|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/12/2008 11:43:52 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
If God created death, then the majority of the Bible is false,
What' so bad about death?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/12/2008 11:50:41 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
What' so bad about death?
Really? Is this an honest question? Physically, death is the extremum of fear and pain, but the greatest gain if you are a Cristian. But I don't think that is the point CrimsonMoon's trying to make.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/12/2008 11:54:54 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Yeah, I hadn't really looked too closely at the context of CM's comments. I dunno if I was being serious. Death could be looked at as a matter of indifference even by an atheist tho -- that's all.
latah
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/13/2008 9:24:50 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Nevertheless it is a fact that many organisms died before humans ever lived. By all means, gluadys, do present observational evidence that "many organisms died before humans ever lived". This very statement is a massive oxymoron that amply demonstrates your total lack of understanding the meaning of "fact"! This attitude is precisely what Peter prophesied in the passage under discussion - "everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation".
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/13/2008 11:17:55 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
quote:
If God created death, then the majority of the Bible is false,
What' so bad about death?
If one believes that death came about because of Original Sin, then doesn't it follow that death is a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/13/2008 12:22:52 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 178
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Sorry but the Book of the law (the pentateuch which are the first 5 books of the bible) and the OT were written down in Peter's time. And the NT never contradicts the OT. So it is indeed a matter of scripture agreeing in order to know what's from God and what's from man. Is that a typo? Because the OT was absolutely not written in Peter's time! The OT was written centuries before Peter's time.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/13/2008 1:52:30 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Death, physically speaking, is the result of the universe being subjected by God to decay - or the 2nd law of thermodynamics - because of sin or rebellion against his government.
Are you suggesting that the 2nd law of thermodynamics did not exist prior to the fall?
If so, for what reason did God provide food for humans and other animals?
Why would they need food?
How would they digest their food?
Another question. If the 2nd law of thermodynamics did not exist, how did the sun warm the earth?
And how was the heat of the sun dissipated once it did reach earth?
Did Adam and Eve have body heat--a normal body temperature? Did they eat, breathe, perspire, digest food, circulate blood and body fluids, excrete waste? All of these things require work and the transformation of energy including the dissipation of heat. Same goes for all animals and, in their own way, plants. Without a functioning 2nd law of thermodynamics, none of this could happen.
Does scripture not say that God walked in the garden in the cool of the evening? How did the air cool off without the 2nd law of thermodynamics in place?
If you contend that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was not operative prior to the fall, you are implying that Adam could not have lit a fire, Eve could not have boiled water, they could not have cooked a lentil stew. You are implying that no breeze stirred the air in the garden, that no flower bloomed or formed seed, that no ant laid an egg and so forth and so on.
That creationists could think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is an optional addition to creation merely indicates they don't know the function of the law.
The 2nd law is not a law of decay. It is a law that governs any and all work and transformation of energy in the physical world. The process of decay is only one of many processes that exemplify the 2nd LOT. All the processes that make life and any sort of work possible also need the 2nd LOT.
No one can deny that the fall brought about significant changes. This cannot be one of them, because it was as necessary prior to the fall as it is now.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/13/2008 3:45:28 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 178
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Are you suggesting that the 2nd law of thermodynamics did not exist prior to the fall?
I don't whether it did or not and I don't which fall brought it on. Adam's or Lucifers.
quote:
If so, for what reason did God provide food for humans and other animals?
Why would they need food?
How would they digest their food?
Why would we need food in heaven? How will we digest food there? Why did Christ eat fish with the apostles after the resurrection? Did he need to? Did he have to excrete it afterwards? Will there be toilets in heaven?!
Answer, and you may have the answer to the rest.
quote:
Did Adam and Eve have body heat--a normal body temperature? Did they eat, breathe, perspire, digest food, circulate blood and body fluids, excrete waste? All of these things require work and the transformation of energy including the dissipation of heat. Same goes for all animals and, in their own way, plants. Without a functioning 2nd law of thermodynamics, none of this could happen.
