Here is the first place that you mentioned formulas regarding God's words. Do you need these formulas or not to explain your understanding of God's interaction with His creation?
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!
- Thread starter ThisIsMyUserName
- Start date
Here is the first place that you mentioned formulas regarding God's words. Do you need these formulas or not to explain your understanding of God's interaction with His creation?
genuineoriginal
New member
It is obvious that your inability to reason is what caused you to look so foolish in the discussion about the first law of thermodynamics. :chuckle:
I claimed that God's interaction with His creation was not based on the relationship between heat and work (thermo - dynamics), which is the first law of thermodynamics.
You made the false claim that E=mc2 was part of the first law of thermodynamics because you are too stupid to understand the difference between thermodynamics and Special Relativity.
I spent way too much time trying to point out why they are not the same, which took us away from the original point that God creating matter was not based on the relationship between heat and work.
It is obvious that you were trying to claim that God creating matter was adding mass to the universe and that your obvious misunderstanding of the conservation of energy, conservation of mass, and special relativity made you think that could not be done.
The first problem is that you are assuming that the universe is a closed system.
I pointed out right away that the universe is an open system to God.
The second problem is that you are assuming that God is using energy or mass to create energy or mass.
I pointed out that God's Word is neither energy nor mass, but is something different that is not constrained by the natural interactions between energy and mass that we are able to observe.
Since the universe is not closed to God's word and God's word is neither energy nor mass, God is able to create additional energy and mass in our universe without violating the conservation of energy, without violating the conservation of mass, without using Special Relativity, and without violating the first law of thermodynamics (the relationship between heat and work).
genuineoriginal
New member
That was obvious from the start.
Psalm 14:1 1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. |
genuineoriginal
New member
This one:
Genesis 1:21 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. |
Have you found any good way to reconcile your belief in the infallibility of atheistic science with the statements from the Bible that God is the creator of the universe?
Your answer reduces to magic.
Wow. Talk about loaded questions! I'll ignore your snark and address the issue.
Science and faith are opposite sides of the same coin. Science explorers how God's creation works while faith deals more with the why we are here aspect of life. I was created in God's image. That means that I have the ability to observe, quantify, and understand the workings of the universe. Our understanding may be incomplete but we can build power plants and send people to the moon and use genetics to greatly increase crop yields. God created the universe and, necessarily, all the of the rules by which that creation operates. Rather impressive as far as I'm concerned. Science is just the study of the natural laws that God created. I do not now nor have I ever believed that the Bible is a science book intended to accurately describe the workings of the universe. The Bible is the history of God's interaction with men and foundation of morality.
genuineoriginal
New member
My beliefs match what you have stated here, but we find ourselves at odds when discussing God actually doing any of the acts of creation that the Bible attribute to Him.
genuineoriginal
New member
Do I need the formulas?
No, I have no problem with God creating matter and energy with His Word, knowing that God's Word is neither matter nor energy as science would define it.
Weren't you the one that was demanding a way to force God's creation of matter and energy to be regulated by the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass?
If you feel no need to come up with any equations governing God's interaction with His creation then quit attempting to use science to prove that God exists. When you do so it becomes a special pleading and always ends badly for you in terms of credibility when speaking with people who deal science and engineering on a daily biases. The difference between us is that you believe that God interacts with His creation through Magic. I believe that God interacts with His creation using the natural laws He created.
No. There is a period in time, at the very beginning of things, the Big Bang, when the laws of physics as we understand them simply did not exist. We have now way to examine that instant in time just before and just after things went bang. I never demanded that a way to force God to do anything. I do believe that God works within His creation according to the laws He created that govern how His creation works.
genuineoriginal
New member
Here are some things to consider before refining the definition of entropy:
1) Thermodynamic entropy is about the dispersal of energy, not about disorder, therefore order is not the opposite of thermodynamic entropy. See: Teaching Entropy Is Simple — If You Discard "Disorder"
2) Statistical entropy is a measure of the number of possible microscopic states (or microstates) of a system in thermodynamic equilibrium, consistent with its macroscopic thermodynamic properties (or macrostate).
