Amen! Good words. Seek, don’t speak!
1 Like
Thats not what i mean. The second law denies the capability of the eternity of mass energy. This demands that something outside the natural lite the flame if u will. So a scientist who claims to practice good science observes this, they either drift into a creationist camp (of the cosmos) or suggest that other laws exist that circumvent the second law of t or just ignore and pretend the problem does not exist.
Doesn’t the first law, i.e. conservation of energy, require the eternity of “mass energy”?
That seems like the same thing since you have God circumventing the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Thanks for your thoughts. I am agreeable in principle…if i were in a construction seminar gleaning fr professionals to learn for sure…but this stuff involves only the God who made us, so bear w me if i take the cautious route and stick w what He seems to say which, according to smart guys like Wise, has scientific nuggets fitting of the worldview.
I sent @Michael_Callen information on the aig website about how it is possible to achieve the large coal seams he seems to think req millions of yrs… I am not here to necessarily learn all that everyone knows or what they say they know. I enjoy broadening my horizons but I am satisfied with belief in the most basic understanding of Scripture and there is no swaying me from that. However, i believe that in the name of "peaceful science"it might be of interest to see what Dr. Wise, phd in paleontology. fr harvard has to say about the rocks and how they can be interpreted fr a flood perspective rather well. The links provided earlier in this thread do not reveal poor science, but rather scholarly. If the conclusions he makes fitting a worldview that differs fr yours, chalk it up as that and maybe appreciate if any of his work causes you to honestly access if perhaps you have been looking at the fossil record wrongly.
Hey, no skin off my back if you dont read alternative perspectives. There are many great churches that are so bc they subscribe to the most obvious interpretation of Scripture and are quite healthy…i would be happy to help them stay that way
And ps. @T_aquaticus called me out for suggesting that im sort of hypocritical for calling out naturalists for ignoring the obvious implications of the 2nd law of therm that demand a Cause outside of the natural while i subscibe to a model that can wholly circumvent the law as a reality. This is not a matter of being hypocritical…it is a matter of being on two different playing fields. If one subscribes to a materialist perspwctive, then the 2nd law shows that this view implodes on itself beccause Something had to make the mass energy and it could not be mass energy. I subscribe to a worldview that involves a Creator who defied nature when He created mass energy fr nothing in the first place and i would not be surprised if He defied the law in the judgement at the flood and others.
The still small voice that resonates in my mind thru this is, again, the voice of God speaking to Job and his 3 companions: “Where were you when I (God) created the earth and the______etc” Fact is, none of us were there and reliance on the opinions of mans science seems futile in so many respects. And we are not reconciled to God by scientific intuition anyway, but by faith and faith comes from His Word.
But you are not. You realize that what you have said is utterly untrue and that you go on to show that it is untrue through your own words. You literally refuse to think for yourself.
The still small voice that resonates in your mind is your own.
Did you ask him about angular unconformities yet? Did you ask him why he lied about the mammal fossil record?
And you promptly ignored all the scientific explanations give why your AIG page was complete BS.
We read your “alternative perspectives” and found they’re 100% misrepresentations or outright lies. How do you suggest we proceed then?
You subscribe to a view which circumvents all of reality as a reality.
1 Like
I honestly have not. I got sidetracked from an already busy schedule. And as far as wise lying about the mammal record, i think i miscommunicated what the intention of this statement was that he made and which i repeated here. Wise was not pointing out that researcher Bjorn Kurten back in the 60’s in Europe who found that 88% of living species in Europe were the exact “species” as we define it today, rather that the 88% of living species in Europe at the time had forms so similar in the fossil record that they were identifiable as the very living species! Isnt that incredible. Yec Creationists expect that the fossil record be much more complete than an evolutionist would and the conclusions by Kurten agree. This of course does not prove anything perfectly. Bio history changes, but nuggets of info like this, high disparity, low diversity in the record being opposite of evolutionist expectations, the nature of the layers in the record worldwide being such that suggests rapid burial in the form of a worldwide flood rather that general local build up of sedimentary layers relative to that area.
