How was the earth created?

Submitted by easymerc on Sun, 2008-02-10 17:33.

Question:

I am not a christian but I want to know or at least have a theroy that is believeable because some of these don't work. Evolution is kind of interesting but in my science class we learned about the second law of thermodynamics where everything is heading towards a higer state of entropy so how are animals getting more complex? wouldn't that disprove that law? The big bang theroy is kind of weird also something about how a void exploded and the earth was created but how can nothing explode? and if there was something there why is it that when it explodes microbes and trees and cells were created? that is very unlikely math can't really show the possibility of that happening and the last time I saw an explosion things were destroyed. How can I really believe in those things. and the The nebula hypothesis is kind of believeable but how did plant's come around because you need seeds to create plants and even then how can animals come from it? every way I look I only see signs of a god but that sounds like bs too I mean if there was a god why would he allow things like world war two? I am very confused. please answer as best as you can if I try and debate it is only so I can find the truth.

Atheist Answer

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the total entropy in a closed system must increase. The Earth by itself isn't a closed system; the Sun provides it with energy by increasing its own entropy by huge amounts via fusion reactions. That means that entropy in another part of the system can decrease without breaking the Second Law.

I've explained it more thoroughly here, but just think about it for a second. If order and complexity could never increase anywhere, you couldn't build anything, arrange anything or form a coherent thought. There must be a way.

It's unlikely that what exploded in the Big Bang was a total void. It was the entire current universe squashed into one tiny dot. We don't know how it got there; maybe it came from another universe, maybe something compressed the universe into a dot, or maybe it really did pop out of "nothing". That last one isn't quite as silly as it sounds, because some quantum theories actually do allow for it by positing that "nothing" is really a sort of quantum foam of potentiality.

We don't really know that the Big Bang was what created everything; we're just mostly sure that everything there is was in the Big Bang. It might have all existed forever, and just spent a bit of time squashed into the dot.

Thinking of the Big Bang as an explosion is a bit too simple. An explosion destroys things around it; since everything was in the Bang itself, there was nothing around it to destroy. Once all the debris was floating free, gravity brought some of it back together to form rocks and stars. Stars create vast amounts of entropy, so any rock receiving energy from a star is part of its closed system and a certain amount of order and complexity is free to emerge there. This is how microbes were able to come about (though it's not exactly how they came about; that's a bit more complicated).

Plants actually evolved from seagoing creatures. Once the oceans were teeming with ultra-primitive life, masses of it was bound to wash up on the shores of Pangaea (the single pre-drift continent). Most of that organic matter would have died, but a tiny fraction of organisms would have been able to use their existing abilities to sink safely into the sand or soil, and stick one piece up to get some sunlight. It was natural selection in all its glory; if you throw enough different kinds of crap at the wall, something is bound to stick.

Go ahead and reply with your objections if something still doesn't seem feasible. Don't worry about ticking us off. That's what we're here for.

- SmartLX

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Healyhatman Says:

I simply LOVE the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" argument some creationists make. They like to think that evolution breaks the law, while at the same time conveniently forgetting things like the human body growing more complex as it ages, memories getting more complex as experiences are gained.... That's a common tactic though - as long as they THINK evolution has a problem somewhere, they completely ignore the reasons why their 'solution' shatters the possibility of a myriad of other phenomena.

The MOST annoying part is of course, that the "evolution violates 2nd law of thermodynamics" crowd ALWAYS completely ignores THE SUN. Consistently, without fail, 100%, completely ignores the big yellow ball in the sky.

One would think they hadn't ever even SEEN the sun... Although that makes sense - some of these Young Earth Creationists are pretty sheltered from the outside world.

SmartLX Says:

Give them more credit than that. Except from one guy quoted on Fundamentalists Say The Darnedest Things, I've never read any argument where the person accepts that an influx of energy can decrease local entropy and still fails to realise that the sun fits the bill.

No, the common misunderstanding is simpler than that: besides not knowing the bit about closed systems, people fail to realise how widely the Law applies. Any increase in order is a decrease in entropy. Since much of life is spent making sense of things and battling chaos in all its forms, not just evolution but day-to-day life itself would be impossible if entropy really couldn't decrease at all. This would just about prove the necessity of a god to maintain order, but then it should be even more obvious that there is a natural way for entropy to decrease. Otherwise why would there be there any argument whatsoever about whether there's a god?

