Post by Bob WeigelPost by dave eFor those who don't know, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that
entropy tends to increase, over time, in a closed system.
In most cases, the layman's understanding of the second law is wrong,
Look....I think you missed my intent there. By 'layman's terms' I mean the
words "entropy" "enthalpy" etc. weren't in their language nor did they have
anything of equivelent nature near as I'm aware! Thus when David said "The
heavens wear out like an old garmet"....that was REALLY good (considering
that most people in the physics departments today in ALL THEIR wisdom...seem
to think that all the real Christians thought that the heaven's were made of
the perfect eternal sphere's and so on. Hehehe. So..who's really ignorant
here? I'll tell you who. The REAL Christians believe that the heavens wear
out like an old garmet, which is, given the language available to David,
about as accurate a description of the 2nd law as possible.) !
are you joking? thats pretty sloppy reasoning. why is that a
stunning revelation? its often been said in many religions that times
in the past were much better and that modern times are in decay. and
likening it to a garment wearing out doesn't even make sense, surely
he -could- have said, all things become more disorderly with time',
there wasn't anything preventing that and its obviously something that
many many people have remarked on well before the 'scientific age'
Post by Bob WeigelPost by dave eor at least incomplete. The layman recognizes the second law as
having something to do with decay.
Actually...few of them even know what it is.
It doesn't take a PhD in physics
Post by dave e(or revelation from God) to observe that most things decay over time.
David makes that observation in Psalm 102.
so then why do you pretend that its a sign to take the rest of the
bible seriously?
Post by Bob WeigelHuh. Well..maybe modern physicists will come out of the stone ages and
believe that all real Christians believed the truth all along then.
who the heck cares what a physcicist thought about christianity now or
in the past.
Post by Bob WeigelMan's
CURRENT wisdom on all things is still incomplete. The smart ass of
yesteryear is the fool of today. So...my ORIGINAL POINT isn't going to go
away you know..?
not much of a point, that things aren't perfect.
Post by Bob WeigelThat the bible is amazing because of all those types of
things that got said, NONE of them look as stupid today as a science text
written 100 years ago looks. Riiiggghhht?
what'reya kidding? the sun standing still, marching around a city and
thus causign its walls to fall down, mana falling onto wandering
runaway slaves, a flying flamming sword gaurding a paradise where
there -is- no increase in entropy, yeah those things aren't silly at
all. so what if the bible gets some things right, christ, it would be
difficult to not get anything right.
Post by Bob WeigelC'mon, let's here you agree. Do
you have disagreement with this point?
about things not being perfect, no. about the bible being special for
stating the obvious, yes.
Post by Bob WeigelWhy is everyone out there to wimpy
to just agree with something so blatantly obvious?
your not being clear about what yer talking about. which of the above
are you even refering to here?
Post by Bob Weigel1) DID not a lot of different people in the bible claim to have revelations
from God that related to things including the physical universe which the
science of their day did not necessarily support?
what? what 'science' frmo nearly 6k ya are biblical revelations
contradicting? or even the more recent revelations and their
contemporaneous sciences?
Post by Bob Weigel(More recent history
PROVES that without good science man is going to wind up believing that the
starts are on these eternal spheres and stuff...)
how do you figure that?
Post by Bob Weigel2) In all other writings where people did this sort
what sort of thing? the eternal spheres and perfect universe?
Post by Bob Weigelof thing DID THEY NOT
wind up SOMEWHERE saying something that is proveably WRONG in science
today!?
what are you even talking about?
Post by Bob Weigel3) Isn't it, strange, odd, and rather unbelievable that if the bible was
spawned by a bunch of liars, that they didn't screw up like this SOMEWHERE?
why, because the bible doens't explicitly state that the universe is
perfect? not all religions state this, so its not special or unique
in that regard.
Post by Bob WeigelPost by dave eThe greater achievement of science has been introducing the concept of
"entropy" (which is more rigorously defined than "decay") introducing
the concept of "closed" and "open" systems (which Psalm 102 doesn't
mention)
"the heavens" sounds like pretty much everything.
sounds like the stuff above to me.
Post by Bob WeigelYes his grammar did deal
with it. By definition what is...is.
they aren't specifiying what this decay actually is or that inputing
energy will decrease the decay, infact they seem to imply that nothing
will prevent the decay. perhaps if they, in the same context, were
also talking about a closed system wherein entropy doesn't increase.
