Bible science parallels

Festus

ISAW wrote: »

"points to" "suggests that" ?

and if the surface was all molten in the Hadel Period how did water exist on it?

around it as steam perhaps? or in the dust model as discussed in NS ?

ISAW

Festus wrote: »

around it as steam perhaps? or in the dust model as discussed in NS ?

Hmmm interesting. I havent read the paper. what volumen of atmosphere at what temperature would have enough steam to condense into all the oceans on earth and all the ice caps?

Monty Burnz

ISAW wrote: »

That is out of order. In fact large parts of science ignore other fields as well. Suggesting religion is without reASON as opposed to SCIENCE which is TOTALLY CONSISTENT IS nonsense.

I think that what you said is out of order. Science does not ignore anything. It may not know something, or existing knowledge from different fields may not be integrated, but it's ridiculous to imply that certain fields of science deliberately ignore others - unless you can supply verifiable exmples of course.

On the other hand, absolute faith in something unprovable is illogical - unless you can give me a good logical reason why I should believe something that you cannot prove?

As I stated earlier in the thread, I'm not knocking religion per se, I'm basically saying that looking for science in religion is to conflate two totally different spheres of human endeavour which will never be reconciled.

We'll have to agree to disagree I think.

Festus

ISAW wrote: »

Hmmm interesting. I havent read the paper. what volumen of atmosphere at what temperature would have enough steam to condense into all the oceans on earth and all the ice caps?

It's more about the water molecules being so tightly bound to the dust that high temperatures cannot shift them

According to the models, the dust grains should be able to hold onto water at temperatures up to 630 °C - high enough for them to have retained it during Earth's formation (Chemical Communications, DOI: 10.1039/C0CC02312D).
"Some of the Earth's water probably came from this source, and quite possibly most of it," says co-author Michael Drake of the University of Arizona, Tucson. As the planet coalesced from the dust, pressures and temperatures would have grown high enough to detach the water from the grains, freeing it up to become streams and oceans.

If we examine how many water molecules can bind to a dust grain and then extrapulate as to the number of dust particles involved in the Earths formation, take into consideration the dust particles that now form parts of the Earths crust and ocean floors it's probably not much of a stretch for this to account for the majority of the water existing since the earths formation as part of the earths formation with some arriving containing a deuterium load later.

ISAW

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think that what you said is out of order. Science does not ignore anything.

Scientists do as do religious people. Your categorisation of "religion" as unreasonable prompts the same reification of "science."

It may not know something, or existing knowledge from different fields may not be integrated, but it's ridiculous to imply that certain fields of science deliberately ignore others - unless you can supply verifiable exmples of course.

social science has avoided accepting objective science in the science wars. Much Postmodern science ( or the philopophy of the practitioners) holds to relativist philosophies and constructivism and the like.

On the other hand, absolute faith in something unprovable is illogical - unless you can give me a good logical reason why I should believe something that you cannot prove?

so should Kaku not believe in wormholes or parallel universes?
Should people not believe in the Higges Bozon?
And what about Fermats last Theorem or the Riemann conjecture. Were they both illogical to believe as solvable?

As I stated earlier in the thread, I'm not knocking religion per se,

You are if you say it is unreasonable.

We'll have to agree to disagree I think.

Not good enough.
It's religious. That's how it works: you need to switch off large parts of your brain. is out of order! it is claiming being religious is unreasonable!

ISAW

Festus wrote: »

It's more about the water molecules being so tightly bound to the dust that high temperatures cannot shift them




If we examine how many water molecules can bind to a dust grain and then extrapulate as to the number of dust particles involved in the Earths formation, take into consideration the dust particles that now form parts of the Earths crust and ocean floors it's probably not much of a stretch for this to account for the majority of the water existing since the earths formation as part of the earths formation with some arriving containing a deuterium load later.

It is here. I only gave it the once over. http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/people/faculty/drake_papers/Abeetal2000.pdf

Im not convinced because the percentages are low. The discovery of asteoid belt ice blocks also make me doubt it. But it is plausible.

Monty Burnz

ISAW wrote: »

Scientists do as do religious people. Your categorisation of "religion" as unreasonable prompts the same reification of "science."

What?

ISAW wrote: »

social science has avoided accepting objective science in the science wars. Much Postmodern science ( or the philopophy of the practitioners) holds to relativist philosophies and constructivism and the like.

Nonsense. I work in social science - any science relative to what I do, I will use (statistics, computer modelling etc). If it's not relevant, I can't use it. I don't 'reject' any knowledge.

ISAW wrote: »

so should Kaku not believe in wormholes or parallel universes?
Should people not believe in the Higges Bozon?
And what about Fermats last Theorem or the Riemann conjecture. Were they both illogical to believe as solvable?

I've no idea what you are arguing here, but I'm guessing it's a straw man. I presume you are aware of Kuhn's ideas on paradigm shifts, this stuff is pretty obvious. I'm not sure what you are talking about re. Fermat or Riemann, it reads like English is not your first language so apologies if I miss your point there.

ISAW wrote: »

It's religious. That's how it works: you need to switch off large parts of your brain. is out of order! it is claiming being religious is unreasonable!

You still have not explained to me why it is logical for me to believe in your God when you can't prove he exists. And why I should not believe in all the other gods whose evidence of existence is equally compelling. Instead, I propose that you make a leap of faith when you subscribe to a religion. You will notice that people generally adopt the same religion as those around them: this leap of faith is made easier when other people around you and those before you have made the same leap. Thus most people in this country are Christian; most people in Saudi Arabia are Muslims.

If subscribing to - say - Christianity proceeds from logic, why do many religious people subscribe to other religions?

Festus

ISAW wrote: »

It is here. I only gave it the once over. http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/people/faculty/drake_papers/Abeetal2000.pdf

Im not convinced because the percentages are low. The discovery of asteoid belt ice blocks also make me doubt it. But it is plausible.

