Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Not So Secret Rapture
reformed.org ^ | W. Fred Rice

Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,321-3,3403,341-3,3603,361-3,3803,381-3,392 next last
To: betty boop
"...everything that lives transforms disorder into order. Everything that dies moves from order to disorder."

Dear Sister in Christ,

Please allow me a brief respite from doing battle with the onerous RINORick Perry to "revise and extend" your remark:

"...everything that lives selectively transforms disorder[ed input] into order -- and increases disorder by ejecting the remainder as heat, respiratory effluvia, excreta, etc... . Everything that dies moves from order to disorder."

~~~~~~~~

Picky, picky PChemist... '-)

3,361 posted on 02/09/2011 5:38:11 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3356 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; betty boop
MarkBsnr: Perhaps you will agree with this fellow scientist (#3361) that life temporarily and selectively does a bit of reduction of entropy while living, growing and reproducing. But, I agree with you that in totality -- including death and recycling, the final balancet is toward entropy...

bb: I haven't gone back far enough into the thread to catch the real thrust of your statement, but, from experience, I expect that you are correct, too. Probably what we have is a clash between a statement concerning system totality vs your view that slices the temporal sequence more finely...

3,362 posted on 02/09/2011 6:09:53 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3359 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
MarkBsnr: Perhaps you will agree with this fellow scientist (#3361) that life temporarily and selectively does a bit of reduction of entropy while living, growing and reproducing. But, I agree with you that in totality -- including death and recycling, the final balancet is toward entropy...

Not exactly. Life extrudes that excess entropy so that it can continue living, growing and existing. That entropy is exported to the rest of the universe.

bb: I haven't gone back far enough into the thread to catch the real thrust of your statement, but, from experience, I expect that you are correct, too. Probably what we have is a clash between a statement concerning system totality vs your view that slices the temporal sequence more finely...

Not just temporal - but spacial, as well. I create excess heat now; I get rid of it to the environment now. Or I will die; same for the wastes of digestion and metabolisation.

3,363 posted on 02/09/2011 6:18:23 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3362 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; xzins; YHAOS; MHGinTN; James C. Bennett; TXnMA; metmom; spirited irish

Sorry, didn’t intend to exclude the rest of you... :-{


3,364 posted on 02/09/2011 6:22:00 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3361 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Alamo-Girl; xzins; YHAOS; MHGinTN; James C. Bennett; TXnMA; metmom; spirited irish
What we are talking about is that life, like every other process, produces entropy — from a scientific basis.

Again, where does this "scientific basis" come from — without you having to invoke metaphysics by way of explanation???

From where I sit, the life principle is "at war" with the so-called "entropic principle" as articulated by "science."

Which is hardly to say that I hold "science" worthless, to be held in contempt.

I am only saying — or trying to say — that science can only get at problems that can be "measured."

It turns out that any such notion as "life principle" is immeasurable in scientific methodological terms.

Does this mean that there really is "no Life" in the universe of human experience, existentially discerned by human souls?

Oh, I forget. There are people nowadays who tend to argue that human beings are just machines anyway. And so have no possible "use" for "souls."

Still that answer doesn't "answer," as far as I'm concerned. For one thing, even if human beings were only "machines," they would still need a "program" in order to function in any kind of productive, beneficial way.

It all boils back to the seemingly eerie fact that the cosmos is indeed ordered; but not in such a way as to preclude the human search for understanding of its order.

Somehow Man seems to be the "free agent" of all the splendor and chaos of our present time....

3,365 posted on 02/09/2011 6:29:11 PM PST by betty boop (Seek truth and beauty together; you will never find them apart. — F. M. Cornford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3359 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
What are you talking about? Metaphysics? I am talking from basic thermodynamic principles. Textbook stuff.

Any chemical reaction can only proceed if entropy increase exceeds zero. We are chemical beings, fuelled by chemical processes. None of our processes may violate the laws of thermodynamics. I don't know where you may be, but my body and all of its physical processes are firmly ensconced in the physical world.

It all boils back to the seemingly eerie fact that the cosmos is indeed ordered; but not in such a way as to preclude the human search for understanding of its order.

Gonna throw thermodynamic laws out the cosmic window?

3,366 posted on 02/09/2011 6:42:00 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3365 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; betty boop
You are not balancing the equation. You persist in ignoring the fraction of input that is organized to form the orderly structures that form the body, organs, cells, organelles, etc. of the creature while it is alive. Instead you act as if the effluent is totality; it is not.

As bb implied, once that active, structured organization ceases at death, entropy approaches totality.

3,367 posted on 02/09/2011 7:16:36 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3363 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
You are not balancing the equation. You persist in ignoring the fraction of input that is organized to form the orderly structures that form the body, organs, cells, organelles, etc. of the creature while it is alive. Instead you act as if the effluent is totality; it is not.

It is not an equation; it is an inequality. The decrease in entropy of a localized volume of space-time must be less than the resultant increase in entropy of the rest of the universe.

While I admit that the localized observation may see decreased entropy, the increase to the rest of the universe will be greater than that decrease.

As bb implied, once that active, structured organization ceases at death, entropy approaches totality.

Negative. The results of death are stable particles, plus resultant energies (heat, etc.). In order to achieve the maximum entropy for that death, all matter has to be transformed into random energies.

3,368 posted on 02/09/2011 7:23:08 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3367 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; xzins; YHAOS; MHGinTN; James C. Bennett; metmom; ...
We frequently reverse (or hold in abeyance for a time) a bit of entropy. We call it "growing our living body" -- or, "manufacturing".

I invite anyone who does not believe entropy to be the eventual physical victor to examine any old auto salvage yard -- or my Jeep, which spent several winters on salty New England roads. (The rear bumper recently fell completely off when I hit a big bump while "four-wheeling" on my "back fifty"...) '-)

But that Jeep didn't weld its own bumper back on; I did that -- by adding more metal to fabricate new mounting brackets.

And as an archaeologist, I can attest that I have seen human burials in acid soil that left little remaining evidence other than the disturbed soil of the burial pit -- and a vague stain at the bottom -- plus a few stone or pottery "grave goods". Entropy is the eventual physical victor...