Post by Bob WeigelInfinity doesn't have mathmatical
meaning in terms of objects. An object either is...or it isn't. If it is,
then it can be counted. There is no limit to how big numbers can be. Thus,
the matter in the universe can be counted. Every proton, electron, muon,
BISON! All can be counted. Just that, they are too numerous and difficult
to track for anyone to actually do that. But still the mathmatical reality
is that. So, when he said 'heavens', he's technically and accurately
talking about a closed system.
he's not explicitly stating everything, it doesn't follow that 'the
heavens' mean 'the universe', the heavens almost allways means the sky
and whats above it.
Post by Bob WeigelRegardless..for it to be truth...Does he have to say everything?
who is denying the truthfulness of the statement?
Post by Bob WeigelDoes
he have to detail every aspect? Because, if so all of science has been a
lie for the past decades and obviously will continue to be. :-) Something's
always missing. We don't understand the nature of how light even propogates
though we understand the mathmatical relationship of how electric and
magnetic fields interact to a great degree, etc. But our understanding is
so pathetically incomplete. This is a silly path to pursue. I can see
nobody is going to deal with the FACT that the bible is full of RISKY
ASSERTIONS for the day it was done in
how do you figure the bible is making risky statements? what
convential wisdom is it going against?
Post by Bob Weigel(and HERETICAL ones even according to
the alledged church of much later days!!!) So....anyone who sits there
arguing the stuff I've seen here is just lost. That's all.
Post by dave eand the discovery of means by which high-tech machinery,
developmental biology, and biological evolution are all possible
without violating any of the recognized laws of thermodynamics.
David's understanding of thermodynamics doesn't approach even an 18th
century understanding of the science, let alone a modern one.
Hmmm. Yet it DOES exceed a 16th century one it appears.
so what it wasn't written in the 16th century.
Post by Bob WeigelThis is a
presumptuous statement though. How do YOU know what David understood? Just
because he didn't write it in the Psalms...you think he didn't know it? I
don't know what he knew. More hand waving stupid arguments.
please, no more.
but i dont like your hand waving arguements
Post by Bob WeigelWhat he said was TRUE.
what he said was obvious, not radical, and accepted ordinary wisdom.
Post by Bob WeigelAnd that's more than I can say for a GOOD chunk of
what 'science' has taught through the ages.
its also more that you can say for a good chunk of whats in the bible
now, whats been in it before, what will be in it later, and what
people have taught from it now or then. So if science is responsible
for incorrect scientific teachings, then the bible must be responsible
for all the incorrect religious teachings that it spawned. Seems when
you compare those two 'accounts' its religion thats in the red on
truth.
Post by Bob WeigelScience get's information from
raw observations and attempts to construct the most plausible theory to
explain such things.
the horror. the horror.
Post by Bob WeigelIf you think back to the day before telescopes, one
can imagine how people came up with the models the supposed 'church'
what supposed, it -was- the church, unless yer part of the orthodoxy.
good reason to stay away from religions when they try to explain the
physical world.
Post by Bob WeigelThe 'church' that like the one of today is too busy or hindered to
read it's own text! :-) What is untrue about an analogy between a piece of
clothing wearing out and entropy?
well, for one thing when clothes wear out its because they are being
worn out by something, the wearer, the environement, etc, but for the
analagy to be at least somewhat accurate it would have to be a garment
kept in perfect and complete isolation from anything else, unable to
interact, tear, be abraded etc.
Post by Bob WeigelGiven the audience he was addressing, I'm
not sure I'd have said it any different!
in trying to explain entropy? then you'd have done a bad job of
explaining it.
Post by Bob WeigelIf you or I had started talking
nerdese to them they have fallen asleep!
just because you can't make science sound interesting doesn't mean no
one can. how about we send bill nuy back in time to do it, with his
scienc kit. awww heck they'd probably think he was a prophet, no, a
god perhaps? we'll have his lab on top of a mountain, and he can use
a laser to etch laws onto cement tablets for them.
Post by Bob Weigel:-) Boy, you and me..we oughta
party dude. Hehehe.
