Question for Anti-Science Evolutionists - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Question for Anti-Science Evolutionists
in Science

Is the universe infinitely old, violating the second law of thermodynamics, or did the universe arise by natural means out of nothing, violating the first law of thermodynamics.  You have no third alternative.  If you wish to state there is a third alternative, state your scientific or philosophical credentials.
DrCerealSilverishGoldNovaEmeryPearsonZombieguy1987calebsica



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Is the universe infinitely old, violating the second law of thermodynamics, or did the universe arise by natural means out of nothing, violating the first law of thermodynamics.  You have no third alternative.  If you wish to state there is a third alternative, state your scientific or philosophical credentials.
    Are you aware of how space-time works? If not I suggest you wiki it for a simple explanation.

    Your argument assumes causality - which under standard conditions is a no-brainer and would be a standard assumption. Unfortunately for your argument, prior to the big bang when space was compressed to a single point, that also means time and hence causality did not exist.

    Although we cannot condense all matter into a single point to test the theory, this is the expected outcome based on Einsteins theory of special relativity and we can test that in more measurable ways to check that it confirms with reality.
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987Plaffelvohfencalebsica
  • Time and causality did not exist because the space occupied by the universe was really small?  ROFL. I would ask this dude to prove this, but he has admitted in another thread that he has no way of knowing if he is delusional or not.
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
  • Atheists despise science and logic.
    DrCerealEmeryPearsonZombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • You don't seem to be able to offer an argument in response besides your own personal skeptism. Do you have any actual evidence or logic to dismiss space-time - a scientific theory which disproves your claims and is backed up by experimental results?
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
  • Dude, without proof, your claim needs no argument in response.  We do not argue with the deluded.  We feel sorry for them and confine them.
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
  • Special Relativity has been proven. as mentioned above, if you are not familiar with the concept the easiest thing for you to do is just wiki it to get a basic understanding as I suggested:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

    Also if you aren't familiar with a subject, you shouldn't make unsupported claims about it as you'll often be wrong - as evidenced by your claim that there is no proof for special relativity when it is actually something scientists have been finding proof for for over 100 years as described in the links above.
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987calebsica
  • ROFL.  Let me help you out.  Prove time and causality cease to exist when matter occupies little space.  ROFL
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
  • This question always stumps the pretend atheist scientist.
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987calebsica
  • I provided you with links explaining the evidence and math supporting the theory. Do you have an evidence or logic rebuttal?
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
  • I am not interested in your question begging links.  I am asking you to prove your claim that time and causality does not exist when matter occupies a tiny space.  You have one more chance to provide this proof or I will infer you have none and are bound by anti-science atheist mysticism.
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
  • One of the ways you can tell you are dealing with a pretend scientist is that they Wikipedia is scientific proof.
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
  • Laws of thermodynamics are statistical facts applied to a specific volume. "Before" the Big Bang, there was no volume, as there was no space, hence the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to it.

    Laws of thermodynamics are not strictly "laws" as is a fundamental property of the Universe. They simply describe the fact that statistically large numbers of objects subjected to the same evolution rules are extremely likely to be found near the peak of the probability distribution, than anywhere else. This is what the entropy growth is about (with time, matter spreads more and more uniformly around the Universe statistically), this is what the temperature equalisation is about (speeds of atoms are likely to be well mixed up, and very unlikely to have an ordered structure after a long period of mixing), and this is what the entire field of thermodynamics is about.

    Analogy: suppose you have 1,000,000 pennies. You toss them all into a vending machine and turn the machine on. After a while, you turn it off and, picking penny by penny up, calculate how many heads and tails there are in the machine. With incredibly high probability, the number of tails will be very close to 500,000. It can be 499,500, it *could* be 499,000 - but it will not be 400,000 realistically, unless you used uneven coins.
    Same here. There is no physical law prohibiting, say, two reservoirs put near each other to maintain a difference in temperatures. But in probabilistic terms, this will not happen, and when you return a few days later to measure their temperatures, the temperatures will be very-very close, well beyond our ability to measure the difference.

    I would recommend doing a bit of self-educating before trying to dismantle the results of centuries of research by millions scientists with a short online argument.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • searsear 109 Pts
    OK:
     a) This thread has been around for 3 years, and is still on page #1.

     Isn't evolution science?

          
  • Evolution is not science even though they try to make it science. There is no evidence for evolution. it violated the conservation of angular momentum. 
    Zombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 1962 Pts
    edited March 2019
    @calebsica

    Evolution is fact , most rational beings except this the exception being some religious evolution deniers mainly Americans unfortunately 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • sear said:
    OK:
     a) This thread has been around for 3 years, and is still on page #1.

     Isn't evolution science?

          

    @sear ;

    The only thing that has change on this cartoon is scale. The map is now of the universe, and the Ship is now a starship.
  • Thats] sounds like an oxy moron
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch