1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    10 Apr '12 06:154 edits
    Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe
    Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.


    The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is not created or destroyed. It can be changed into different forms, but there is no gain or loss of energy. Thus, the first law of thermodynamics is sometimes called the law of conservation of energy.

    This principle derives from the study of the physical properties of energy, and therefore, states the condition of energy as it is understood in our physical world.

    It is an established scientific law because there are no known experimental exceptions to suggest that energy can be created or destroyed. It has been studied and analyzed by thousands of scientists for over two hundred years. Observation shows that the universe exists in many forms of energy, such as matter, light, and heat, but there are no known physical conditions whereby energy can be or is created. The obvious question often asked is, "Where did this energy come from?"

    According to the first law of thermodynamics, the physical properties of the universe cannot create energy. Yet energy exists.

    Accepting that the first law of thermodynamics is the empirically derived conclusion that energy is conserved and establishes the inability of physical properties to create more energy, the logical deduction is that the origin of the universe is best explained by means of supernatural creation. The physical properties of matter are not capable of producing more energy.

    The creation science model conforms to the scientific data, explains the evidence, and does not contradict the scientific law. I like to sum the conclusion in four points.

    1. Energy was not created by natural (physical) means.

    2. Yet, the universe exists as energy.

    3. If the energy of the universe was not created naturally, then it must have been created supernaturally.

    4. The creation model conforms to the data.

    Some object that concluding a supernatural origin of energy is unscientific. They justify this criticism by saying that the supernatural cannot be tested. But this objection fails to acknowledge that it is the scientific observations and method that lead to this conclusion.
    Confusion about the scientific conclusion for the supernatural origin of energy is resolved by recognizing the difference between being able to determine the mechanism of how energy was created, from being able to determine that energy was created supernaturally. We do not have to know how something happened in order to know that it did happen.

    In contrast to the creation science model, the evolution model proposes that the universe originated by natural means. However, this conclusion contradicts the first law of thermodynamics, which says energy is not created by natural means. Therefore, evolution is proposing an explanation that contradicts a known scientific law and thus, does not qualify as a credible scientific model for the origin of the universe.

    Models that contradict laws of science are normally discarded or modified to conform to data, but evolution continues to prevail in spite of the evidence. This suggests that evolution is preferred by some, not because it is credible, but because it conforms to their personal belief system. The following four point argument summarizes how evolution contradicts the first law of thermodynamics.

    1. Evolution proposes strictly natural (physical) explanations.

    2. The natural explanation for the origin of energy contradicts a natural law.

    3. Explanations that contradict laws of science are unscientific.

    4. Therefore, evolution as an explanation for the origin of energy is unscientific.



    Some evolutionists defend the evolution model for the universe arguing that an undiscovered law exists to explain the origin of energy by natural means. In other words, they believe that evolution is a legitimate model of science because of the hope for finding an unknown law. In some cases, models persist with this anticipation. But, never has a model been considered legitimate when it contradicted known evidence and much less a law. This is a desperate attempt to excuse not only the lack of evidence but to defend a conclusion that contradicts a known scientific law. This is not good science.

    The creation science model for the origin of the universe rests firmly on a known, demonstrable law of science. The Evolution model rests on excuses for the absence of evidence and in contradiction to a known law.


    Second Law of Thermodynamics

    To avoid the obvious contradiction with the first law of thermodynamics, some evolutionists contend that energy was not created. They say it always existed.

    However, the second law of thermodynamics prevents this from being a valid explanation It states that there is no natural means to increase the net usable energy in a closed (isolated) system. In other words, the net flow of energy in any closed system ultimately tends to entropy (disorder, chaos).


    Entropy is energy in its lowest state and, subsequently, unusable form. It is sometimes described as the disorder or chaos of a system. A closed system refers to the absence of external influences to increase usable energy or to reverse entropy. For example, if a clock is placed inside of a sealed container to prevent someone from winding it up again, the clock can be described as being in a closed system. When the spring inside the clock winds down, there is no more usable energy available to the clock to make it continue ticking. As long as the clock remains in a closed system, it will not tick again. However, if the clock system is opened, and someone winds the clock up, then the clock can begin to tick again.