And
Post by dave eeven if it had (which is unlikely to impossible) he didn't communicate
his knowledge in a way which made it accessible to further
experimentation or theoretical improvements. The second law of
thermodynamics wasn't formally introduced until 1834, by Clapeyron,
Uhh...yeah I remember some other names from back there. Why doesn't
Clapeyron ring a bell right now? Things like "Carnot Cycle" and so forth
start coming to mind with my photographic memory recollections of the
physics text pages :-). I have a degree in Science Ed...all but one
sequence of a physics degree and years of engineering experience. I deal
with the realities of physics on a daily basis and make a living off knowing
them well. Names never interested me much though.
sounds like yer an engineer, not a scientist.
Post by Bob WeigelPost by dave ewho specialized in designing steam engines. Clapeyron's discoveries
built on the knowledge of many scientists and engineers who came
before him. David (alleged author of Psalms) wasn't among them.
What a strange statement. Look at the history of scientific development.
Most of the significant developments have come in the past few decades
really. But the light JUSt started turning on about the time these people
were doing things 150 to 200 years ago! David was...like 1000BC!!!
That's....3000 years ago!! Good grief.
god grief what, it was thousands of years ago and some doode realized
that stuff falls apart after a while? yeesh. whats next, he knew about
gravity because he didn't float away into space?
Post by Bob WeigelYa know...back in Jr. high science,
who cares what you did in high school, i thought you had a science
degree?
Post by Bob Weigelwe started making these things called "graphs" and "Plots" a lot. No I'm
not talking about the kind of plot the people who write to this ng are
trying to concoct. Take a piece of graph paper (linear). Draw a line that
represents the NUMBER of significant and well proven facts known about the
physical universe. If you start at 1000BC, you will see that at least in
this culture, a bunch were known. Noooo not near as many as today for
sure. But a bunch. And...they're all still true! Amazing!
yeah, real amazing, significant and well proven facts are as true
today as they were in the past. at least you are a uniformitarian.
Post by Bob WeigelOk, now as
your plot moves onward and you begin to incorporate all of humanity
interesting, how do you plan on doing this?
Post by Bob Weigelwe see
the number of things actually PLUMMET as false things take the place of
things like this. :-)
where are you getting your data for this anyway?
Post by Bob WeigelThen...all the sudden some people stand up for their
freedom to worship God and a nation called "America" forms and people are
finally free to think and other nations get jealous and start allowing some
freedom themselves and voila! BOOOM!
what the heck are you talking about? america is a product of the
enlightenment, not the originator of it.
Post by Bob WeigelFace it. Before America was set up with it's principles which respected
all people (though it has often not been followed in practise by people with
their own agendas..) as creations of a loving God IN WHOM WE TRUST it says
on our currency still..thank you.... there really wasn't another signifcant
government that wasn't "by the few, for the few"!!!!!
and this is relevant to science because...?
Post by Bob WeigelWell the British were
weakening in it and vearing that way themselves, and many Europeon nations.
'democracy' (writ large anyways) was around before the us, and
immeaditely preceeding the us too.
Post by Bob WeigelCreativity happened in any case when people's thoughts weren't constantly
either consumed with how they could keep deceiving the masses OR with how
much they hated those in power! Other nations took that success and
perverted it in their own way like Germany.
how?
Post by Bob WeigelAnd oh yeah they made lots of
developments; mostly documented along the way to trying to find a better way
to kill people. :-). I'm German. It's ok to make fun of one's own heritage
isn't it?
so your entire concept of the history of germany is that its all
basically nazi germany? the nazis thrived in an anti-intellectual
environment, not a scientific intellectual one.
Post by Bob WeigelAnyway, that's history.
hardly.
Post by Bob WeigelThose who associate themselves with the ways of
this God seem to have an edge in technological development and science
ok, now i know yer kidding. seems more liek the less people/nations
have to do with the bible the more technologically developed they
become.
Post by Bob Weigel...and
clear thinking in general.
how so? what was so clear thinking about the enlightenment?
Post by Bob WeigelOf course, that could have to do with the fact
that without a relationship with God, one's tendency is to do what SEEMS
best for themself.
or, with a relationship with god that the tendency.
Post by Bob WeigelIn doing so, lying is a natural thing.
well there's certainly been enough lying for god going around.
Post by Bob WeigelOnce a lie is
spawned it occupies the mind's resources and eventually makes the person so
they are so encumbered they can't really think too straight.
is that your explanation for your muddled thinking?
snip