Plausibility can be enough.
Though the authors seem to go beyond plausible and say

It seems inescapable that most of the water currently in
Earth arrived as part of the primary accretion process and
was not delivered subsequen to accretion through impacts
of comets and hydrous asteroids. Therefore, the behavior
of water during accretion and primary differentiation into
core, mantle, crust, hydrosphere, and atmosphere must be
reconsidered

Sorry ISAW - just noticed - this is from the 2000 paper not 2010. Reading his later work he does appear to be leaning more towards fractal adsorbtion as support for most if not all of earths water being present from within the building materials rather than arriving by comet.

robindch

Festus wrote: »

I've often been fascinated by the regularity with which science comes up with something that "mirrors" what we already know from the Bible

Since I became aware of this passage, I've found that Luke 12:51-53 was scarily accurate in predicting the effects of non-liberal forms of religious belief:

Luke wrote:

Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

It's not hard science, but it's still an accurate description of the kind of social consequences that I've seen in a number of families.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

It has whatever you want it to have. I was supporting my point that the maximising of entropy as the ultimate end of the universe is described in the Bible.

It is not described in the Bible.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

It is not described in the Bible.

Oh. So you know exactly what it is going to be like?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Oh. So you know exactly what it is going to be like?

That post makes no sense.

Festus said the maximising of entropy as the ultimate end of the universe is described in the bible. I said it isn't. I do not need knowledge of the end of the universe to know that the maximising of entropy as the ultimate end of the universe is not described in the Bible, so I have no idea how you could make such an inference.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

That post makes no sense.

Festus said the maximising of entropy as the ultimate end of the universe is described in the bible. I said it isn't. I do not need knowledge of the end of the universe to know that the maximising of entropy as the ultimate end of the universe is not described in the Bible, so I have no idea how you could make such an inference.

From Hebrews

[10] And: Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth: and the works of thy hands are the heavens.
[11] They shall perish, but thou shalt continue: and they shall all grow old as a garment.

O Lord, didst found the earth - He created it.

The works of thy hands are the heavens - the stars, planets, galaxies, moons - all the stuff visible and invisible in the night sky, commonly refered to as the cosmos or the universe.

They shall perish - they shall fade, lose energy, go supernova, get destroyed by super novae - essentially suffer maximised entropy

but thou shalt continue - God will be there forever

and they shall all grow old as a garment. - restatement of falling apart, becoming disordered as the energy required to hold them togehter is given up through the action of the forces of decay until they can decay no further.

Monty Burnz

Festus wrote: »

From Hebrews

[10] And: Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth: and the works of thy hands are the heavens.
[11] They shall perish, but thou shalt continue: and they shall all grow old as a garment.

O Lord, didst found the earth - He created it.

The works of thy hands are the heavens - the stars, planets, galaxies, moons - all the stuff visible and invisible in the night sky, commonly refered to as the cosmos or the universe.

They shall perish - they shall fade, lose energy, go supernova, get destroyed by super novae - essentially suffer maximised entropy

but thou shalt continue - God will be there forever

and they shall all grow old as a garment. - restatement of falling apart, becoming disordered as the energy required to hold them togehter is given up through the action of the forces of decay until they can decay no further.

It's funny you should say that, because I believe in the most recent scientific papers on Thermodynamics, that is exactly how they describe the whole process of entropy: "they shall all grow old as a garment." The whole process, captured in 8 words. Admittedly, a few details are left out. But the fundamental details are there - 'grow old'...:)

Incidentally, is there any biblical scholar here who understands the original language of the text that this translation was based on? Can they confirm that the word translated as 'perish' implies 'lose energy, go supernova, get destroyed by super novae - essentially suffer maximised entropy'?

Festus

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's funny you should say that, because I believe in the most recent scientific papers on Thermodynamics, that is exactly how they describe the whole process of entropy: "they shall all grow old as a garment." The whole process, captured in 8 words. Admittedly, a few details are left out. But the fundamental details are there - 'grow old'...:)

There you go. Nice if you could present a couple of sources for those who are trying to keep up

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Incidentally, is there any biblical scholar here who understands the original language of the text that this translation was based on? Can they confirm that the word translated as 'perish' implies 'lose energy, go supernova, get destroyed by super novae - essentially suffer maximised entropy'?

What happens to items that "perish". Can a planet hit by a super nova or exploding start not be considered to have perished?

• Suffer death, typically in a violent, sudden, or untimely way
  
  • a great part of his army perished of hunger and disease
• Suffer complete ruin or destruction
  
  • the old regime had to perish

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

From Hebrews

[10] And: Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth: and the works of thy hands are the heavens.
[11] They shall perish, but thou shalt continue: and they shall all grow old as a garment.

O Lord, didst found the earth - He created it.

The works of thy hands are the heavens - the stars, planets, galaxies, moons - all the stuff visible and invisible in the night sky, commonly refered to as the cosmos or the universe.

They shall perish - they shall fade, lose energy, go supernova, get destroyed by super novae - essentially suffer maximised entropy.

but thou shalt continue - God will be there forever

and they shall all grow old as a garment. - restatement of falling apart, becoming disordered as the energy required to hold them togehter is given up through the action of the forces of decay until they can decay no further.

Is line in blue from the Bible? If it is, then I retract my argument.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

Is line in blue from the Bible? If it is, then I retract my argument.

Take any complicated ordered object, animal, vegetable, or mineral. Stars included.

Describe all the stages from minimal entropy to maximal entropy.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Take any complicated ordered object, animal, vegetable, or mineral. Stars included.

Describe all the stages from minimal entropy to maximal entropy.

You know, it's a very simple thing I'm asking you to do. Where in the Bible is there a mention of maximising entropy?

Anyway, I will play your game.

I will take a glass of water as an example. If pour a drop of milk into a glass of water, the particles of milk will distribute themselves such that the macroscopic properties of the solution will have a minimal dependence on the microscopic arrangements of the milk and water particles. This will manifest itself as a cloudy mixture with a an opacity that remains consistent no matter how much I stir it.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

You know, it's a very simple thing I'm asking you to do. Where in the Bible is there a mention of maximising entropy?

Oh, Ok, so because the Bible does not use the word entropy you think that is all that is required to begin to prove your point.

Going back to wiki for a definition we have:

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the finding that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.

Which is more scientific way of saying that over time all things tend towards chaos. They tend to rot, fall apart, perish.

