Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 07, 2013

Faith versus Evidence. Darwinism versus Creationism. Part Three is WHO DESIGNED ALL THESE THINGS? Plus, more on Part Two!

Angel is back!!!   Woman Honor Thyself was her blog and she is starting up now!

Commenters failed to come up with a coherent explanation for the existence of the Universe apart from God.   To drive home the point, more on the inanity of a self-created Universe and the point is made that the Universe is indeed designed!

Zero Energy Balance and Universes Popping Into Existence

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


Perhaps it seems like common sense to you that universes do not create themselves—popping into existence all over the place, but many naturalistic scientists are latching on to such bizarre ideas due to their lack of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the Universe. Famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, said, “Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can…. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” (2010, p. 180, emp. added). Is there any empirical evidence suggesting that universes can pop into existence? Absolutely not. Is there evidence that anything can pop into existence from nothing? Nope. We have a law of science that prohibits it—the First Law of Thermodynamics (cf. Miller, 2013). Does the idea that something could pop into existence from nothing remind you of a magician’s trick? Probably. But to many in the scientific community today, naturalism must be true. They will not consider God.  He is not allowed in the discussion. “Creation is unacceptable, but witchcraft? Now that…we’ll consider.”

The Problem for the Naturalist

According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, “energy can be neither created nor destroyed; it can only change forms” (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 166). This poses a problem for the atheist, since the energy and matter of the Universe had to come from somewhere. Hawking said:

The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe. There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeros after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from (1988, p. 129, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).

Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger, in his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis, said:

[W]here does the energy come from? The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamicsrequires that energy come from somewhere. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang (2007, p. 116, ital. in orig., emp. added).

The Naturalist’s Response

Hawking believes he has an answer to this problem for the naturalist—one that is in keeping with the First Law:

The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity…. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero (1988, p. 129).

Stenger concurs:

The first law allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the total for a closed system remains fixed. Remarkably, the total energy of the universe appears to be zero (2007, p. 116).

So, in essence, these physicists assert that there would have been zero energy in the Universe before the alleged big bang (a theory which we do not support, cf. Thompson, et al., 2003), and then there would have been zero energy in the Universe after the big bang, since “matter energy” can be considered to be positive and “gravitational energy” can be considered to be negative. According to Hawking and Stenger, these two amounts cancel each other out, leaving zero energy in the Universe—zero energy before the bang, and zero energy after. Sound reasonable to you?

The Evidence from Science and Sense

First of all, notice that Hawking boldly proclaims two significant assumptions that cannot even remotely be verified. (1) The Universe must be “approximately uniform in space”; and (2) The “negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero” (1988, p. 129, emp. added). How, pray tell, could Hawking know such things about this vast and infinitely complex Universe without being omniscient? Not only can he not know such things, but he cannot even claim such things with the meager evidence about the entirety of the Universe he has at his disposal. It is quite a leap to hold to such unverified assumptions. It is a blind faith in a proposition that cannot be established scientifically. The rational man’s beliefs are based on the evidence—not baseless speculation.

Second, notice that he says, “in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy” (1988, p. 129, emp. added). The words, “in a sense,” are significant, because they highlight the fact that gravitational energy is not really inherently “negative.” We call it “negative” from a certain viewpoint when we have such a thing as a directional axis to compare its effect with; but, in actuality, gravitational energy is simply energy—regardless of its sign. Hawking, himself, used the term “energy” to describe gravity. Whether or not it is considered “negative” is not the question. The question in light of the First Law is, where did it come from?

Third, this line of reasoning implies that things could and should be popping into existence all around us all the time, as long as those items have enough negative gravitational energy to offset them. Particles, rocks, and infinitely complex Universes should be popping into existence, since such occurrences—according to these physicists—would not violate a natural law. But wait. That does not happen. It has never been observed to occur even once. And our common sense verifies that it will not happen. Science does not support such a hypothesis. The hypothesis is unscientific.

Fourth, consider: is there energy in the Universe today that would not have been in existence before the supposed big bang? Yes. If I were to ask Hawking and Stenger if energy exists in the Universe today, what do you suppose they would say? To ask is to answer. But the First Law prohibits the creation of energy. So, the question is not whether the energy balance before and after the big bang is still zero. The important question in light of the First Law is whether or not there is energy in the Universe today that was not there before the big bang. The answer would have to be, “yes.” In fact, there are, by Hawking’s own admission, “negative” and “positive” energies in existence. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, they could not have created themselves. Therefore, God must exist.

