This did not come about by chance...

I can't solve your hate for Christians.

Besides, I'm far more interested in the amazing progress we're making on understanding our physical world.

 

Here is a link to a Christian Website that details how Evolution is a fact and that fact does not conflict with one's belief in a GOD.

BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.

LINK....http://biologos.org/

AboveAlpha

 

How did you come up with that I hate Christians?

You seem to be more interested in looking for ways to spin your own man-made religious faith over science.

 

I'm not very interested in religion. I know something of Christianity as I was brought up that way and thus studied it to some extent.

Like it or not, Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination, hailing back to St. Peter. Protestantism is an offshoot of that - an offshoot that is quite splintered. By the time they came along, it had already been decided what would be in the Bible and what would NOT be in the Bible.

My interest is with science. Our national lack of science understanding is a serious problem today. As a nation, we've moved away from manufacturing and our competition with the rest of the world lies more with information that it did in the past. Also, our lack of science is affecting national decision making on a wide variety of issues.

We need to get FAR more unified behind and educated about science. We need to understand that that represents NO threat to any rational approach to religion, as religion is a different realm that can not be affected by science.

As it turns out, both the pope and Einstein agree with this separation - a separation where attempts to use arguments from one side to affect the other side are always going to be serious blunders.

 

As well there would not even exist a New and Old Testament if the Roman Imperial Biblical Canon had not created it.

AboveAlpha

 

Wrong as usual. MAN MADE perpetual motion machines are not possible, but as I pointed out to you already, which went in one ear and out the other, the SLoT allows entropy to equal ZERO!!! Any system with an entropy of zero will not run down, and it's a good thing too because if entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist!

Remember this? "S" is the physics symbol for entropy.

 

Biologos is a group who preaches intelligent design - the notion that evolution (as well as every other aspect of our universe) is and always has been actively guided through every stage by their God. That is, that God performed many of the steps between some inception and what we have today.

Biologos believes that some evolution has taken place. But, they pick and choose places where their hypothesis is "we don't understand it, therefore God did it" - thus it is NOT SCIENCE.

 

Oh I agree.

It is just refreshing to see a Christian Group that agrees Evolution is a reality.

AboveAlpha

 

I would. When everything gets sucked into a giant black hole and space contracts into a tiny bubble, bringing all the electromagnetic energy in the universe into a single coherent wave.

Or what if it were possible to place a solar panel in the middle of a region heated to the temperature of the sun? Within that region, could not entropy be said to decrease?

 

Yes, I certainly agree.

On further memory, I recall that Biologos made a presentation to the American Scientific Affiliation several years back, and it made it to the ASA podcasts - which may not even exist anymore as I look at itunes. I just happened to come across it when I was curious about what the ASA might be thinking these days. My dad used to hold a minor office in the ASA - a group of scientists who are Christians and who take the Bible as authority on all matters of faith and believe our universe may be explored through unadulterated science. They get together to talk about a wide range of issues that involve Christianity and science..

Biologos struggles with the problem of science education for Christian fundamentalists. They've tried different approaches. The podcast made it seem like they would prefer to be consistent with the ASA direction of science for exploration of our universe and the Bible for authority on faith, but just haven't found a way to be successful in reaching a fundamentalist Christian audience without making some amount of accommodation for the idea that the Bible is also an ultimate authority on our physical world.

So, what can a guy say about that? I don't agree with what they are teaching, but on the other hand they may be exposing people to science when they would otherwise see science as blasphemy or evil - individuals who will at some point make the final leap that the magic of "god did it" isn't acceptable in science and who will learn that "I don't know" is the only legit answer when one doesn't know.

Or, at least that's what I hope Biologos is doing - so I'm writing this as Biologos may not be quite as bad as I said before when I just read their web site.

 

Evolutionary theory does not fully suggest that life evolved randomly, or by chance.
HOWEVER, Chance and randomness are a big part of evolution and life's overall history. That said, some of evolution's 'machinery' in theory and according to 'science' is non-random. This allows the overall process, ie evolution as a whole to be seen as non-random process. Convenient eh? Dammed convenient I say.

reva

 

How do you arrive at that conclusion? God haters and activist atheists love the usually self arrived conclusion that the canonizations were corruptions of the bible that came before it. They give little or most of the time no evidence to support such claims. So I consider such claims are far more suspect than was 'Constantin's bible' which was a version vetted by what was then the best minds of science and philosophy.

reva

 

Has you forgotten about that big glowing ball in the sky that is loosing entropy at the rate of 3.3x10^31 Joules per day?

 

Big bang is not a perpetual motion machine, quite the opposite!

According to big bang theory, in distant future the universe will end up in a heat death, with enormous entropy, filled only with radiation, with most matter sucked into black holes and then reemitted as Hawking radiation. So everything will decay and deteriorate. Alternatively, if cosmological constant (dark energy accelerating the expansion) remains positive, the universe will end up in a big rip scenario, where all is pulled apart, decayed and disordered. In a way, this would be the return towards the inflationary period of early universe, although that parallel is speculative and well beyond my knowledge so take it with a load of salt.

Matter deteriorating (entropy increasing) is part of the big bang paradigm.

All your thermodynamic objections do apply to a steady state universe, not the big bang. That was the real opposition of creationism, the real perpetuum mobile, and we now know it is demonstrably wrong. Big bang really is a type of creationism, it plainly says the universe as we know it had a beginning. Thats why the catholics have no issue with it, even embraced it, and so should you. Unless you are a hardcore crackpot and a religious fundamentalist, that is. Which you are.

 

Conveniently accurate...

 

I have been a Christian for 34 years and attended church for 30 years prior to that. I am no way a theologian and am not arguing my faith versus science. I attended 14 years of structured education and was thoroughly indoctrinated into what can only be described as the religion (in the strictest definition) of evolution. As a child in Sunday School I heard the Bible stories, geared towards my young age.