The Bible quote already presented says the same thing only more poetically and more succintly. It was written before we derived the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No doubt at the time it was written people thought that the heavens were eternal and the stars would never fade a way, never run out of energy, never find themselves in a state of maximum entropy.

Anyway, I will play your game.

I will take a glass of water as an example. If pour a drop of milk into a glass of water, the particles of milk will distribute themselves such that the macroscopic properties of the solution will have a minimal dependence on the microscopic arrangements of the milk and water particles. This will manifest itself as a cloudy mixture with a an opacity that remains consistent no matter how much I stir it.

Thats either a simplied version of homeopathy or an extremely bad scientific analogy.

If the latter you have to put in a drop of water that when compared to the size of the universe is the size of a star in relative terms. Therefore in an average glass you would drop in a few particles of milk as a drop of milk is probably the relative equivalent of more galaxies than actually exist, and let them distribute themselves through out the glass over time.
Most would agree that to find a handful of milk particles, or for arguments sake say 15 calcium ions, a couple of protein molecules, a couple of fat molecules and one or two salt molecules in the average 500ml glass would still leave the water trasparent and would require the use of sophisticated checmical tests to detect the presence of the additions.

BTW your "milk" experiment also fails because you substitute the "visible" for the "invisible". Entropy involves energy transfer which is not demonstrated by your experiment. However it does demonstrate equilibrium and I would give you 2 points for that but because you introduced outside energy by stirring it I have to deduct 10 points.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Oh, Ok, so because the Bible does not use the word entropy you think that is all that is required to begin to prove your point.

Going back to wiki for a definition we have:

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the finding that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.

Which is more scientific way of saying that over time all things tend towards chaos. They tend to rot, fall apart, perish.

No it isn't. Thermodynamic equilibrium/maximum entropy is very boring compared to chaotic behaviour. But to stay on topic: All the Bible does is comment on what people back then observed. Things perish, food rots, everything appears finite. This in no way represents the second law of thermodynamics, which is a carefully formulated description of how heat/energy distributes itself through a system.

The Bible quote already presented says the same thing only more poetically and more succintly. It was written before we derived the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No doubt at the time it was written people thought that the heavens were eternal and the stars would never fade a way, never run out of energy, never find themselves in a state of maximum entropy.

The bit in bold is important. Yes, it was written before the 2nd law of thermodynamics was formulated so people would not have thought the stars would never find themselves in a state of maximum entropy because they did not know what maximum entropy was. They may have speculated on the finite lifespan of stars. But *shrug*

Thats either a simplied version of homeopathy or an extremely bad scientific analogy.

It is not an analogy

If the latter you have to put in a drop of water that when compared to the size of the universe is the size of a star in relative terms. Therefore in an average glass you would drop in a few particles of milk as a drop of milk is probably the relative equivalent of more galaxies than actually exist, and let them distribute themselves through out the glass over time.
Most would agree that to find a handful of milk particles, or for arguments sake say 15 calcium ions, a couple of protein molecules, a couple of fat molecules and one or two salt molecules in the average 500ml glass would still leave the water trasparent and would require the use of sophisticated checmical tests to detect the presence of the additions.

It is becoming more and more evident that you do not understand the terms you are using. Whether or not I drop in a few particles or a few million, they will still distribute themselves such as to minimise the dependency of macroscopic properties (such as opacity) on microscopic configurations. You asked me for an example of a system with increasing entropy and I gave you one. Nothing in the Bible alludes to this sort of physical behaviour. The problem is you are putting the cart before the horse. Scientists did not discover what that authors of the Bible already knew. Instead, scientists discovered an underlying mechanism to what the authors of the Bible observed,and applied it to a much wider range of systems. I should also mention that the 2nd law does not imply a dead universe. See Roger Penrose's book "Cycles of Time" if you are interested.

I don't understand why you are asking me to play these games. It is as if you are deliberately trying to drive the conversation off-topic to avoid conceding that the maximizing of entropy as the end of the universe is not mentioned in the Bible.

[edit to respond to this extra bit]

BTW your "milk" experiment also fails because you substitute the "visible" for the "invisible". Entropy involves energy transfer which is not demonstrated by your experiment. However it does demonstrate equilibrium and I would give you 2 points for that but because you introduced outside energy by stirring it I have to deduct 10 points.

Of course it involves energy transfer. The energy is distributed amongst all degrees of freedom as the milk particles interact with the water particles. This is why, if the drop of milk is hot, the water will be warmed.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

No it isn't. Thermodynamic equilibrium/maximum entropy is very boring compared to chaotic behaviour. But to stay on topic: All the Bible does is comment on what people back then observed. Things perish, food rots, everything appears finite. This in no way represents the second law of thermodynamics, which is a carefully formulated description of how heat/energy distributes itself through a system.

Did they observe stars perish?
Did they suspect that one day not even the stars would shine?

The Bible quotation is telling them that one day the stars will perish and cease to shine.
Today we know this to be true and we know it to be true as a function of the second law of thermodynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

Morbert wrote: »

The bit in bold is important. Yes, it was written before the 2nd law of thermodynamics was formulated so people would not have thought the stars would never find themselves in a state of maximum entropy because they did not know what maximum entropy was. They may have speculated on the finite lifespan of stars. But *shrug*

The bit in bold is important. Did they?

When did you suspect that stars one day would die?

I had to be told that all stars were moving because I could not see it for myself even though I know that their movement across the night sky was due to earthly rotation. More on that later, unless someone beats me to it.

Morbert wrote: »

It is becoming more and more evident that you do not understand the terms you are using. Whether or not I drop in a few particles or a few million, they will still distribute themselves such as to minimise the dependency of macroscopic properties (such as opacity) on microscopic configurations.
You asked me for an example of a system with increasing entropy and I gave you one.

We're talking entropy. Where is the entropy in your example? You presented what appears to be an obscure representation of a little known function of the second law possible the result of someones PhD thesis submission paper. Not something for real world discussion.
Furthermore the temperatures of the "drop of milk" and "glass of water" were at presumably current equilibrium temperatures in your experiment unless otherwise stated. That is not a demonstration of entropy.

