At first I thought the following:
If the first law of thermodynamics says energy can’t be created or destroyed, that would seem to entail the eternal existence of energy.
If the second law of thermodynamics says entropy will on average always increase in an isolated system, and that there is a lower limit to entropy, that would seem to entail that energy cannot have existed eternally in the past, and so we have our contradiction with the first law.
But there’s a third option. Both laws are correct, and the universe has a finite age, but did not begin to exist. Time goes back to a first moment, a moment of very low entropy, and then no further back (the time dimension goes back to T=0, no further). The universe (and it’s energy) has existed for all of time. There was never a state of “nothingness”, at which the universe did not exist, because there cannot be a time before time itself.
Rather, the universe always existed, always meaning it has existed “at all times”. It’s just that “all of time” is a finite dimension.
That way a contradiction is avoided, and no need of a coming into existence of energy is required.
Yes. I understand. That is why i have always stated that mass energy becomes disorganized and dispersed and unusable, not that it disappears. Man-as i have thought about this i tried to put myself in the shoes of those phycists who mathematically determined that the universe had a beginning. All of the mass energy in a Betelgeuse and stars larger times 100s of billions had a beginning that had to form from a Source outside of the realm which energy exists.
The point i was trying to make was that in the practical day to days activities in my occupation and functioning as a leader in my home, i am a vigorous researcher. But when i view the potential of possibilities in determining the truth of our existence as a Christian who believes that an involved God made the universe, i frankly have to throw my hands up in the air because One who can produce mass energy from nothing could have produced the outcomes we see today in an infinite number of ways that our science may not even be able to detect. So i ask, will any amount of research truly help me find how the God did this exactly? Can dating methods truely be trusted measurements? Or is it better to trust the base understanding of the Scripture that led me to God? As i have thought through and prayed over this, the latter is my choice even as it circumvents my nature.
I will still have interest to see information that illuminates tid bits of Gods handiwork, but i have decided that science as the best means of knowing Gods ways is chasing the wind.
I have learned so much. I notice patterns in behavior and responses within the various defined worldview perspectives the compare and contrast those with not just what Scripture seems to say about creation, but additionally, what Scripture says in principle in its whole. My conclusions from observing this as well as the tid bits of science on evolution and beyond is to reinforce my current stance. Your argument here is that this guy greg rogers believes 2+2 = 4 in his mind and because we are trying to convince him of something different where he wont subscribe, he must not be learning anything! Thats nuts and sounds more like the local cult that goes door to door w their nonsense.
In the last comment i said this:
“But when i view the potential of possibilities in determining the truth of our existence as a Christian who believes that an involved God made the universe, i frankly have to throw my hands up in the air because One who can produce mass energy from nothing could have produced the outcomes we see today in an infinite number of ways that our science may not even be able to detect”
I wonder if you are challenged yourself to glean some new understanding from statements like this that represent ideals from my camp? I definately dont deny the importance of mans science, but i definately dont trust it for determining all of the facts about our existence either.
I have read posts from physicists here and there on the interwebs, and one of the interesting things I have run across is that the 2nd law can be violated on small scales. If you only have a few energetic particles it is entirely possible for entropy to decrease over certain stretches of time. Thermodynamics is ultimately a stochastic process, so you can get some weird results when there are a limited number of interactions. These tend to balance out once you have large numbers.
I wish that you would stop talking and listen. You have not. You pause long enough to allow someone to comment and then you continue on as though they said nothing.
Again, this shows that you don’t listen. You just talk. Many of us believe that God exists and Jesus Christ is on the throne. Many of us believe that we can see the fingerprints of God in looking at what scientists have discovered. Many of us believe that evidence from cosmology, physics and even biology point to the existence of a creator. The problem is that there is a difference between evidence and proof. In a trial, both parties refer to the same evidence to present their cases. Evidence is not proof, per se. Proof is when the evidence is so compelling that it leaves open no other possibility (or at least probability.)
Once again, this is not the truth, however. You definitely DO deny the importance of man’s science! You deny it again and again and again, as though it does not exist. And you are at a science web site!! You literally deny the evidence and you literally do not even consider the evidence in the formulation of your worldview, unless someone tells you that the specific evidence aligns with a YEC view.
Your denial runs so deep that conversations do not take place… Everything is a series of sermons with unread replies. Believe what you want to believe about the age of the earth, but don’t pretend that you are listening and comprehending, because you are not even trying. You are merely wasting people’s time.
This section is regarding what appears to me as rather serious scientfic research by Dr. Kurt Wise who offers a very convincing argument for the historicity of a global flood. Wise respects scriptures as i do to the point that they will trump mans science instead of the other way around. But i dont tend to believe that he falsifies science to fit his worldview either. I have not been made aware of any serious scientific grappling over the arguments he makes here. Instead i hear, “who has 90 minutes or i listened to it but it sounds like hogwash.” I believe he makes a good case for the global flood and definately makes a good case for throwing a wrench into the evolutiinary worldview many here have tried to convince me of. But unless i have missed something here- crickets…or science so offensive to a long held worldview that purposeful vocalization of a snubbing of his ideas.
Isnt it ironic that you are calling me out in the very thread that i brought to your attention that you have snubbed. Did you even get a chance to watch the seminar i limked you to?
Yes I watched the whole thing. It’s about 1% factual geology and 99% handwaving bullshit. I already pointed out several show-stoppers but you keep right on preaching.