3) Informational entropy is a term taken from statistical entropy for the measure of the number of possible microscopic states (or microstates) of the data in a channel between a source and a receiver. The theory was developed by electrical engineer Claude Shannon to mathematically quantify the statistical nature of "lost information" in phone-line signals.
4) The term entropy is often used in popular language to denote a variety of unrelated phenomena. One example is the concept of corporate entropy as put forward somewhat humorously by authors Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister in their 1987 classic publication Peopleware, a book on growing and managing productive teams and successful software projects. Here, they view energy waste as red tape and business team inefficiency as a form of entropy, i.e. energy lost to waste.
To avoid the logical fallacy of equivocation, we need a definition for entropy that would be shared by both sided in a discussion of Evolution. This definition could be based on statistical entropy in the same way that informational entropy is based on it, but would have to use the term entropy as it is used in popular language.
We cannot claim to be referring to the second law of thermodynamics when discussing entropy and evolution, since that is equivocation.
We have to take the notion of the origin of life out of the discussion of entropy and evolution.
Here is a definition I believe is useful:
Evolutionary entropy is referring to number of possible states that would the prevention of the biological process of reproduction. Low evolutionary entropy means there is little to prevent an organism from reproducing and having offspring. High evolutionary entropy would mean there are so many factors that could prevent an organism from reproducing and having offspring that extinction is the most probable outcome. Evolutionary entropy includes everything that has been identified as causing extinction in any species as well as everything that has caused individual organisms to die without producing any offspring. The amount of evolutionary entropy in a species is the average of the evolutionary entropy in the entire population of the species.
genuineoriginal
New member
You are the one that needs equations.
It is the biases of the people that use science and engineering on a daily basis that prevents them from accepting the truth that a supernatural God uses supernatural means to interact with the creation that He created using those same supernatural means.
I believe what the Bible states about how God created the universe and how God interacts with His creation. You believe God is limited by the natural laws of the universe and that God cannot do anything that supersedes those natural laws, such as granting eternal life to those that believe in His name, since that would require God to use "magic".
You want to limit God's supernatural powers to a time you believe is almost 13 billion years ago and prevent Him from any use of those supernatural powers since that time?
I am not convinced that your definition is helpful. I don't know that it adds to the conversation. If you are going to discuss evolution at molecular level then there are specific branches of science that deal with that. If you are going to discuss specifically what happens with genes and their mutations then there are branches that deal with that. If you are going to deal with evolution at the organism level then there area branches that deal with that. Each branch is different and has it own specific jargon that needs to be clearly understood so that there is clarity in communication. I do not think that your definition adds that clarity.
genuineoriginal
New member
I would like a rational discussion on the subject instead of the one you are describing, which always ends up like this:
genuineoriginal
New member
This the best definition of entropy to consider when discussing evolution because it focuses on the actual problem identified by Creationists: the effects of random mutations will result in evolutionary dead ends in overwhelming numbers, preventing the evolution of species from a common ancestor from ever happening. The more mutations that occur, the greater the likelihood of producing an evolutionary dead end. The more specialized a species is, the greater the likelihood that minor changes in the environment will exterminate that species.
I would like a rational discussion on the subject instead of the one you are describing, which always ends up like this:
That may be the best you can hope for if you lack the nesticcary technical background. At some point the conversation well advance to a point that you are no longer able to understand.
genuineoriginal
New member
The real problem is so-called experts not being able to see the extinction of the forest because they are too invested in studying the ancestral alleles of a tree.
Jose Fly
New member
Where exactly did creationists "identify" this alleged problem? I've seen many creationists claim that it exists, but beyond that.....
I don't think the boundary issue is necessary.
The challenge to evolution is from entropy, not from thermodynamics. A local decrease in entropy is possible, but in such cases, the process is describable and reasonable.
When it comes to the proposal that fish evolved into people, Darwinists need to describe how their energy source adds information to a population's genome.
