Posted on 12/20/2010 7:19:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
You seem to think the process was hijacked way back then when they put the Earth in orbit around the Sun!
But don't worry, nobody is holding their breath waiting for you to catch up to the 1500’s!!!!
I’m certain that you know this from prior posts but I post it for the understanding of lurkers out there...
Christians and creationists are not anti-science. Much of modern-day science is going the way of the msm, public schools and the left. Ridicule anything contrary to their worldview. Mix truth w/ lies and repeat as often and as loudly as possible. Do not allow spirited and public discussions for God nor the Bible.
The history of science has been a quest to understand how God’s creation works. Most scientists from prior centuries were in a quest to ‘see the mind of God’ and unlock how things work. Most held to a Biblical worldview or at least a belief in God.
Modern-day science 1st co-opted and is now in the midst of completely dis-regarding any/all research by men of Biblical faith. Modern day science is almost completely secular/godless esp. in what is published (to do otherwise is often a career-ender).
Science aka logos is the logic explaining how things work ~ biology study of the logic of living things etc.
The big problem for the secular scientist is in ignoring God! i.e. trying to ignore the super-natural b/c it can’t be explained therefore let’s pretend it doesn’t exist. There will be an accounting for every word at the final judgement.
The other big lie: that creationists just throw up their arms at the tough problems and say a miracle occurred.
If it were not for these Godly men of science and their research the progress of science would be severly curtailed if the field were even to exist at all.
>> It is you that wishes to manipulate God, to agree with your humanist friends.<<
I manipulate God? Surely you jest. I accept that God is much bigger then the limited view of the world as we see it. You, on the other hand, restrict Him to the last 6000 years. I simply accept the view that He punished a world that existed in a form prior to the last 6000 years because of Lucifer’s rebellion and the falling away of the world “that then was”. I wouldn’t be surprise that this world, as we understand and see it, was re-created multiple times in eons past. You on the other hand don’t believe He did anything of significance or eternity is included in some time continuum within that last 6-7000 years.
You are the one who brought the 2L into this, claiming its applicability. Therefore, you need to show how it applies. I can then attempt to refute your equations. That's how science works.
While my skillet doesn't receive near that much energy from the burner, the scrambled eggs still just get cooked. No decrease in entropy there either.
First, let's get you straight: Entropy is the energy in a system that is not available for work. Using energy to do work increases entropy.
You added energy to your system (the burner/pan/egg) in the form of gas or electricity, you performed work (unfolding the proteins so they could bind water). The heat flowed from a place of higher temperature (burner) to a place of lower temperature (pan) to a place of even lower temperature (egg) as thermodynamics says. You turn off the burner. The pan remains hot, you can cook another egg (heat flows from higher-temp pan to lower-temp egg). But you can only do that until the energy available for work (in the form of a hot pan) has been used. Then no more eggs can be cooked. The entropy in your system increased so much that it can no longer do the work you want it to.
But here's the kicker: as long as the burner is on, the net entropy in the pan never increases since it is constantly replaced with new energy that can be used for work. You can cook eggs forever in your burner/pan/egg system, or at least until the external energy source runs out.
No, they've been using the 2L for a long time, thinking they were defending it properly. Then they finally had to admit their misapplication, so now they're saying not to use it anymore.
RE: “creationism”? What is that?
SOURCE: http://www.answers.com/topic/creationism
creationism n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
Denial ~ more than just a river. As I recall you brought up both the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics using this website - one that no one else here cares to defend...
Reminds me of the quote ~ ‘Never argue w/ an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you w/ experience.’
Absolutely not. You are the one who claimed you didn't have time to support your claim. You are the one w/ the weak (non-existent) comeback.
"To expect me to write a dissertation on a subject like that would take up more space in this forum and more of my time then practical. Given the ease of actually doing a study on the internet wouldn’t it be foolish for me to even bring it up if I hadn’t already had my Biblical reasons for the belief?"
Ah, moving the goalposts. No one asked you to write a dissertation. You're just plowing the field so that you can claim that anything you present (no matter how weak) is 'sufficient'.
"What a slap in the face of all the truly Christian Scientists out there. So you would say that any Christian school or College that teaches Science is what? Wrong, not Christian by your definition? What?"
Oh, now we get the 'I'm offended' drama. "...a slap in the face..." LOL! What utter boolsheit.
If you don't understand that science is purely naturalistic by definition and the Bible is supernatural by definition then you can put God into any naturalistic box that you choose. This is exactly what you do.
The statement by the creationist poster I responded to was absolutely antithetical to science.
I am a Christian and a scientist. Most scientists in the USA are people of faith in God.
Science cannot deal with supernatural causation. Once you get into supernatural causation you have left science (and usefulness and predictability) behind.
Just because a science paper doesn’t mention God doesn’t make it “godless”, it makes it scientific.
Is the theory of nuclear fusion “godless” because it doesn’t mention God?
Try again sparky. You are the one said, ""Show me an equation describing decreased entropy on Earth in the Earth/Sun system as violating the 2L. Put up or shut up." in post #62.