Morbert wrote: »

Nothing in the Bible alludes to this sort of physical behaviour. The problem is you are putting the cart before the horse. Scientists did not discover what that authors of the Bible already knew. Instead, scientists discovered an underlying mechanism to what the authors of the Bible observed,and applied it to a much wider range of systems.

The Bible quotation mentioned alludes to all the stars (the heavens) perishing. I don't think this was observed by those who wrote down the Word of God.

Morbert wrote: »

I should also mention that the 2nd law does not imply a dead universe. See Roger Penrose's book "Cycles of Time" if you are interested.

ahem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

I never said it implied it. It is a function of it.

Morbert wrote: »

I don't understand why you are asking me to play these games. It is as if you are deliberately trying to drive the conversation off-topic to avoid conceding that the maximizing of entropy as the end of the universe is not mentioned in the Bible.

Why should I concede?

Morbert wrote: »

Of course it involves energy transfer. The energy is distributed amongst all degrees of freedom as the milk particles interact with the water particles. This is why, if the drop of milk is hot, the water will be warmed.

Well, you never mentioned that. Was that an assumption I was supposed to assume because you thought I would assume it, assumably?

If the water was hot why did you not mention it? It is more key to entropy than opacity.

If your experiment involved a frozen drop of milk as zero C to emulate a star and a swimming pool full of liquid frozen gas to emulate the colder universe in relative size to the drop representing a star then your experiment may have had some merit.
You could have gone further to show that no matter how long you leave it or how much energy you introduce by stirring it once the particles of milk have begun to distributed themselves the probablility of them forming back into the original frozen drop are quite low.

But you didn't

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Did they observe stars perish?
Did they suspect that one day not even the stars would shine?

The Bible quotation is telling them that one day the stars will perish and cease to shine.
Today we know this to be true and we know it to be true as a function of the second law of thermodynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

The bit in bold is important. Did they?

When did you suspect that stars one day would die?

I had to be told that all stars were moving because I could not see it for myself even though I know that their movement across the night sky was due to earthly rotation. More on that later, unless someone beats me to it.

he Bible quotation mentioned alludes to all the stars (the heavens) perishing. I don't think this was observed by those who wrote down the Word of God.

The authors of the Bible believed everything was finite but God. They also witnessed people, plants, and animals perish. It was a reasonable supposition. *shrug* But again, no mention of the concept of entropy or the second law of thermodynamics. You said the maximising of entropy is mentioned in the Bible. It isn't.

We're talking entropy. Where is the entropy in your example? You presented what appears to be an obscure representation of a little known function of the second law possible the result of someones PhD thesis submission paper. Not something for real world discussion.
Furthermore the temperatures of the "drop of milk" and "glass of water" were at presumably current equilibrium temperatures in your experiment unless otherwise stated. That is not a demonstration of entropy.

Again, it is evident that you do not understand the terms you are using. What you call "an obscure representation" is the scientific concept of entropy. Entropy is a measure of the number of way microscopic particles can arrange themselves while still retaining macroscopic properties like opacity and temperature.

ahem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

I never said it implied it. It is a function of it.

This makes no sense. I said it does not imply the death of the universe. I.e. A conformal rescaling could reveal a never-ending, cyclic universe that never violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. What looks like a heat-death on one scale is a big bang on another.

Why should I concede?

Because you have not shown that the maximising of entropy is mentioned in the Bible.

Well, you never mentioned that. Was that an assumption I was supposed to assume because you thought I would assume it, assumably?

If the water was hot why did you not mention it? It is more key to entropy than opacity.

I said "if". Whether or not the drop of milk was warmer, colder, or the same temperature as the water, there is still an increase in entropy, as the both position and momentum are dimensions in phase space. I.e. entropy is maximised as the systems tends towards a uniform distribution of positions as well as velocities, as the energy of the system is distributed across all degrees of freedom.

I assumed you understood what entropy was because you were using the word. If you do not understand the word then it is not a good idea to suggest the Bible alludes to it.

If your experiment involved a frozen drop of milk as zero C to emulate a star and a swimming pool full of liquid frozen gas to emulate the colder universe in relative size to the drop representing a star then your experiment may have had some merit.
You could have gone further to show that no matter how long you leave it or how much energy you introduce by stirring it once the particles of milk have begun to distributed themselves the probablility of them forming back into the original frozen drop are quite low.

But you didn't

That is irrelevant to the thread. I gave an example of increase of entropy in a system. The Bible does not allude to this physical behaviour. All the Bible says is the universe is finite, which may or may not be true regardless of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

Entropy is a measure of the number of way microscopic particles can arrange themselves while still retaining macroscopic properties like opacity and temperature.

Perhaps you could provide a citation or reference for this. I've tried to reference everything I used. Could you? It would assist my research greatly.

Wiki, though not perfect, provides a reasonable definition and one that makes sense to most people.

Entropy is a thermodynamic property that is a measure of the energy not available for work in a thermodynamic process. It is defined by the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics states that in general the total entropy of any system will not decrease other than by increasing the entropy of some other system. Hence, in a system isolated from its environment, the entropy of that system will tend not to decrease. It follows that heat will not flow from a colder body to a hotter body without the application of work (the imposition of order) to the colder body.

Compare and contrast your interperetation of entropy with that of wikipedia. If you feel that the wiki entry is wrong feel free to correct it to one more suitable to your argument. My reading of it suggests that it appears to be very close to what I remember from past experiences with chemistry and physics books that reside in libraries and that the wiki authors don't appear to be in error.

