Bible science parallels

steamengine

Festus wrote: »

Saying it was "probably not" the only source of water is not the same as saying " there were definitively other sources of water"

It may one day be shown that all water on earth orginated on earth



A little more research and "quite possibly most of it" could easily become "quite possibly all of it"

Water is the product of combustion of hydrogen and oxygen, whether directly, which would be explosive in nature, or indirectly, dumbed down by mixing with other elements, as for example the everyday burning of hydrocarbon fuels in air. All that would be necessary for water to be created in massive quantities on earth would be the initial massive amounts of the required elements, hydrogen and oxygen.

Festus

steamengine wrote: »

Water is the product of combustion of hydrogen and oxygen, whether directly, which would be explosive in nature, or indirectly, dumbed down by mixing with other elements, as for example the everyday burning of hydrocarbon fuels in air. All that would be necessary for water to be created in massive quantities on earth would be the initial massive amounts of the required elements, hydrogen and oxygen.

While it is true that all that is required to make water is hydrogen and oxygen that is not the subject or content of the research paper.

the question is not how it was created but if the water on earth originated on earth and the research is pointing that way. Previous theories posited that the water here is extraterrestrial e.g. arrived on comets however it's composition makes that doubtful. The problem with free hydrogen is that it is difficult to retain in the atmosphere unless the earth at some point had significantly higher gravity than at present. As gravity is a function of mass that is highly unlikely. Also the paper is research on how water could have been retained on earth in sufficient quantities when the temperature was too high for liquid water to be present. if the temerature was too high for liquid water then even more gravity would have been required to retain gaseous hydrogen within the earths atmosphere or near the surface.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

oh dear...

Oh dear what? This is a Christian forum and the general consensus amongst Christians is that God is everywhere.

As for empty space not being empty, well there will always be a few hydrogen atoms or ions knocking around, then there's the neutrinos and the photons. Could be other stuff too, maybe dark matter or dark energy.

If you wish to counter that empty space is really completely totally and utterly empty feel free.

ISAW

steamengine wrote: »

Water is the product of combustion of hydrogen and oxygen, whether directly, which would be explosive in nature, or indirectly, dumbed down by mixing with other elements, as for example the everyday burning of hydrocarbon fuels in air. All that would be necessary for water to be created in massive quantities on earth would be the initial massive amounts of the required elements, hydrogen and oxygen.

Well there is loads of oxygen in rocks but where do you think you are going to get hydrogen from? Dont forget it cant be just gas on its own in the atmosphere because the gravity of the Earth won't hold it. so excluding oceans which dont exist at the time in what do you find Hydrogen during the Hadean period?

HEre is another paper on the theory :
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/arizona/maps/2005/00000040/00000004/art00003

ISAW

Festus wrote: »

Oh dear what? This is a Christian forum and the general consensus amongst Christians is that God is everywhere.

Yes but the idea that everything you can't explain does not mean you can conclude all inexplicable things should be unquestioned because god wants it that way.

As for empty space not being empty, well there will always be a few hydrogen atoms or ions knocking around,

What is between them?

then there's the neutrinos and the photons.

What is between them?

Could be other stuff too, maybe dark matter or dark energy.

And what is that? something you can't see or can't detect. How do you know anything about it? I mean the whole definition of it is based on being something you can't detect. It is a biut like saying it is proof of god because God can't be detected.

If you wish to counter that empty space is really completely totally and utterly empty feel free.

I counter by saying people don't understand what it is! WE don't have a concept of "nothing"!

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

Entropy is a measure of the 'specialness' of the state of a system, and can help us understand order and disorder in some cases, but it is distinct from order and disorder. The photons emitted by the sun, for example, have a lower entropy than the photons emitted by the earth. But it makes little sense to say they are more orderly photons.

So the Bible might speak of order and chaos, but it does not talk about entropy, or enthalpy, or any statistical mechanical concept because these concepts are not synonymous with order, chaos, or perishing.

I would imagine that photons emitted from earth are mostly man made, the rest being reflected sun photons. However it makes little sense to introduce photons and less sense to introduce photon entropy to a discussion that has much of its focus on the demise of much more massive objects like stars. Quantum strawman? Even the introduction of photon entropy is nothing more than an effort to steer the discussion towards quantum mechanics again and in a direction few could follow given that it is a very specialised area of theoretical research.

Back to the topic in had. When is entropy not entropy? I guess it depends on which entropy you are talking about. Atkins has only recently changed his definition having previously said it could be thought of as a measure of order or disorder.

In physics and physical chemistry, entropy has commonly been defined as ascalar measure of the disorder of a thermodynamic system. This newer approach sets out a variant approach to entropy, namely as a measure of energy dispersal or distribution at a specific temperature. Under this approach, changes in entropy can be quantitatively related to the distribution or the spreading out of the energy of a thermodynamic system, divided by its temperature.
The energy dispersal approach to teaching entropy was developed to facilitate teaching entropy to students beginning university chemistry and biology. This new approach also avoids ambiguous terms such as disorder and chaos, which have multiple everyday meanings, and tend to confuse students.

Hopefully you will forgive us older folks who learned our physical chemistry the old fashioned way and have an understanding in the real word that entropy can be used to refer to order or disorder. We are not here to discuss quantum mechanics. God knows I had enough problems with Schroedinger's black box and that fuppin' cat.


Anyway the teachers have a new approach

To overcome the difficulties described in the previous section, entropy can be exposited in terms of "energy dispersal" and the "spreading of energy," while carefully avoiding all mention of "disorder" and "chaos" except when explaining misconceptions. All explanations of where and how energy is dispersing or spreading have been recast in terms of energy disperal, so as to emphasise the underlying qualitative meaning.[2]
In this approach, the second law of thermodynamics is introduced as "Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered from doing so." in the context of common experiences such as a rock falling, a hot frying pan cooling down, iron rusting, air leaving a punctured tire and ice melting in a warm room. Entropy is then depicted as a sophisticated kind of "before and after" yardstick — measuring how much energy is spread out over time as a result of a process such as heating a system, or how widely spread out the energy is after something happens in comparison with its previous state, in a process such as gas expansion or fluids mixing (at a constant temperature). The equations are explored with reference to the common experiences, with emphasis that in chemistry the energy that entropy measures as dispersing is internal energy, which beginners can most clearly understand as “motional energy”, the translational, vibrational, and rotational energy of molecules.