~~~~~~~~

But, as I understand it, bb is not confining her discussion to the purely physical...

Wish I had time to stay and join bb's side of the disciussion, but political battles need fighting...

3,369 posted on 02/09/2011 8:04:05 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3366 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; MarkBsnr; Alamo-Girl; xzins; YHAOS; MHGinTN; James C. Bennett; TXnMA; metmom

Mark: What we are talking about is that life, like every other process, produces entropy — from a scientific basis.

Spirited: We know entropy exists by its’ discernable effects, yet we cannot see entropy itself anymore than we can see gravity. We know life exists because we “live,” as do animals and plant life. We know life exists but we cannot see life. We know that light exists, yet we cannot empirically prove its’ existence. We might try pointing to a light bulb, but light bulbs are not light. They are conveyers of light. Processes exist. We know they do by their effects, yet we cannot see processes anymore than we can see power. If Mark was required to empirically demonstrate that he dreams, he could not do so even though he knows he dreams.


3,370 posted on 02/10/2011 3:50:42 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3365 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; MarkBsnr; Alamo-Girl; xzins; spirited irish; YHAOS; MHGinTN; James C. Bennett; metmom
But, as I understand it, bb is not confining her discussion to the purely physical...

Your understanding is totally correct TXnMA! I'm not speaking merely of the physical. There are all kinds of "phenomenal things" in the world that are not "physical." Spirited irish gave some great examples here.

And certainly I am not denying the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as MarkBsnr seems to be suggesting!

I'd only wish to point out that the Hungarian theoretical biologist Ervin Bauer has noticed something very interesting about life forms of all descriptions: While living, they appear to try to maintain maximal distance from entropy. Death occurs when they can no longer do that.

So, the vitally interesting question, "What is Life?"

It seems to me Life itself is not "physical," though it implements organic physicality, if I might put it that way.

It ain't something science is ever going to isolate by means of its own methods.

Which only says to me that the methods and techniques of science, as superb as they are, do not reach to all the important questions of human and cosmic existence.

[What political battle are you fighting now, dear brother in Christ? I wish you had time to stay, too! :^)]

Thank you ever so much for writing, dear TXnMA!

