and 49 seconds.
7472 cigarettes not smoked, saving $934.06.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 4 days, 22 hours, 40 minutes.

I slept with a moderator!

[andros]

The sun doesen't cause order, it is merely unfocused energy. Now if something was directing that energy into a ordered state yes, but otherwise the sun and sunlight tends towards entropy like everything else.

Nope.

Locally, any influx of energy can and does offset disorder. Planets orbit suns, for example--order, but not directed, except by physical law. Another example: two cells, say a sperm and an egg, merge and begin to reproduce, eventually forming another lifeform. Eventually, entropy has its way (lifeforms die), but the growth and increasing order of that embryo as it develops is in defiance of entropy. Why? An influx of energy.

In a nutshell, with sufficient energy, 2LT goes out the window. There are articles at http://www.talkorigins.org that go into more detail here and here.

[Polycarp]

I thought Freyr (for whom I'm growing to have immense respect) covered this very well in his post above. I've posted my POV on YEC (young-earth creationism) before in several places, but here's a capsule summary:

Whatever may be the inspiration of Genesis 1, the decision on how to read it is a human one. And contextually, it is written in myth style -- which is not to controvert its truth value, but to describe its literary genre. Now, one may conclude from this that it is a straightforward account of what God did one week in October 4004 BC or a poetic retelling of his work -- or, of course, that it's a myth in the modern usage -- a fable made up by a bunch of nomads.

However, if one believes in God, one comes face to face with the question of whether he ever prevaricates. And one is faced with this question quite strongly here, because the vast majority of the geological and paleontological evidence points strongly to a multi-billion year span for Earth and for life on Earth. Granted that science may be in error on any given interpretation of the evidence, it will not be consistently in error (and in self-consistent error) on the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. The conclusion then becomes: either God lied in Genesis 1 or in the evidence found in his creation, or else the literalist interpretation of Genesis 1 is in error. I prefer to believe that man makes mistakes, and God does not lie.

One quick point to show the complementarity of science and the Christian religion, taken with one's mind in gear: the best evidence of cosmologists as to conditions immediately after the Big Bang indicate a very short period (nanoseconds) that is indescribable in human perceptual terms, because there was a chaotic flux of strange and charmed particles. Immediately afterwards, the universe settled to something we can (barely) comprehend, and that something was a mix so hot that subatomic particles could not survive, but only one thing: photons -- the vehicles for light. Anyone for whom that does not raise echoes of the first three verses of Genesis has no poetry in his soul.

[Badtz Maru]

Genesis is pretty accurate in describing how the world came to be, if you look at it poetically. I was reminded of this when reading Anne Rice's 'Memnoch the Devil'. In it a fallen angel re-tells how the world was created, going into detail how God shaped life.

It has TONS of inaccuracies, including flowers existing before fish and other things I can't recall at the moment. This modern retelling of creation is further from scientific truth than the original.

Originally posted by Davie Crockey
1. I believe that God created us. Is it possible to believe that and believe in evolution at the same time?

Here's a thought: what if everyone were right? The creationists, the evolutionists, and everyone with totally other views.

One of the wonderful things about the universe is that there is infinite possibility. Paradoxes exist.

It is possible for two or more ideas to be true, even when they contradict one another.

I do not believe in YHWH. I do, however, believe that he exists for those who believe in him. I also do not believe in Hell. But that's where Bad people go when they die. YHWH, Odin, Jesus, Brahmin, Chronos, they all exist.
Existence of the divine is proven by one thing: belief.
Why should one set of beliefs rule out the possibility of contradictory beliefs also being true? Of course, that would end up making the majority if the GD threads completely pointless.

[quixotic78]

I think that one thing that is often overlooked by Christians believing in the Big Bang and Evolution is that it makes it tricky to explain why God plays favorites with (1) Earth, (2) humanity, (3) Jews/Christians. In all the billions of years that the universe has existed, with all of the stuff out that has no role in the Biblical Word of God... why? I've never heard a reason as to why God would make a universe that's billions of light years across and billions of years old just so little ole humanity could go through cycles of divine punishment/retribution. Anyone have a good reason?