See! That's much easier than

"the branch of physics concerned with the conversion of different forms of energy"
"the study of energy conversion between heat and mechanical work, and subsequently the macroscopic variables such as temperature, volume and pressure".
"The branch of physics that tells us that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and that the entropy in the total system always increases"
"A phenomenological description of equilibrium properties of macroscopic systems"
"The study of energy and its transformation"
"The study of processes applied to macroscopic systems characterized by variables of state defined by a set number of physical quantities, particularly processes affected by temperature"

..isn't it?

However, from the new revised defintion - sounds like the New Revised Bible doesn't it - we have " in the context of common experiences such as a rock falling, a hot frying pan cooling down, iron rusting, air leaving a punctured tire and ice melting in a warm room. "

Now iron rusting, what is that. Could that be an analogy for iron perishing. In a closed system, say down some hole where no one can get to it or in a flask in a lab surrounded by nothing but air and shut off from an energy source the iron will rust. The process cannot be reveresed without opening the system and adding energy at the very least.

Leave it for long enough and you no longer have useful iron but useless rust. Perished iron, like perished rubber, and also with high entropy.

That said, the concept of enery dispersal entropy does not in any way negate the concept of order disorder entropy

In thermodynamics, entropy is commonly associated with the amount of order, disorder, and/or chaos in a thermodynamic system. This stems from Rudolf Clausius' 1862 assertion that any thermodynamic processes always "admits to being reduced to the alteration in some way or another of the arrangement of the constituent parts of theworking body" and that internal work associated with these alterations is quantified energetically by a measure of "entropy" change

and further

In the 2002 encyclopedia Encarta, for example, entropy is defined as a thermodynamic property which serves as a measure of how close a system is to equilibrium; as well as a measure of the disorder in the system.

So far I have failed to find anyone use the term "specialness" in a scientific paper or book but I did find this on another forum

It sounds to me like you are looking for a philosophical principle to arise from the concept of entropy. So be it, of course any such principle will be subjective, but here's my take. The opposite of entropy is specialness, so the thermodynamics is, random actions tend to remove specialness. That's clear, because what is special is also what is rare. So "fighting entropy" translates intotrying to be special, even though random events will always try to remove specialness. So what? This doesn't mean you shouldn't continue to try to be special, it just means that often such efforts will fail. It doesn't mean that all such efforts do-- but it does mean that if you don't try a bit harder than most, you will likely be among the failures!

Also note that thermodynamics treats all systems with the same broad brush, but you are a human system, which means that you are already incredibly special. Thermodynamics is not meant for humans, it's meant for closed systems comprised of essentially indistinguishable subcomponents, so the laws of statistics rule. That's a poor description of humanity, we have far greater potential for specialness than a piston filled with gas. So use it or lose it, because when our atoms are no longer in a human system, our shot at specialness is vastly reduced.

I also found this

To understand why black holes have high entropy, you need to think of entropy slightly differently in terms of specialness. This line up of balls is special, because there are very few ways of doing it. It has low entropy. This arrangement, though, is high entropy, there's nothing special about it.

So it would appear that "specialness" is not a particularly mainstream definition and if anything it appears to describe something that is the opposite of entropy, and when it comes to items tending towards a state of disorder or equilibrium having dispersed all their energy over time

Any let me know when Atkins sees fit to use the term "specialness" in some future edition of Physical Chemistry

Presenting an alternive and little know definition for a concept which has so many definitions is more a display of specialness than a counter argument.

The Bible speaks of order and chaos which is analogus to entropy in terms of garments perishing like stars fading or iron rusting.

Festus

ISAW wrote: »

Yes but the idea that everything you can't explain does not mean you can conclude all inexplicable things should be unquestioned because god wants it that way.

I agree up to a point. The point being when the research to answer such questions takes us away from our purpose, leads us down selfish alleys and becomes research for the sake of it or the glory or the pride or the fame rather than being for the benefit of mankind.
By all means question but as the Pope said, there are some areas of research best not pursued., so maybe there are things God does not want is looking to closely at. Remember that tree in the garden and were that got us? There are two sides to the curiosty coin.

ISAW wrote: »

What is between them?

haven't a clue. quantum energy? Mostly God. Would it benefit man to know and if so in what way?

ISAW wrote: »

What is between them?

more quantum energy. I don't know but I figure God does.

ISAW wrote: »

And what is that? something you can't see or can't detect. How do you know anything about it? I mean the whole definition of it is based on being something you can't detect. It is a biut like saying it is proof of god because God can't be detected.

Something someone dreamed up to make a theory work. Someone could I suppose use it in an discussion about God in that way. I do find it strange that some people are quicker to believe in dark matter than they are to believe in God but that is their problem.

ISAW wrote: »

I counter by saying people don't understand what it is! WE don't have a concept of "nothing"!

If it helps ISAW I agree with you and was responding to Morbet's "oh dear..." I didn't know if he meant "oh dear, space is really empty you know" or "oh dear, here's another Christian who thinks he knows what science is".
It was hard to tell.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

I would imagine that photons emitted from earth are mostly man made, the rest being reflected sun photons. However it makes little sense to introduce photons and less sense to introduce photon entropy to a discussion that has much of its focus on the demise of much more massive objects like stars. Quantum strawman? Even the introduction of photon entropy is nothing more than an effort to steer the discussion towards quantum mechanics again and in a direction few could follow given that it is a very specialised area of theoretical research.

<snip>

That post was directed at ISAW's questions about entropy and disorder, and is not part of our conversation. You apparently quit your conversation with me. I said anything can be used as a conceptualisation of anything if you are willing to contrive the conceptualisation. I tried to continue the conversation twice but you did not tender a relevant response either time.

But anyway: You claimed the Bible describes the concept of entropy. I explained that entropy is a far deeper concept than "perishing", as it can be applied to photons emitted by both the sun and the earth. You cannot therefore say the Bible describes the concept, as the concept is far deeper than what is described in the Bible. This makes perfect sense and is in no way a straw-man.

The rest of your post made two points: That entropy can be considered as a measure of disorder, and that "specialness" is a poor description of entropy.

I have already tendered a post regarding entropy and disorder.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69346044&postcount=149
The salient point is that the term "disorder" used by scientists is different to the the term usually used by people. It is certainly not equivalent to 'perishing'.

