Creation is a Scientific Fact

Originally posted by RJHinds
Creation is a Scientific Fact

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dlsw9wsN60

no

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is all in real publications, but I like the simplicity and ease of understanding provided by most videos.

Then show us those pubs, don't give us politically motivated video's whose aim is ONLY to attract followers so they can boost their political power. Deny THAT if you want.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no

Yes.

The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created.

Life Was Suddenly Created.

Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record, and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds. These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. Simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell because it violates the Law of Biogenesis. Therefore, life must have been created.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.

The First Law of Thermodynamics quite clearly states that creation is impossible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created o ...[text shortened]... yed.

The First Law of Thermodynamics quite clearly states that creation is impossible.

This in no way states that creation is impossible. This is referring to the total "energy" in an "isolated system" and nothing more. The "total energy" of an isolated system remains constant, but the kind of energy can be changed from one kind to another kind. We do this all the time.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Originally posted by RJHinds
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have r ...[text shortened]... own long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created.

If energy can't be created nor destroyed (as the first law of thermodynamics state), and we know that matter and energy are interchangeable (Einsteins famous formula), doesn't that suggest that the energy in the universe was always there and that with the expansion of timespace this energy could take the form of matter? In other words, that energy nor matter was created from nothing, but are two sides of the same coin, a coin that exists eternally?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record, and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds. These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. Simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell because it violates the Law of Biogenesis. Therefore, life must have been created.

Life is a complex combination of previously existing matter. Why do you think that just because earlier forms of life couldn't fossilize easily (or at all) that therefore life must have popped out of nothing? Since the early formation of life would have been much simpler than any living cell, the law of biogenesis doesn't apply; it only kicks in once the first cells are formed. What came before that is still open to debate.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This in no way states that creation is impossible.

Are you incapable of reading English? It says very very clearly that energy cannot be created.

This is referring to the total "energy" in an "isolated system" and nothing more.
No, it isn't. It clearly states in unequivocal terms that energy cannot be created ever, under any circumstances whatsoever.

If you believe in creation then you cannot accept the First Law of Thermodynamics as being universally applicable.

In addition, if you believe the universe was created, then you do not believe the universe is an isolated system, and the conclusion of the First Law of Thermodynamics (that the total energy does not change) does not apply.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Creation is a Scientific Fact

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dlsw9wsN60

I bet you could find a youtube video that shows that Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and the Great Pumpkin are Scientific Fact. Good grief !

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you incapable of reading English? It says very very clearly that energy cannot be created.

[b]This is referring to the total "energy" in an "isolated system" and nothing more.
No, it isn't. It clearly states in unequivocal terms that energy cannot be created ever, under any circumstances whatsoever.

If you believe in creation then you canno ...[text shortened]... usion of the First Law of Thermodynamics (that the total energy does not change) does not apply.[/b]

The first law of thermodynamic refers to isolated systems. The law of conservation of energy, on the other hand, is general. The law of conservation of energy can be derived using Noether's theorem and symmetry under translations in time. Really it doesn't matter whether the universe was created in Big Bang or just popped into existence because of "the word" - there is a definite asymmetry at the start. We don't particularly expect energy to be conserved at the moment of "creation". I don't think that creationism can be disproved on the basis of the law of conservation of energy. It's enough to show, as we have done, repeatedly, that the world is older than a few thousand years.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't think that creationism can be disproved on the basis of the law of conservation of energy.

RJ claimed that the universe could not have created itself, and he appealed to the First Law of Thermodynamics as justification for his claim. He then went right ahead and proposed an alternative explanation (creation by God) that equally violates the exact same principles. I was just trying to point out that he hadn't actually understood the concepts involved nor thought his argument through. Of course we both know that he just got it out of some youtube video and is incapable of understanding the concepts involved, and I am just feeding the trolls. But sometimes I just can't help it.

Originally posted by C Hess
If energy can't be created nor destroyed (as the first law of thermodynamics state), and we know that matter and energy are interchangeable (Einsteins famous formula), doesn't that suggest that the energy in the universe was always there and that with the expansion of timespace this energy could take the form of matter? In other words, that energy nor matter was created from nothing, but are two sides of the same coin, a coin that exists eternally?

There is mathematical evidence for the beginning of the universe.

http://gizmodo.com/5904714/mathematic-proof-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning

Therefore, if it had a beginning it must have been created.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you incapable of reading English? It says very very clearly that energy cannot be created.

[b]This is referring to the total "energy" in an "isolated system" and nothing more.
No, it isn't. It clearly states in unequivocal terms that energy cannot be created ever, under any circumstances whatsoever.

If you believe in creation then you canno ...[text shortened]... usion of the First Law of Thermodynamics (that the total energy does not change) does not apply.[/b]

God could have created an isolated universe with energy and matter in the beginning. There is scientific and mathematical evidence that the universe had a beginning. So it must have been created.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This in no way states that creation is impossible. This is referring to the total "energy" in an "isolated system" and nothing more. The "total energy" of an isolated system remains constant, but the kind of energy can be changed from one kind to another kind. We do this all the time.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

"Out of some of the leftover energy of the Big Bang."

There is certainly room for God in the Universe and the igniting of our own Sun and the accumulation of matter out of the accretion disk for the planets.

Just like there is room for the Hand of God in the evolution of life from lower forms to higher forms.

Why you YEC's can't see this is both amazing and sad to me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
God could have created an isolated universe with energy and matter in the beginning. There is scientific and mathematical evidence that the universe had a beginning. So it must have been created.

Totally destroying logical analysis again I see. Since you know neither how to create a universe or whether in fact your alleged god did, you cannot say the universe had a beginning, THEREFORE god did it.

You can say since the universe had a beginning and we don't know for sure how that happened, we can theorize it happened through natural means or we can theorize it happened through supernatural means.

You cannot at this point in time simply say one or the other is absolute truth.

You really should study logic a bit before you make grand statements like that or somebody MIGHT think you are really stupid.