Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
News Feeder

Confronted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Recommended Posts

How one man's encounter with creation evangelism caused him to re-think his understanding of the world and led him to faith in Jesus Christ.

 

More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, second law, I'd read somehow went against Evolution. People try to explain it but Creationist have further arguments . Also, it promotes a linear order of the universe conformed to the creation order, that there's a distinct beginning and distinct end.

 

Do the Bible teach about end of universe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, second law, I'd read somehow went against Evolution. People try to explain it but Creationist have further arguments .

 

It's actually a pretty terrible creationist argument. It takes the overall long-term trend towards disorder and assumes that therefore everything must always trend towards disorder. Of course we know for a fact that's not true, otherwise chemistry would never happen. After all, a water molecule is more ordered than unassociated, independent hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's why enthalpy is considered too. There are two requirements for a reaction to be spontaneous:

1) Enthalpy

2) Entropy

I think I need to study why entropy promotes linear universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article. Design and creation are very obvious when understanding DNA, universe fine-tuning,... Just don't agree with the YEC portion of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great article.

I saw some serious issues with the article. For example.....

"
Professional engineer Colin Gibson was raised in a church where he was taught six-day creation in Sunday school but that grounding was challenged at high school when evolution and millions of years were presented as fact in his science class. That left him confused and thinking that he must have been taught fairytales at Sunday school.
"

 

Right off the bat it sets the stage where Christianity and science are incompatible, giving readers the impression that they must choose.

"
He wrestled with why documentaries glossed over the ‘how’ of the adaptation as if it didn’t need any justification.

 

He explained:

 

“What magic mechanism re-wrote the DNA software to make the animal ‘adapt’ and change it to another kind of animal, especially before the change in environment killed it?
"

 

That's such a basic, easily-answered question it makes me wonder (hint: we see organisms "rewrite their DNA" every single time there's a reproduction/replication event).....did he just not bother to look for the answer or is he being disingenuous about what actually happened?

"“
Programming computers and designing machines are difficult tasks requiring a lot of brain power. Random guessing and mistakes simply don’t produce the desired results."

 

Apparently, despite being an engineer, he knows nothing of genetic algorithms. Then we get to the main gist of the article...

"“
In our mechanical engineering class we would argue amongst ourselves about this. How can things evolve at all when the Second Law of Thermodynamics says everything will ultimately degrade? Our lecturer at the time simply dismissed our questioning and said ‘the Second Law doesn’t apply to living things’. To us, this meant evolution could still occur and therefore there was no God to worry about. His statement was completely false of course, but we didn’t know any better at the time, so we all continued on with our somewhat degenerate lifestyles, thinking there was no God to fear.
"

 

First, he probably got that dismissive answer because he asked a biology question to a professor of mechanical engineering. But how in the world did he take that answer to mean that "there was no God"? Also, his question is trivially easy to answer....organisms evolve and can increase in their "order" because they are taking in energy. It's the same as what I described with chemistry and water molecules. Clearly a water molecule is in a lower state of disorder than unassociated hydrogen and oxygen atoms, so if everything is supposed to be degrading and going towards disorder, how can water molecules form? The answer is simple......energy.

 

This sort of thing is a good example of why creationism is detrimental to our faith and ministering to the lost. As long as we keep tying Christianity to such ridiculous arguments, a guaranteed percentage of people are going to conclude that any faith that advocates such silliness isn't worth believing in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw some serious issues with the article. For example.....

"
Professional engineer Colin Gibson was raised in a church where he was taught six-day creation in Sunday school but that grounding was challenged at high school when evolution and millions of years were presented as fact in his science class. That left him confused and thinking that he must have been taught fairytales at Sunday school.
"

 

Right off the bat it sets the stage where Christianity and science are incompatible, giving readers the impression that they must choose.

"
He wrestled with why documentaries glossed over the ‘how’ of the adaptation as if it didn’t need any justification.

 

He explained:

 

“What magic mechanism re-wrote the DNA software to make the animal ‘adapt’ and change it to another kind of animal, especially before the change in environment killed it?
"

 

That's such a basic, easily-answered question it makes me wonder (hint: we see organisms "rewrite their DNA" every single time there's a reproduction/replication event).....did he just not bother to look for the answer or is he being disingenuous about what actually happened?

"“
Programming computers and designing machines are difficult tasks requiring a lot of brain power. Random guessing and mistakes simply don’t produce the desired results."

 

Apparently, despite being an engineer, he knows nothing of genetic algorithms. Then we get to the main gist of the article...

"“
In our mechanical engineering class we would argue amongst ourselves about this. How can things evolve at all when the Second Law of Thermodynamics says everything will ultimately degrade? Our lecturer at the time simply dismissed our questioning and said ‘the Second Law doesn’t apply to living things’. To us, this meant evolution could still occur and therefore there was no God to worry about. His statement was completely false of course, but we didn’t know any better at the time, so we all continued on with our somewhat degenerate lifestyles, thinking there was no God to fear.
"

 

First, he probably got that dismissive answer because he asked a biology question to a professor of mechanical engineering. But how in the world did he take that answer to mean that "there was no God"? Also, his question is trivially easy to answer....organisms evolve and can increase in their "order" because they are taking in energy. It's the same as what I described with chemistry and water molecules. Clearly a water molecule is in a lower state of disorder than unassociated hydrogen and oxygen atoms, so if everything is supposed to be degrading and going towards disorder, how can water molecules form? The answer is simple......energy.

 

This sort of thing is a good example of why creationism is detrimental to our faith and ministering to the lost. As long as we keep tying Christianity to such ridiculous arguments, a guaranteed percentage of people are going to conclude that any faith that advocates such silliness isn't worth believing in.

 

I liked the basics of the article, that basically the complexity of DNA led him to God. He may not understand all the details of DNA but the basics are important and simple enough. l I just don't like the YEC part of the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's actually a pretty terrible creationist argument. It takes the overall long-term trend towards disorder and assumes that therefore everything must always trend towards disorder. Of course we know for a fact that's not true, otherwise chemistry would never happen. After all, a water molecule is more ordered than unassociated, independent hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

 

Don't mow your grass or clean your kitchen and see if it doesn't move to a state of disorder.

 

S=k*ln(omega)

 

Show us mathematically how that is the case. I think you are wrong.

 

Look at the Boltzmann's entropy equation. Simply compute the limit as the state function goes to infinity. As the possible number of possible states increase the entropy increases.

 

The state function should always be equal to one simply due to it being a normalized probability function. Granted it will reach a state of maximum entropy but the entropy will increase as the possible states increase.

 

Please explain.

Edited by tugz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Privacy Policy