Does scripture not say that God walked in the garden in the cool of the evening? How did the air cool off without the 2nd law of thermodynamics in place?
If you contend that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was not operative prior to the fall, you are implying that Adam could not have lit a fire, Eve could not have boiled water, they could not have cooked a lentil stew. You are implying that no breeze stirred the air in the garden, that no flower bloomed or formed seed, that no ant laid an egg and so forth and so on.
That creationists could think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is an optional addition to creation merely indicates they don't know the function of the law.
The 2nd law is not a law of decay. It is a law that governs any and all work and transformation of energy in the physical world. The process of decay is only one of many processes that exemplify the 2nd LOT. All the processes that make life and any sort of work possible also need the 2nd LOT.
No one can deny that the fall brought about significant changes. This cannot be one of them, because it was as necessary prior to the fall as it is now.
Another question. If the 2nd law of thermodynamics did not exist, how did the sun warm the earth? And how was the heat of the sun dissipated once it did reach earth? Good questions. No precise answers are possible because we do not know what the earth was really like before the fall nor when it occurred - again Adams or Lucifers' fall which I think can be argued had an effect on the earth. But it's irrelevant and we simply don't know. Same as no one knows exactly what 'primitive' earth was like.
We do not and cannot know how a universe without these laws would function - it amounts to the perpetual motion machine. But eternal life itself, unless you argue for an eternal need for energy input, is a perpetual motion machine of sorts.
The fact that death (the 2nd law's ultimate end) will be destroyed means such a world can exist. Did it in fact exist before the fall - there are indicators that it was so but nothing absolute - see below.
What I am saying is that possibly at some time in the past and definitely at some time in the future the 2nd law will either be undone or transformed to operate differently.
quote:
Rom 8:20 ESV - For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay [entropy, thermodynamics] and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
WNT - For the Creation fell into subjection to failure and unreality (not of its own choice, but by the will of Him who so subjected it). Yet there was always the hope that at last the Creation itself would also be set free from the thraldom of decay so as to enjoy the liberty that will attend the glory of the children of God.
GW - Creation was subjected to frustration but not by its own choice. The one who subjected it to frustration did so in the hope that it would also be set free from slavery to decay in order to share the glorious freedom that the children of God will have.
quote:
GW - 1Co 15:50 Brothers and sisters, this is what I mean: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. What decays cannot inherit what doesn't decay.
53 This body that decays must be changed into a body that cannot decay. This mortal body must be changed into a body that will live forever.
When this body that decays is changed into a body that cannot decay, and this mortal body is changed into a body that will live forever, then the teaching of Scripture will come true: "Death is turned into victory! So we see there will come an end to decay which seems to imply an end to the 2nd law and perhaps a lot of other laws.
How will all this work? By Gods power is the only answer I can give since no one can possibly know as we have no observable process in which to observe anything at all without thermodynamics.
Your statement "That creationists could think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is an optional addition to creation merely indicates they don't know the function of the law. " is rather offensive though. Creationist scientists are hardly the ignorant drones that Darwinists constantly make them out to be. Was AE Wilder Smith an ignoramus? Or Charles Thaxton? Or Townes or a few 1000 others?
Give us a break with this ubiquitous codswallop about creationists not understanding anything. It's old, it's a lie and it stinks.
---------
Second Law of Thermodynamics = Increased Entropy = Ultimate Heat Death
Entropy :
1. (Symbol S) For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.
Examples of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are all around us. Everything is decaying. Nothing gets better of its own accord. Unless useable energy is harnessed, everything falls apart. - The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy"
So decay is intimately related to the 2nd law.
----------------------------------------
Least that's how it seems to me at this point.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/13/2008 3:58:42 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Give us a break with this ubiquitous codswallop about creationists not understanding anything. It's old, it's a lie and it stinks.