Healyhatman Says:

Sorry I can't give them too much more credit - I HAVE seen it said outside of FSTDT. Specific examples are unfortunately not forthcoming as I can't remember them... I don't particuarly trust FSTDT anyway - funny as it is, at least a small few of those quotes must be either mined or made up - it's still hilarious though and the ones I bothered verifying are hilarious.

Point is their use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics ignores if not the Sun, then whatever it is they need to ignore to believe that science is on their side. You're right though - a lot of them completely fail to realise the level to which the law applies and/or the far-reaching considerations due it.

- Healyhatman
It's YOUR Hell, YOU burn in it.

rene pool (not verified) Says:

what the fuckis wrong with you people this website is fucked up!!!!!! God is good if it weren't for him you wouldn't be here assholes!!! you guys need to get that thing crossing out god off!!! THATS NOT RIGHT THATS SOOO WRONG!!!!

SmartLX Says:

Rene, it sounds like this site is among your first exposures to an openly atheist viewpoint. Look at it from our point of view for a moment. If you did not simply take it for granted that God exists, and you saw that huge numbers of people were frantically trying to please someone who is in all probability imaginary, wouldn't you want to cross him out too?

Anyway, why do you personally believe in God? I'm curious.

Healyhatman Says:

I read and recently (maybe unintelligently?) used the following as a rebuttal of a Christian claiming that all atheist societies are nihilistic and self-destructive:

That although the percentage of Christians in America is 75% or somesuch and the percentage of atheists is 4-9%, the percentage of the prison population that is atheist is only .02%. I have been having some trouble verifying this with a decent site (google spits 140,000 websites at me, most of them forums, none of them the statistics I'm after). So:

Is this statistic true? If so, is there a statistic that only takes into account the religion of a person ENTERING jail, in order to rule out the possibility for the Christians that say 30% of the prison population went in as atheists and had converted by the time the survey came around?

If the statistic is not true or close (or recent) there's going to be a very embarrassing retraction for me but that's okay - hit me up SmartLX, tell it to me straight: I can take it

SmartLX Says:

The figures you mention are straight from the last Federal Bureau of Prisons survey in 1997. That's not cutting-edge, but at least it's this generation. Here's another site quoting the details. You may be able to find a more direct source.

The survey says nothing about prison conversions. I'd say there are a great many of those, because Christian services are often the only religious or philosophical influence US inmates receive. Whether those who convert in the clink are more or less likely to reoffend upon release would be another interesting statistical question.

Don't worry, you've got your numbers straight.

Jack Reacher (not verified) Says:

I've spent some time reading about evolution and creation. I've read several pages about entropy and I can't seem to find one that makes sense. Can you explain entropy to poor retard like myself?

Jack Reacher

SmartLX Says:

It's a difficult concept, and most of us have to make do with an approximation, so here's mine.

Imagine the process by which objects with some physical order (structure, symmetry, smoothness, etc.) break down over time (decay, melt, crumble, evaporate, rot) into substances which do not have that initial order (powder, gases, liquids, mush). They're moving from an ordered state towards a more and more unordered state. Entropy, as a quantity, is the extent to which this has already happened at any given time. About the closest thing to a synonym for it is "loss of order".

If entropy increases, order has been lost. If it decreases, order has emerged or been created. The point of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that entropy can't decrease without increasing by at least as much in some connected object or area. In other words, it can't decrease overall in a closed system.

The corrupted version of this law by creationists is effectively that entropy can't decrease at all without divine help. Alternatively they accept the law, but claim that the Earth is a closed system and any fresh order on it must be gods' work. The response to the latter is to point out that the sun is part of any closed system which includes us. The thing runs on explosions, causing massive amounts of entropy. It sends some of the resulting energy our way as light, heat and radiation so that we might undo a tiny fraction of that entropy. That's the connection.

A more general response is that if you think entropy is decreasing in a closed system, it's likely that the system is not really closed.