Wise has some very convincing research that would take a lot of humility on the part of old earth evolutionists to be willing to consider…
You are right. I am one of those oddballs who even as literally one of the most skeptical, untrusting, research driven, types in the world, has been so transformed by the God i believe exists and who sent His Son to die in my place, that i have chosen to no longer place trust in what science is literally incapable of determining about the history of our existence and instead, have chosen to trust what seems what was the most likely history described in Scripture.
This should not offend you necessarily. Write me off as a nut and go on with your life.
In everything i do in life to this day, i research, and study, and learn, and get informed. If you were to ask my wife, she would testify to this. When car shopping one day, the sales guy shows me a pic of his family and tells me, “i will give you a fair price on a car that provides adequate profit to feed my family and therefore no haggling.” I think how laughable is that and tell him that i also have a family and that if i am even still willing to work w you after that, every dime i save as the haggling on price commenses helps to feed my family.
In my business, i engage in ravenous passion to study and research the best path for a good outcome in sometimes difficult paradigms. I am more enthused to finding the perfect product at the right price more than i have interest towards personal profit and especially against unfair profiteering at their expense. If i question whether we did the right process on a job one day (which happens in the real world), many times i will not sleep all night strategizing a better path the next day. I am in constant vigorous persuit of the best reality of outcome. So my interest to learn from other professionals is vigorously pursued.
I am charged to look to my family’s well being. Especially their spiritual well being. I notice that as they align themselves w precepts in Scripture, they become more joyfilled and content and others centered. We are all a work in progress, but doing well. I also observe how when the creation history is altered, so can the rest of Biblical theology start to slide. Additionally, if God is the one who is the Cause of the creation of mass energy and He was the one one there in the Beginning, in my rationalist, skeptical mindset i have logically concluded that it is quite wise to place trust in what He says more than the science of man. Science ultimately cannot find the exact truth of past history anyway nor can it read the mind of God, so with God and His recording of the history of the world i stand, trumping man. Call me an oddball. Call me a nut. Call me stupid and ignorant and a fool. I dont care. As i have trusted Him, i have been called worse and experienced persecution that ripped my heart out. But God carried me through in such mindblowing miraculous ways, i will never deny Him at His Word.
But this is also not true. You are not “research driven”… You merely cherry pick, choosing what you wish to choose, ignoring the rest, including experts that God has put in your path to help you to use the brain that God has given you. You delude yourself. You think that you are defending God. You are wrong.
1 Like
First, the laws of thermodynamics only apply to the conditions we find in our universe. We don’t know if they apply to different situations, such as those at the beginning of a universe.
Second, I fully agree that something had to start the universe. What I haven’t seen is evidence that this something is a deity.
1 Like
No, Wise made the identical claim in the video. It’s the same lie he told on his webpage.
That’s not what Wise claimed. He said today’s living species were found in the fossil record, not that their ancestral forms were. That was the whole point of his claim the fossil record is almost all currently existing species. Sorry, there’s just no getting around the fact Wise lied, and lied repeatedly.
Except for the parts you ignore like angular unconformities which are impossible to form in one year. You keep dodging the evidence but the evidence isn’t going away.
1 Like
Isn’t it the same thing? How is “identifiable as the very living species” in any way different from “living species”?
The eternity i mean is forever in the past and forever in the future. If energy becomes disorganized (not non existent), then sense has it that it had to have a starting point as there is no validity of it recycling itself as this circumvents the law. Am i getting something wrong.
I agree!
1 Like
That’s a question for you Greg.
Yes. You are confusing the existence of energy with its availability to do work.
I understand that, but if energy’s availability to do work is running out, then the presence of mass energy in the form of stars which are running out of workable energy undeniably characterizes energy as impossibly existing eternally in the past.
That’s a whole different question from what you said before. You get that, right?
Would that then not entail that the two first laws of thermodynamics actually entail a contradiction, and so at least one of them has to be wrong?