Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: nyu notesfiles V1.1 4/1/84; site ur-univax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ur-univax!stro From: stro@ur-univax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: A new voice. Message-ID: <41500001@ur-univax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 18:08:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ur-univa.41500001 Posted: Thu Jun 27 18:08:00 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 03:22:03 EDT References: <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> Organization: University of Rochester: Computing Center Lines: 94 Nf-ID: #R:scgvaxd:-34700:ur-univax:41500001:000:5365 Nf-From: ur-univax!stro Jun 27 18:08:00 1985 > The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total > amount of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part > of it, remains constant. This law states that although > energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not > now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have > verified this. A corollary of the First Law is that > natural processes cannot create energy. Consequently, > energy must have been created by some agency or power > outside of and independent of the natural universe. first of all, the First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the extremely unusually conditions during the first seconds after the big bang. Even if this wasn't the case, why can't one say that the universe was always here. If you say that God created it, then when and where was God created? whatever your anwser is, it can just as easily be applied to the universe. One theory of the universe is that the big bang was not the begining of all matter and energy, but that it has existed for all time, and that it either remained in that state until the big bang, or there existed another universe before ours, which eventually collapsed into the black hole from which all matter emerged during the big bang. > If the entire universe is an isolated system, then > according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy > in the universe that is available for useful work has > always been decreasing. But as one goes back further in > time, the amount of energy available for useful work would > eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that, > according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, remains > constant. This is an impossible condition. It therefore > implies that the universe had a beginning. I'm not quite sure how you got this out of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As the first law states, the total amount of matter and energy in the universe ALWAYS remains constant ( some matter may be converted to energy, or vice versa but the total is always constant). In any closed system when work is being done, no energy is lost - ever. Take a car for example, the fuel burned in the engine releases a gas which expands and pushes pistons which transfer their energy to moving the car. The system is very inefficient becuase much of the heat generated by the engine is wasted - it just radiates into the air, the rest of car, etc. None of the parts are completely frictionless, they are transfering some of the kenetic energy they recieve into heat, etc. However, still, even if the universe did have a begining, this does not refute the theory of evolution. > ... I can't believe that a scientist > who prides himself in being rational, intelligent, and > objective can look at a world that behaves according to certain > laws of nature and mathematics, at a race of individuals who > can reason, learn, experience a myriad of emotions and argue > that all of this can just as reasonably be explained by chance. part of the problem with creationists, is that they fail to understand exactly what evolution and nature selection imply. Natural selection does not state that "all this" was acheived by chance - far from it. The big 'chance' factor was the creation of the first self reproducing amino acid (which, considering the millions of years of during which billions of non-reproducing amino acids could have been modified by a chance (lightning, radiation, etc) is not unlikely ). All the rest of evolution was a process of natural selection over a billion years of it ( that's quite a long time, by the way ) in which entities which had a superior trait which allowed them to live longer and have offspring with the same trait continued to exist. These traits which were produced by random (chance, if like) scramblings of the genetic code also produced many, many more mutations which did not survive, which were in fact worse off than there ancestors. This still happens to this day. It is the rare occurence where a trait which is helpful occurs, and then, becuase it is helpful, allows that entity to live and reproduce. > .... give me one reason > to believe in Evolution. Be careful now. Don't give me any > subjective answers like commonality of species which can either > imply common ancestor or common design. Give me a real solid > concrete reason to believe that you and I are accidents and > serve no real purpose. Well, how about the millions of years of fosil evidence which outlines the developement of life on Earth. I might add that all this is hard physical scientific proof, it is consistant and repeatable. It makes sense. What proof do you have? One book that was written over two thousand years ago by people who thought the Earth was flat, that stars were pinpoints of light shining through from heaven, etc. Come on, when the bible was written, it was the only way to explain the way they thought the world was. They were wrong, that's all. - Steve Robiner University of Rochester { allegra | seismo | decvax }!rochester!ur-univax!stro