One thing you have to hand to the Fundie Believer Networks and websites is that they never ever give up. Though their entire supernatural “cosmology” has been discredited and rendered the butt of jokes, they continue to attempt to forge arguments to defend it – in most cases arguments that even a sophomore physics major can shoot down.
Most of these begin or are founded on one premise: “God does not need a cause because He had NO BEGINNING”
But this commits the logical sin of petitio principii or assuming the final point in advance of the argument . In other words, logically placing the "cart" before the "horse": to wit, advancing an argument in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. Thus, “God’ is invoked though the person has not in any way validated or proven it first. The reasoning is also circular and somewhat akin to me arguing: “the flying spaghetti monster does not need a cause because it had no beginning.” Then, of course, I can go on to claim the universe’s beginning must must rest on the actions of the flying spaghetti monster. Trouble is, the argument rests on vapors, since I haven’t shown the flying spaghetti monster really exists – only claimed it does, as well as insisting it “doesn’t need a cause”. But this sort of semi-facetious non-argument is what we've come to expect from the believer side. Well, I imagine it passes muster with their (evangelical et al) followers, so why not keep trotting it out?
It is for this reason that many logicians have dispensed with issues of “cause” entirely – especially since proximate and distant causes are so often confused, as well as with the existence of a disjunctive plurality of causes ignored or omitted. Now, most logicians replace these with the necessary and sufficient conditions for existence. (A necessary condition is one which, if absent, the entity cannot exist. A sufficient condition is one which, if present, the entity must exist. For example, a sufficient condition for the existence of a hydrogen emission nebula in space would be proximity of the nebula to a radiating star. The necessary condition is the nebula exist in the first place).
Thus, if you are going to make an argument on how or why the universe came to be, you can’t just say “God did it” or “Because God is the uncaused cause” – you must deliver the necessary and sufficient conditions for God to exist first. We can THEN examine these conditions in terms of how the universe actually looks, behaves and determine if the conditions are consistent.
By contrast, the universe identified as a first cause carries no mystery, ad hoc reasoning or petitio principii bugbears. We know it exists. We observe it at multiple wavelengths, from the radio bands to the x-ray and gamma ray regions. We also have the mathematical arguments on how it could emerge as uncaused, previously cited in the paper by T. Padmanabhan. (As we know, mathematics is merely an extension of logic – applied now to self-consistent quantitative systems).
My point here, is before the fundie believer gets himself in self-congratulatory mode, he needs to give the necessary and sufficient conditions for his “uncaused Cause” - then he can see if he can account for the universe. Nevertheless, on the basis of their petitio principii violation the general unsound arguments go on like the following.
"This being the case we need only to show that the universe had a beginning , to show that there must have been a cause of it (i.e., God ) . "
But as we saw this is predicated on the fallacy of petitio principii so it doesn’t amount to a hill of warmed over beans! Contrary to “only having to show the universe had a beginning” the clamaint has to first provide n-s conditions for his uncaused supernatural cause. The fact that most believers find tis difficult or well nigh impossible to do, shows me that either: a) they can't define or explicate the rational basis for their deity, or b) they don't know how to apply basic logic to their arguments outside the nebulous warp of "cause".
"Two strong arguments will be offered as evidence (not that the militant atheists will accept ANY evidence , other than their own fairy-tale,'bump-in-the-night' Big Bang theories ) , that the universe had a beginning . One is from science - the second law of thermodynamics . The second is from philosophy , namely , the impossibility of an infinite number of moments ."
First, the "fairy tale" allusion doesn’t cut it, since the two discoverers of the cosmic microwave radiation (which supports the existence of the Big Bang) were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, for 1978. This went to Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of the Bell Labs. So what is the believer trying to say? That Nobel Physics Prizes are only awarded for “fairy tales”? I guess then his electronic devices- DVRs, TVs, computers, etc. are all fairy tales since the basis for each of them has been awarded as prior Nobels in Physics!
Second, the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to conformal space-time (as used in the Physical Review D paper by Padmanabhan). The reason is that this pre-existent quantum bubble full of dark energy is sequestered from the normal governing thermodynamics that applies to our universe. (Though even in our cosmos dark energy is present, up to 70% or more) and is speeding the cosmos up – accelerating the expansion rather than causing it to wind down.