Regarding specialness as a description of entropy: Yes, gravity can complicate things, but cosmology aside, 'specialness' conveys the idea that if a macrostate is described by relativiely few microstates/a relatively small phase-space volume then it has low entropy. The word 'specialness' certainly isn't scientific, as it has far too much baggage.

steamengine

Festus wrote: »

While it is true that all that is required to make water is hydrogen and oxygen that is not the subject or content of the research paper.

the question is not how it was created but if the water on earth originated on earth and the research is pointing that way. Previous theories posited that the water here is extraterrestrial e.g. arrived on comets however it's composition makes that doubtful. The problem with free hydrogen is that it is difficult to retain in the atmosphere unless the earth at some point had significantly higher gravity than at present. As gravity is a function of mass that is highly unlikely. Also the paper is research on how water could have been retained on earth in sufficient quantities when the temperature was too high for liquid water to be present. if the temerature was too high for liquid water then even more gravity would have been required to retain gaseous hydrogen within the earths atmosphere or near the surface.

I take the point about free hydrogen. I had in mind the large hydrogen atmosphere that exists on Jupiter, but Jupiter's gravity would be much greater. Reading this article suggests that large quantities of methane and water vapour were emitted from the volcanoes of the Hadean period. This would seem to indicate an abundant source of hydrogen in one form or other within the earth's core during that period.

http://www.palaeos.com/Hadean/Hadean.htm

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

That post was directed at ISAW's questions about entropy and disorder, and is not part of our conversation. You apparently quit your conversation with me. I said anything can be used as a conceptualisation of anything if you are willing to contrive the conceptualisation. I tried to continue the conversation twice but you did not tender a relevant response either time.

But anyway: You claimed the Bible describes the concept of entropy. I explained that entropy is a far deeper concept than "perishing", as it can be applied to photons emitted by both the sun and the earth. You cannot therefore say the Bible describes the concept, as the concept is far deeper than what is described in the Bible. This makes perfect sense and is in no way a straw-man.

The rest of your post made two points: That entropy can be considered as a measure of disorder, and that "specialness" is a poor description of entropy.

I have already tendered a post regarding entropy and disorder.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69346044&postcount=149
The salient point is that the term "disorder" used by scientists is different to the the term usually used by people. It is certainly not equivalent to 'perishing'.

Regarding specialness as a description of entropy: Yes, gravity can complicate things, but cosmology aside, 'specialness' conveys the idea that if a macrostate is described by relativiely few microstates/a relatively small phase-space volume then it has low entropy. The word 'specialness' certainly isn't scientific, as it has far too much baggage.

Really Morbert presenting a "new definition" of entropy out of context is no argument against my or ISAWs point. The concept of entropy as a measure of disorder or order is a long standing definition and using a variant that was designed to get around the confusing generated by the popularity of chaos theory does nothing more than add to confusion and entropy to the discussion, and is a straw man.

What happens to a star over its life? It uses up all its energy and disperses it out to its surroundings. As the energy is used up the star dies. Another way to describe this is that the star disappears gradually or perishes as all inanimate things to.
It may not perish in exactly the same way as rubber or leather or cotton but the core elements here are time and energy, moving from order to disorder, as energy is dispersed. Over time the star looses energy as matters is expended and cools to an equilibrium point.
The analogy to a garment perishing is fair.

Festus

Festus wrote: »

IN 1879 the smallest thing that could be a component of another thing was a plainly visible element or so Laviosier thought. It wasn't until 1803 that Dalton conceptualised the atom.

Maybe he read the Bible after work and before going to bed.

"from invisible things visible things might be made"

Hebrews 11.3 points us towards things so small as to be invisible from which the visible things are made.

We call them atoms now.

And now we know the world and the universe is made from atoms and [notionally] empty space.

I take it that as the best anyone can do with this is throw snide derogatory comments so the proposition that the Bible described the concept of atoms long before their discovery is accepted.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Really Morbert presenting a "new definition" of entropy out of context is no argument against my or ISAWs point. The concept of entropy as a measure of disorder or order is a long standing definition and using a variant that was designed to get around the confusing generated by the popularity of chaos theory does nothing more than add to confusion and entropy to the discussion, and is a straw man.

It is not a new definition of entropy (I have no idea why you used quotation marks). I tendered the definition of entropy for many-particle systems in post #75. I later used the word specialness to help establish a relationship between macrostates and microstates. Whether or not you agree with the use of the word specialness doesn't change the fact that entropy is a deeper, more intricate concept than vague words like disorder. My post had links highlighting the insufficiency and ambiguity associated with 'disorder'. In fact, I think the ambiguity is responsible for your confused understanding of the concept in post #77, where you disagreed with my definition, and tendered a nearly identical definition.

You have not addressed any of the problems with the use of the word disorder, but have merely said "Really Morbert..." and re-iterated your assertion that disorder is an accurate and scientific description of entropy.

What happens to a star over its life? It uses up all its energy and disperses it out to its surroundings. As the energy is used up the star dies. Another way to describe this is that the star disappears gradually or perishes as all inanimate things to.
It may not perish in exactly the same way as rubber or leather or cotton but the core elements here are time and energy, moving from order to disorder, as energy is dispersed. Over time the star looses energy as matters is expended and cools to an equilibrium point.
The analogy to a garment perishing is fair.

We are not discussing the appropriateness of the garment analogy for stars perishing. We are discussing whether or not the concept of entropy maximisation is in the Bible. Entropy can be understood as a measure of energy dispersion. The Bible does not mention energy dispersal or equilibrium states. It talks of things pershing. Entropy is not a measure of things perishing.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

We are not discussing the appropriateness of the garment analogy for stars perishing. We are discussing whether or not the concept of entropy maximisation is in the Bible. Entropy can be understood as a measure of energy dispersion. The Bible does not mention energy dispersal or equilibrium states. It talks of things pershing. Entropy is not a measure of things perishing.

Oh dear Morbert... you still don't get it do you.

If a leaf is set alight and burns to ash is that not a leaf perishing as it moves from low entropy to high entropy?

Maybe your definition of perish is as strict as you definition of entropy? Can perish not also mean to disappear gradually? Can perish not also mean to die violently and can this not be used for a star in super nova? and following the supernova does the star not disappear gradually?

Energy dispersion is but one understanding of entropy. The macro understanding of entropy is that all things follow a line in time from one low entropy state to their ultimate high entropy state.

Or as Issac Asimov put it " "Another way of stating the second law then is: `The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' "(Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p.6)

Now, whatever you are discussing is one thing. What I am discussing is the appropriateness of using the analogy of a garment perish to describe the ultimate end of all stars in the universe.

While the Bible says that God will destroy all it does not say that all will be perfecting intact and working up until that time.
There have already been recordings of stars reaching the end of their lives and doing what they do which is dispersing their last remaining energy into their surroundings.

Just because the Bible does not use the exact words does not mean that it does not make appropriate analogies.

