• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Sin, chaos, and entropy

You just got a D- in thermodynamics. And I will leave it at that.
So you've stopped the conversation. What was your problem with what he said? This? "The fridge takes the energy input and transfers it to a cooling effect that also causes the simultaneous release of heat (in its motor)"? Should he have been more complete and mentioned, besides the motor inefficiency that the majority of heat released was through the condenser radiator? If he's wrong, saying he's wrong does nothing. Show where he's wrong.
 
So you've stopped the conversation. What was your problem with what he said? This? "The fridge takes the energy input and transfers it to a cooling effect that also causes the simultaneous release of heat (in its motor)"? Should he have been more complete and mentioned, besides the motor inefficiency that the majority of heat released was through the condenser radiator? If he's wrong, saying he's wrong does nothing. Show where he's wrong.
He asserted that entropy was not applicable to open systems. The refrigerator is an open system. That open system alters the temperature of anything placed inside it to be consistent with the set temperature of the refrigerator. Normally that means that the temperature is reduced. In doing so the entropy is decreased. In an open system, the entropy may decrease, increase or remain unchanged. In a closed system, the entropy will either remain unchanged or will increase. It will not decrease.

Entropy is applicable to every system in which there is an energy transfer, open or closed. That is fundamental.
 
He asserted that entropy was not applicable to open systems. The refrigerator is an open system. That open system alters the temperature of anything placed inside it to be consistent with the set temperature of the refrigerator. Normally that means that the temperature is reduced. In doing so the entropy is decreased. In an open system, the entropy may decrease, increase or remain unchanged. In a closed system, the entropy will either remain unchanged or will increase. It will not decrease.

Entropy is applicable to every system in which there is an energy transfer, open or closed. That is fundamental.
Well, maybe you have a point. I should think that would depend on just where you draw the line at just what is a system, but oh, well. I apologize for correcting you..
 
Over the years, I have encountered a few Christians who relate entropy to sin and chaos. Is this justified?

I don't think so, at least not scientifically.

Given a system (e.g., a room, the planet, the universe), its entropy measures its thermodynamic state in units of J/K. When a system exists, its entropy exists and is theoretically measurable. Joules relates to dynamic energy; Kelvin relates to thermo temperature.

The second law of thermodynamics states that a system's entropy increases over time. No external physical force acts upon the closed system; it is just the nature of atoms and molecules residing inside the system.

Technically, entropy is not a force, and it does not measure the level of chaos either.

How do we understand the ratio J/K? What is this per Kelvin degree?

Given a system at any given time, its absolute entropy H is extremely difficult to calculate accurately. In solving practical problems, scientists often calculate ΔH, the change of entropy of the system over 2 instances of time, temperatures K1 at time 1 and K2 at time 2. When the temperature changes by 1 unit, Kevin, how much of the thermodynamic energy has changed? This is the unit J⋅K−1.

There is God who one day will put a stop to the current chaos and sin we observe on planet Earth. Still, the scientific measure of entropy may still continue. It measures the thermodynamic state of a closed system. It does not technically measure the amount of chaos or sin in the system.


Tony, I'm not allowed to mention my journal, but I think you would appreciate what it is trying to say about creation. I believe that the biblical phrase 'spreading out' (Job, Psalms, Isaiah), has to do with a mass explosion before Day 1. This is what gives the distant universe its lifeless, random feature. I can support this with details about Gen 1:2 and the vocab of the entire chapter. I still regard the creation week as found; I'm referring to pre-conditions.

I even have the exact celestial mechanical problem remaining to solve, and perhaps you can help. If 'illumination' arriving Day 1 is starlight, or at least the visual confirmation of Centauri, our nearest neighbor, so that a person would know 24 hours past (not that there were people yet), then that is, in normal LYs, 4 years prior to Day 1. Then the question is what amount of time passed between the said explosion and Centauri's locating 'here' near a water-covered fragment now called earth? Not much I think.

Factors: explosions have sharp declines in energy immediately.

Upside: those who believe in a BB are often convinced that there had to be a Cause (God). But the rigid and rote treatment of Gen 1 cannot reach them. I hope this view will.

As Dr. Lennox says, the text clearly starts each day with God's spoken order for the day. That means the conditions described in 1:2 are before that, in an indefinite amount time.
 
Just about anything, but particularly the fields of natural science.


Yes, and this is why I started my journal, which I am not allowed to name here. There is something unnatural, magical, overly miraculous about how Gen 1 is usually handled and it pushes STEM people away.

I am in correspondence with Creation Research Society, but they only allow STEM scientists to vote, and I am not. My background is in language and literature. I believe apologetics must spend more time on the actually vocab of the text, and its custody, and its structure. Too many times it is treated as only a quick 'punchlist' type of transcript to view quickly for a quick yes-no answer on any given question. As soon as I mention a little lifeless random features that exist before Day 1 they press alarm bells about sin and death being there before creation, because they have been told that one answer over and over (it does apply to their question, not my scenario!).
 