Q

[Yue Han]

Who says we're all there is? G-d may be taking an interest in hundreds or even thousands of other planets too.

--John

[Freyr]

PolyC wrote:

I thought Freyr (for whom I'm growing to have immense respect) covered this very well in his post above.

Awwwww, stop it, Poly! You're making me blush!

Whatever may be the inspiration of Genesis 1, the decision on how to read it is a human one. And contextually, it is written in myth style -- which is not to controvert its truth value, but to describe its literary genre. Now, one may conclude from this that it is a straightforward account of what God did one week in October 4004 BC or a poetic retelling of his work -- or, of course, that it's a myth in the modern usage -- a fable made up by a bunch of nomads.

What is fascinating is to compare the Creation Myth of several cultures (all from the same general area) and note the similarities.

One major point I've noticed is the use of water in them all. Often the stories describe the vast expanse of ocean or a huge body of water out of which all of Creation comes.

Another point to consider is that at the time, water was considered the "universal element" the substance out of which everything was composed. One could hypothesize that the philosophers of the time were simply using the best available theory to tell how the world came about; hence the use of water in so many Creation tales.

[Polycarp]

Nice job. You mean that according to the Bible, Thales got it right, and philosophy's going downhill ever since?

Actually, I don't find the similarities between myth structures to be all that significant. In all the threads that have been debated here, nobody has ever addressed the significance of the hoopoe, nor discussed under what circumstances the use of Vaseline is moral. Quite simply, because the issue has never come up. If the Babylonians said this about Ishtar and Tiamat, then the Ugaritites (or whatever they were called) would explain in their mythos what Astarte was really doing about Tiamat. And the similarities of Genesis to the Babylonian myth may come from the same concept: remember that under the JEPD view the Priestly strand was being compiled during the Exile, when the typical Jew was very exposed to the Babylonian myth system, in the same way that an American child knows all about Santa, the Easter Bunny, George Washington and the cherry tree incident, Abe Lincoln splitting rails, and all the other cultural paraphenalia we load 'em down with. To explain the issues the Babylonian myth system addressed in terms of what YHWH did would only make sense. Regardless of what stock you put in belief in Him.

Quixotic...no sane Christian thinks that God created everything particularly for Man. The point is that Earth and humanity are what we happen to be involved with. And He, being omniscient, has plenty enough capacity to be concerned both with what you and I are thinking at this particular moment, what a particular trilobite did one afternoon in the late Silurian, what Xpofltg did in defiance of his (only) parent's command on Gamma Reticuli IX last weekend, and the need to keep that quasar from moving through the middle of that elliptical galaxy about 7,000,000,000 light years from here.

[Phobos]

Originally posted by andros

Nope.

Locally, any influx of energy can and does offset disorder. Planets orbit suns, for example--order, but not directed, except by physical law. Another example: two cells, say a sperm and an egg, merge and begin to reproduce, eventually forming another lifeform. Eventually, entropy has its way (lifeforms die), but the growth and increasing order of that embryo as it develops is in defiance of entropy. Why? An influx of energy.

In a nutshell, with sufficient energy, 2LT goes out the window. There are articles at http://www.talkorigins.org that go into more detail here and here.

Nope. Any influx of energy means the system isn't closed.

The sun is a huge entropy generator. Life on Earth can use some of the sun's energy to locally create order, but the net result is an increase in entropy.

[Mixlplix98]

Phobos wrote:
"Any influx of energy means the system isn't closed. The sun is a huge entropy generator. Life on Earth can use some of the sun's energy to locally create order, but the net result is an increase in entropy."

This is exactly true. Entropy is affecting the entire universe, because the universe is the only truly closed system. One of the more likely possibilities for the end of the universe is heat death, where every point in the universe is at the same temperature and all matter and energy is distributed evenly throughout. Of course, why planets formed at all, instead of the universe going straight from the Big Bang to uniform distribution of energy, is one of the great mysteries of physics. I suppose creationists would argue that God intervened to create planets and such, but I think there is a natural answer with no need to invoke any supernatural entity. Finding that answer will be a huge breakthrough in modern physics.

Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix

[jab1]

Originally posted by Phobos
Any influx of energy means the system isn't closed. The sun is a huge entropy generator. Life on Earth can use some of the sun's energy to locally create order, but the net result is an increase in entropy.

Let us not forget those recently-found forms of life which have apparently evolved without ever having seen the Sun at all. Remember those gigantic red-and-white tube worms found living under the sea near geothermal vents? Not found in any other type of environment, these worms get their sustenance from the chemical-laden super-heated water that shoots out of the Earth's crust. They live in total darkness and would endure even if the Earth were flung out of orbit away from the Sun. (Until the ocean froze solid anyway, and even that might not happen for a long time if the vents stayed active.)

And a recent article in Discover detailed the finding of bacteria living DEEP underground (more than a mile) in South Africa, discovered only because of the deep, deep gold mines there. If it can be shown these bacteria did not originate on the surface, then we would know about one more form of life that does not depend on the Sun. And it raises the tantalizing possibility of subterranean life on Mars and other planets and/or their moons.

[tracer]

jab1 wrote:

And a recent article in Discover detailed the finding of bacteria living DEEP underground (more than a mile) in South Africa, discovered only because of the deep, deep gold mines there. If it can be shown these bacteria did not originate on the surface, then we would know about one more form of life that does not depend on the Sun. And it raises the tantalizing possibility of subterranean life on Mars and other planets and/or their moons.

Although Mars has volcanoes, they are rather old, and have been extinct for some time. This and other, more subtle evidence suggests that Mars is not very geologically (Areologically?) active, and doesn't produce nearly as much geothermal (Areothermal?) energy as the Earth does. If deep subterranean life forms did exist on Mars in the past, they've probably lost their energy source by now.

[jab1]

Then perhaps we can find Martian fossils. How do you feel about finding life on Europa?

Originally posted by Mixlplix98
Of course, why planets formed at all, instead of the universe going straight from the Big Bang to uniform distribution of energy, is one of the great mysteries of physics.Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix [/b]

If I remember my college Astronomy correctly, one of the clues that led to the idea of the Big Bang is the Universal Background Radiation, which can be seen everywhere in the sky. IIRC, immediately after the Bang, all matter was at the same temperature, and evenly distributed. When it began cooling, the atoms formed, causing a chain reaction which created "order out of chaos," as it were.

If I am mistaken, I'm fairly confident that someone will point it out to me. Bear in mind (my standard disclaimer) that I'm not a racist.

Oops. Wrong disclaimer.

Bear in mind that the course I took was a long time ago, and my memory ain't what it used to be.

How do you feel about finding life on Europa?

Better than finding life on Uranus (ba-dum-bum!)

sorry. it was there.

[Phobos]

Originally posted by jab1
Let us not forget those recently-found forms of life which have apparently evolved without ever having seen the Sun at all. Remember those gigantic red-and-white tube worms found living under the sea near geothermal vents? Not found in any other type of environment, these worms get their sustenance from the chemical-laden super-heated water that shoots out of the Earth's crust.

True. In their case, the entropy of the energy emitting from the hydrothermal vent exceeds the order that is drawn from it for life there.

by tracer
If deep subterranean life forms did exist on Mars in the past, they've probably lost their energy source by now.

Unless they evolved to use a different source of energy.

by jab1
Then perhaps we can find Martian fossils. How do you feel about finding life on Europa?

It may be a better chance than for Mars because of the likely large amounts of liquid water and the heat in the moon resulting from the intense magnetic field of Jupiter.

Dive Europa!

[Phobos]

Originally posted by blessedwolf
If I remember my college Astronomy correctly, one of the clues that led to the idea of the Big Bang is the Universal Background Radiation, which can be seen everywhere in the sky. IIRC, immediately after the Bang, all matter was at the same temperature, and evenly distributed. When it began cooling, the atoms formed, causing a chain reaction which created "order out of chaos," as it were.

If I am mistaken, I'm fairly confident that someone will point it out to me.

Since you asked...

Right after the BB, the universe was filled with something-energy-like (perhaps something like a quark-gluon plasma...still being researched). When the universe expanded (and therefore cooled) enough, this stuff was able to condensate into atoms of matter like hydrogen & helium.