As for the “impossibility of an infinite number” of anything, I already showed this is false in a previous blog:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/03/counting-to-infinity.html
"According to the second law of thermodynamics , the universe is running out of usable energy (of course , the actual amount of energy remains constant ; only the USABLE amount is decreasing ) . But if the universe is running down , it cannot be eternal ."
Again, a misapplication of the 2nd law which strictly applies only to closed systems, and is a probabilistic law not an absolute one. Thus, we define the entropy of a closed system in terms of its number of accessible states, e.g.
S = log g
Technically this is: S = ln g(N, U)
Where ln denotes the natural log, and g is a function of the number of particles N, and the internal energy U.
Note here that as U increases, the usable energy decreases. As Kittel has pointed out (Thermal Physics, John Wiley & Sons, 1969, p. 61): "The most useful formulation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that the entropy of a closed system tends to remain constant or to increase". Key to this definition also, is that the number of accessible states (g) must increase. The problem with the universe is that 70% or more of it is inaccessible, so those states are presumably inaccessible - though they are causing an accelerated expansion of the cosmos. Thus, the universe must be either an open system (or partially open) with dark energy preventing any slowing down, OR it is a closed system that is essentially constant in entropy, i.e. no absolute decrease in usable energy, because of the dark energy that's part of it.
We also note that for the universe, its total energy has remained constant at zero – meaning all the (positive) contributions from kinetic systems and radiating masses (e.g. stars) are added to all the gravitationally bound systems for which gravitational potential energy (V) = -GMm/r.
Thus, we have no evidence the universe is "running down", other than in relatively closed sub-domains (e.g. some star clusters) for which the internal energy U is increasing mainly due to collisions. As I pointed out already in many previous blogs, dark energy (over 70% of the universe) is causing the expansion to speed up! This means higher kinetic energy for all the constituents expanding (e.g. galaxy clusters), so refuting any "winding down".
Even if the cosmos was not “eternal” (which it wouldn’t be anyway, since it had a beginning in our time- and "eternal" means NO beginning and NO end) that doesn’t mean an external supernatural agent “caused” it. It is just as likely it arrived via self-inception and simply expended its energy. In any case, again, it is the duty of the God claimant to give his necessary and sufficient conditions before invoking God as any kind of ultimate cause. One more side fact, it is estimated that the accelerated expansion will stretch and diffuse all the contents of the universe out, owing to repulsive gravity (arising from negative pressure in the dark energy). This means yes, the universe will disperse to an amorphous, disconnected entity - probably in 10^90 years (that is 10 with ninety zeros after it). To all "human" intents, this is 'everlasting' if not "eternal" since all humans will be long gone by the time the last star gives it last gasp of photons. (Can any such thing as "time" exist if no sentient being is around to measure it?)
" While you can never run out of an unlimited amount of energy , it does not take forever to run out of a limited amount of energy .. Or , to use another example , an old clock that gradually unwinds and has to be rewound would not unwind unless it had been wound up to begin with . In short , the universe had a beginning . And whatever had a beginning must have had a beginner . Therefore , the universe must have had a beginner (God ) . "
Again, a non sequitur. A clock that unwinds is a mechanical contrivance that can’t be compared to the universe – so we also have false analogy. The clock, after all, has NO dark energy component, nor any “dark matter” parts to it, like we observe for the universe. Thus, the believer is comparing chalk and cheese. Again, none of this has to do with whether the entity had a beginning, since the inception of the universe, or rather its self-inception, occurred in a pre-existing quantum bubble in conformal space-time (See Padmanabhan’s paper)
Indeed, Padmanabhan’s paper shows the entropy of the universe is now defined in terms of a "holographic principle" that reckons in the Planck length and quantum fluctuations. It is defined(Lawrence B. Crowell, Quantum Fluctuations in Spacetime', p. 125):
k_B[KL_p^2/ 3)^-1 + (ln 2)/2]
Most of these begin or are founded on one premise: “God does not need a cause because He had NO BEGINNING”
But this commits the logical sin of petitio principii or assuming the final point in advance of the argument . In other words, logically placing the "cart" before the "horse": to wit, advancing an argument in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. Thus, “God’ is invoked though the person has not in any way validated or proven it first. The reasoning is also circular and somewhat akin to me arguing: “the flying spaghetti monster does not need a cause because it had no beginning.” Then, of course, I can go on to claim the universe’s beginning must must rest on the actions of the flying spaghetti monster. Trouble is, the argument rests on vapors, since I haven’t shown the flying spaghetti monster really exists – only claimed it does, as well as insisting it “doesn’t need a cause”. But this sort of semi-facetious non-argument is what we've come to expect from the believer side. Well, I imagine it passes muster with their (evangelical et al) followers, so why not keep trotting it out?