Even in a science class or lecture analogies have to be presented to further the understanding. No-one has intuitive knowledge of entropy which is why many analogies are given, burning wood, dusty rooms or perishing objects like old clothes.
The reversal of entropy requires energy. You can repair an old garment but it will never be as it was when it was new. Evenually it can not be repaired and over time it degrades further.
I accept that the old definition may be confusing to some but they are not defunct if you have the correct understanding of disorder and chaos. Some chaos is ordered after all and some order is really disordered.



We know that it is entropy what drives a star to death. The Bible states that all stars will die. The astronomers at that time had never seen a star die and most astronomers never will. We understand in science that stars will die because their fuel source is limited and the second law of thermodynamics cannot be broken.
To see a statement in the Bible that stars will die points to an author who knew this. It is not reasonable to assume that because things wore out on earth and that this could not be reversed that the same assumption would be made of the sun or other stars in the visible expanse of space.

A star may be able to repair itself by using it's gravity to absorb more fuel from its surroundings, similar to how the star started, but eventually that fuel source is used up and unless something happens to reverse the flow of entropy the star will use up its energy, disperse it and die. All it's energy will disperse until it reaches equilibrium.


As I have said before, either there is science in the Bible or there is no science. If you can point to a more scientifically valid quotation please do so. This is the purpose of the thread - to seek out where scientific ideas have been presented in the Bible before their discovery or formulation by science.

To my mind this is one and it is to be expected because in Colossians we are told

...the knowledge of the mystery of God the Father and of Christ Jesus: [3] In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Science is not excluded. It is encompassed in Jesus Christ. As God is author of the Bible it is no surprise then that the fundamentals of science are hidden. They did not make sense then. They do now.

If you are of the opinion that there is no science in the Bible please say so. At least that way we know where you stand and will understand your antagonism for what it is.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Oh dear Morbert... you still don't get it do you.

If a leaf is set alight and burns to ash is that not a leaf perishing as it moves from low entropy to high entropy?

Maybe your definition of perish is as strict as you definition of entropy? Can perish not also mean to disappear gradually? Can persih not also mean to die violently and can this not be used for a star in super nova? and following the supernova does the star not disappear gradually?

Energy dispersion is but one understanding of entropy. The macro understanding of entropy is that all things follow a line in time from one low entropy state to their ultimate high entropy state.

Now, whatever you are discussing is one thing. What I am discussing is the appropriateness of using the analogy of a garment perish to describe the ultimate end of all stars in the universe.

While the Bible says that God will destroy all it does not say that all will be perfecting intact and working up until that time.
There have already been recordings of stars reaching the end of their lives and doing what they do which is dispersing their last remaining energy into their surroundings.

Just because the Bible does not use the exact words does not mean that it does not make appropriate analogies.

Even in a science class or lecture analogies have to be presented to further the understanding. No-one has intuitive knowledge of entropy which is why many analogies are given, burning wood, dusty rooms or perishing objects like old clothes.
The reversal of entropy requires energy. You can repair an old garment but it will never be as it was when it was new. Evenually it can not be repaired and over time it degrades further.
I accept that the old definition may be confusing to some but they are not defunct if you have the correct understanding of disorder and chaos. Some chaos is ordered after all and some order is really disordered.

We know that it is entropy what drives a star to death. The Bible states that all stars will die. The astronomers at that time had never seen a star die and most astronomers never will. We understand in science that stars will die because their fuel source is limited and the second law of thermodynamics cannot be broken.
To see a statement in the Bible that stars will die points to an author who knew this. It is not reasonable to assume that because things wore out on earth and that this could not be reversed that the same assumption would be made of the sun or other stars in the visible expanse of space.

A star may be able to repair itself by using it's gravity to absorb more fuel from its surroundings, similar to how the star started, but eventually that fuel source is used up and unless something happens to reverse the flow of entropy the star will use up its energy, disperse it and die. All it's energy will disperse until it reaches equilibrium.


As I have said before, either there is science in the Bible or there is no science. If you can point to a more scientifically valid quotation please do so. This is the purpose of the thread - to seek out where scientific ideas have been presented in the Bible before their discovery or formulation by science.

To my mind this is one and it is to be expected because in Colossians we are told



Science is not excluded. It is encompassed in Jesus Christ. As God is author of the Bible it is no surprise then that the fundamentals of science are hidden. They did not make sense then. They do now.

If you are of the opinion that there is no science in the Bible please say so. At least that way we know where you stand and will understand your antagonism for what it is.

Again, you have omitted an important paragraph from my post, and have written little more than rhetoric and repetition.

I will say it again. Anything can be a conceptualisation of anything if you are willing to contrive the conceptualisation. So you interpeting some lines of the Bible as related to entropy does not change the fact the maximisation of entropy is not mentioned in the Bible. You are jumping through hoops trying to deny this.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

Again, you have omitted an important paragraph from my post, and have written little more than rhetoric and repetition.

I will say it again. Anything can be a conceptualisation of anything if you are willing to contrive the conceptualisation. So you interpeting some lines of the Bible as related to entropy does not change the fact the maximisation of entropy is not mentioned in the Bible. You are jumping through hoops trying to deny this.

No, I am reading certain lines of the Bible as pertaining to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, an unknown law at the time as was the impermanence, or if you like non-immutable nature, of the stars.

[26] In the beginning, O Lord, thou foundedst the earth: and the heavens are the works of thy hands.
[27] They shall perish but thou remainest: and all of them shall grow old like a garment: And as a vesture thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed.

Or as Issac Asimov put it " "Another way of stating the second law then is: `The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' "(Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p.6)

If Issac Asimov and God are saying the same thing where is the contrivance?

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

No, I am reading certain lines of the Bible as pertaining to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, an unknown law at the time as was the impermanence, or if you like non-immutable nature, of the stars.

[26] In the beginning, O Lord, thou foundedst the earth: and the heavens are the works of thy hands.
[27] They shall perish but thou remainest: and all of them shall grow old like a garment: And as a vesture thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed.

Or as Issac Asimov put it " "Another way of stating the second law then is: `The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' "(Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p.6)

If Issac Asimov and God are saying the same thing where is the contrivance?

The contrivance is in interpreting those Biblical sentences as referencing the maximising of entropy.

And as I have said before (a few times at this stage), the scientific use of the word disorder is different to the everyday usage. The scientific usage refers to available microstates the number of degrees of freedom in phase space. The everyday usage refers to messiness and chaos, which are often the opposite of maximum entropy.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

The contrivance is in interpreting those Biblical sentences as referencing the maximising of entropy.

And as I have said before (a few times at this stage), the scientific use of the word disorder is different to the everyday usage. The scientific usage refers to available microstates the number of degrees of freedom in phase space. The everyday usage refers to messiness and chaos, which are often the opposite of maximum entropy.