    Because the universe as a whole is a closed system, the net energy flow is ultimately tending to the final form of maximum entropy. It is winding down just like a clock. The final state of entropy is heat, therefore the universe is said to be experiencing "heat death." The sun and the stars are burning out, and organized matter is decaying. Since the universe is winding down and the second law of thermodynamics states that the net usable energy in a closed system cannot be increased by the physical properties of the universe, one is led to the logical conclusion that the initial organized or low entropy state of energy originated supernaturally.

    In other words, because the universe is winding down, it must have originally been wound up--supernaturally. It is unnatural and physically impossible for the net useable energy in a closed system to increase. Based on the second law of thermodynamics, the creation model is the best explanation. This model explains the evidence, is supported by the evidence, and does not contradict a known scientific law. The argument can be summed as follows.

    1. There is no natural means to increase the net usable energy in a closed system such as the universe.

    2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy meaning that its initial energy existed in a greater usable and organized state.

    3. If the initial usable energy in the universe was not increased by natural means, then it must have originated supernaturally.

    4. The creation model conforms to the data.


    In contrast to the creation science model, evolution proposes that the low entropy state of the universe originated by natural means. This model contradicts a known scientific law which states that there is no natural means whereby entropy can be decreased in a closed system. Any model that contradicts a scientific law is clearly not a credible model.

    The persistence of such an irrational conclusion is due solely because of stubborn adherence to a faulty belief system. The creation model rests on solid, known scientific data, whereas the evolution model rests on an irrational belief in spite of its contradiction to a known scientific law.

    The following four points show the problem with a natural explanation for the origin of the universe.

    1. Evolution proposes that the entropy was reduced in the universe by physical properties in the universe.

    2. Proposing that entropy was reduced in the universe by physical properties in the universe contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

    3. Explanations that contradict data are unscientific.

    4. Therefore, evolution as an explanation for the origin of reduced entropy in the universe is unscientific.

    In light of the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the best explanation for the origin of the universe is the Creation science model. It explains the known data, is supported by known data, and does not contradict laws of science. This is good science and good scientific modeling.


    Concerning models offered in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics, British astronomer Arthur Eddington said, “If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” (Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (Macmillan, 1930, p. 74).

    Gordon Van Wylen, Chairman of the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Michigan commented that, “The question that arises is how the universe got into the state of reduced entropy in the first place, since all natural processes known to us tend to increase entropy?” (Gordon Van Wylen and Richard Edwin Sonntag, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, 1973). He concludes by saying, “The author has found that the second law [of thermodynamics] tends to increase conviction that there is a Creator ....”
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Apr '12 06:18
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe
    Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.
    Whatever his Ph.D. is in, is clearly isn't science (or it should never have been awarded by the relevant university).
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    10 Apr '12 06:291 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Whatever his Ph.D. is in, is clearly isn't science (or it should never have been awarded by the relevant university).
    Stubborness still prevails against scientific laws among the evolutionists.

    YouTube
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Apr '12 07:37
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Stubborness still prevails against scientific laws among the evolutionists.
    The OPs argument can be summarized as follows:
    The universe could not possibly have come about via scientific laws, therefore it came about via unscientific laws (the supernatural).
    So it is you and the person in the OP who are stubbornly against scientific laws. Mostly because neither of you understands basic science. And this is not due to lack of education, it is due to the fact that you see science as a threat to your religion so you stubbornly refuse to understand basic science to the point that you deliberately and consistently use the word 'evolution' to mean something totally different from what it means in a scientific context.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    10 Apr '12 07:42
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The OPs argument can be summarized as follows:
    The universe could not possibly have come about via scientific laws, therefore it came about via unscientific laws (the supernatural).
    So it is you and the person in the OP who are stubbornly against scientific laws. Mostly because neither of you understands basic science. And this is not due to lack of edu ...[text shortened]... rd 'evolution' to mean something totally different from what it means in a scientific context.
    There is a more approriate word for what you think evolution is -- adaptation
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Apr '12 08:40
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    There is a more approriate word for what you think evolution is -- [b]adaptation[/b]
    So you think you do know what evolution means, and admit deliberately misusing it? Why do you think 'adaptation' is more appropriate?
    Why do you use the word 'evolution' for something else that it is clearly not appropriate for?
  7. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    10 Apr '12 14:191 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So you think you do know what evolution means, and admit deliberately misusing it? Why do you think 'adaptation' is more appropriate?
    Why do you use the word 'evolution' for something else that it is clearly not appropriate for?
    The poster has written a substantial amount of thoughtful information. Don't expect everyone should just take your word for it that its is all wrong.