In essence, Hawking and those who hold to his position are playing word games with “zero.” It is like the man who holds out an empty fist and asks a child, “What am I holding in my hand?” The child responds, “Nothing.” The man continues, “What is stronger than God?” The child responds, “Nothing.” The man then concludes, “So, what I’m holding in my hand is stronger than God.” In logic, this is known as a “fallacy of equivocation,” which the Collins English Dictionary defines as “a fallacy based on the use of the same term in different senses, esp. as the middle term of a syllogism, as the badger lives in the bank, and the bank is in the High Street, so the badger lives in the High Street” (2003, ital. in orig.; cf. Baum, 1975, pp. 477-478). While there is a Universal energy balance of zero in Hawking’s model, it does not mean that there is actually zero energy in the Universe. On the contrary, the exorbitant amount of energy in the Universe calls for an explanation that can only be given by the Creation model.

Conclusion

In the words of Stenger:

Conservation of energy [i.e., the First Law of Thermodynamics—JM] and other basic laws hold true in the most distant observed galaxy and in the cosmic microwave background, implying that these laws have been valid for over thirteen billion years [NOTE: we do not hold to this deep time supposition—JM]. Surely any observation of their violation during the puny human life span would be reasonably termed a miracle…. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang (pp. 115-116, emp. added).

It is truly ironic that Stenger, himself, while attempting to dismiss the necessity of the supernatural in explaining the origin of the Universe, “confirmed” the existence of God through the “theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated” in the beginning of time. It is sad that Stenger’s admission on this point illustrates that, prior to Hawking’s development of this argument, Stenger recognized the need for the supernatural in explaining the origin of energy, since no “scientific” argument was available. Why, sir, did you not accept God before that point? And why, sir, do you not accept Him now, since He alone can account for the existence of the awesome Universe in which we reside?

REFERENCES

Baum, Robert (1975), Logic(New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston).
Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.
Collins English Dictionary (2003), (New York: HarperCollins Publishers),http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Logical+fallacy%2FEquivocation.
Hawking, Stephen (1988), A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam).
Hawking, Stephen (2010), The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam Books).
Miller, Jeff (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article= 2786.
Stenger, Victor J. (2007), God: The Failed Hypothesis (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).
Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:32-34,36-47.




Copyright © 2013 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org


Atheists Admit Things Look Designed
by Kyle Butt, M.A.


The concept of creation by a supernatural Creator has been a powerful and persuasive aspect of truth since the beginning of time. The idea that there is no supernatural Creator, and that everything we see in the Universe—from hummingbirds to humans—has evolved through mindless, chance processes has been advanced in an attempt to dispel the truth of creation. One reason that naturalistic evolution has not made more head-way against creation than it has is because, intuitively, humans can see the obvious fact that the world exhibits every indication of intelligent design. Even the most outspoken atheistic evolutionists tacitly admit this to be the case.

For instance, Richard Dawkins stated: “Living things are not designed, but Darwinian natural selection licenses a version of the design stance for them. We get a short cut to understanding the heart if we assume that it is designed to pump blood” (2006, p. 182, emp. added). Did you catch that? He said that things weren’t designed by any intelligence, but we can understand them more readily if we assume they were.

University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne, in his book Why Evolution is True, wrote:  “If anything is true about nature, it is that plants and animals seem intricately and almost perfectly designed for living their lives” (2009, p. 1, emp. added).  He further stated, “Nature resembles a well-oiled machine, with every species an intricate cog or gear” (p. 1). On page three of the same book, he wrote: “The more one learns about plants and animals, the more one marvels at how well their designs fit their ways of life.” Atheist Michael Shermer, in his book Why Darwin Matters, stated: “The design inference comes naturally. The reason people think that a Designer created the world is because it looks designed” (2006, p. 65, ital. in orig.).

Consider another example. Kenneth Miller is an evolutionary biologist at Brown University and co-author of a biology textbook published by Prentice Hall that is used widely in high school classes across the country. In his book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, he admits that structural and molecular biologists, as they study the natural order, routinely mention the presence of design in their explorations. He, himself, admits that the human body shows evidence of design, pointing out examples like the design of the ball and socket joints of the human hips and shoulders, as well as the “S” curve of the human spine that allows us to walk upright (2008). So powerful is the design inference, Dawkins was forced to grudgingly admit: “So compelling is that illusion [of design—KB] that it has fooled our greatest minds for centuries, until Charles Darwin burst onto the scene” (2009, p. 416).

The irony of the situation is that each of these writers contends that such design is a product of naturalistic, mindless factors. But their telling statements underscore the obvious conclusion. If an Intelligent Designer really did create the world, what would it look like? Answer: Exactly like the one we have!

REFERENCES

Brown University (2008), “There is ‘Design’ in Nature, Biologist Argues,” ScienceDaily,http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm.
Coyne, Jerry (2009), Why Evolution Is True (New York: Viking).
Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin).
Dawkins, Richard (2009), The Greatest Show on Earth (New York: Free Press).
Shermer, Michael (2006), Why Darwin Matters (New York: Henry Holt and Company).