Tony, I'm not allowed to mention my journal, but I think you would appreciate what it is trying to say about creation. I believe that the biblical phrase 'spreading out' (Job, Psalms, Isaiah), has to do with a mass explosion before Day 1. This is what gives the distant universe its lifeless, random feature. I can support this with details about Gen 1:2 and the vocab of the entire chapter. I still regard the creation week as found; I'm referring to pre-conditions.

I even have the exact celestial mechanical problem remaining to solve, and perhaps you can help. If 'illumination' arriving Day 1 is starlight, or at least the visual confirmation of Centauri, our nearest neighbor, so that a person would know 24 hours past (not that there were people yet), then that is, in normal LYs, 4 years prior to Day 1. Then the question is what amount of time passed between the said explosion and Centauri's locating 'here' near a water-covered fragment now called earth? Not much I think.

Factors: explosions have sharp declines in energy immediately.

Upside: those who believe in a BB are often convinced that there had to be a Cause (God). But the rigid and rote treatment of Gen 1 cannot reach them. I hope this view will.

As Dr. Lennox says, the text clearly starts each day with God's spoken order for the day. That means the conditions described in 1:2 are before that, in an indefinite amount time.
Thanks That's interesting .Indefinite amount.

As a blessing of God I am no scientist . It would seem day one, infinite God introduces invisible presence as Light in order to begin his parable "the pursuit of a wife" . Light, camera, action. Show time LOL

God divided or gave the light of his understanding and the created darkness. . hiding the spiritual understanding . Called a "God who hides himself". whose name is jealous He owns all things. It would seem to me revealed his understanding in the light of parables the figurative speech

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Genesis 1 Day 2. The moving of the living water .Not hoary frost of heaven ice vapor as in the absence of heat. Separated water or vapor coming up from earth as a fog from above. It would seem to filter out the direct rays of the Sun. Not a cloud in the sky until after the flood .

The believers as sons of God had become unevenly yoked with unredeemed mankind God no longer used them as a witness inspired from earth they no longer shared his glory with dying mankind and gave us a sign as a rainbow . The the age expectance 80 was established

Genesis 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Christ declarers of his children, they are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. and then the new heaven and earth appear .

In another parable confirming the sign of the rainbow the true gaiety (salvation).

Truth divided from or inspired from above falling (moving) like rain or any form of water . transparent or translucence.

”Deuteronomy 32King James Version32 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:

The living water of the living word.
 
Upside: those who believe in a BB are often convinced that there had to be a Cause (God). But the rigid and rote treatment of Gen 1 cannot reach them. I hope this view will.
I can read this to take you to either believe, or not believe, that if there was a big bang, there had to be a cause.
 
I can read this to take you to either believe, or not believe, that if there was a big bang, there had to be a cause.

Of course there had to be and I hope those scientists who realize there must be a cause of a BB will see this in Scripture and believe God set it in motion.

Last I read, the BB has created more philosophic problems than ever!
 
Of course there had to be and I hope those scientists who realize there must be a cause of a BB will see this in Scripture and believe God set it in motion.

Last I read, the BB has created more philosophic problems than ever!
I have no doubt that many scientists who believe in the big bang willingly credit its cause to God. I know some who do. But, they cannot do that scientifically since, science being the study of the physical realm and not the spiritual realm, God is not scientifically treatable.
 
I have no doubt that many scientists who believe in the big bang willingly credit its cause to God. I know some who do. But, they cannot do that scientifically since, science being the study of the physical realm and not the spiritual realm, God is not scientifically treatable.

I don't know what that means. It seems to mean that if you read Gen 1 and saw the term 'earth' it would not be the earth. If you saw the term 'land' it would not be the land. If you saw the term 'oceans' it would not be the oceans.
 
I don't know what that means. It seems to mean that if you read Gen 1 and saw the term 'earth' it would not be the earth. If you saw the term 'land' it would not be the land. If you saw the term 'oceans' it would not be the oceans.
And I don't know what you are getting at. In the Hebrew, the term earth is from "erets" and the term land is from "erets" and the term country is from "erets".
 
And I don't know what you are getting at. In the Hebrew, the term earth is from "erets" and the term land is from "erets" and the term country is from "erets".

I'm getting at a reliable text that has a custody we can trace back to Day 6, Adam not being alive before that day. Yes, he meant the land that was submerged and then brought 'out' or 'formed out' like Peter says in 2P3 like pottery.

You said there was not a scientific aspect. But in literature and archeology, you deal with texts and their custody as ongoing evidence, right? There is actually nothing 'spiritual' about the text except the Spirit being there, and the 'signs' of vs 14-16. It is predominantly natural phenomenon being described moment by moment. Which makes it highly testable and reliable.
 
I'm getting at a reliable text that has a custody we can trace back to Day 6, Adam not being alive before that day. Yes, he meant the land that was submerged and then brought 'out' or 'formed out' like Peter says in 2P3 like pottery.

You said there was not a scientific aspect. But in literature and archeology, you deal with texts and their custody as ongoing evidence, right? There is actually nothing 'spiritual' about the text except the Spirit being there, and the 'signs' of vs 14-16. It is predominantly natural phenomenon being described moment by moment. Which makes it highly testable and reliable.
The results of God's actions may well be testable. God, Himself, is not. What God has produced may well be testable. Whether or not it was God that produced it is not.
 
Back
Top