It's well founded, given the regularity with which they seem to completely misrepresent so many things, including the 2nd law. Are all of them stupid? No, but they certainly let untenable dogma override what reasoning and intellectual capabilities they may possess, which in and of itself is pretty stupid. Is Ken Ham necessarily stupid or unable to understand things? Probably not, but I think the creationists like him simply refuse to understand things.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 7/13/2008 4:05:04 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/13/2008 4:19:45 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 178
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
It's well founded, given the regularity with which they seem to completely misrepresent so many things, including the 2nd law. Are all of them stupid? No, but they certainly let untenable dogma override what reasoning and intellectual capabilities they may possess, which in and of itself is pretty stupid.
Ya right. Nice try.
Far less founded than the fact that even Darwinian fundamentalists don't understand their own chaotic and impossibly speculative hypothesis.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/13/2008 4:26:39 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
It's well founded, given the regularity with which they seem to completely misrepresent so many things, including the 2nd law. Are all of them stupid? No, but they certainly let untenable dogma override what reasoning and intellectual capabilities they may possess, which in and of itself is pretty stupid.
Ya right. Nice try.
Far less founded than the fact that even Darwinian fundamentalists don't understand their own chaotic and impossibly speculative hypothesis.
I don't think I've ever met a 'darwinian fundamentalist'.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/13/2008 5:11:37 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Nevertheless it is a fact that many organisms died before humans ever lived. By all means, gluadys, do present observational evidence that "many organisms died before humans ever lived". This very statement is a massive oxymoron that amply demonstrates your total lack of understanding the meaning of "fact"! This attitude is precisely what Peter prophesied in the passage under discussion - "everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation".
No human fossils are found with dinosaur fossils, or with any of the other bajillion extinct species that are found in particular strata of rocks.
The ordering of the layers of rocks shows that the lives of these animals preceded the first humans.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/13/2008 6:30:00 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Are you suggesting that the 2nd law of thermodynamics did not exist prior to the fall?
I don't whether it did or not and I don't which fall brought it on. Adam's or Lucifers.
quote:
If so, for what reason did God provide food for humans and other animals?
Why would they need food?
How would they digest their food?
Why would we need food in heaven? How will we digest food there? Why did Christ eat fish with the apostles after the resurrection? Did he need to? Did he have to excrete it afterwards? Will there be toilets in heaven?!
Answer, and you may have the answer to the rest.
What the conditions in heaven will be is irrelevant. I am asking about the conditions in Eden prior to the fall. Eden was on earth, not in heaven.
quote:
Good questions. No precise answers are possible because we do not know what the earth was really like before the fall
But we do know that Adam and Eve were humans with physical bodies placed in a garden with plants and animals. We do know what is necessary to the life of such bodies. We know that God must have created conditions suitable to ordinary biological life.
We also know how the laws of thermodynamics describe the transfer and transformation of energy in a system and how this makes work possible. We know that without this movement and transfer of energy, no work in any kind of physical universe is possible at all---no physical life of any sort is possible at all.
Some things about creation before the fall are not all that mysterious.
quote:
Your statement "That creationists could think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is an optional addition to creation merely indicates they don't know the function of the law. " is rather offensive though.
Sometimes the truth hurts.
quote:
Creationist scientists are hardly the ignorant drones that Darwinists constantly make them out to be. Was AE Wilder Smith an ignoramus? Or Charles Thaxton? Or Townes or a few 1000 others?
How many of them have studied thermodynamics?
quote:
Second Law of Thermodynamics = Increased Entropy = Ultimate Heat Death
Incorrect definition.
First, it is not true that the 2nd LOT is identical in meaning to "increased entropy". That (and ultimate heat death) are consequences of the 2nd LOT under certain conditions, not the definition of the law. Furthermore, they are consequences only when certain conditions are fulfilled. IOW they are not inevitable.