I think you are making the mistake that the term disorder is being used in this thread in the everyday sense. It's not which is why you think you have to keep repeating yourself with ever more pompous statements.

I am not refering to everyday messiness or the order of chaos, nor is anyone else, except maybe you and Dr Seuss. When it has been presented it has been presented as a scientific analogy. The scientific usage also refers to the loss of energy and loss of structural coherence as entropy increases.
Most people understand the dispersion of energy to the surrounding environment. Most people understand that unless energy is expended maintaining a system that system will break down. Your limited scientific explanation of one part of entropy does not add anything to the discussion. While this is a Christian forum and not a physics forum it would be preferable to stay with what most people would understand from high school science, or accept that there is an understanding of graduate science and scientific terminology even in a forum dedicated to religion.

The introduction of microstates and phase space does not help further the discussion in the direction of the general and is an effort to steer the discussion in the direction of the specific. We are discussion the analogy in the Bible in general terms. The fact that the Bible does not use scientific terminology is beside the point. As is the fact that if the terms entropy, evolution and quantum states did there would still be atheists and those whose only faith is science who would dispute the fact just for the sake of doing so and say that the Bible meant something different because it was not understood in the way it is now.

Disorder has many meanings in science. It could be disease. It could be an abnormality. I think most people would understand from the context of this thread the nature of disorder under discussion and it is not everyday disorder. You probably haven't noticed by I have taken the point that the more recent undergrads will have been exposed to the teaching of entropy as energy dispersion and have used that in my prose. Old stars disperse their heat energy until they have no more energy to disperse and are effectively dead. From then on the fall apart like old clothes until an equilibrium is reached or something acts upon them.

Nobody describes their worn out suit or dress as being "disordered". It is worn out. However there is nothing wrong with saying it has fallen into disrepair. This is the same as saying it has not been maintained and time has taken its toll and they have fallen apart. The scientific term for disrepair is disorder.
The order that is apparent at the end is different to the order that is apparent at the end. If we start with order the only way to move is towards disorder.
The reason for the term disorder was because of the term order. Start with an ordered open system. Put this into a closed system. Observe. It is the language that is at fault and not the meaning.
There is confusion not with teaching energy dispersal because you still have to start with an ordered state or ordered system.
Is a lump of gold at it's maximum entropy state? Probably as it is not radioactive, has no discernable half life and is pretty much unreactive. Leave it alone and nothing will happen to it.

As for disagreeing with Asimov, perhaps you should take it up with him. I understand him to mean that over time the universe will lose energy and fade away.


Morbert, your entire argument has consisted mostly of saying 'the word entropy is not in the Bible' and assuming what I understand of entropy is different to yours. I agree that the word entropy is not in the Bible but we both understand entropy in similar ways. All stars disperse their energy. Stars cannot be stopped from dispersing their energy. They will continue to do so until they are effectively dead.
I understand this as a function of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I also understand that when the Bible says "they [the stars] will perish" it means that the stars will reach a point when their energy has been disperse, their entropy is maximised, and they will no longer give light and they are effectively dead.

Now, you can try to see it from my point of view and present a reasonable argument against or you can persist in presenting tangential arguments. Or you can butcher science and present strawmen. Your choice.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

I am not refering to everyday messiness or the order of chaos. The scientific usage also refers to the loss of energy and loss of structural coherence as entropy increases.
Most people understand the dispersion of energy to the surrounding environment. Most people understand that unless energy is expended maintaining a system that system will break down. Your limited scientific explanation of one part of entropy does not add anything to the discussion. As this is a Christian forum and not a physics forum it would be preferable to stay with what most people would understand from high school science.
Also the topic is in relation to the universe and to stars which are somewhat macro.
The introduction of microstates and phase space does not help further the discussion in the direction of the general and is an effort to steer the discussion in the direction of the specific.

Disorder has many meanings in science. It could be disease. It could be an abnormality. I think most people would understand from the context of this thread the nature of disorder under discussion and it is not everyday disorder.

As for disagreeing with Asimov, perhaps you should take it up with him.

I do not need to further the discussion to make my point. You said the Bible mentions the maximising of entropy. I said it does not, and explained what entropy is. If you want to further the discussion then explain how the Bible mentions the maximising of entropy.

[edit]-Also I did not disagree with Asimove. I explained what 'disorder' in that context meant.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

I do not need to further the discussion to make my point. You said the Bible mentions the maximising of entropy. I said it does not, and explained what entropy is. If you want to further the discussion then explain how the Bible mentions the maximising of entropy.

[edit]-Also I did not disagree with Asimove. I explained what 'disorder' in that context meant.

You also said

Morbert wrote: »

The second law of thermodynamics is a very strict description of how the trajectory of a system passes through different regions of phase space.

with no source.


I can find those words in documents discussing the second law of thermodymanics but not contiguous and not in that order. It's a case of all the right words but not in the right order. Looks like pure butchery to me.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

You also said

with no source.

I can find those words in documents discussing the second law of thermodymanics but not contiguous and not in that order. It's a case of all the right words but not in the right order. Looks like pure butchery to me.

It is statistical mechanics 101. Phase space can be divided into sections representing different macrostates. The larger the volume of a section, the larger the entropy of the macrostate. If we evolve a system through time, we find that the system will likely travel travel through larger and larger sections of phase space (The precise likelihood is given by the Fluctuation Theorem).

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

It is statistical mechanics 101. Phase space can be divided into sections representing different macrostates. The larger the volume of a section, the larger the entropy of the macrostate. If we evolve a system through time, we find that the system will likely travel travel through larger and larger sections of phase space (The precise likelihood is given by the Fluctuation Theorem).

All well and good but again the words are not in the right order when compared to your original butchery. Also, why neglect to mention the Axiom of Causality ?

Surely you need that and the Fluctuation Theorem to give a generalisation of the second law of thermodynamics

Introducing FT without AC is more scientific butchery.

I also note that the the FT is "equivalent" but not the same as the second law under discussion and is specific to non-equilibrium states whereas the equilibrium state of stars at the end of their lives is the topic under discussion.

Maybe we need to go back to Entropy 101

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

All well and good but again the words are not in the right order when compared to your original butchery. Also, why neglect to mention the Axiom of Causality ?

Surely you need that and the Fluctuation Theorem to give a generalisation of the second law of thermodynamics

Introducing FT without AC is more scientific butchery.

I also note that the the FT is "equivalent" but not the same as the second law under discussion and is specific to non-equilibrium states whereas the equilibrium state of stars at the end of their lives is the topic under discussion.

