Thermodynamics

Although i still have doubts i am pretty happy with your answers. My whole purpose with this discussion was not to prove anyone's ideas wrong with my own, but to hear a professional opinion regarding the subject. Most of what you guys have said does make sense now, (thanks for being patient) although i am not totally convinced, my curiousity on the 2nd law has been satisfied. We can move on from the second law.Now onto the Law of Energy Conservation. Assuming my definition of the law is correct (energy can only be converted, not created or destroyed) how did the universe create itself?

Im a little confused by your question. Do you mean what purpose does the law have for the universe?

I cant answer that. Ill have to ask a creationist some day. But while im in a forum full of evolutionists i may as well question you guys first.

It may not necessarily apply to the universe itself. But then where did the energy come from that is present WITHIN the universe?Or is the universe itself the energy?(And about your second question, i would have thought there must have been more than zero right? I mean, we do use this energy surely???)

Far out thats interesting. Never thought about gravity being negative energy before. Do you know if they can test this?

Ahhh so both you and creationists have problems with the ultimate origins of the universe. By the way, do you guys have links to any continuing arguments you guys have with creationists on this site? Id be interested to see both views at once.

So the end result is zero energy." If all the energy here is counterposed by opposite energies there"But how did the energy "here" come about? Or is that the part Sylas said scientists dont know about?

Does that mean energy is being created all over the place, but only if the net energy remains at 0?

I was just wondering if evolutionists did in fact have an answer for the first step in the origins of the universe.

I wasnt asking if evolution had an answer, i was asking if evolutionists did. I wondered if you guys, being evolutionists, had any "sure" theories.

Yes i understand now. I guess noone has a sure provable answer. But then again if someone did claim to be able to prove their theory on the origin whatever they said would go against normal, operational science.

Why do you say"Creationists argue that we haven't observed everything everywhere across all time, and that there could be exceptions to this law."And then talk about scientists (i assume evolution beleiving scientists) saying that this law could have had exceptions just before the big bang thus helping an atheistic worldview anyway? Im just saying it seems that you are painting creationists in a negative light (and if your not i apologise) and i dont think its necessary when either side of any debate do this. Im not attacking you, it just bothers me the way you talk about your rivals

Yeah your right, its not specific is it. I will make sure i am more specific in future. Up until this point when i have said "evolutionist" i have meant "athiestic evolutionists". Thanks for the tip

Sorry mate i didnt mean it like that. I never thought about it to tell you the truth. But this whole time i was under the impression that i was talking to blokes who didnt beleive in a god, dont ask me why. I just did. I like to hear answers from both (or all 3), but in the future i will be more specific when addressing "evolutionists"

Heh heh im sure that "were you there?" argument must get tiring."If you really believe science is anti-God or anti-religious"No no no. Iv never thought that, and i dont know why youd think that would bother me even if it did. But it seems to me that normal science is neutral to both you guys and the creationists (correct me if im wrong, but thats the impression i am under at this point in time)I mean, what hard evidence do you have that proves the TOE is correct and all other theorys false? And to the creationists if there are any one here, what do you have in your arsenal that continues to baffle evolutionists of all varieties?