It is for this reason that many logicians have dispensed with issues of “cause” entirely – especially since proximate and distant causes are so often confused, as well as with the existence of a disjunctive plurality of causes ignored or omitted. Now, most logicians replace these with the necessary and sufficient conditions for existence. (A necessary condition is one which, if absent, the entity cannot exist. A sufficient condition is one which, if present, the entity must exist. For example, a sufficient condition for the existence of a hydrogen emission nebula in space would be proximity of the nebula to a radiating star. The necessary condition is the nebula exist in the first place).
Thus, if you are going to make an argument on how or why the universe came to be, you can’t just say “God did it” or “Because God is the uncaused cause” – you must deliver the necessary and sufficient conditions for God to exist first. We can THEN examine these conditions in terms of how the universe actually looks, behaves and determine if the conditions are consistent.
By contrast, the universe identified as a first cause carries no mystery, ad hoc reasoning or petitio principii bugbears. We know it exists. We observe it at multiple wavelengths, from the radio bands to the x-ray and gamma ray regions. We also have the mathematical arguments on how it could emerge as uncaused, previously cited in the paper by T. Padmanabhan. (As we know, mathematics is merely an extension of logic – applied now to self-consistent quantitative systems).
My point here, is before the fundie believer gets himself in self-congratulatory mode, he needs to give the necessary and sufficient conditions for his “uncaused Cause” - then he can see if he can account for the universe. Nevertheless, on the basis of their petitio principii violation the general unsound arguments go on like the following.
"This being the case we need only to show that the universe had a beginning , to show that there must have been a cause of it (i.e., God ) . "
But as we saw this is predicated on the fallacy of petitio principii so it doesn’t amount to a hill of warmed over beans! Contrary to “only having to show the universe had a beginning” the clamaint has to first provide n-s conditions for his uncaused supernatural cause. The fact that most believers find tis difficult or well nigh impossible to do, shows me that either: a) they can't define or explicate the rational basis for their deity, or b) they don't know how to apply basic logic to their arguments outside the nebulous warp of "cause".
"Two strong arguments will be offered as evidence (not that the militant atheists will accept ANY evidence , other than their own fairy-tale,'bump-in-the-night' Big Bang theories ) , that the universe had a beginning . One is from science - the second law of thermodynamics . The second is from philosophy , namely , the impossibility of an infinite number of moments ."
First, the "fairy tale" allusion doesn’t cut it, since the two discoverers of the cosmic microwave radiation (which supports the existence of the Big Bang) were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, for 1978. This went to Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of the Bell Labs. So what is the believer trying to say? That Nobel Physics Prizes are only awarded for “fairy tales”? I guess then his electronic devices- DVRs, TVs, computers, etc. are all fairy tales since the basis for each of them has been awarded as prior Nobels in Physics!
Second, the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to conformal space-time (as used in the Physical Review D paper by Padmanabhan). The reason is that this pre-existent quantum bubble full of dark energy is sequestered from the normal governing thermodynamics that applies to our universe. (Though even in our cosmos dark energy is present, up to 70% or more) and is speeding the cosmos up – accelerating the expansion rather than causing it to wind down.
As for the “impossibility of an infinite number” of anything, I already showed this is false in a previous blog:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/03/counting-to-infinity.html
"According to the second law of thermodynamics , the universe is running out of usable energy (of course , the actual amount of energy remains constant ; only the USABLE amount is decreasing ) . But if the universe is running down , it cannot be eternal ."
Again, a misapplication of the 2nd law which strictly applies only to closed systems, and is a probabilistic law not an absolute one. Thus, we define the entropy of a closed system in terms of its number of accessible states, e.g.
S = log g
Technically this is: S = ln g(N, U)
Where ln denotes the natural log, and g is a function of the number of particles N, and the internal energy U.