Oh dear...

The fluctuation theorem quantifies the probability that the second law of thermodynamics will be obeyed. The 2nd law describes how non-equilibrium systems mover towards thermal equilibrium. Your objection regarding non-equilibrium states makes little sense. Again, I am getting the feeling that you are not familiar with the terms you are using.

Maybe we need to go back to Entropy 101

Yes... it seems we do.

It is also noted that you still haven't shown that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is in the Bible. I will keep reminding you of this fact until you decide to address it, no matter how many digressions you begin.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

It is also noted that you still haven't shown that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is in the Bible. I will keep reminding you of this fact until you decide to address it, no matter how many digressions you begin.

the analogy is there and that is the point. As for digressions - that's your forte. I've been saying the same thing all along.

[26] In the beginning, O Lord, thou foundedst the earth: and the heavens are the works of thy hands. [27] They shall perish but thou remainest: and all of them shall grow old like a garment:

The heavens, or the stars, shall grow old, and die. The second law of thermodynamics says so. The Bible said it first.

Or as Issac Asimov put it " : `The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' by which he meant the stars are dispersing their heat irreversibly to the point of growing old and dying.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

I think you are making the mistake that the term disorder is being used in this thread in the everyday sense. It's not which is why you think you have to keep repeating yourself with ever more pompous statements.

I am not refering to everyday messiness or the order of chaos, nor is anyone else, except maybe you and Dr Seuss. When it has been presented it has been presented as a scientific analogy. The scientific usage also refers to the loss of energy and loss of structural coherence as entropy increases.
Most people understand the dispersion of energy to the surrounding environment. Most people understand that unless energy is expended maintaining a system that system will break down. Your limited scientific explanation of one part of entropy does not add anything to the discussion. While this is a Christian forum and not a physics forum it would be preferable to stay with what most people would understand from high school science, or accept that there is an understanding of graduate science and scientific terminology even in a forum dedicated to religion.

The introduction of microstates and phase space does not help further the discussion in the direction of the general and is an effort to steer the discussion in the direction of the specific. We are discussion the analogy in the Bible in general terms. The fact that the Bible does not use scientific terminology is beside the point. As is the fact that if the terms entropy, evolution and quantum states did there would still be atheists and those whose only faith is science who would dispute the fact just for the sake of doing so and say that the Bible meant something different because it was not understood in the way it is now.

Disorder has many meanings in science. It could be disease. It could be an abnormality. I think most people would understand from the context of this thread the nature of disorder under discussion and it is not everyday disorder. You probably haven't noticed by I have taken the point that the more recent undergrads will have been exposed to the teaching of entropy as energy dispersion and have used that in my prose. Old stars disperse their heat energy until they have no more energy to disperse and are effectively dead. From then on the fall apart like old clothes until an equilibrium is reached or something acts upon them.

Nobody describes their worn out suit or dress as being "disordered". It is worn out. However there is nothing wrong with saying it has fallen into disrepair. This is the same as saying it has not been maintained and time has taken its toll and they have fallen apart. The scientific term for disrepair is disorder.
The order that is apparent at the end is different to the order that is apparent at the end. If we start with order the only way to move is towards disorder.
The reason for the term disorder was because of the term order. Start with an ordered open system. Put this into a closed system. Observe. It is the language that is at fault and not the meaning.
There is confusion not with teaching energy dispersal because you still have to start with an ordered state or ordered system.
Is a lump of gold at it's maximum entropy state? Probably as it is not radioactive, has no discernable half life and is pretty much unreactive. Leave it alone and nothing will happen to it.

As for disagreeing with Asimov, perhaps you should take it up with him. I understand him to mean that over time the universe will lose energy and fade away.


Morbert, your entire argument has consisted mostly of saying 'the word entropy is not in the Bible' and assuming what I understand of entropy is different to yours. I agree that the word entropy is not in the Bible but we both understand entropy in similar ways. All stars disperse their energy. Stars cannot be stopped from dispersing their energy. They will continue to do so until they are effectively dead.
I understand this as a function of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I also understand that when the Bible says "they [the stars] will perish" it means that the stars will reach a point when their energy has been disperse, their entropy is maximised, and they will no longer give light and they are effectively dead.

Now, you can try to see it from my point of view and present a reasonable argument against or you can persist in presenting tangential arguments. Or you can butcher science and present strawmen. Your choice.

This post was edited after I had responded to it. If you do this, there is no guarantee I will see the new content.

Your new content makes little sense though. You accuse me of butchering science and building straw-men, when you yourself have used scientific terms without understanding them, and have consistently built straw-men arguments. Why would you accuse me of doing something that you are doing on a regular basis. Take the following:

the analogy is there and that is the point. As for digressions - that's your forte. I've been saying the same thing all along.

[26] In the beginning, O Lord, thou foundedst the earth: and the heavens are the works of thy hands. [27] They shall perish but thou remainest: and all of them shall grow old like a garment:

The heavens, or the stars, shall grow old, and die. The second law of thermodynamics says so. The Bible said it first.

Or as Issac Asimov put it " : `The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' by which he meant the stars are dispersing their heat irreversibly to the point of growing old and dying.

I have never said an analogy cannot be drawn. In fact, I tendered a similar case from the Qu'ran to show how easy it is to draw such analogies. The internet is full of them. http://www.inner.org/string/string.htm

What I said is that these analogies are meaningless, and in no way show that scientists are discovering what we already know from the Bible. We did not already know, for example, the 2nd law of thermodynamics from the Bible, because the 2nd law is far deeper, and far more encompassing than things perishing. Sure, we can retroactively draw an analogy, just like I could use Snow White and the seven dwarves as an analogy for symmetry groups in quantum chemistry *shrug*.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Sure, we can retroactively draw an analogy, just like I could use Snow White and the seven dwarves as an analogy for symmetry groups in quantum chemistry *shrug*.

+1

:pac:

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

I have never said an analogy cannot be drawn. In fact, I tendered a similar case from the Qu'ran to show how easy it is to draw such analogies.

The Koran is a digression and is not relevant to this discussion

Morbert wrote: »

What I said is that these analogies are meaningless, and in no way show that scientists are discovering what we already know from the Bible. We did not already know, for example, the 2nd law of thermodynamics from the Bible, because the 2nd law is far deeper, and far more encompassing than things perishing. Sure, we can retroactively draw an analogy, just like I could use Snow White and the seven dwarves as an analogy for symmetry groups in quantum chemistry *shrug*.