    You may have to labor a bit more rather than make two or three line assertions without your own a detailed rebuttal.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Apr '12 14:25
    Originally posted by jaywill
    The poster has written a substantial amount of thoughtful information.
    No, the poster did a copy/paste and probably doesn't even understand the content of what he copied.

    Don't expect everyone should just take your word for it that its is all wrong.
    I don't. Its obvious to anyone who takes the trouble of reading it. Read it yourself and see. If you tell me you agree with everything in the OP, then we can take it from there, but I am fairly sure that you will see at least some of the errors.
  9. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    10 Apr '12 14:28
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The OPs argument can be summarized as follows:
    The universe could not possibly have come about via scientific laws, therefore it came about via unscientific laws (the supernatural).
    So it is you and the person in the OP who are stubbornly against scientific laws. Mostly because neither of you understands basic science. And this is not due to lack of edu ...[text shortened]... rd 'evolution' to mean something totally different from what it means in a scientific context.
    So it is you and the person in the OP who are stubbornly against scientific laws. Mostly because neither of you understands basic science. And this is not due to lack of education, it is due to the fact that you see science as a threat to your religion so you stubbornly refuse to understand basic science to the point that you deliberately and consistently use the word 'evolution' to mean something totally different from what it means in a scientific context.


    How do I know that it is not you who are perhaps also defensive about your "Spirituality" ?

    Or if you are not similarly afraid that this information is a threat to your "Spirituality" it is a threat to your "Philosophy" or whatever worldview you cherish to function in the place of "Spirituality" ?

    Afraid of threats to one's worldview can work either way. You also bring baggage. You bring preferences to the table concerning what you would LIKE to believe about the world.

    I mean "Science threatens YOUR religion" can be turned around on yourself just as well. I believe your frequent contributions to the "Spirituality" Forum are a vigilant defense of your own prefered metaphysical worldview.
  10. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    10 Apr '12 14:36
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    No, the poster did a copy/paste and probably doesn't even understand the content of what he copied.

    [b]Don't expect everyone should just take your word for it that its is all wrong.

    I don't. Its obvious to anyone who takes the trouble of reading it. Read it yourself and see. If you tell me you agree with everything in the OP, then we can take it from there, but I am fairly sure that you will see at least some of the errors.[/b]
    Read it yourself and see. If you tell me you agree with everything in the OP, then we can take it from there, but I am fairly sure that you will see at least some of the errors.


    This is rather smug of you. Read it for yourself and see the errors.

    This is the lazy way. This is a wink and "Trust me. This is not science at all."

    Take it apart and anaylize his comments. We'll give you time. Deal with the first two and let's see your problems. Maybe you're the smartest in the room and it is all so obviously bogus to you.

    I'd like to see your rebuttal. I get tired of "You Don't Understand Evolution." I think he is not talking about biological evolution.
  11. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91623
    10 Apr '12 14:49
    I see no reason why science and religion/spirituality cant coexist in harmony- in fact it is proposed by holistic theory that they come from the same "One".

    I wonder what RJHinds makes of this OP? Ron? what is your conclusion and why?
  12. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Apr '12 16:25
    Originally posted by jaywill
    I'd like to see your rebuttal. I get tired of "You Don't Understand Evolution." I think he is not talking about biological evolution.
    Then he is not talking about evolution.

    Evolutionary theory is the explanation of the diversity of life by adaptation and mutation.