The thing is, the early universe did not seem to have this stuff evenly distributed. The universe was lumpy for some reason. The lumpiness allowed matter to collect into stars and galaxies. Why this was so is one of the current big research questions in cosmology.

[David B]

Blessedwolf said:

If I remember my college Astronomy correctly, one of the clues that led to the idea of the Big Bang is the Universal Background Radiation, which can be seen everywhere in the sky.

Close. Actually, the background radiation was a prediction of the Big Bang theory, before we had the ability to measure it. When we were finally able to do so, the fact that it was there added one more piece of evidence to the theory.

This is one way that a "historical" science can be predictive (which creationists often claim it cannot). Even though the Big Bang obviously happened quite some time ago, scientists were able to predict what we would find, and then they went and found it. If they had not found it, they would have had to go back to the drawing board.

Originally posted by David B This is one way that a "historical" science can be predictive (which creationists often claim it cannot). Even though the Big Bang obviously happened quite some time ago, scientists were able to predict what we would find, and then they went and found it. If they had not found it, they would have had to go back to the drawing board. [/b]

malus meus. I had a brain fart and forgot that the BB was deduced from the discovery that the Universe is expanding. Thanks for joggling my mammaries. er...or something.

[tracer]

Honey, you can joggle my mammaries any time.

[Mixlplix98]

I think it is important to note that the quark-gluon plasma or whatever it was during the first few picoseconds of the universe is actually MORE ordered than atoms are. This is because they contain more energy, and we have been decaying from it ever since. Rather counterintuitive, I think.

Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix

[Mr2001]

Mixlplix98:

I think it is important to note that the quark-gluon plasma or whatever it was during the first few picoseconds of the universe is actually MORE ordered than atoms are. This is because they contain more energy, and we have been decaying from it ever since. Rather counterintuitive, I think.

No, where do you think that energy went? Energy is conserved. There's exactly as much energy in the universe today as there was yesterday, last year, or a billion years ago.

Anyway, energy doesn't mean order. A hot cup of coffee has more energy than a quartz crystal, but the crystal is definitely more ordered.

[Mixlplix98]

Originally posted by Mr2001
No, where do you think that energy went? Energy is conserved. There's exactly as much energy in the universe today as there was yesterday, last year, or a billion years ago.

Anyway, energy doesn't mean order. A hot cup of coffee has more energy than a quartz crystal, but the crystal is definitely more ordered.

You are probably right. However, from my understanding, more energy does mean more order, according to TD. You are right that there is as much energy now as there was, what, 15 billion years ago? But that energy was compressed into a much smaller space than now. As the universe expanded, matter and energy cooled into the planets, stars and the background glow we see today. I will doublecheck my physics textbooks about TD. I suppose I should have said more energetic than now.

Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix

[Mixlplix98]

Brief addendum.
After some thought, I found where my logic was coming from. TD2 says that all closed systems will tend toward more disorder. Given that the universe is the only true closed system, it stands to reason that anything at the beginning of the system will have the most order, and anything coming after the system will have less order. A crystal will have more order than hydrogen gas, but the crystal requires energy to attain that order. Perhaps this logic is flawed. I would appreciate any input if it is.

Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix

[JonF]

TD2 says that all closed systems will tend toward more disorder

Formally, that's wrong; and, since both minor and major mis-statements of the second law have been used for nefarious purposes (of which I'm not accusing you), it's probably worth correction.

Nit: The Second Law states that the entropy of a closed system either increases or remains the same. In practice the latter never happens, so we can dismiss the possibility.

However, the Second law speaks of entropy. The equivalence of entropy to disorder is mathematically established only for perfect gases (a perfect gas is an abstraction that doesn't exist, although it's a pretty darned good approximation for many cases). Although the equivalence of entropy to disorder is plausible for many other cases, it's not mathematically established and is therefore not on the same footing as the Second Law itself.

The idea that the universe is a closed system is an assumption. Probably a justifiable and good assumption, but an assumption. It is conceivable that we will someday gather evidence that it's incorrect.

As to the original question, I think that the entropy of the Universe was much smaller after the Big Bang than it is now. Note that the apparent low-entropy state of the stars and galaxies and us and what-not is not prohibited by the Second law, entropy can be rearranged within a closed system, and it appears that there's lots of stuff we're not seeing that contains a lot of entropy.