Copyright © 2012 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Commenters failed to come up with a coherent explanation for the existence of the Universe apart from God."

Let me fix that for you:

"Commenters and the blogger failed to come up with a coherent explanation for the existence of the Universe, including God."

Sorry, but your answer doesn't match observable facts, so you don't have a coherent explanation either.

Searlas said...

Back up your claims, anonymous. Instead of saying, 'Yer a poopiehead' in essence, put up or shut up. All these jerks do is rail at Radar (that should be a blog title right there) but don't have any substance.

Anonymous said...

If you don't know what evidence YEC gleefully ignores, then you haven't been paying attention to what the commenters have been saying over the years.

But since you characterize them as "jerks" and seem to think that all they're saying is "Yer a poopiehead", I take it that a rational discussion on the subject is a little above your paygrade.

radar said...

Searlas understands my arguments. Anonymous, you cannot be so ignorant as to fail to understand them, so you are resorting to the "nyuh-uh" argument, which is lame.

The YEC explanation fits observable evidence and also fits in with LOT and LOB. Darwinism does not.

Your so-called "science" requires us to throw LOT and LOB away and believe in an imaginary and impossible and non-historic singularity that then performs miracles.

Now, a Supernatural God capable of creating and sustaining the Universe DOES have historical documentation, has a Bible associated with Him that has proven to be accurate about both science and history even though it is more than a history book.

That God can do miracles was proven by the events recorded in the Bible and of course Jesus Christ is known to have both lived and died and risen again because there were thousands of witnesses to his life and death and hundreds to his resurrection. Because of this there were hundreds of Christians who faced beatings and death at the hands of the ruling Jews and the Romans to tell the world about the Way to Salvation.

All of the prophecies of the Bible were fulfilled other than those still to come. Many of them were fulfilled by Christ from the words of the prophets and kings and priests of the Old Testament. People saw Christ heal the blind and lame, raise people from the dead and especially raise Himself.

Josephus documents some of this and even the writings of unbelelieving Jews has many referencees to Jesus. There was an early attempt to scrub Him from their records but they did not find them all. Also the Jews wrote a parody of the gospels long before the destruction of Jerusalem, which shows that the gospels and related books were written before 70 AD and also that the Jews were threstened by the Christians.

Oddly, virtually all of the new Christians were Jews who understood that Christ was the Messiah predicted by the prophets. So Christianity is simply the New Covenant of the religion of the Jews that was made available to non-Jews as well. So it is the Christians who are the true Jews as Paul writes in Romans.

If you do not know your history, you are doomed to repeat it. Another destruction awaits mankind...if you are not a believer. If my body dies I will live with the Creator of all. True perfection, joy and peace can only be eternal. Struggles and trials are for this life. But die without Christ and fear, pain and insanity and whatever else eternal damnation means will be there for you. Scientism leads people to reject God and end up in Hell. So it is not just that it is illogical and unscientific, it is the way to death forever and that does not mean annihilation!

highboy said...

I've already demonstrated numerous times myself on this blog the reliability of the Bible, shooting down almost every single "contradiction" or "error" that was sent here from the ongoing internet list of supposed claims. The only answer you get in response from all the anonymous posters is "na-uh". I'm not sure why radar bothers, but that's his cross to bear.

The "evidence" posted against radar's YEC claims is only substantiated if you buy the consensus opinion of mainstream science in regards to the age of the earth and evolution. Because I'm sure the mainstream peer reviewed process would be completely objective when reviewing someone's research that basically makes the case their entire life's work was a complete sham. Sure they would.

Anonymous said...

Had to LOL @ this,

"Ive already demonstrated numerous times myself on this blog the reliability of the Bible, shooting down almost every single "contradiction" or "error" that was sent here from the ongoing internet list of supposed claims."

Such grandiose claims. So amazingly unjustifiably full of yourself. No you certainly have not, Tim. You often make this kind of claim of course, that's certainly true. And your answer may satisfy other brainwashed xtians, but it certainly is not convincing to anyone outside of literalist xtian circles. I mean, just look at the semantic gymnastics you guys have to attempt to explain the Bible's acceptance of slavery in order to maintain your belief that the bible is infallible. All one has to do is look at some of the prayer studies that have been published over the years to see that it's all BS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The truth is that this blog has simply become very boring, repeating the same unsupported extremist claims over and over. This, coupled with Radar's general incompetence and complete inability to pull his head out of the sand, means that most of the intelligent commenters have (at this point) decided that this blog is simply a waste of time. Scientific consensus has been reached in all of the areas that you rail against, Radar. You and your creationist cohorts are on the wrong side of history here and, as I have said before, your family will eventually be very ashamed of the ignorant and oftentimes hateful positions you lay out on this blog.