Note here that as U increases, the usable energy decreases. As Kittel has pointed out (Thermal Physics, John Wiley & Sons, 1969, p. 61): "The most useful formulation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that the entropy of a closed system tends to remain constant or to increase". Key to this definition also, is that the number of accessible states (g) must increase. The problem with the universe is that 70% or more of it is inaccessible, so those states are presumably inaccessible - though they are causing an accelerated expansion of the cosmos. Thus, the universe must be either an open system (or partially open) with dark energy preventing any slowing down, OR it is a closed system that is essentially constant in entropy, i.e. no absolute decrease in usable energy, because of the dark energy that's part of it.
We also note that for the universe, its total energy has remained constant at zero – meaning all the (positive) contributions from kinetic systems and radiating masses (e.g. stars) are added to all the gravitationally bound systems for which gravitational potential energy (V) = -GMm/r.
Thus, we have no evidence the universe is "running down", other than in relatively closed sub-domains (e.g. some star clusters) for which the internal energy U is increasing mainly due to collisions. As I pointed out already in many previous blogs, dark energy (over 70% of the universe) is causing the expansion to speed up! This means higher kinetic energy for all the constituents expanding (e.g. galaxy clusters), so refuting any "winding down".
Even if the cosmos was not “eternal” (which it wouldn’t be anyway, since it had a beginning in our time- and "eternal" means NO beginning and NO end) that doesn’t mean an external supernatural agent “caused” it. It is just as likely it arrived via self-inception and simply expended its energy. In any case, again, it is the duty of the God claimant to give his necessary and sufficient conditions before invoking God as any kind of ultimate cause. One more side fact, it is estimated that the accelerated expansion will stretch and diffuse all the contents of the universe out, owing to repulsive gravity (arising from negative pressure in the dark energy). This means yes, the universe will disperse to an amorphous, disconnected entity - probably in 10^90 years (that is 10 with ninety zeros after it). To all "human" intents, this is 'everlasting' if not "eternal" since all humans will be long gone by the time the last star gives it last gasp of photons. (Can any such thing as "time" exist if no sentient being is around to measure it?)
" While you can never run out of an unlimited amount of energy , it does not take forever to run out of a limited amount of energy .. Or , to use another example , an old clock that gradually unwinds and has to be rewound would not unwind unless it had been wound up to begin with . In short , the universe had a beginning . And whatever had a beginning must have had a beginner . Therefore , the universe must have had a beginner (God ) . "
Again, a non sequitur. A clock that unwinds is a mechanical contrivance that can’t be compared to the universe – so we also have false analogy. The clock, after all, has NO dark energy component, nor any “dark matter” parts to it, like we observe for the universe. Thus, the believer is comparing chalk and cheese. Again, none of this has to do with whether the entity had a beginning, since the inception of the universe, or rather its self-inception, occurred in a pre-existing quantum bubble in conformal space-time (See Padmanabhan’s paper)
Indeed, Padmanabhan’s paper shows the entropy of the universe is now defined in terms of a "holographic principle" that reckons in the Planck length and quantum fluctuations. It is defined(Lawrence B. Crowell, Quantum Fluctuations in Spacetime', p. 125):
k_B[KL_p^2/ 3)^-1 + (ln 2)/2]
where k_B is Boltzmann's constant, L_p the Planck length (10^-33 cm), and K is the energy applied to all accessible states). Given this, and the condition of zero net mass energy, the spontaneous and acausal inception of the cosmos is actually the simplest formulation for its origin. Even the smallest fluctuation in the vacuum whereby: delta E ~ h/ delta t (Heisenberg energy-time uncertainty principle) leads to an instantaneous local deviation in mass-energy and the explosive origin of a cosmic expansion predicated on negative pressure. As noted by Crowell (op. cit., p. 134):
"A net zero cosmology is the most economical one that can emerge from the vacuum state".