Furthermore, you left out a significant word. It should read "a net increase in entropy"
The fact that it is a net increase is very important, because it means we don't just have a one-way process. A business that is losing money is not one that has no revenue at all. It makes products or supplies services. It makes sales and earns an income. But, if come the end of the month, that revenue is not enough to offset costs, it has to record a net loss. Two things are happening, not just one. Revenue is being collected and expenses are being incurred. It is not a case of having only expenses and no revenue. It is a case of the revenue not keeping up with the expenses.
In thermodynamics entropy is like the expenses, but there is a "revenue" side to thermodynamics as well: energy available for work and the work done with that energy.
Without that energy operating according to the laws of thermodynamics, the sort of existence in Eden described in scripture is not possible. That is why the 2nd LOT must have been operative before as well as after the fall.
quote:
So decay is intimately related to the 2nd law.
No more so than any other kind of work actually. It takes the use of available energy by decay organisms to make something decay. And that of course contributes a bit of entropy to the whole system. But so does the germination of a seed, the development of an embryo, the growth of a tree, the beating of a heart, etc. etc.
Not to mention all the inanimate processes that also fall under the laws of thermodynamics: the formation of a snowflake, evaporation, air circulation, and so on and so forth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/13/2008 6:41:56 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Nevertheless it is a fact that many organisms died before humans ever lived. By all means, gluadys, do present observational evidence that "many organisms died before humans ever lived". This very statement is a massive oxymoron that amply demonstrates your total lack of understanding the meaning of "fact"! This attitude is precisely what Peter prophesied in the passage under discussion - "everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation".
And do you suppose that Peter meant that everything does not go on as it has since the beginning of creation until Christ comes again?
Peter affirms that there will be an end to things as they are. Christ will come. Judgment will come. A new world will come.
But until that happens, do we really expect that nature will change its course? When have the natural processes necessary to the very existence of a material universe ever not applied? How could they not apply and the universe still exist?
Some people (I don't know if you are one of them) like to point to the fine-tuning of the universe--to the fact that if physical laws like gravity and electro-magnetism did not work just so, we would not have a universe with life in it.
Was Peter telling us that this fine-tuning did not exist from the beginning of creation? Or was he counselling patience and trust in regard to the coming change of the future?
Is he not actually agreeing that things in the present are continuing on as they always have---but nevertheless, we should not lose hope in the return of the Lord who will make all things new.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/14/2008 8:57:33 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 178
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
But we do know that Adam and Eve were humans with physical bodies placed in a garden with plants and animals. We do know what is necessary to the life of such bodies. We know that God must have created conditions suitable to ordinary biological life.
Fine. So?
You didn't answer my questions on Christ after the resurrection. Why did he eat? What happened after? Did entropy control his destiny like it does ours? Hardly. Explain that in thermodynamics terms.
quote:
We also know how the laws of thermodynamics describe the transfer and transformation of energy in a system and how this makes work possible. We know that without this movement and transfer of energy, no work in any kind of physical universe is possible at all---no physical life of any sort is possible at all. Speculation. You don't know what is possible with God. And you again conveniently avoided my more pertinent questions.
quote:
Your statement "That creationists could think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is an optional addition to creation merely indicates they don't know the function of the law. " is rather offensive though.
quote:
Sometimes the truth hurts. Indeed apply some truth to your self and you should be in agony.
quote:
Creationist scientists are hardly the ignorant drones that Darwinists constantly make them out to be. Was AE Wilder Smith an ignoramus? Or Charles Thaxton? Or Townes or a few 1000 others?
quote:
How many of them have studied thermodynamics? You're kidding right? Don't actually know anything about them do you.
Well the correct answer is none of them of course!!
Yes continue duping yourself.
And, you are the expert in thermodynamics? Have a Ph.D or a Masters in it? At least a Bsc? You don't have a clue about creationist scientists. Many of whom are Nobel Laureates, Townes is co-inventor of the laser. Smith had 3 Ph.D.'s. Did you notice I said few 1000 others? Of course, none of them knows anything about thermoD.