Your assertion. Meaningless.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

The Koran is a digression and is not relevant to this discussion

It was not a digression. It was used to demonstrate how easy (and meaningless) it is to draw analogies. If you cannot understand this then there is little anyone can do.

Your assertion. Meaningless.

It is a meaningless assertion that the 2nd law is deeper, and more encompassing than 'perishing'?

Monty Burnz

Wicknight wrote: »

That is because they thought it was a garment.

They being the people who wrote the bible?

Zombrex

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They being the people who wrote the bible?

Yes

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

It was not a digression. It was used to demonstrate how easy (and meaningless) it is to draw analogies. If you cannot understand this then there is little anyone can do.



It is a meaningless assertion that the 2nd law is deeper, and more encompassing than 'perishing'?

Snow White and the seven dwarfs, the Koran, Dr Seuss. Bless you Morbert.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Snow White and the seven dwarfs, the Koran, Dr Seuss. Bless you Morbert.

That is a non-answer.

Festus

It's one thing to find the natural laws in the 'hidden' Bible in the form of poetic analogy. It's quite another to see something described explicitly and set out to find them and build a study of science around them.

Commodore Matthew Fontaine Maury is one such person.

Following a debilitating injury Lte Maury was listening to one of his daughers reading the Bible. She chose Psalm 8, the ninth verse(douay) of which speaks of "whatsoever walketh through the paths of the sea," he repeated "the paths of the sea, the paths of the sea, if God says the paths of the sea, they are there, and if I ever get out of this bed I will find them."

No analogy there but a very explicit "paths of the sea". Being mindful of this and Ecclesiastes 1:6

[6] Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits.

and seeing in this the concept that wind runs in circuits around the earth Maury set about researching these Biblical truths.

Maury pored over the logs and charts and found and plotted the wind circuits and sea currents including the Gulf Stream - a pathway in the ocean forty miles wide and three hundred fathoms deep.

Maury published his 'Wind and Current Chart of the North Atlantic', which showed sailors how to use the ocean's currents and winds and reduce the length of voyages. His 'Sailing Directions and Physical Geography of the Seas and Its Meteorology' remain standard.

Maury is proof thatwhile the Bible to some is not a book of science, when scientifically testable statements are found in the Bible they have proven to be scientifically accurate.

A monument to his memory in Virginia is inscribed 'Matthew Fontaine Maury, Pathfinder of the Seas, the Genius Who First Snatched from the Ocean and Atmosphere the Secret of Their Laws. His Inspiration, Holy Writ, Psalm 8:8, Psalm 107:23,24, and Ecclesiastes 1:6.'

While the version of the Bible he used is different to the version prefered by others and as a Protestant more free with interpretation than others it is clear that in the Bible he found hidden science that benefits the navies and merchant marine of today. He even found support from the Papal office.

"The Pope established honorary flags of distinction for the ships of the papal states, which could be awarded only to those vessels which filled out and sent to Maury in Washington D.C. the Maury abstract logs. (Source: Matthew Fontaine Maury by Charles Lee Lewis, Copyright, 1927 the United States Naval Institute.)" (wiki)

sources: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/matthew-fontaine-maury-pathfinder-of-sea-ps8.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Fontaine_Maury

He also acknowledge the fact that air has weight was stated in the Bible long before science discovered this as fact.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i3/maury.asp

Job 28:25 (KJV 1)
25To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure.

Job 28:25 (NAS 2)
25 "When He imparted weight to the wind And meted out the waters by measure.

Job 28:25 (NIV 3)
25 "When He the established the force of the wind and measured out the waters.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

That is a non-answer.

You appear to be of the opinion that star death has nothing to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

May God bless you and keep you

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

It's one thing to find the natural laws in the 'hidden' Bible in the form of poetic analogy. It's quite another to see something described explicitly and set out to find them and build a study of science around them.

Commodore Matthew Fontaine Maury is one such person.

Following a debilitating injury Lte Maury was listening to one of his daughers reading the Bible. She chose Psalm 8, the ninth verse(douay) of which speaks of "whatsoever walketh through the paths of the sea," he repeated "the paths of the sea, the paths of the sea, if God says the paths of the sea, they are there, and if I ever get out of this bed I will find them."

No analogy there but a very explicit "paths of the sea". Being mindful of this and Ecclesiastes 1:6

and seeing in this the concept that wind runs in circuits around the earth Maury set about researching these Biblical truths.

Maury pored over the logs and charts and found and plotted the wind circuits and sea currents including the Gulf Stream - a pathway in the ocean forty miles wide and three hundred fathoms deep.

Maury published his 'Wind and Current Chart of the North Atlantic', which showed sailors how to use the ocean's currents and winds and reduce the length of voyages. His 'Sailing Directions and Physical Geography of the Seas and Its Meteorology' remain standard.

Maury is proof thatwhile the Bible to some is not a book of science, when scientifically testable statements are found in the Bible they have proven to be scientifically accurate.

A monument to his memory in Virginia is inscribed 'Matthew Fontaine Maury, Pathfinder of the Seas, the Genius Who First Snatched from the Ocean and Atmosphere the Secret of Their Laws. His Inspiration, Holy Writ, Psalm 8:8, Psalm 107:23,24, and Ecclesiastes 1:6.'

While the version of the Bible he used is different to the version prefered by others and as a Protestant more free with interpretation than others it is clear that in the Bible he found hidden science that benefits the navies and merchant marine of today. He even found support from the Papal office.

"The Pope established honorary flags of distinction for the ships of the papal states, which could be awarded only to those vessels which filled out and sent to Maury in Washington D.C. the Maury abstract logs. (Source: Matthew Fontaine Maury by Charles Lee Lewis, Copyright, 1927 the United States Naval Institute.)" (wiki)

sources: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/matthew-fontaine-maury-pathfinder-of-sea-ps8.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Fontaine_Maury

He also acknowledge the fact that air has weight was stated in the Bible long before science discovered this as fact.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i3/maury.asp

Job 28:25 (KJV 1)
25To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure.

Job 28:25 (NAS 2)
25 "When He imparted weight to the wind And meted out the waters by measure.

Job 28:25 (NIV 3)
25 "When He the established the force of the wind and measured out the waters.

oh dear...

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

You appear to be of the opinion that star death has nothing to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

May God bless you and keep you

Why do you keep editing your posts?

Also, your additional sentence is a straw-man.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

oh dear...

God bless you. Feel free to argue with historical fact too.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Maury is proof thatwhile the Bible to some is not a book of science, when scientifically testable statements are found in the Bible they have proven to be scientifically accurate.

What?