the closest I can get to it is

Energy dispersal

Main article: Entropy (energy dispersal)
The concept of entropy can be described qualitatively as a measure of energy dispersal at a specific temperature.[36] Similar terms have been in use from early in the history of classical thermodynamics, and with the development of statistical thermodynamics and quantum theory, entropy changes have been described in terms of the mixing or "spreading" of the total energy of each constituent of a system over its particular quantized energy levels.
Ambiguities in the terms disorder and chaos, which usually have meanings directly opposed to equilibrium, contribute to widespread confusion and hamper comprehension of entropy for most students.[37] As thesecond law of thermodynamics shows, in an isolated system internal portions at different temperatures will tend to adjust to a single uniform temperature and thus produce equilibrium. A recently developed educational approach avoids ambiguous terms and describes such spreading out of energy as dispersal, which leads to loss of the differentials required for work even though the total energy remains constant in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics[38] (compare discussion in next section). Physical chemist Peter Atkins, for example, who previously wrote of dispersal leading to a disordered state, now writes that "spontaneous changes are always accompanied by a dispersal of energy

and I find nothing in the above when conflated with the heat death of the univers mentioned earlier that conflicts with how I see the Bible stating that the heavens will perish meaning that the stars will give up their heat\energy which will disperse through the universe until the stars have no more heat\energy to give up will continuing to move along the paths decided by physics until the end of time where presumably the actions of other forms of energy in the cosmos will act upon them and eventually the entire universe will reach en equilibium state as defined by the second law of thermodymics and is similarily described in



[10] And: Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth: and the works of thy hands are the heavens.
[11] They shall perish, but thou shalt continue: and they shall all grow old as a garment

Note how the text suggests a garment as an example. A garment is nothing more than dead material - cotton, leather, linen, silk. For most owners of garments they begin new and over time wear out through the action of being worn. However if you leave a garment alone it will eventually begin to rot until it becomes nothing but dust, broken down to its constituent parts until it can break down no further.
Imagine a star breaking down to it's constituent parts over time like that garment until the star can break down no further.

It will take an unimaginably long time but at the end of it you have a star at maximum entropy.

This is a thing with the Bible. Sometimes the answer is quite clear - "thou shalt not do things that are bad for you or offend God". Othertimes it is not quite as clear and needs to be pondered and with the help of the Holy Spirit it becomes clear. This fact is described in the Bible.

If you cannot see what I see that's fine. Maybe one day you will.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Perhaps you could provide a citation or reference for this. I've tried to reference everything I used. Could you? It would assist my research greatly.

Wiki, though not perfect, provides a reasonable definition and one that makes sense to most people.



Compare and contrast your interperetation of entropy with that of wikipedia. If you feel that the wiki entry is wrong feel free to correct it to one more suitable to your argument. My reading of it suggests that it appears to be very close to what I remember from past experiences with chemistry and physics books that reside in libraries and that the wiki authors don't appear to be in error.

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics

"Lastly, and most importantly, the formal definition of entropy of a thermodynamic system from a statistical perspective is called statistical entropy, and is defined as:



where kB is Boltzmann's constant 1.38066×10−23 J K−1 and Omega is the number of microstates corresponding to the observed thermodynamic macrostate"

In other words, if your system has a macroscopic state that can emerge from a large number of microscopic configurations, then the entropy is "high". A simple, imprecise example would be a clean bedroom vs. a messy bedroom. There are many ways you can arrange a messy bedroom and still have it messy. But there are comparatively few ways a clean bedroom can be rearranged and still be clean. A messy bedroom therefore has more entropy than a clean bedroom, as there are more configurations that correspond to a messy bedroom.

The concept of entropy in relation to available work is a consequence of statistical mechanics. Classical Thermodynamics is a consequence of statistical mechanics.

and I find nothing in the above when conflated with the heat death of the univers mentioned earlier that conflicts with how I see the Bible stating that the heavens will perish meaning that the stars will give up their heat\energy which will disperse through the universe until the stars have no more heat\energy to give up will continuing to move along the paths decided by physics until the end of time where presumably the actions of other forms of energy in the cosmos will act upon them and eventually the entire universe will reach en equilibium state as defined by the second law of thermodymics and is similarily described in

[10] And: Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth: and the works of thy hands are the heavens.
[11] They shall perish, but thou shalt continue: and they shall all grow old as a garment

Note how the text suggests a garment as an example. A garment is nothing more than dead material - cotton, leather, linen, silk. For most owners of garments they begin new and over time wear out through the action of being worn. However if you leave a garment alone it will eventually begin to rot until it becomes nothing but dust, broken down to its constituent parts until it can break down no further.
Imagine a star breaking down to it's constituent parts over time like that garment until the star can break down no further.

It will take an unimaginably long time but at the end of it you have a star at maximum entropy.

This is a thing with the Bible. Sometimes the answer is quite clear - "thou shalt not do things that are bad for you or offend God". Othertimes it is not quite as clear and needs to be pondered and with the help of the Holy Spirit it becomes clear. This fact is described in the Bible.

Everyone agrees that the Bible claims things will perish.

You said the maximising of entropy is mentioned in the Bible. I said it isn't in the Bible.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69203999&postcount=61

It isn't in the Bible.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

It isn't in the Bible.

I think you'll find that my inital point regarding this was that there are verses in the Bible, previously quoted, that point to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

In the simplest terms the second law of thermodynamics with regard to entropy says that entropy will be maximised over time. In plain english this translates as everying will tend towards chaos. Stars burn out and planets cool until there is equilibrium across the universe.
More simply disorder is the natural state. Whatever energy that is required to maintain order will be given up to its surrondings.

The Biblical quote suggests that same. All will become disordered and pass away. Even the heavens will perish like an old garment if you will forgive the paraphrasing.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics

"Lastly, and most importantly, the formal definition of entropy of a thermodynamic system from a statistical perspective is called statistical entropy, and is defined as:



where kB is Boltzmann's constant 1.38066×10−23 J K−1 and Omega is the number of microstates corresponding to the observed thermodynamic macrostate"

In other words, if your system has a macroscopic state that can emerge from a large number of microscopic configurations, then the entropy is "high". A simple, imprecise example would be a clean bedroom vs. a messy bedroom. There are many ways you can arrange a messy bedroom and still have it messy. But there are comparatively few ways a clean bedroom can be rearranged and still be clean. A messy bedroom therefore has more entropy than a clean bedroom, as there are more configurations that correspond to a messy bedroom.

Statistical mechanics provides a molecular-level interpretation of macroscopic thermodynamic quantities such as work, heat, free energy, and entropy. It enables the thermodynamic properties of bulk materials to be related to the spectroscopic data of individual molecules. This ability to make macroscopic predictions based on microscopic properties is the main advantage of statistical mechanics over classical thermodynamics. Both theories are governed by the second law of thermodynamics through the medium of entropy. However, entropy in thermodynamics can only be known empirically, whereas in statistical mechanics, it is a function of the distribution of the system on its micro-states.

