· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 10/05/2010 10:58:20 AM PDT by WebFocus
Edited on 10/05/2010 11:13:13 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
I don’t consider being “denied tenure” by a bunch of closed minded atheists to be a detraction from the truth of the book.
Tell me - what was FALSE in the book?
And he never even asserted any “religious” content at all. The closed minded atheists simply didn’t want any contrary evidence to have to deal with that refuted their faith.
Actually, Prof. Guillermo Gonzalez ended up in a better college — Grove City College, one of the country’s foremost conservative colleges.
Here, he is free to pursue his passion without being hounded by narrow minded colleagues.
The college has an observatory that they operate remotely, which Gonzalez actually heads.
An example of that is the “perfect” apparent size of the moon and sun, giving perfect eclipses, allowing us to understand star makeup, and to prove the light bending effect of gravity.
The moon is receding, and will no longer completely cover the disk of the sun “soon”.
Yep, sure have. Took a few years of Thermodynamics in college for my Mechanical Engineering degree and worked with both Entropy and Enthalpy. However, this is not what we observe in 'real life'.
If Entropy were 'real' there would never be a cloud in the sky, we would have an even distribution of water vapor in our atmosphere. Nebulae would never form, we'd have a distribution of Hydrogen atoms throughout the universe. Minerals like Gold wouldn't be found in veins, but would be scattered. Need more examples?
Entropy is a fun little academic exercise, but it's not present in our observable world.
I read something recently about “initial conditions” such as the level of entropy.
These initial values are arbitrary, and could have been any other values other than what they were, but they had to be exact in order for a liveable universe to form.
Actually, Entrophy states that there is a migration from areas of high degrees of order, to areas of lower degrees of order.
But, this is in direct conflict if you consider evolution. We see today that animals have changed, becoming more complex over time. But, according to the laws of Thermodynamics - animals should de-evolve. Simply not the case.
As a star burns out, and goes to a Neutron Star - is that not a more complex entitiy than a simple gas giant? Or a Black Hole?
Shouldn’t the earth reach a temperature stabilitiy? Surely, after a gazillion years, we should not have drastic temperature changes.
Why does Algae clump together? Why do Jellyfish clump together? Shouldn’t they essentially spread themselves out in a random or homogenious state?
In supercomputing, where you have a massively parallel processing sytem - there is a level of stability that forms by itself among the threads; where processors form unpredictable but sustained pathways. This is a fundamental part of Neural computing.
All this seems to fly directly in the face of Entrophy.
If you think about it deeply no one has improved on your grandma’s observation.
The reason I say think deeply is because you will find scientists aplenty who will tell you with firm conviction the exact state of the universe in parts of a nanosecond after the big bang. Not a single scientist will attempt to tell you anything about the state of the universe in parts of a nanosecond before the big bang.
Your grandma’s observation is as accurate and precise as any scientist.
Dinosaurs could not maintain body temperature - we can. Intelligence-wise - there is no contest. We can change our environment, Dinosaurs obviously could not. Early man’s intellectual growth took centuries, we are now effectly doubling our technical prowess every 4-5 years.
Using your analogy that the existing genes are expressed, then it seems that we are ‘optimizing’ the code - which would be the opposite of what we would expect with Entrophy.
Whether we have gained, or lost genetic information over time is really irrevalent. If we lost ‘garbage’, there is really no loss - just efficiency gained. This would be another case where we have disproved Entrophy.
Discounting medical advances (ie. longer life); women are becoming fertile at earlier stages in life today, than even 100 years ago. Puberty is setting in earlier, thus our period of potential reproduction has increased. So, again - this would preclude Entrophy.
Even in geography, Entrophy seems to have no traction. Consider, at one point in time we had a single continent called Pangea. We now have Teutonic plate shift that has pretty much balanced the land-masses around the globe. We went from a single land mass - to a complex set of land-masses that appear to be lumped in a ‘balanced’ sensation around the globe.
So, doesn’t Entrophy seem to be the enemy of God?
Why does Algae clump together? Why do Jellyfish clump together? Shouldn’t they essentially spread themselves out in a random or homogenious state?
The ability of a woman to be fertile at a younger age is more complexity? Could it be that that was there all along but thru certain factors like nutrition, hygiene, it is now expressed?
Optimizing the code? All the information is there for a purpose and you learn what works and doesn't work. Even in programming you don't put things in without purpose. and you put as much in there to address as many variable for different situation as you can think of.
Why would more land masses be complex? A single land mass on a planet takes a lot of organization to spin. It is easier to spin the planet when things are spread out.
Why would God be threatened by entropy?
That requires an awful lot of blind faith.
You need to read and study more history. The intellectual ability of Plato and writers like Paul in the Bible truly surpass most of what we have today. The technical achievements in history are truly amazing. We can not duplicate much of what they did and can't figure out how they did it.
Much of what we are experiencing today is a matter of circumstances and can be lost as quickly as we have achieved it. History has proven that. You are lucky enough to live in an age when food is plentiful and those before you have fought for the freedom you now enjoy. Without those things, your technology would not be here.
Man has always modified his environment, that is how we find evidence of him from the past. Animals modify their environment also, including dinosaurs.
You have two choices my friend, ignore what I have written or do some thinking.
I threw a bunch of confetti into the air, and it came down a newspaper.
Makes about as much sense as this order from the chaos of the big bang crap.
What many people don’t realize is that the Big Bang is NOT an atheistic account of how the universe came into being, but a scientific account of what happened at the moment the universe came into being.
Before the Big Bang theory (formulated by a Catholic priest) atheistic science posited that the universe was an eternal. Scientific evidence that the universe had a definitive beginning forced them to revise their views.
What naturalistic explanations cannot account for is WHY there was a Big Bang and WHY the universe is so fine-tuned.
It's not widely known but this axiom is the foundation of modern science.
How so?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.