What I am debating is the plethora of scientific discovery in the past 200 years, especially in the past 20 years that confirms the Genesis accounts of Creation and the Noahic Flood. The science does not support Darwinism and most contradicts most of what is taught as 'fact'.

I resent lies being taught as fact in science, politics, history and medicine for the purpose of changing our political structure to a top down sovereignty as opposed to liberty. The goals Karl Marx wrote down of how to destroy Western political liberty included subverting and ultimately destroying all religious faith with evolution, homosexuality loose moral values, etc. through the public schools and the media. This is where the big push is coming from, in the opinion of many, for the flawed evolutionary doctrine. So many honest and decent folks are unwittingly believing the 'authorities' of science, politics, media and philosophy and, like the man-on-the-street interviews we laugh at on U-Tube of the uninformed voters, most of our society are like lemmings falling into the sea.

Future generation will look back and see these past 150 years of Darwinism and wonder how could we have believed in 'mud puddle to man' just as we now marvel at the nonbeliever's insistence of a flat-earth, blood letting medicine, mice spawned from spoiled bread, etc.

Science is defined as knowledge, regardless of the religious faith or lack of faith by the people who make the discoveries. Shunning any scientific evidence because it does not fit into the predefined model is tantamount to scientific communism, silencing any voice which does not agree rather than attempting to falsify the discovery.

I am still waiting for any empirical data that validates the Darwinist belief for that model of creation and life. The conjecture of a big bang is in itself a supernatural supposition (outside of nature) as are the opinion of life from rocks, billions of years and man from amoeba. This places evolution into the strictest definition of a religious belief, more exactly a blind-faith in this as a viable model for our existence. Remember this all has the stated designed to explain who we are and why we are here without God, it's not about science (knowledge). Evolution falls into the same category as the other junk-science we have foisted on us for the past 50 years of more and more dangerously it is used to justify racism (light skinned people are more highly evolved than the ape-men looking dark skinned people) and immorality (we are only animals and it's acceptable to act as animals).

When any science is presented and the scientist is not recognized as an evolutionist, the research is dismissed immediately without review. I can understand that mindset from the members here simply defending what they have been taught as true, but the same illogic occurs with the Darwinist scientists, maybe to protect their own research, maybe to protect their source of grant money, maybe they are true believers, apostles of Darwin (Dawkins, Nye). Many, many honest scientists have abandoned the model of evolution for Creation or intelligent design, some have made attempts to blend the two models to 'save face' for their past beliefs.

I can only try to convince someone to think for themselves and look at the possible alternative to their dogmatic faith in what is quickly becoming a failed model.

 

What you continually fail to provide is a real life example of your calculations as evidence this is more than scrawlings on a computer screen.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice fairy tales, but 100% conjecture. Want to try again?

 

Since the laws of physics do not apply, as you stated, then the big bang would have been a supernatural event (beyond nature). The 1LoT and 2LoT must be nullified for the production of all space, time and matter from "..nothing, literally nothing.." also for spontaneous generation/ abiogenesis to occur and then again for the increase in complexity (decrease in entropy and design without a designer, selection without an intelligence decision).

Increase in entropy would have wound down the systems billions of years ago, which astronomers are able observe and measure today.

 

First of all, I provided a link to exactly how the SLoT was derived.

And if you want a real world example, since you obviously consider mater a real world example, I don't know what would satisfy you as a real world example.

Would a stable atom meet your standard as a real world system with an entropy of zero? If you don't know, an atom is a system with a positively charged nucleus and one or more orbiting electrons. If the orbiting electrons lost energy due to an increase their entropy, they would not be able to maintain their orbit and would be drawn into the nucleus splitting it and no matter could exist.

I already explained this to you in this thread and asked you if matter does in fact exist. Obviously it doesn't in your "real" world.

 

That is not the formal equation for entropy. S=kln(A) where A is the configuration or state space and k is boltzmann's constant. For entropy to be zero there must be only 1 way (A=1) to reconfigure the observables of the system. Entropy can indeed be zero in a closed system that only has one possible configuration of its observables, but most systems including the universe do not have this property. The existence of matter is independent of entropy. Contrary to popular belief thermodynamics is simply the combinatorial consequences of many interacting elements, these elements themselves being matter, energy, momentum, angular momentum, spin, etc. However, as we have seen the existence of entropy is indeed dependent on matter and all other constituencies of nature.

How order arises out of disorder lies at the very heart of combinatorics, the mathematical underpinning of thermodynamics. In fact in has been proven using Ramsey Theory that complete disorder is fundamentally impossible and in sufficiently large enough systems order is inevitable.

 

Energy is NOT "nothing, literally nothing."
Energy IS "something, literally something."

 

It is the formal equation for the SLoT, not entropy. It is the SLoT that says the change in entropy in a closed system is greater than or equal to zero.

http://theory.physics.manchester.ac.uk/~judith/stat_therm/node29.html

 

What you provided was calculations and suppositions, not location a scientist can use to falsify your supposition. Face it, the universe is itself a closed system, and even if it isn't, Kelvin made no distinction. Are you a greater scientist than Lord Kelvin?

- - - Updated - - -

What was it before it was?

 

Kelven isn't God, even if you could understand him, which you can't. And it is not a supposition, it is the proven SLoT.

It was energy, always was, is now, and always will be energy in the same total quantity. Only the form can change.

 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was derived before we had a formal description of entropy which requires quantum mechanics, which is what you linked. However to really understand entropy you need to know the derivation using Einstein Solids. http://micro.stanford.edu/~caiwei/me334/Chap7_Entropy_v04.pdf