I merely pointed out that 'decreasing entropy' is the evolutionist POV and BrandMichael wasn't espousing that view. IOW, you asked him to prove your position and never realized it. You still haven't.
"But here's the kicker: as long as the burner is on, the net entropy in the pan never increases since it is constantly replaced with new energy that can be used for work. You can cook eggs forever in your burner/pan/egg system, or at least until the external energy source runs out."
And you'll never get those eggs to unscramble themselves (decrease the entropy). Dude, you are lost.
I used that web site as an example of creationists who finally got smart and gave up the misuse of the 2L. I know, others who aren't quite so smart continue to do it.
The Bible is supernatural yet you use it to explain dinosaurs? Israel is only supernatural? The entire history in the Bible is scientifically and geologically accurate yet you say it is “by definition” supernatural? Would you also argue that God does not exist in the natural or use the natural or that in fact He created the natural? You would argue that science can not help point to the greatness of God?
I would suggest that it is Satan who would not want us to understand just how great God really is by keeping us from understanding just how great this creation really is.
“Hmmm not very probable for evolution to leave anything that old as an exact replica of a modern-day ‘fossil - is it?”
—Among other differences, the known fossil Coelacanths are 1/3 as big as the extant Coelacanths; they were a shallow water fish, as opposed to the extant Coelacanths which are a deep sea fish; and while modern coelacanth give birth to live young, the ancient coelacanths may have instead laid eggs (although that still debated). That’s using “exact replica” rather loosely.
One thing people don’t often understand is that “Coelacanth” is not a species. Saying “Coelacanth” is not like saying “Canis lupus”, instead it’s like saying “Carnivora” (which includes dogs, wolves, bears, cats, seals, weasels, skunks, etc). “Coelacanth”, like Carnivora, or Primate, is an entire “Order”. For a species to survive 65 million years really would be something. But for an Order to survive that long, all that’s required is for there to be extant species that fit a certain broad description.
As for the mystery as to why there are no known fossils of the Coelacanth from the past 65 million years, well, it appears that the only members of the Order to survive the past 65 million years are deep sea representatives, in which case we really wouldn’t expect to find fossils.
> “You seem to think the process was hijacked way back then when they put the Earth in orbit around the Sun!”
.
Wanting to look foolish again?
Where the center is located, and what the orbital relationships are, are two completely different subjects, that you have demonstrated an inability to comprehend, and it is far beyond the purpose if this thread to educate you in relativistic physics. You won’t even take Albert Einstein’s word for it.
.
Science and its laws are equally the creations of God and the more one studies math and science the greater the appreciation for His works. I am content to disagree on HOW God created all, but not THAT God created all.
Still waiting for you to catch up to the 1500’s!
You are a geocetrist, which I find amusing; but even more amusing is when you try to DENY that you are a geocentrist.
Still waiting for you to tell me what force could drag the massive Sun around the tiny Earth while leaving the Earth motionless. Must be a magical force!
I ask because I can never know what definition of the term the speaker has in mind. Is it a person who believes in a creator, The Creator, creation is six 24 hour periods, creation in days of a longer period, intelligent design, Intelligent Design, etc.?
To me, the term “creationist” by its self has the same precision as the term “cook” or “worker”.
Yes, I definitely wrote that one wrong. My other comments show what I meant. He needs to show that decreased entropy in the Earth part of the system would violate the 2L given the huge amount of work-capable energy constantly entering Earth from the Sun. Entropy on Earth will never increase appreciably as long as that workable energy keeps pouring in.
BTW, that was post #106 in response for someone else who brought the 2L into the discussion.
And you'll never get those eggs to unscramble themselves (decrease the entropy).
Now you're talking about the chemical energy in your body that moved the fork to scramble the eggs. It is irrelevant whether the eggs can unscramble themselves. That is not a question thermodynamics answers. If you keep eating, if enough workable energy keeps entering your system to keep up with the rate of entropy, then you will keep being able to scramble more and more eggs. Stop eating, entropy increases, you no longer have the energy available to do the work of scrambling the eggs.
I think your problem is that you see the supernatural and the natural as mutually exclusive. While those who hold to a naturalist philosophy must necessarily exclude the supernatural by definition, a supernatural reality necessarily includes the natural as a subset of the total reality; it does not exclude it.
"I would suggest that it is Satan who would not want us to understand just how great God really is by keeping us from understanding just how great this creation really is."
It is obvious to me that satan confuses people's understanding by using the same trick that he used in the Garden. It was simple. "Did God really say...?" Placing doubt into the mind of humanity. In that case the answer was, "Yes, God really did say...".
The question and the answer are the same in this instance. A whole host of people have decided that God did not really say that he created the heavens and the earth in 6 days about 6,000 years ago as his Word clearly states.
It is a huge mistake to take the opinions of atheistic naturalists and use them as a standard of absolute truth that sits in judgment on the Word of God.
I don’t hold Creationist views, but I don’t see how all these past and many geological changes that so-called scientists promote could have all taken place in the roughly short 6,500 years since God created Earth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.