3,371 posted on 02/10/2011 7:22:49 AM PST by betty boop (Seek truth and beauty together; you will never find them apart. — F. M. Cornford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3369 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
3,372 posted on 02/11/2011 7:15:05 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3369 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; TXnMA; MarkBsnr; spirited irish
Your understanding is totally correct TXnMA! I'm not speaking merely of the physical. There are all kinds of "phenomenal things" in the world that are not "physical."

Man, for instance, is more than the sum of his physical parts.

Since we are talking about entropy, I'll use Information Theory and Molecular Biology as an example.

In Shannon's mathematical theory of communications (the foundation theory of the field of mathematics known as information theory) - information is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in the receiver or molecular machine as it moves from a before state to an after state.

Further, the thermodynamic entropy tab is paid (increased) by heat dissipating into the local environment when the Shannon entropy is decreased.

Perfect balance.

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

3,373 posted on 02/11/2011 7:23:06 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3371 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; MarkBsnr; spirited irish; xzins; YHAOS; MHGinTN; James C. Bennett
Perfect balance.

And possibly also suggestive of an amazingly elegant "interface" between the non-physical (i.e., "spiritual") and physical worlds. Just an idea that occurred to me....

Perhaps such an idea would be resisted by scientists as smacking of metaphysics or some other "subjective" modality of analysis/interpretation. But the problem of how the immaterial can affect/effect the material — which definitely seems to be the observational case, based on developments in information theory and complex systems theory, not to mention common sense — will not go away.

In short, it appears that tangible things arise from intangible causes. The problem is, it seems to me, that we never observe "causes" (because of their sheer intangibility), only "effects."

That is, only effects are observables; thus only effects are accessible to the scientific method.

The great skeptic philosopher David Hume outright says that the connection between a cause and its effect is not ever something that can be demonstrated. To put it another way, there is no observable evidence of such a connection, no observable/demonstrable "facts" between a cause and its putative effect. Thus, the cause–effect relation is something we take on faith. For Hume, the very attribution of causes is an act of ex post facto induction which is then passed on and publicly accepted, in due course becoming "conventional."

Well, that's how Hume tells the tale! Though I find him a remarkably attractive human being in so many respects, I think he was too much a "child of the Enlightenment" on this question — the Enlightenment which basically has shed so precious little light.... He is heir to the Baconian scientific revolution, which bottom-line marks the profound shift from deductive to inductive analytical methods.

But it seems to me the current development of theoretical biology is not helped by recourse to such abstractions. Nowadays in theoretical biology, the issue of the "interface" between information (non-physical) and biological function (physical) is commanding considerable attention.

But what is science to do in this situation? The current state of theoretical biology seems to be catching on to the idea of biological function as an end-directed and purposeful, not a "random," phenomenon. The problem seems to be: If there is purpose in biology — informed purpose at that — Whose "purpose" is it?

It seems Science definitely does not want to "go there"....

I think a way out of this epistemological impasse has been well proposed by Jacob Needleman, Professor of Philosophy at San Francisco State, and once-upon-a-time clinical psychologist:

...[T]here exists a world of ideas — ideas which are of an astonishingly different quality from the concepts and theories of science, yet which retain the element of objectivity. [Scientists] are being asked to use their mind, that mind which has led them through the problems of their scientific investigations — yet it is not the same mind, not the same part of the mind. They try with their scientific, familiar mind to answer the questions of philosophy, but it is not possible. (It is not possible to approach the questions of philosophy with the scientific/scholarly mind alone: that is what academic philosophy does not understand.) Some of them attempt to convert the questions to intellectual problems, but I know that at the other end of the problem they find the question still waits for them.... The scientist, the student of science, comes from his laboratory where he has attempted to abandon the hindrances of subjectivity and emotion in order to see the real world. In front of authentic philosophy, he is astonished to find that the emotion evoked in him by great ideas is actually the same thing as freedom from emotion. — The Heart of Philosophy, 1982, p. 12–13.