[Podkayne]

Originally posted by tracer

Although Mars has volcanoes, they are rather old, and have been extinct for some time. This and other, more subtle evidence suggests that Mars is not very geologically (Areologically?) active, and doesn't produce nearly as much geothermal (Areothermal?) energy as the Earth does. If deep subterranean life forms did exist on Mars in the past, they've probably lost their energy source by now.

Don't forget this summer's findings of possible geologically-recent liquid water flow:

http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/aaas-eor062200.html

Either it's not liquid water (possible) or SOMETHING melted the subsurface ice.

[Mixlplix98]

Originally posted by JonF
Formally, that's wrong; and, since both minor and major mis-statements of the second law have been used for nefarious purposes (of which I'm not accusing you), it's probably worth correction.

Thank you for the clarification. The mathematical distinction is small, but relavent nonetheless.

The idea that the universe is a closed system is an assumption. Probably a justifiable and good assumption, but an assumption.

It seems to me that since the universe is expanding, it must be expanding into something. This would imply that the universe has a boundary, therefore finite. My knowledge of cosmology is quite limited, however.

Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix

[JonF]

It seems to me that since the universe is expanding, it must be expanding into something. This would imply that the universe has a boundary, therefore finite. My knowledge of cosmology is quite limited, however.

It is possible, and maybe likely, that the universe is finite but unbounded. The famous blowing-up-the-balloon analogy is useful here. Consider our universe as analogous to a two-dimensional universe contained on the surface of a balloon with no neck (as you would find on a real balloon). This balloon is expanding. There are two-dimensional beings on the surface, that cannot sense the third dimension. The balloon is finite but unbounded; the two dimensional beings can travel an infinite distance in any direcction along the balloon's surface without encountering a boundary.

Unfortunately, considering "expanding into something", the balloon analogy breaks down. The universe is not expanding into space; space itself is expanding, and not necessarily into something. I don't know of a good analogy for this.

[Podkayne]

"I don't know of a good analogy for this."

I think the balloon analogy is a fine illustration for that purpose, if we stick to the point-of-view of the 2-D balloon-surface residents. They sell all space expanding, but it's not like a piece of paper expanding onto an empty tabletop; from a 2-D point of view, their universe is "expanding into" some empty space.

[DrMatrix]

Originally posted by JonF
The idea that the universe is a closed system is an assumption. Probably a justifiable and good assumption, but an assumption. It is conceivable that we will someday gather evidence that it's incorrect.

Isn't the universe closed by definition?

Originally posted by Podkayne
[F]rom a 2-D point of view, their universe is "expanding into" some empty space.

From a 2-d point of view, where is this empty space that their universe is expanding into?

[Polycarp]

There is no "empty space" into which the Universe is expanding, because it, by definition, contains everything that is. But it can, nonetheless, expand -- by creating space so that its contents can be farther apart from each other.

It's a great deal like asking what happened "before" the Big Bang or what the temperature is like below absolute zero. The question can be conceptualized but has no real referent, just as the question of the mutation rate among elves is a valid question with no referent.

[Mixlplix98]

Originally posted by JonF
It is possible, and maybe likely, that the universe is finite but unbounded. The famous blowing-up-the-balloon analogy is useful here. Consider our universe as analogous to a two-dimensional universe contained on the surface of a balloon with no neck (as you would find on a real balloon). This balloon is expanding. There are two-dimensional beings on the surface, that cannot sense the third dimension. The balloon is finite but unbounded; the two dimensional beings can travel an infinite distance in any direcction along the balloon's surface without encountering a boundary.

Unfortunately, considering "expanding into something", the balloon analogy breaks down. The universe is not expanding into space; space itself is expanding, and not necessarily into something. I don't know of a good analogy for this.

If space itself is expanding, that would imply that the atoms in my body, and all the other particles, are expanding as well. If everything is expanding, than there is no referance frame to measure against, and we wouldn't be able to find Doppler effects from stars.