And Tim, you say that it is understandable that scientists would distort and cover up evidence, and deceive the general public in order to protect their life's work. Yet you can't seem to see why YEC's might do the same thing when accepted science (biology, geology, physics etc.) effectively destroys somebody like Radar's entire worldview. Evolutionary biology alone invalidates his reason for being, and according to some of his writings, it tears apart the only thing keeping him from killing others (another good reason to remain anonymous on this blog, I suppose).

And you also don't seem to understand the fact that science is competitive, in that, it's OTHER scientists that are more than willing to try to prove that another scientists life's work is a "sham". Especially if i get's their names into the news. That's how peer review works. It's all about scientific evidence and recreating the processes and experiments that underlay new discoveries.

Keep in mind that in order to believe in the creationist BS that Radar regularly publishes on this blog, you also must then believe in a world-wide conspiracy involving thousands and thousands of scientist from every culture on earth, from almost every scientific discipline in existence. Tell me what sounds more likely, a massive global conspiracy where real evidence is dismissed, hidden or distorted or that a teeny tiny group of religiously motivated individuals attempt to hang on to a belief system that they feel is necessary in order to avoid eternal torture in the fires of hell. People already kill in the name of religion all over the world. Are you so naive to think that the people that Radar gets his info from would not lie to preserve their worldviews?

-Canucklehead.

radar said...

Canucklehead with another empty rant?

How I would dearly love to have a chance to be on stage with you in a debate. You pretend you know what you are talking about but you have NEVER been a guy who discusses evidence at all. Thank goodness you do not agree with me, I would have to check myself to see what I did incorrectly. You are probably wrong on anything more complex than paying the monthly bills...or do you even take care of that? Good grief!!!

Anonymous said...

LOL. You decry that I'm not an "evidence guy" yet you've never accepted even a single piece of evidence from such illustrious posters as scohen, creeper and Jon? I have done it many times (polystate fosils anyone) but presenting you with evidence is obviously a pointless exercise. Now I just like to point out the utter ridiculousness of your positions and some of the things that must also be believed in order to accept YEC. So, why don't you answer the questions I pose above, Radar?

The only way you'd "debate" anyone and "win" would be if you stacked the audience with other brainwashed christian extremists. Your beliefs are radical Radar and are only shared with an incredibly small sliver of society. You could not possibly "win" a debate that included the general public because you have no scientific evidence to support your claims whatsoever. Just "faith", The definition of which, underscores my point.

"Faith - Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

If you were right about any of this, you would be famous, Radar. And we both know that you are far from famous, even in creationist circles. So, go fish, Radar, go fish.

-Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"No you certainly have not, Tim. You often make this kind of claim of course, that's certainly true. And your answer may satisfy other brainwashed xtians, but it certainly is not convincing to anyone outside of literalist xtian circles."

Of course I've demonstrated it. Just because clowns like you stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" hardly takes away that fact. Go ahead and flail away with your so called "errors in the Bible" and I'll be happy to educate you again. Neither you nor any other atheist frequenting this site have ever had an answer to any of the verifiable evidence that supports the Bible other than to say "na-uh".

"I mean, just look at the semantic gymnastics you guys have to attempt to explain the Bible's acceptance of slavery in order to maintain your belief that the bible is infallible. All one has to do is look at some of the prayer studies that have been published over the years to see that it's all BS."

You mean the historical fact that Hebrew slavery was a mutual agreement between two parties? Yeah, leave it to a know nothing atheist like yourself to consider historical research as "mental gymnastics". I love it. And yes, let's look at the New York Times as an authority on Biblical research. lol.

Btw, how does pointing out acceptance of slavery in the Bible make it unreliable? Just curious as to how off topic you plan on taking this to attempt to prove your falsehoods.

"The truth is that this blog has simply become very boring, repeating the same unsupported extremist claims over and over."

Claims you have yet to be able to provide a smidgen of an intelligent, coherent retort against. If its so boring, leave.

And two thirds of the world's population are theist, so you can keep pretending like Christians are on the outside looking in, but this is a popularity contest. And guess what? We're winning.

"You decry that I'm not an "evidence guy" yet you've never accepted even a single piece of evidence from such illustrious posters as scohen, creeper and Jon? "

Well Jon continuously bold faced lied on this blog, especially when falsely claiming to have argued face to face with MIT physics professors and then when asked about it pretended that he meant he privately disagreed with their findings to himself. And scohen was the guy that claimed it would be easier for a woman to give birth if the uterus was placed under the pelvis rather than in it, and when asked how he test for that his response was "mental experimentation". Kind of hard to take scientific "evidence" like that seriously.

But maybe I'm wrong. I always thought that the scientific method was a.) form a hypothesis b.) test the hypothesis and c.) conclusion. But apparently the middle step in scohen's world wasn't necessary.

Oh, and sure, its possible YEC guys could distort claims, but just because the science you pound the table for, and actually understand little of, is "accepted", it hardly makes that science true.