You see the problem here. You have taken a much narrower statistical view rather than a more encompassing view.


It doesn't say omega is entropy as you conflatedly alluded. S is statistical entropy. You presented and continue to present statistical entropy from statistical mechanics to be the same as entropy in thermodynamics.

the entropy I'm talking about is

a logarithmic measure of the density of states: where kB is the Boltzmann constant, equal to 1.38065×10−23 J K−1.

Morbert wrote: »

The concept of entropy in relation to available work is a consequence of statistical mechanics. Classical Thermodynamics is a consequence of statistical mechanics.

maybe but it has nothing to do with this discussion

this however has

• Second law of thermodynamics: Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder location to a hotter location.

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay observable in nature. The second law is an observation of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how much this evening-out process has progressed. The entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

Your narrow view relying upon a limited subset of statistical mechanics as a rebuttal is nothing more than obfuscation.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

You see the problem here. You have taken a much narrower statistical view rather than a more encompassing view.

You continue to not understand what you are saying. You say I have taken a much narrower view, yet the wikipedia article you have quoted says

"Thermodynamic entropy is more generally defined from a statistical thermodynamics viewpoint, in which the molecular nature of matter is explicitly considered.".

Entropy, as described by statistical mechanics, is a fundamental definition, understood in the context of first principles of classical and/or quantum mechanics. What you call the "more encompassing view" is actually the empirical consequence of statistical entropy. Statistical mechanics is the framework that provides the deeper understanding of thermodynamics. It is the fundamental definition of entropy.

It doesn't say omega is entropy as you conflatedly alluded.

I did not "conflatedly allude". I said "Entropy is a measure of the number of ways microscopic particles can arrange themselves while still retaining macroscopic properties like opacity and temperature."

the entropy I'm talking about is

a logarithmic measure of the density of states: where kB is the Boltzmann constant, equal to 1.38065×10−23 J K−1.

This is the same definition I gave, only with different probabilities associated with each microscopic arrangement. It even spells it out in the article above the formula you posted.

"For a given set of macroscopic variables, the entropy measures the degree to which the probability of the system is spread out over different possible microstates. In contrast to the macrostate, which characterizes plainly observable average quantities, a microstate specifies all molecular details about the system including the position and velocity of every molecule. The more such states available to the system with appreciable probability, the greater the entropy." Where wikipedia says "the number of microscopic states available", I say "the number of ways microscopic particles can arrange themselves". They are equivalent statements.

You're clearly trying to bluff your way through this discussion. I can't imagine why, but it is the only explanation for your dismissal of my tendered definition, and your tendering of the very same definition you were dismissing.

Second law of thermodynamics: Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder location to a hotter location.

Your narrow view relying upon a limited subset of statistical mechanics as a rebuttal is nothing more than obfuscation.

Please explain what you mean by a "limited subset of statistical mechanics". Statistical mechanics explains why heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder to a hotter location.

And heh... All this because you won't concede that maximising entropy is not described in the Bible.

Enkidu

Festus wrote: »

You see the problem here. You have taken a much narrower statistical view rather than a more encompassing view.

The statistical view is the more encompassing one. The thermodynamic definition is a special case of the statistical one, namely it is the infinite volume limit.

As Morbert has already explained, all conceptions of entropy follow from this one. The second law of thermodynamics is then an obvious consequence of the definition. Since entropy measures how common a macrostate, being larger in more common states, of course entropy will increase for you are more likely to evolve into a more common state by virtue of it being more common.

ISAW

Enkidu wrote: »

The statistical view is the more encompassing one. The thermodynamic definition is a special case of the statistical one, namely it is the infinite volume limit.

As Morbert has already explained, all conceptions of entropy follow from this one. The second law of thermodynamics is then an obvious consequence of the definition. Since entropy measures how common a macrostate, being larger in more common states, of course entropy will increase for you are more likely to evolve into a more common state by virtue of it being more common.

Here is something that might help i havent seen it for years no decades.
Thank you U tube
http://vimeo.com/5556600

go 5:20 into the video to begin the discussion of entropy -"muddle"
by 7:28 you go into "Why do things get into a state alice calls 'not tidy' "
rather than "why do things always get in a muddle"

11:30 The only reason is that there are more ways of being untidy than ways of being tidy

Festus

Lets try this a different way.

The supposition is that the quotation in Hebrews, paraphrased as " the earth, the stars and all inanimate things will perish and fade away over time" could be thought of as a conceptualisation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which can be stated as an expression of the finding that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to equilibrate in an isolated physical system and this law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.

Taking the Universe as an isolated physical system show or prove that the biblical statement in Hebrews 1:10-11 that all inanimate things perish is in no way related conceptually or otherwise to the provisions of the Second law of Thermodynamics and can in no way be determined to be an early description of the concept that according to the second law of thermodynamics the entropy of any isolated system, such as the entire universe, never decreases and that if the entropy of the universe has a maximum upper bound then when this bound is reached the universe has no thermodynamic free energy to sustain motion or life.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Lets try this a different way.

The supposition is that the quotation in Hebrews, paraphrased as " the earth, the stars and all inanimate things will perish and fade away over time" could be thought of as a conceptualisation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which can be stated as an expression of the finding that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to equilibrate in an isolated physical system and this law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.

Isn't that like saying "the rock fell to the ground" could be thought of as a conceptualization of the current theory of quantum gravity (ie a bit silly).

As has been said the notion that things eventually perish would have been observed by those writing the Bible, it would have been their experience, stone breaks up, people die, houses fall down etc.

What you are doing is attempting to show that the understanding of why this happens was also in the passages, and this seems utterly unfounded.

As Morbet points out there is nothing in the Bible about entropy or thermodynamics. There is no indication that any of the Bible writings extended beyond the notion that things seem to wear over time, something people have always known. The Bible is correct not because it was explaining thermodynamics, but because it was simply repeating what was observed at the time coupled with a standard destruction myth that God would eventually destroy yet he is eternal.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Isn't that like saying "the rock fell to the ground" could be thought of as a conceptualization of the current theory of quantum gravity (ie a bit silly).