Sheeesh get real.
quote:
Second Law of Thermodynamics = Increased Entropy = Ultimate Heat Death quote:
Incorrect definition. That must be the fault of the many science and university sites I scanned to get a succinct def for it. As well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
You're getting your foot in it big time.
In any case I was not looking for any serious arguments to my speculations on conditions before or future. You got it all wrong and I won't answer you any longer.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/14/2008 9:36:57 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
Good luck GHitch! Been there, tried that. She has convinced herself creationists have no idea what they are talking about, and has therefor justified not having to listen to them by her own bias. You won't get anywhere, but don't let me discourage you! Have fun...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/14/2008 10:16:45 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
And, you are the expert in thermodynamics? Have a Ph.D or a Masters in it? At least a Bsc? You don't have a clue about creationist scientists. Many of whom are Nobel Laureates, Townes is co-inventor of the laser. Smith had 3 Ph.D.'s. Did you notice I said few 1000 others? Of course, none of them knows anything about thermoD.
Sheeesh get real.
I don't think Townes would call himself a creation scientist. Certainly he's not YEC.
"People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change." But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one."
"But the Bible's description of creation occurring over a week's time is just an analogy, as I see it. The Jews couldn't know very much at that time about the lifetime of the universe or how old it was. They were visualizing it as best they could and I think they did remarkably well, but it's just an analogy."
quote:
quote:
Second Law of Thermodynamics = Increased Entropy = Ultimate Heat Death quote:
Incorrect definition. That must be the fault of the many science and university sites I scanned to get a succinct def for it. As well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
You're getting your foot in it big time.
Strange as it may seem, there really is no canonical statement or definition of the 2nd law. There are a number of equivalent formulations. Mathematically, it's dS = dq/T. Colloquially, it's "There's no such thing as a free lunch; in fact, you can't even break even." Somewhere in the middle it's "in a closed thermodynamic system, the entropy always increases"; a consequence of that is the heat death of the universe.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/14/2008 11:29:24 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
You didn't answer my questions on Christ after the resurrection. Why did he eat? What happened after? Did entropy control his destiny like it does ours? Hardly. Explain that in thermodynamics terms.
Christ's resurrection body is thought to be the model of the spiritual body we will have in the resurrection. Unlike the bodies of Adam and Eve, it cannot be a model for the role of thermodynamics in this creation.
quote:
quote:
We also know how the laws of thermodynamics describe the transfer and transformation of energy in a system and how this makes work possible. We know that without this movement and transfer of energy, no work in any kind of physical universe is possible at all---no physical life of any sort is possible at all. Speculation. You don't know what is possible with God.
God made the laws which regulate the processes of nature, including the processes of thermodynamics. He made them to have the consequences they do. So, yes, I do know what is possible with God. Whatever God purposes is possible. God made a thermodynamically active universe so that stars, planets and living beings could exist. God could have made a universe in which entropy was total to begin with. But he chose to make this one.
quote:
quote:
How many of them have studied thermodynamics?
Well the correct answer is none of them of course!!
As expected. Thank you for saving me the research. How many of them have even commented on thermodynamics?
quote:
And, you are the expert in thermodynamics? Have a Ph.D or a Masters in it? At least a Bsc?
No, but I learn from people who do. Like this guy. http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html
quote:
That must be the fault of the many science and university sites I scanned to get a succinct def for it. As well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
You're getting your foot in it big time.
You mean the article that says right in the first paragraph
because of this, the term "entropy" has often been confused with Heat Death,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What did Peter mean? - 7/15/2008 9:23:25 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why did he eat? What happened after? Did entropy control his destiny like it does ours? Hardly. Explain that in thermodynamics terms.
Perhaps because they offerred him food (and no other reason.)
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