As an idea to consider, General Relativity says that all mass warps space, through a fourth dimension that we do not percieve. Analogy is powerful when most people cannot visualize a four dimensional object. The best analogy for GR is a ball in a tight cloth. The ball warps the cloth into a "well" that mass "falls" down. Note that the ball is three dimensional, while the cloth(which represents our space) is 2D. Just as the ball warps through 3D, our planet warps through 4D. This suggests space for our planet to expand into.

As another thought, I suggest the Casimir Effect points to a space outside our universe. The Casimir Effect uses conducting plates within microns(or closer) to each other. The area between the plates is thought to be an area of negative energy density, i.e. it has less energy than empty space. This suggests that our space is expanding into areas of less energy. Of course, this is quite a thin arguement. It simply suggests an area of research.


Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix

[quasar]

Originally posted by Polycarp
There is no "empty space" into which the Universe is expanding, because it, by definition, contains everything that exists.

I concur, but how about this?

If the universe encompasses all that exists and hence nothing lies outside of its scope, it follows that it is infinite, this term being also all encompassing.

But because the universe is expanding, it is surpassing the boundaries of the infinite, thus violating the axiom that states that there is no value--or size for that matter--higher than infinite.

To escape from this brick wall into which we bumped into, the universe, being of infinite size, would have to stop expanding since, once again by definition, something that is infinite has reached the pinnacle of its approachable size and hence can expand no more.

I better shut up now. Damn semantics are making me infinitely confused.

[Mixlplix98]

Originally posted by Polycarp
There is no "empty space" into which the Universe is expanding, because it, by definition, contains everything that is. But it can, nonetheless, expand -- by creating space so that its contents can be farther apart from each other.

So the universe is creating something out of nothing? I believe this violates several laws of conservation...

I just noticed an error in my last post. I wanted to say that GR suggests a space for our universe to expand into, not our planet.

Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix

[JonF]

So the universe is creating something out of nothing? I believe this violates several laws of conservation...

It would seem so on the face of it, wouldn't it?

Perhaps someone who understands better can explain better ... but in at least several theories, gravitational energy is negative, and the overall energy of the universe is, as best we can measure and calculate, zero.

[Podkayne]

If space itself is expanding, that would imply that the atoms in my body, and all the other particles, are expanding as well. If everything is expanding, than there is no referance frame to measure against, and we wouldn't be able to find Doppler effects from stars.

Not true. The atoms inside your body aren't getting bigger--the various forces that conspire to hold you and our local environment together (gravity not the least among them) prevent space from expanding on a small scale. The Earth isn't expanding, the Solar System isn't expanding, the Galaxy isn't expanding, and even the Local Cluster of galaxies isn't really expanding much. We can only observed the cosmological expansion (aka Hubble flow) over vast amounts of empty intergalactic space.

So the universe is creating something out of nothing? I believe this violates several laws of conservation...

Really? Which ones? Is space "something"? It doesn't have material properties. The Universe isn't creating more mass and energy to fill that space. I've never heard of a law of conservation of space.

[Archangel]

Determining what to believe on this topic is easy for me.

Genesis 1:1, - In the beginning God created...

Enough.... I believe the world was created.

Hebrews 11:1, - Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

[Freyr]

PolyC wrote:

Actually, I don't find the similarities between myth structures to be all that significant.

It's all a matter of taste, I suppose. I do find the whole subject fascinating; especially how it points to an even earlier mythological structure by the original Indo-Eurpeans.

Which leads into the meaning and use of those myths by the antique Pagan communities.

Besides an interest in this for its own sake, I find the arguements effective against the Biblical Literalists who insist this THE WAY IT IS 'CAUSE GOD SAID SO!!
Pointing out the history of J and E texts makes them turn such interesting shades of purple.

[jab1]

Originally posted by Archangel
Determining what to believe on this topic is easy for me.

Genesis 1:1, - In the beginning God created...

Enough.... I believe the world was created.

Who created God? Surely you don't believe that something could come from nothing? But I suppose you would claim God was always here.

What was He doing before He created the Heavens and the Earth?

Hebrews 11:1, - Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

And what happens to your faith when you don't get what you hoped for? What happens to your certainty when you learn there was nothing there to see? Or not see?