As has been said the notion that things eventually perish would have been observed by those writing the Bible, it would have been their experience, stone breaks up, people die, houses fall down etc.

What you are doing is attempting to show that the understanding of why this happens was also in the passages, and this seems utterly unfounded.

As Morbet points out there is nothing in the Bible about entropy or thermodynamics. There is no indication that any of the Bible writings extended beyond the notion that things seem to wear over time, something people have always known. The Bible is correct not because it was explaining thermodynamics, but because it was simply repeating what was observed at the time coupled with a standard destruction myth that God would eventually destroy yet he is eternal.

I made no mention of God destroying anything and deliberatly decoupled it from the discussion.
You made no mention of stars which is key to this discussion.
You introduced gravity which is a long known natural phenomenon
We are discussion laws of nature not scientific theory.

What I am not attempting to show is that the understanding of why the universe will end is in the passages simply that the concept that we now understand as the second law of thermodynamics which tell us why in scientific terms is.

No points unless you wish to concede that the second law of thermodynamics has been known since Biblical times.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

I made no mention of God destroying anything and deliberatly decoupled it from the discussion.

But that is the narrative in the Bible, isn't it? That everything will be destroyed by God through fire? (2 Peter 3:10)?

It is some what inaccurate to suppose that the Bible is revealing the 2nd law of thermodynamics in one part through the simple word "perish", while later the world is said to be destroyed by fire.

That would also qualify as perish but not through the gradual move towards entropy, which is what you suppose the Bible is revealing to us.

Decoupling the passages is pointless if you are trying to argue that these complex scienitifc notions are being "mirrored" in the Bible.

Festus wrote: »

What I am not attempting to show is that the understanding of why the universe will end is in the passages simply that the concept that we now understand as the second law of thermodynamics which tell us why in scientific terms is.

But it isn't.

In one part the Bible describes the world perishing and in another part it says this will be done by fire. Both those correlate to each other, but they show that the Bible is not describing the heat death of the universe.

You got to the gradual heat death of the universe by simply picking one possible way things can perish, yet ignored that the Bible actually says how this world will perish.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

The gradual increase of entropy until all matter exists in a uniform dispersion throughout the universe separated by light years is not the heavens "disappearing with a roar".

This is why it is premature to simply pick one possible way something can happen (there are a lot of different ways something can perish) as if that is what is meant when there is no actual mention of the method.

As Morbet said entropy is not mentioned in the Bible.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

As Morbet said entropy is not mentioned in the Bible.

My point is that the concept is.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

My point is that the concept is.

Its not. The concept in the Bible is that everything will perish with a "roar" in fire.

2 Peter 3
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.
11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives

None of this is contradicting Hebrews because Hebrews doesn't describe the manner which the universe will perish, as Morbet said.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Its not. The concept in the Bible is that everything will perish with a "roar" in fire.

if our sun expands to red giant or goes super nova then that would be experienced here as a roar due to the presence of an atmosphere on earth. Mind you it may well be a short roar and fade to nothing as the atmosphere is burned off.

So the earth may pass away with a roar but Hebrews speaks of the stars perishing. They are so far away we won't anything when they perish due to the vacumn of space between the earth and the stars.

There is no contradiction because Hebrews say that even the stars in the heavens will perish not with a roar but by another mechanism - the same mechanism by which inanimate garments perish. They reach equilibrium with their surroundings over time, irreversibly.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

if our sun expands to red giant or goes super nova then that would be experienced here as a roar due to the presence of an atmosphere on earth.

If the sun expanded to a red giant we would all be dead long before it over took us, and our atmosphere would slowly be destroyed over the millienia before that. And this has little to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamic except in the way that everything in the universe follows it.

But none of that matters because the Bible is not talking about the sun growing to a Red Giant. It is talking about God destroying everything in righteous fire to make way for the new kingdom.

You can pick any known natural phenomena you like to find a scientific method to match the Bible. The point is the Bible isn't saying any of this. It is you trying to figure out what phenomena could account for what is described in the Bible.

Festus wrote: »

So the earth may pass away with a roar but Hebrews speaks of the stars perishing.

Hebrews speaks of everything perishing. It does not mention details, it simply says heavens and earth, which at the time was how the people divided up the two concepts they knew about.

In Peter it says that everything will be destroyed in fire and the heavens will disappear with a roar.

Festus wrote: »

There is no contradiction

There is no contradiction between Hebrews and Peter because both are talking about a righteous fire from God destroying everything.

This relates to no know theory of how the universe will end because scientific theories of how the universe will end don't suppose God is going to turn up and destroy the universe.

It is like trying to find the scientific theory that explains the resurrection, when in fact the resurrection was a miracle. In other words, some what missing the point. :P

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

It is like trying to find the scientific theory that explains the resurrection, when in fact the resurrection was a miracle. In other words, some what missing the point. :P

Do you Wicknight in fact accept the miracle of the resurrection?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Do you Wicknight in fact accept the miracle of the resurrection?

I accept that the Bible is saying it is a miracle, not some natural phenomena.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

I accept that the Bible is saying it is a miracle, not some natural phenomena.

That is not answering my question.

You said

Wicknight wrote: »

It is like trying to find the scientific theory that explains the resurrection, when in fact the resurrection was a miracle.

and I asked

Festus wrote: »

Do you Wicknight in fact accept the miracle of the resurrection?

are you going to anwser the question?

housetypeb

I've often been fascinated by the regularity with which science comes up with something that "mirrors" what we already know from the Bible



I guess if the bible foretold the the 2nd law of thermodynamatics in a vague way... It's only a matter of time before scientists start looking at the bible for ideas.
Soon we should have advances in .......
.. Anti gravity devices...walking on water.
bio-engineering.........talking snakes. unicorns.
food replicators......feeding the mulitudes with very little.

Any more ideas worth loking into? Can't do it all on my own.

Fanny Cradock

housetypeb wrote: »

I've often been fascinated by the regularity with which science comes up with something that "mirrors" what we already know from the Bible



I guess if the bible foretold the the 2nd law of thermodynamatics in a vague way... It's only a matter of time before scientists start looking at the bible for ideas.
Soon we should have advances in .......
.. Anti gravity devices...walking on water.
bio-engineering.........talking snakes. unicorns.
food replicators......feeding the mulitudes with very little.

