RE: [CreationTalk] Re: intrinsic change
- From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of VictorM
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:47 PM
Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: intrinsic change
>--- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:CreationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
>>OK, so the intrinsic change to matter you are talking about is corruption or
>> Victor it is clear that intrinsic change to matter is central to
>> your entire Changing Earth Creation idea. In a final attempt
>> to understand what you are saying could you please tell me
>> what exactly about matter do you consider to be changing.
> The Apostle Paul argued that the creation is enslaved to
> change in Romans 8:19 - 22. Paul used the word gar at the
>beginning of verse 19, 22 and 22. It means truly, especially
> the causal reason for something. Paul uses the word creation
> four times in four verses. In verse 22 he explains this as the
> whole creation is right now in bondage to corruption.
> In verse 20 Paul twice uses the verbs hupotasso - to place
> under in an orderly fashion. Polybius used hupotasso for
> troops that obey their generals in an disciplined fashion.
> At some unspecified point God commanded the creation
> to passively degenerate. God did not actively ruin His
> creation. He cursed the ground and the animals with a
> passive curse.
> The second hupotasso verb is an active participle. The creation
> obeyed in an orderly manner by actively degenerating itself.
> Does this text mean that matter is actively corrupting itself in
> an orderly manner? Origen, a Greek speaking Christian who
> wrote extensively 250 years after Christ, understood this as
> qualitative changes in all things. In the context of physics,
> phthora is change in the direction of ruin that comes from within.
> In verse 22 Paul uses two Greek together verbs to illustrate how
> this internal corruption works. The whole creation groans together.
> If you lived in Jerusalem in 70 AD, all the inhabitants would groan
> together. Each individual in the city would experience the horror
> of a Roman siege - the hunger, the disease, the engines destroying
> the walls and the mahem within the city. Every individual would
> experience the pillage, rape and slavery after the final assault.
> The second together verb is together pains used of childbirth
> where muscle contractions and many complex hormonal changes
> act in an orderly sequence. Both together verbs are present active
> - showing that the ENTIRE creation creation is acting in a together
> manner right now.
> By the way the Second law interpretation is contradicted in at least
> three ways by the text itself.
degeneration. Fine but that does not explain anything else you are claiming.
It does not explain how you can have smaller orbits with longer periods.
That said the key point in your entire comment is that creation is actively
degenerating itself in an orderly manner. This is actually consistent with a
thermodynamic description of the observed degeneration (corruption) of the
universe. You mentioned the second law of thermodynamics but that is only
part of the picture because it does not describe what it actually going on.
However I recently had a paper published in the Creation Research Society
Quarterly called Entropy and Applied Energy that presents a thermodynamic
principle that does a far better job of describing this degeneration.
See reprint of Entropy and Applied Energy here
When this principle is applied to the observed degeneration of the universe,
the observed degeneration is shown to come from the random motion of
molecules resulting from heat. This random molecular motion is present in
every thing and over time causes everything to disintegrate. Thus every
object in the universe can be said to be actively corrupting itself. The
energy for the process comes from heat energy absorbed from the rest of the
universes the random molecular motion of which can accurately be described
as the entire creation actively corrupting itself in an orderly manner. The
reason why I can call it an orderly manner is that I can describe what is
happening mathematically which requires a degree of order.
>> You've mentioned the nature of its being but that does notThat first law of science would actually be that the universe is
>> make any real sense. The type of stuff you refer to would
>> require changes in many properties of matter. For example
>> you claim that the Earth orbited closer to the sun in the
>> past but yet its year was longer such that while measuring
>> 6,000 years, it would be the equivalent of 4.5 billion years
>> or more. Since orbital periods get shorter the closer you get
>> to the sun to accomplish this you would have to reduce
>> gravity by a factor of over a million, this would reduce
>> Earth's escape velocity to less than 0.44 inches per second
>> and the sun's to less than 1.6 inches per second which any
>> human could achieve by something as small as sneeze, So
>> it seems that the first time Adam or Eve sneezed they
>> would have gone flying out into space. Yes I'm using
>> today's units but you have given nothing else to work with.
> You are trying to understand the universe with symbolical
> representations of reality, mathematical notions that were
> contrived with the "first law" of science.
understandable and not you so called first law derived only from your
erroneous and unauthoritative translation of II Peter 3:4.
Actually what I have been trying to do in this case is understand what you
are trying to say but you seem to be incapable of putting it into terms that
make any real sense. I think I now understand why, I was trying to find a
rational description of a concept that is inherently irrational. If your
notions of intrinsic change were valid they would still have to produce a
viable reality. To produce a viable reality what changes has to change in a
manner that objectively fits with observable data however you refuse to
present any description (clearly by design) of what is going on that would
allow objective fits with observable data.
You are correct that to adopt a changing earth creation position requires
abandoning the first law of science, but that it is not the law you claim as
such. The first law of science that adopting a changing earth creation
position requires one to abandon is the idea that the universe is rationally
understandable place. You have resort to a notion that explains nothing,
describes noting, and predicts nothing.
I finally do fully understand your changing earth creation position. It is
clearly a position of cowardly retreat from having to actually deal with the
attacks being leveled against Biblical Christianity and Biblical Creation,
since it is deliberately immune from objective scrutiny, and allows you to
pigeon hole any observation that contradicts it as resulting from your so
called first law. That is why I can show you page after pager of data that
totally contradicts your claims but yet you keep repeating those same claims
as if that data did not exist. That is also why you can not present an
understandable concept to those us who see the universe as rationally
------ Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/> Mission
Online <http://store.gscim.com/> Store
Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/> Mission
Creation Science Talk <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]