He could have found anything and said it matched the Bible considering how utterly vague the Bible description was.

Morbet has already given examples of how other religions do exactly the same thing. Are they all revealing their hidden truth as well?:rolleyes:

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

What?

He could have found anything and said it matched the Bible considering how utterly vague the Bible description was.

Morbet has already given examples of how other religions do exactly the same thing. Are they all revealing their hidden truth as well?:rolleyes:

God Bless you and thank you for your most useful and enlightening contribution to the discussion

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

God bless you. Feel free to argue with historical fact too.

I have no reason to dispute the historical fact that Maury's meteorological work was inspired by the Bible. In fact, I would say that contributed to his shortcoming. His scheme of atmospheric circulation is rejected by scientists (and was rejected by his contemporaries) If he had spent more time learning actual physical geography, instead of assuming is Biblical inspiration was correct, he might not have made as many mistakes as he did. I recommend you read this introduction to his Book The Physical Geography of the Sea and it's Meteorology, particularly the parts that deal with the relationship between his work and the Bible.

What I do dispute, however, is the claim that, "when scientifically testable statements are found in the Bible they have proven to be scientifically accurate". I already gave an example of when this not true, and you didn't disagree in your reply.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

God Bless you and thank you for your most useful and enlightening contribution to the discussion

If you keep saying "God Bless you" as a response, people will begin to interpret it as a diversion, in place of an actual, substantial, response.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

God Bless you and thank you for your most useful and enlightening contribution to the discussion

Is it really that difficult to admit you misjudged the science you were referencing. I mean it is not like your faith depends up on it, there are plenty of Christians who don't think the Bible is revealing scientific truth.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

If you keep saying "God Bless you" as a response, people will begin to interpret it as a diversion, in place of an actual, substantial, response.

Would you rather I pray for you instead? I feel you meed assistance in overcoming your dismissive nature. There is little in the introduction to criticise his core work on charting the paths in the seas. He set the groundwork from which others could build. It opened up a new area of scientific research. So what if he behaved like most humans, except certain atheists who are too bright to make any mistakes at all. Did Einstein not err, or Schroedinger? Are they not worthy of your ridicule?

The material is there. It is a matter of historical record. A man found inspiration in the Bible, went looking for the paths in the seas that were described in the and found them.

He got published. He got honoured. If his inspiration was the Bible why is that a bad thing?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Is it really that difficult to admit you misjudged the science you were referencing. I mean it is not like your faith depends up on it, there are plenty of Christians who don't think the Bible is revealing scientific truth.

How do you know? God created science and science is in the Bible. Not all science but the good and important elements are there.

Btw, if you don't reference the science you misjudged how am I supposed to determine what you don't understand?

Let me know if you want praying for too

Festus

Slightly off topic but servers to demonstrate the even scientists and engineers can make mistakes. I'll add more here later

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/whoops.htm

http://dailycupoftech.com/2009/04/05/major-mistakes-by-12-great-men-of-science/

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

If you keep saying "God Bless you" as a response, people will begin to interpret it as a diversion, in place of an actual, substantial, response.

I will if you stop sneezing

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Would you rather I pray for you instead? I feel you meed assistance in overcoming your dismissive nature. There is little in the introduction to criticise his core work on charting the paths in the seas. He set the groundwork from which others could build. It opened up a new area of scientific research. So what if he behaved like most humans, except certain atheists who are too bright to make any mistakes at all. Did Einstein not err, or Schroedinger? Are they not worthy of your ridicule?

The material is there. It is a matter of historical record. A man found inspiration in the Bible, went looking for the paths in the seas that were described in the and found them.

He got published. He got honoured. If his inspiration was the Bible why is that a bad thing?

There was nothing wrong with his navigation data. As the intro said, his meticulous records allowed the time of some journeys to be halved. It was his scientific explanations and meteorological schemes that were found wanting. In other words, he may have been inspired by the Bible, but he didn't find any scientific parallels in it.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

There was nothing wrong with his navigation data. As the intro said, his meticulous records allowed the time of some journeys to be halved. It was his scientific explanations and meteorological schemes that were found wanting. In other words, he may have been inspired by the Bible, but he didn't find any scientific parallels in it.

"whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas"

analogy

ocean currents

parallel

oceanography

while ocean currents were known, they were not fully known and being able to use them from navigational purposes was not known. The Bible was there first. Maury codified it and in doing so founded oceanography.
At the time that part of the Bible was written and for some considerable time after there was little knowledge of much beyond the Med and Red. Probably very few knew what an ocean was if at all or that the ocean currents existed and could be followed or used as a pathway.

If Maury hadn't been inspired and founded the study someone else would have and maybe not through Biblical inspiration in which case it could be called a parallel between the Bible and science.

If attempted pedantism is the best you can do... oh dear...

God bless you

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

"whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas"

analogy

ocean currents

parallel

oceanography

while ocean currents were known, they were not fully known and being able to use them from navigational purposes was not known. The Bible was there first. Maury codified it and in doing so founded oceanography.
At the time that part of the Bible was written and for some considerable time after there was little knowledge of much beyond the Med and Red. Probably very few knew what an ocean was if at all or that the ocean currents existed and could be followed or used as a pathway.

If Maury hadn't been inspired and founded the study someone else would have and maybe not through Biblical inspiration in which case it could be called a parallel between the Bible and science.

If pedantism is the best you can do... oh dear...

God bless you

What is the scientific fact or theory that Maury discovered, that is parallel to what we already knew from the Bible?

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

What is the scientific fact or theory that Maury discovered, that is parallel to what we already knew from the Bible?

oh dear...

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

How do you know? God created science and science is in the Bible. Not all science but the good and important elements are there.

What is "good" science?

As you say god created humans who create science to learn about what he has revealed through nature. Repeating this in the Bible in a sort of "Ah, see what I did there" sort of way relegates the Bible to some sort of magic trick or Nostradamus style chest beating. Such ideas appeal to the excited side of human nature in the way something like a story such as the Da Vinci Code would, but that is not a reason to supposed God would actually do this, that he would secretly encode meaning in passages that would only be fully understood thousands of years later. Apart from being exciting to the reader what purpose would this serve?

Festus wrote: »

Btw, if you don't reference the science you misjudged how am I supposed to determine what you don't understand?

As Morbet pointed out you misjudged entropy and what these laws say about nature, which is far more than simply stating things wear out.

I've used the example of gravity many many times with you already, stating that things fall down (as the Bible does many times) is far from showing an understanding of quantum gravity. Likewise with entropy, stating that all things will wear out falls far short of describing the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is far more complicated than merely things wear out.