    That's it.

    If your talking about something else THEN IT'S NOT EVOLUTION.

    RJHinds arguments against 'evolution' are all straw man arguments because they are not
    arguments against what evolution actually is or means.

    It would be like me saying Christianity is stupid because Thor doesn't exist...

    It doesn't make sense.

    RJHinds perpetually tries to tell everyone that evolution is something it isn't and then complains
    that the thing he's made up is wrong...

    Well it is wrong... It's just not evolution.

    He either doesn't understand evolution or he's deliberately lying.
    I would go with he intentionally makes sure he doesn't understand evolution AND he's lying but
    perhaps that's just me being to harsh and he's just to indoctrinated to think strait.

    RJHinds has had every argument he's ever made about evolution not just rebutted but refuted many
    times over and yet he still makes the same stupid arguments.

    You're tired of us telling RJHinds that he's a lying YEC who doesn't know what he's talking about?

    Think how we feel having to rebut the same old tired millionfold refuted arguments over and over again
    when he doesn't listen to anything we say and is rude, crude, sanctimonious, insulting, and is generally
    vulgar at us while we do it.

    Why should we give RJHinds the time of day let alone take him seriously?
  13. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    10 Apr '12 16:28
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe
    Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.


    [b]The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is not created or destroyed. It can be changed into different forms, but there is no gain or loss of energy. Thus, the first law of thermodynamics is sometimes called the law of conservation of energy.


    This princ ...[text shortened]... he second law [of thermodynamics] tends to increase conviction that there is a Creator ....”[/b]
    "The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is not created or destroyed. It can be changed into different forms, but there is no gain or loss of energy. Thus, the first law of thermodynamics is sometimes called the law of conservation of energy. "

    I've been suspicious of that "law" ever since I was taught about "potential" or "stored" energy.

    The energy equation is sometimes balanced by treating the extra energy that appears or disappears from a system as "potential" energy. Like a compressed spring, for example. But what is this about? Take the energy that appears or disappears and put it in the spring. Presto, conservation of energy.

    Fudge factor, I wonder to myself. Handy; it works, but is it a useful fiction?

    The above is not for or against theism. But if we are to base theism on physics, are we only moving the unsupported presumptions to an earlier point in the argument?
  14. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Apr '12 16:31
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Whatever his Ph.D. is in, is clearly isn't science (or it should never have been awarded by the relevant university).
    I think it's this guy... (RJHinds can you confirm?)


    http://mbbc.us/briney/resume/resume.htm

    http://mbbc.us/briney/about_me/about_me.htm

    http://mbbc.us/briney/default.htm


    And the microbiology thing is a giveaway.

    It's the subject of choice for those who want to sound authoritative when
    arguing for ID because it means you get an understanding of all the technical
    terms related to cellular life and makes you sound like an authority on the
    subject and have PH.D in your title.

    Not to knock people who really do microbiology for proper scientific reasons but
    it is the degree of choice [if you can hack it] for those who are intent on trying to
    prove [or sound like they can prove] ID and creationism.
  15. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    10 Apr '12 16:38
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe
    Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.


    [b]The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is not created or destroyed. It can be changed into different forms, but there is no gain or loss of energy. Thus, the first law of thermodynamics is sometimes called the law of conservation of energy.


    This princ ...[text shortened]... he second law [of thermodynamics] tends to increase conviction that there is a Creator ....”[/b]
    Here's my breakdown of this post.

    1) The use of the term "Evolution" is very unfortunate. I was not clear on whether he is referring to biological evolution or some other separate model for the beginning of the universe. If the latter, he really should have used some other term for it, or taken pains to clarify that he was not talking about biological evolution.

    2) He is essentially replacing one brute fact [the singularity] with another [God] without admitting it.

    3) He takes others to task for alleged contradictions of scientific laws like Thermodynamics, and then completely throws them out of the window by admitting a supernatural category where the laws don't apply. He then says that 'the creation model rests on solid, known scientific data...' which is completely false. It rests on the existence of a supernatural being who necessarily has the power to break the laws of science.
Back to Top