Hovindism #2 1st Law of Thermodynamics

Part 2 in our new weekly series dissecting the errors made by Creation Science Evangelism's Kent Hovind in his misguided attacks on biological science.

References
1) Sonntag RE, Borgnakke C, Van Wylen GJ. 2002. Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, 6th ed. Wiley.
2) Freemsn S, Herron JC. 2007. Evolutionary Analysis, 4th ed. Benjamin Cummings.
3) Woolfson MM. 1993. The solar - origin and evolution. Royal Astromonical Society Quarterly Journal 34:1-20.
4) Weinberg S. 2008. Cosmology. Oxford University Press.
5) Bonnell IA, Bate MR. 2006. Star formation through gravitational collapse and competitive accretion. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 370:488-494.
6) Hoyle F. 1946. The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 106:343-383.
7) Seeger PA, Fowler WA, Clayton DD. 1965. Nucleosynthesis of heavy elements by neutron capture. Astrophysical Journal Supplement 11:121-166.
8) Gron O, Hervik S. 2007. Einstien's General thoery of Relativity: With Modern Application in Cosmology. Springer.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Evolution
• Creationism
• Kent
• Hovind
• Creation
• Intelligent
• Design

[salamirterra]

Matter can't be created or destroyed? So how did it get here? It can't have been created like (I think) atheists say!

It's more rational to believe God create......crea....cre.....fu­ck.....FUCK

[TaiFerret]

I don't understand how anyone can take Kent Hovind seriously.

[someonenobodycares]

He probably enjoys telling Bubba, his cell mate, about creationism.

[samweiss4]

@pickle808 There is no evidence that the universe ever did not exist. And if it did not exist, there are several theories to how this happened. We have observed the spontaneous creation of particles due to the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. The odds of this happening for something as massive as the universe are extremely low, but as there would be an infinite amount of time all probabilities automatically become 1, therefore necessitating the creation of the universe.

[laserindie]

I for one welcome our red herring overlords 

[PixelSlayer247]

How many packs of cigarettes do you think i'd need to send out to severely harshen Mr. Hovind's treatment in prison?

[nublered]

and i always thought that the first law is

"you do NOT talk about thermodynamics"

BTW: where did the chemical potential head to?

[swordnquil]

@pickle808 And the fundamental point *you're* missing in your zeal is that I am talking about *semantics*. If energy cannot be CREATED, it cannot have a CREATOR. I don't care what that creator is or where it lives. If something cannot be created, it cannot, therefore, have someone or something that CREATED it.

If something CREATED energy, then it CAN be CREATED.

See how simple that is when you stick to the real topic of my post? Semantics? NOT theology?

[pickle808]

@swordnquil I think you're missing a fundamental point in your response. Lets say that there is a God (sounds like you don't believe so). Now if there is a God, then He must be superior to everything that He creates, or else He is not God. Therefore, if He created a universe, then He also created the Laws that govern this Universe. Again, this would make Him superior to the Laws that govern nature. Thus you are essentially saying that the creator MUST be governed by His creation.

[pickle808]

just explain to me this one concept. How does something come out of nothing? All anti-creationists seem to dance around this fundamental question.

[playadominical]

i don't think hovind really believes what he is saying. its just a con scheme.

[guitardrummer321]

The kid doing the commentary in this video is annoying as piss. He's so arrogant and didn't do anything but ramble on with his petty insults towards Kent Hovind. Big Bang is a joke.