Of course, believers are unperturbed by this, most likely because they're unable to read and process advanced physics papers, as we see:
"Now , some have speculated that the universe is self-winding or self-rebounding . But this position is exactly that - pure speculation without any real evidence . In fact , it is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics . For even if the universe were rebounding , like a bouncing ball in reverse , it would gradually peter out"
Again, the believer errs (false analogy) in comparing the universe to a mechanical example (bouncing ball) . As for “real evidence” - that misses the point. The point is we have a fully formed, mathematical –logical argument (in Padmanbhan's papers) to support the cosmos’ self-inception, as provided in the previous papers cited. All the believer has is his simple and unenlightening claim that “God did it”. Not good enough because we need those n-s conditions for his god first. If he provides them - if ever- we can THEN see if his claims comport with what we actually observe. The longer the believer delays in providing them, the more suspicion must be aroused that his use of physics arguments falls flat.
“ There is simply NO observational evidence that the universe is self-winding . Even agnostic astronomers like Robert Jastrow have pointed out : "Once hydrogen has been burned within that star and converted to heavier elements , it can never be restored to its original state." Thus , "minute by minute and year by year , as hydrogen is used up in the stars , the supply of this element grows smaller." ( cf . Robert Jastrow , God and the Astronomers ; New York : W.W. Norton , 1978 , 15-16 ) . “
Again, the entropy law I showed (Cromwell, op cit.) refutes the universe is slowing down. Also, adjectives like “self-winding” are no logical or practical use here, since the universe isn’t a mechanical contrivance. As for Jastrow’s remark about H-burning in stars, that applies to entropy in a closed system, since stars are effectively closed thermodynamics systems, especially their cores where fusion occurs. (This is why when all nuclear fusion in a stellar core is exhausted, the only way it can re-balance against the outside weight of overlying layers is to expand – i.e. the Sun will become a Red Giant star when all its hydrogen is consumed).
Mr. Believer continues his spiel:
“If the overall amount of energy stays the same but the universe is running out of usable energy , it has never had an infinite amount - for an infinite amount of energy can never run down . This would mean that the universe could NOT have existed forever in the past . It MUST have had a BEGINNING ! Or , to put it another way , according to the second law , since the universe is getting more and more disordered , it cannot be eternal “
A rather confusing exposition so let’s try to break it down. First, no one ever claimed the universe had an “infinite amount” of energy! We know it is finite because the number of particles (N) is finite. This doesn’t mean, however, the universe didn’t (or couldn't) incept itself or that it needs an outside, supernatural cause! In other words, the universe having a beginning has nothing to do with needing a cause for origin. It can have a beginning in space-time (our normal Friedmann –Robertson- Walker or FRW space-time) and still not need an external cause. It can also have a putative ending in space-time, and not require an "uncaused" cause other than itself to have come into being in the first place.
Again, also, we don’t find the universe getting more and more disordered, mainly because the 2nd law applies to closed systems (cf. Kittel, ibid.) and the existence of dark energy and negative pressure shows the universe isn’t closed- or if it is closed, the dark energy states g_dk, are inaccessible) If someone can disprove dark energy or try to match the existing data for Type 1a supernova to a different hypothesis, this could be changed. No one's remotely tried as yet.
“A second argument that the universe had a beginning - and hence a beginner - comes from philosophy . It argues that there could not have been an infinite number of moments before today ; otherwise today would never have come (which it has ) . This is because , by definition , an infinite can never be traversed - it has no end (or beginning ) . But since the moments before today have been traversed - that is , we have arrived at today - it follows that there must only have been a finite ( limited ) number of moments before today ."
"A net zero cosmology is the most economical one that can emerge from the vacuum state".
Of course, believers are unperturbed by this, most likely because they're unable to read and process advanced physics papers, as we see:
"Now , some have speculated that the universe is self-winding or self-rebounding . But this position is exactly that - pure speculation without any real evidence . In fact , it is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics . For even if the universe were rebounding , like a bouncing ball in reverse , it would gradually peter out"
Again, the believer errs (false analogy) in comparing the universe to a mechanical example (bouncing ball) . As for “real evidence” - that misses the point. The point is we have a fully formed, mathematical –logical argument (in Padmanbhan's papers) to support the cosmos’ self-inception, as provided in the previous papers cited. All the believer has is his simple and unenlightening claim that “God did it”. Not good enough because we need those n-s conditions for his god first. If he provides them - if ever- we can THEN see if his claims comport with what we actually observe. The longer the believer delays in providing them, the more suspicion must be aroused that his use of physics arguments falls flat.