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for sharing your beautiful insights!
3,374 posted on 02/11/2011 1:46:47 PM PST by betty boop (Seek truth and beauty together; you will never find them apart. — F. M. Cornford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3373 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Non-physical world? ... First God created the dimensions, then He used light to get physical things going. Anything in God’s universe will have a where/when realm, whether we can now sense it or not. You might be better off stating non-visual, as in non-visual with our present physical configuration. But Jesus has told us that He is preparing a place for us and He shall come again to take us ‘there’, to that where/when. We have hints of that possibility with the fifth chapter in Daniel, the Old Testament/Tanakh. Whomever wrote on Belshazzar’s wall at palace party central was in a where/when and reached into Belshazzar’s where/when. Angels exist in some sort of where/when.


3,375 posted on 02/11/2011 2:47:38 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3374 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Angels exist in some sort of where/when.

Certainly I think so, dear brother in Christ!

They are not as spatio/temporally remote from us as we may think....

JMHO. FWIW.

3,376 posted on 02/11/2011 6:46:39 PM PST by betty boop (Seek truth and beauty together; you will never find them apart. — F. M. Cornford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3375 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
And possibly also suggestive of an amazingly elegant "interface" between the non-physical (i.e., "spiritual") and physical worlds. Just an idea that occurred to me....

I very strongly agree!

Perhaps such an idea would be resisted by scientists as smacking of metaphysics or some other "subjective" modality of analysis/interpretation. But the problem of how the immaterial can affect/effect the material — which definitely seems to be the observational case, based on developments in information theory and complex systems theory, not to mention common sense — will not go away.

In short, it appears that tangible things arise from intangible causes. The problem is, it seems to me, that we never observe "causes" (because of their sheer intangibility), only "effects."

So very true!

And as you further explain, only the physical had been recognized for the purposes of "doing" science until very recently.

I'm very grateful for the mathematicians and physicists who have been invited to the biologists' tables.

Thank you so very much for your superb essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

3,377 posted on 02/11/2011 9:50:16 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3374 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns; daniel1212; Quix; Lera
AnalogReigns: I think this is one reason why it is easy for certain evangelicals, often from the "enthusiast" wing, find it easy to become Roman Catholic.

Ok. So you think that Pentecostals or "enthusiasts" would find it easily to become Catholic?
3,378 posted on 02/11/2011 10:52:51 PM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3340 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua

And few if any of the most thoughtful doctors in the history of the Church have believed in a complex multiple-2nd-coming scheme, as cooked up by the Millerites in the 1830s—and so popular today.

Lets see,
Jesus comes secretly, rapturing the Church, (1st 2nd Coming)

Next He comes either in the middle or end of the Great Tribulation to stop the Beast et al. from wrecking His plans and in this He is saving the Jews(2nd 2nd Coming)

Then Jesus sets up His Millennial Kingdom on Earth (headed by the Jews-for-Jesus or ?) (2nd or 2nd & 1/2, or 3rd, 2nd Coming)

After 1000 years the Devil is released messing up things again, and FINALLY Jesus puts a stop to all this, (3rd or 4th 2nd Coming) bringing the Last Judgement and Heaven on Earth (but wait, the White Throne judgement is in there somewhere too...hmmmm, soooooooo complicated!).

Golly, can’t Jesus just simply come, raise the dead, judge the world, and establish His reign once and for all?!!! (Well, yes, that’s exactly what the Bible teaches-—and the vast majority of Christians everywhere have believed for 2000 years...)


3,379 posted on 02/12/2011 9:38:55 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Read your bible. Trust it, not anyone else. God gave us His Holy Spirit to guide us and act as translator as we read His Word.

If you go to scripture, go "as a child," innocent and without preconceived notions. If you open your bible with the goal of proving or disproving some preconceived idea that you either want to prove or disprove, that is not the childlike heart of a true seeker.

Neither God nor His Holy Spirit will bless this endeavor with divine enlightenment. Neither should believers publicly argue (in forums such as this) over fine points of disagreement. This can lead astray young believers, and discourage those who might otherwise be seekers.

We are told to not behave in this manner. Read your bible. Grow up.

;-\

3,380 posted on 02/12/2011 10:50:09 AM PST by Gargantua (Palin ~ West 2012... Demand Exceptional--America deserves the best)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3379 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,321-3,3403,341-3,3603,361-3,3803,381-3,392 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson