Waar kom al die nuttige energie vandaan?
Donderdag, 03 Desember 2009 21:00
For this article in english, please click here.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Hierdie is ‘n uitstekende artikel deur Jonathan Sarfati.)
Thermodynamics and Order Questions and Answers
Ateïste beweer dat die heelal vanself ontstaan het deur die oerknal. Hierdie teorie is egter meer onwetenskaplik as wat baie mense dink. Dit is direk teenstrydig met die 2de wet van termodinamika.
Wat is die 2de wet van termodinamika?
In kort beteken dit dat alle energiebronne opraak. Alles neig van ’n hoë energietoestand na ’n lae energietoestand. Dit word soms soos volg uitgedruk:
Die entropie van die heelal neig na ’n maksimum (in eenvoudige terme meet entropie die hoeveelheid wanorde)
Bruikbare/nuttige energie raak op.
Inligting neig om deurmekaar te raak.
Orde neig om wanorde te raak.
Iets ongeorganiseerd word nie vanself georden nie
Om entropie beter te verduidelik, kyk die volgende voorbeelde waar entropie vermeerder (nuttige energie verminder):
Enige eksotermiese chemiese reaksie (chemiese reaksies wat energie vrystel):
Koolstof reageer met suurstof om koolstofdioksied te vorm (C + O2 → CO2 + energie). Koolstof en suurstof apart is baie nuttig, want dit kan energie gee as dit reageer, maar CO2 is amper nutteloos. Om CO2 weer op te breek in C en O2, het jy teoreties dieselfde hoeveelheid energie nodig as wat dit gegee het toe dit gevorm het.
Ys wat smelt: Ys is ’n baie nuttige ding, maar ys se temperatuur is kouer as die omgewing, dus neig dit na omgewingstemperatuur en die nuttige koue gaan verlore.
Motorbande wat druk verloor: ’n Styfgepompte band verloor druk omdat die druk soveel hoër is as die omgewingsdruk.
Berge word platter en die seebodem word vlakker: Erosie skuif grond van hoë berge na die see. Iets wat hoog is het potensiële energie, dus raak potensiële energie op.
’n Goed-instandgehoude huis neig om vervalle te raak: Baie energie is nodig om ’n huis instand te hou, maar as aandag aan ’n huis verslap word, word dit vervalle. Netso neig ’n kamer/motorhuis om altyd deurmekaar te raak indien dit nie heeltyd netjies gehou word nie. (Dus, ander woorde vir: “Gaan ruim jou kamer op” is “Gaan verminder die entropie in jou kamer.” :-))
Die son wat skyn: (Nou kom ons nader aan die boodskap van hierdie artikel) Die son is besig om uit te brand en eendag baie lank van nou af sal die son uitgebrand wees.
Kan nuttige energie geskep word?
Die antwoord is "ja" en "nee":
Petrol/diesel kan uit steenkool of olie gemaak word, maar die olie en steenkool raak op.
Nuttige elektrisiteit kan opgewek word deur steenkool te brand, maar die steenkool raak op.
Nuttige elektrisiteit kan opgewek word van sonkrag, maar die son brand uit.
Nuttige elektrisiteit kan opgewek word deur vloeiende water, maar hoe het die water aan die bokant van die berg gekom? Dit het gereën van wolke wat van waterdamp af kom wat uit die see verdamp het van energie van die son en die son brand uit.
Bome kan geplant word om hout te maak wat ’n bron van energie is, maar bome het die son nodig om te groei en die son brand uit.
Koolstofmonoksied (CO), wat ‘n baie nuttige chemiese stof is om energie te voorsien, kan geskep word van koolstofdioksied (CO2), maar slegs indien jy baie energie tot die reaksie byvoeg en nuttige H2 gebruik (Waterstof-skuif reaksie: CO2 + H2 + energie ↔ CO + H2O)
Dus kán ’n mens nuttige energie opwek soos elektrisiteit (daarom “ja”), maar daardie energie kom altyd van ’n ander energiebron af. Dus as ’n mens na die hele sisteem kyk, sal entropie altyd verhoog (nuttige energie sal verminder) en daarom “nee”.
Terloops, kan jy ook sien hoekom die son die enigste bron van energie vir die aarde is? Die eerste twee voorbeelde hierbo noem dat nuttige energie verkry kan word uit steenkool en olie. Streng gesproke kan 'n mens weer steenkool en olie maak (vir interessantheid, steenkool neem nie baie lank om te vorm nie - kyk Coal: memorial to the Flood onder "Coal needs only weeks, not millions of years, to form", maar steenkool en olie is gemaak van plant- en dierreste onderskeidelik. Plante en diere het die son nodig om te leef en groei en weereens: "Die son brand uit".
Hoekom is hierdie ’n probleem vir die oerknalteorie?
Aan die begin was daar niks: Geen materie nie en geen energie nie (die temperatuur van die heelal was dus -273.15 °C (0 K). Entropie was dus oneindig groot (daar was geen nuttige/bruikbare energie nie). As nuttige energie altyd minder word, waar het die son vandaan gekom wat vir ons al ons energie gee? Wetenskaplikes besef die probleem en sê dat die heelal ‘n gratis ete (“free lunch” ) gekry het, maar ons almal weet dat daar nie so iets is soos ‘n gratis ete nie. Die enigste logiese verklaring is dat daar ’n God is wat hierdie nuttige energie vir ons gegee het.
Ek dink ateïste weet dat daar nie ’n wetenskaplike antwoord daarvoor is nie. Hulle teenantwoord is dat Christene nie kan verklaar waar God vandaan kom nie. Of hulle sê dat daar wel ’n verklaring moet wees, of ons ooit die verklaring sal kry, of nie. Maar om te glo dat iets miljarde jare gelede gebeur het wat teenstrydig is met ons natuurwette, verg baie geloof – amper meer geloof as om in ’n God te glo. Dus glo ateïste ook maar in iets wat nie verklaar of gesien kan word nie.
Ateïste wys debat teen skeppingsleerders van die hand
Kyk die volgende twee baie interessante artikels wat die reaksie van ateïste is op Carl Wieland, hoof van CMI, se versoek tot ’n debat by die “Global Atheist Convention 2010”:
Global atheist convention debate challenge
A reply to Carl Wieland
Daar is twee dinge wat vir my uitstaan:
Ateïste is vreeslik onsteld dat soveel van die Amerikaanse publiek nie aan evolusie glo nie, maar aan die ander kant is daar nie vir hulle kwessies dat evolusie wetenskaplik bewys is nie. Hulle kyk neer op skeppingsleerders omdat dit kwansuis nie wetenskap is nie, maar hulle stel nie daarin belang om vir eens en vir altyd die skeppingsleerders verkeerd te bewys nie. Hulle verskoning is onder andere “Debate is not science, it is playing upon the prejudices of the audience.” Dit klink vir my baie na ‘n verskoning om uit ’n moeilike situasie te kom.
Nog ’n gunsteling aanvalsmeganisme van ateïste is om skeppingsleerders leuenaars te noem. CMI het egter al baie mense uitgenooi om die leuens uit te wys, maar niemand doen dit nie (kyk onder andere The ‘Indoctrinator’).
Where does all the useful energy come from?
Atheists claim that the universe was created from nothing by the Big Bang. This theory is more unscientific than many people think. This is directly contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
What is the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
In short, it means that all energy sources run out. Everything tends to go from a high energy state to a lower energy state. It is sometimes expressed as follows:
The entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder).
Usable energy is running out.
Information tends to get scrambled
Order tends towards disorder.
A random jumble won’t organise itself.
To better explain entropy, see the following examples where entropy increases (useful energy decreases):
Any exothermic chemical reaction (chemical reaction that releases energy):
Carbon reacts with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (C + O2 → CO2 + energy). Carbon and oxygen separately is very useful because it can give energy as it reacts, but CO2 is almost useless. To break up CO2 again into C and O2, you theoretically need the same amount of energy as it gave off when it was formed.
Ice melting: Ice is a very useful thing, but the temperature of ice is colder than the environment, so it's temperature tends to increase to the same as ambient temperature and looses the useful coldness.
Car tyres loosing pressure: A pressurised tyre looses pressure because the pressure is so much higher than the ambient pressure.
Mountains become flatter and the seabed become shallower: Erosion moves soil from high mountains into the sea. Something which has a high potential energy (soil at the top of the mountain), thus becomes lower in potential energy (in the seabed).
A well maintained home tends to show wear: Much energy is needed to maintain a house, but if attention to a home is relaxed, it gets degraded. Likewise does a room or a garage tend to always be messy if not always held neatly. (Thus, other words for: "Go clean up your room" is "Go and reduce the entropy in your room." :-) )
The sun shines: (Now we draw closer to the message of this article.) The sun is busy to burn out and one day many years from now the sun will be burnt out. It will not radiate any heat from it.
Can useful energy be created?
The answer is “yes” and “no”:
Petrol / diesel to be made from coal or oil, but the oil and coal are running out.
Useful electricity can be generated by burning coal, but the coal is running out.
Useful electricity can be generated from solar energy, but the sun is burning out.
Useful electricity can be generated by flowing water, but how did the water get to the top of the mountain? It was raining from clouds of water vapour, which came from the evaporation of ocean using energy from the sun, and the sun is burning out.
Trees can be planted to harvest wood as a source of energy, but the trees need sunlight to grow and the sun is burning out.
Carbon monoxide (CO), which is a very useful chemical to supply energy, can be created from carbon dioxide (CO2), but only if you add a lot of energy to the reaction and add useful using H2 (Hydrogen-shift reaction: CO2 + H2 + energy ↔ H2O + CO)
Thus one can generate useful energy like electricity (therefore "yes"), but that energy always comes from another energy source. So if you look at the whole system, entropy will always increase (useful energy will be reduced) and therefore "no".
Incidentally, can you also see why the sun is the only source of energy for earth? The first two examples above mention that useful energy can be obtained from coal and oil. Strictly speaking, one can again make coal and oil (for interesting sake, coal does not take very long to form - see Coal: memorial to the Flood under "Coal needs only weeks, not millions of years, to form", but coal and oil is made from plant and animal remains, respectively. Plants and animals need the sun to live and grow, and again: "the sun is burning out".
Why is this a problem for the big bang theory ?
At the beginning there was nothing: no matter and no energy (the temperature of the universe was therefore -273.15 °C (0 K). Entropy was therefore infinite (there was no useful/usable energy). If useful energy always tends to become less, where did the sun come from to give us all this energy? Scientists realises the problem and say that the universe got a free lunch, but we all know there is no such thing as a free lunch. The only logical explanation is that there is a God that gave us this useful energy.
I think atheists know that there is no scientific answer for this. Their counter argument is that Christians cannot explain where God came from. Or they say that there will be an explanation, whether we will ever know the explanation or not. But to believe that something happened billions of years ago that is inconsistent with our laws of nature, requires a lot of faith – it almost require more faith than to believe in God. So atheists also believe in something that cannot be explained nor can be seen .
Atheists show debate against creationists of hand
See the following two very interesting articles which are responses from atheists to Carl Wieland’s (head of CMI) request for a debate at the "Global Atheist Convention 2010":
There are two things that stand out for me:
Atheists are very upset that so many of the American public does not believe in evolution because they are of the opinion that evolution is a scientific fact. They look down on creationists because they say that creationism is not science. However, they are not interested to once and for all prove creationists to be wrong. Their excuse for not debating include "Debate is not science, it is playing upon the prejudices of the audience." It sounds to me a lot like an excuse to get out of a tricky situation.
Another favourite attack mechanism of atheists is to creationists liars. CMI has invited many people to the show lies, but nobody does it (see, among others, The ‘Indoctrinator’).