Any more ideas worth loking into? Can't do it all on my own.

I wonder if you haven't found yourself in the wrong forum?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

That is not answering my question.

You said



and I asked



are you going to anwser the question?

I don't believe the resurrection happened. This is irrelevant to my point (as I'm sure you are aware).

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't believe the resurrection happened. This is irrelevant to my point (as I'm sure you are aware).

It is entirely relevant to the discussion. If you do not believe in your own argument based in fact how can you expect anyone else to?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

It is entirely relevant to the discussion. If you do not believe in your own argument based in fact how can you expect anyone else to?

My argument was never that the resurrection happened, as you know perfectly well. My argument was that the Bible is not claiming resurrection is a natural event and thus looking for a scientific theory that "mirrors" the resurrection would be missing the point.

Likewise with what you are discussing. The Bible describes God destroying this world with fire. Looking for a scientific theory that mirrors this is missing the point some what, since no scientific theory is going to have God destroying the universe.

So firstly the Bible passages you quote do not mention entropy, thermodynamics or any other scientific theory. Secondly you wouldn't expect them to since the Bible describes the destruction of heaven and Earth as an act of God.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Likewise with what you are discussing. The Bible describes God destroying this world with fire.

Where in Hebrews is it described that God destroys the world with fire?

Wicknight wrote: »

the Bible passages you quote do not mention entropy, thermodynamics or any other scientific theory.

I wouldn't expect them to appear as the bible is not a science textbook. Those words did not exist at the time and would have little meaning to the scienctifically illiterate.
The concepts however are the same. The stars will perish like old garments. The concept that stars will use up their energy and transfer what little is left to their surroundings until no more can be passed is the same as a garment perishing away to nothing but dust and has it's parallel in the second law of thermodynanics.

God destroying the heavens and the Earth by causing them to pass away is mentioned but if God chooses not to the stars will perish like old garments.

However God is described as destroying the old earth and the old heaven - note the singular - not the stars in the heavens. The Bible says the heavens will disappear with a roar - that could be a nuclear explosion throwing so much dust in the air the heavens are invisible to us. As already said, if God destroys the stars we will not hear a roar because of the vacumn of space. Any roar that is heard will be due to activity on earth.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Where in Hebrews is it described that God destroys the world with fire?

It doesn't. It says it in Peter, as I've told you.

Festus wrote: »

The concept that stars will use up their energy and transfer what little is left to their surroundings until no more can be passed is the same as a garment perishing away to nothing but dust and has it's parallel in the second law of thermodynanics.

And that directly contradicts Peter.

Are you arguing that Hebrews got it right and Peter got it wrong?

Festus wrote: »

God destroying the heavens and the Earth by causing them to pass away is mentioned but if God chooses not to the stars will perish like old garments.

However God is described as destroying the old earth and the old heaven - note the singular - not the stars in the heavens. The Bible says the heavens will disappear with a roar - that could be a nuclear explosion throwing so much dust in the air the heavens are invisible to us.

That wouldn't be the heavens disappearing. The majority of stars are not going to supernova. But then that doesn't matter because Peter is describing an act of God, not the stars slowly burning out.

Festus wrote: »

As already said, if God destroys the stars we will not hear a roar because of the vacumn of space. Any roar that is heard will be due to activity on earth.

Earth will be long long long gone by the heat death of the universe.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

As Morbet points out there is nothing in the Bible about entropy or thermodynamics.

What ...nothing about there being an order to the universe? i would have thought the Bible was all about that?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

My argument was never that the resurrection happened, as you know perfectly well. My argument was that the Bible is not claiming resurrection is a natural event and thus looking for a scientific theory that "mirrors" the resurrection would be missing the point.

Actually it might be very applicable to the earlier point. Resurrection could be viewed as a reversal of the concept of decay or of entropy.since the Law of thermodynamics suggests that entropy can not reverse or - only God could reverse entropy then you have an example of a bible concept mirroring what science says or at least givin a valid counter example.

Likewise with what you are discussing. The Bible describes God destroying this world with fire. Looking for a scientific theory that mirrors this is missing the point some what, since no scientific theory is going to have God destroying the universe.

Ah but then you are back to a valid counter example. Science says X must be true. If not X is true (since X is according to the laws of nature) it must be something outside science that can change the laws of nature which can cause not X. something like God.

So firstly the Bible passages you quote do not mention entropy, thermodynamics or any other scientific theory.

Nor does the idea of God causing creation or causing the laws of physics mention quantum black holes evolution alternate universes wormholes or countless other modern scientific terms. Probably because the people writing the Bible didt have such terms. However it appears the laws of nature existed at the time they wrote the Bible. These laws didnt just spring into existence when they wrote about nature did they? Just because scientists or the Bible writers didn't write down these laws verbatim does not mean the laws didnt exist does it?


Secondly you wouldn't expect them to since the Bible describes the destruction of heaven and Earth as an act of God.[/QUOTE]

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't. It says it in Peter, as I've told you.

Oh you "told" me. Well, I told you and will tell you again, we are discussing what is said in Hebrews and not Peter, not as predictive, not as faith and morals, but as a statement that poetically describes the concept of the second law of thermodynamics.

Wicknight wrote: »

And that directly contradicts Peter.


Are you arguing that Hebrews got it right and Peter got it wrong?

I'm sure that you can find many contradictions in the Bible if you want to. What does that prove? That you read a lot of Islamic or atheist websites?

Wicknight wrote: »

That wouldn't be the heavens disappearing. The majority of stars are not going to supernova. But then that doesn't matter because Peter is describing an act of God, not the stars slowly burning out.

Not discussing Peter. Not discussing Acts of God.
Discussing Hebrews where a natural law is described and what effect it will have "the stars will perish like old garments"

Wicknight wrote: »

Earth will be long long long gone by the heat death of the universe.

Ah, so you are saying that because there will be no scientists around to "observe" a star finally reaching maximum entropy the second law of theormodynamics is wrong.