“ There is simply NO observational evidence that the universe is self-winding . Even agnostic astronomers like Robert Jastrow have pointed out : "Once hydrogen has been burned within that star and converted to heavier elements , it can never be restored to its original state." Thus , "minute by minute and year by year , as hydrogen is used up in the stars , the supply of this element grows smaller." ( cf . Robert Jastrow , God and the Astronomers ; New York : W.W. Norton , 1978 , 15-16 ) . “
Again, the entropy law I showed (Cromwell, op cit.) refutes the universe is slowing down. Also, adjectives like “self-winding” are no logical or practical use here, since the universe isn’t a mechanical contrivance. As for Jastrow’s remark about H-burning in stars, that applies to entropy in a closed system, since stars are effectively closed thermodynamics systems, especially their cores where fusion occurs. (This is why when all nuclear fusion in a stellar core is exhausted, the only way it can re-balance against the outside weight of overlying layers is to expand – i.e. the Sun will become a Red Giant star when all its hydrogen is consumed).
Mr. Believer continues his spiel:
“If the overall amount of energy stays the same but the universe is running out of usable energy , it has never had an infinite amount - for an infinite amount of energy can never run down . This would mean that the universe could NOT have existed forever in the past . It MUST have had a BEGINNING ! Or , to put it another way , according to the second law , since the universe is getting more and more disordered , it cannot be eternal “
A rather confusing exposition so let’s try to break it down. First, no one ever claimed the universe had an “infinite amount” of energy! We know it is finite because the number of particles (N) is finite. This doesn’t mean, however, the universe didn’t (or couldn't) incept itself or that it needs an outside, supernatural cause! In other words, the universe having a beginning has nothing to do with needing a cause for origin. It can have a beginning in space-time (our normal Friedmann –Robertson- Walker or FRW space-time) and still not need an external cause. It can also have a putative ending in space-time, and not require an "uncaused" cause other than itself to have come into being in the first place.
Again, also, we don’t find the universe getting more and more disordered, mainly because the 2nd law applies to closed systems (cf. Kittel, ibid.) and the existence of dark energy and negative pressure shows the universe isn’t closed- or if it is closed, the dark energy states g_dk, are inaccessible) If someone can disprove dark energy or try to match the existing data for Type 1a supernova to a different hypothesis, this could be changed. No one's remotely tried as yet.
“A second argument that the universe had a beginning - and hence a beginner - comes from philosophy . It argues that there could not have been an infinite number of moments before today ; otherwise today would never have come (which it has ) . This is because , by definition , an infinite can never be traversed - it has no end (or beginning ) . But since the moments before today have been traversed - that is , we have arrived at today - it follows that there must only have been a finite ( limited ) number of moments before today ."
Actually, time having a beginning has nothing to do with enumerating an infinite amount of anything. See my earlier link! Obviously, the writer of this has never heard of the transfinite cardinal numbers! As for only a "finite number of moments" - I already showed (prior link) that this is false because any "finite" assumed set can be converted into an infinite set. The example I provided in the link was for electron positions inside an atom - which while finite in extent- can nevertheless allow for an infinite set within it!
"Even the great skeptic David Hume held both premises of this argument for God . What is more , Hume himself never denied that things have a cause for their existence . He wrote , "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause"
The trouble with this argument is that Hume is no one to go to for insight on modern physics issues, since he lived over 250 years before the development of quantum mechanics, or the use of advanced mathematics to articulate things like de Sitter space, and conformal space time. Hence, his opinions are neither here nor there. It would be better if the believer invoked a more modern skeptic philosopher who’s at least aware of quantum mechanics and how it impacts these issues.
Until next time, or hopefully, when the believers can manage to forge and craft necessary and sufficient conditions for their erstwhile deity. It can't be that hard! At least one believer (John Phillips, Spiritual scholar) has already done it. On another side note, it would be terrific and constructive to debate the believer side on these advanced physics issues, but what I find (all too often) is they're simply unprepared and over-matched. They lack basic scientific or even logical reasoning skills, and aren't au fait with even the most fundamental principles. While they appear to know "something" about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, for instance, they almost never apply it in the appropriate context. And thoroughly misapply it for the parameters applicable to the universe at large, including its origins (e.g. ignoring the input of dark - vacuum energy).
No comments:
Post a Comment