They only have their assertion that random mutations and natural selection can do it, which is begging the question.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
You might want to bounce that accusation off of CabinetMaker again who said:
“As far as I can see, you are the only attempting to accuse somebody of making that argument”, (“Did they teach it to you correctly, or did they claim conservation of energy, conservation of mass, and the Theory of Special Relativity are all parts of the First Law of Thermodynamics?” – genuineoriginal, post #328, and again below.). “What Silent Hunter is pointing out is the implications of those laws. What he says is correct.” – post #332
I’ve pointed out time and again, the FLoT explains considerably more than your simplistic, uninformed, uneducated, first-phrase-that-caught-my-attention understanding. The FLoT also, among a few other things, describes the conservation of energy and its corollary, the conservation of mass (if you don’t know what “corollary” means, I suggest you look it up).
I never, ever claimed Einstein’s equation, E = mc2 was a part of the FLoT or any other law of thermodynamics. If I did I would appreciate you quoting the portion of the post, with post #, where I did so.
Einstein’s equation, E = mc2 can be rearranged to derive, m = E/c2, the mass (matter) – energy equivalence. Einstein’s equation, among other things, says energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable.
Since one of the qualities directly described by the FLoT is the conservation of energy (in a closed system) the corollary, the conservation of mass (matter) is proved by Einstein’s equation, which is all I have ever claimed it does.
Try this:
You might want to bounce that accusation off of CabinetMaker again who said:
“As far as I can see, you are the only attempting to accuse somebody of making that argument”, (“Did they teach it to you correctly, or did they claim conservation of energy, conservation of mass, and the Theory of Special Relativity are all parts of the First Law of Thermodynamics?” – genuineoriginal, post #328, and again below.),. “What Silent Hunter is pointing out is the implications of those laws. What he says is correct.” – post #332
Not even close. The original point was your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity violated/violates a fundamental principle of the FLoT, energy and mass/matter in a closed system cannot be created (added) or destroyed (removed), they can only change state.
The Universe is a closed system. It’s a little difficult to add to “everything that exists” without violating the FLoT. THIS was the “original point” of our conversation btw.
Why do you keep saying special relativity is part of the FLoT? It never has been, it isn’t, it never will be, and I’ve never claimed otherwise. As to the conservation of energy and the conservation of mass, I’ll let CabinetMaker tell you again, “What Silent Hunter is pointing out is the implications of those laws. What he says is correct.” – post #332
Since when does “THE Universe” not describe everything that exists? The outer boundary of everything that exists must, I think, be a closed system. Where would you draw the outer boundary of everything that exists?
I pointed out right away how and why this assertion is special pleading.
This is not something I have argued because it is a ridiculous argument. Using energy or mass to create energy or mass doesn’t, in my opinion, violate the FLoT as long as the quantities do not add to or subtract from the system.
I don’t recall this being a part of our conversation but I do remember it being in the conversation you were/are having with CabinetMaker. He called it “special pleading”; I happen to agree with him.
Aside from special pleading, not understanding why you can’t add energy and/or mass to a closed system in relation to the FLoT (even though open to your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity, another case of special pleading btw), and moving the goalposts, you’ve put together a rather convincing argument for why you don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about.
genuineoriginal
New member
You are not going to get away with the logical fallacy of Equivocation in this discussion.
In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.
The first law of thermodynamics is not the law of conservation of energy, it is a subset of that law.
The law of conservation of energy is not the first law of thermodynamics, it is a superset of that law.
If you want to speak of the law of conservation of energy, use the right name and do not use equivocation.
You made the claim that Einstein's equation E = mc2 is part of the first law of thermodynamics right there for everyone to see. :chuckle:
You did it by algebraically rearranging the equation in order to use it to create the concept of conservation of mass and added it to the first law of thermodynamics.
:rotfl: :darwinsm:
God creating the universe is a foundational belief in Christianity and Judaism.
From Genesis to Revelation the Bible tells us that God made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them.
Acts 14:15 15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, |
Universe
The Universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, and all other forms of matter and energy.
The Universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, and all other forms of matter and energy.
God is not included in the definition of the universe.
Stop equivocating.