My Reverse Entropy Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Anytime any entity of infinite power dips their hand into the world, the laws of nature go right out the window...

Now you know why I chose my tag line: SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.

I'm impressed. Others still don't get it, even though I have explained it to them. You seem to have come up with it on your own. Good job.

so scientific discourse on such a subject is about as useful as discussing the merits of tea in china and the world's most destructive weapon.

Then you guys must love Chinese tea made from an abortionist's scalpel. You guys seem to target us Christians for your scientific explanations on about a 100 to 1 ratio --- and I'm being conservative here.

I did, however, pose two possibilities earlier in the thread as to how these people could have had good clothes and shoes after 40 years of wilderness.

Ya --- I seen'em --- I usually ignore people who think they're funny.

 

[ragarth]

Now you know why I chose my tag line: SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.

I'm impressed. Others still don't get it, even though I have explained it to them. You seem to have come up with it on your own. Good job.

Heh, it is true, science is a study of nature and it's laws, the supernatural is by definition beyond nature. It's my opinion that you are free to choose to believe in the supernatural.

Ya --- I seen'em --- I usually ignore people who think they're funny.

I was quite serious. I may intersperse jokes within my posts but generally my posts are not satire, there is almost always a serious purpose behind them.

In this case, I ask you, why is the idea of God using more mundane methods such as cobblers or already existing human manufactured goods such a problem? If God is capable of turning the planet into a pretzel at a whim, he's equally capable of diverting a few shoes, or providing a few animal corpses.

 

[AV1611VET]

In this case, I ask you, why is the idea of God using more mundane methods such as cobblers or already existing human manufactured goods such a problem?

There's a difference in they doing it with additional resources, and God doing it by suspending the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell, these forty years.

Yea, forty years didst thou sustain them in the wilderness, so that they lacked nothing; their clothes waxed not old, and their feet swelled not.

Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell, these forty years--What a striking miracle was this! No doubt the Israelites might have brought from Egypt more clothes than they wore at their outset; they might also have obtained supplies of various articles of food and raiment in barter with the neighboring tribes for the fleeces and skins of their sheep and goats; and in furnishing them with such opportunities the care of Providence appeared. But the strong and pointed terms which Moses here uses (see also De 29:5) indicate a special or miraculous interposition of their loving Guardian in preserving them amid the wear and tear of their nomadic life in the desert.

 

[sbvera13]

It didn't say "God suspended the 2nd law of thermodynamics to halt the aging of their shoes." It said they didn't have old shoes on. Whats to prove they didn't just make new ones?

Besides, I don't see what the tendency of heat to move from a warm body to a cold body and never vise versa has to do with clothing.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Whenever you boys and girls are done yakking at each other, feel free to answer the OP as I wrote it.

The OP, as you wrote it, is garbage. We've found something meaningful to discuss in its place.

I would have thought, since I invited you guys to answer from a scientific perspective, that you would have busted your keyboards to answer it --- but apparently asking you to respect the passage was asking too much.

You claim to want us to look at it from a scientific perspective, but a true scientific perspective would require us to examine all possibilities -- incluing the possibility that the premise -- that the passage in question is literally true -- is false.

Why should we "respect" the passage at the expense of getting at the truth?

In any event, feel free when you get some time on your fingers to type an answer.

An answer that makes you look as wise as you think you are? Don't hold your breath.

Are Christians here the only ones who are capable of melding science with Scripture?

They're the only ones willing to sacrifice science on the altar of Scripture -- and most of them won't sink that low.

ETA: By the way, I asked the question wrong. I should have used the term suspended entropy, not reverse entropy; but I assume you "scientists" were too busy pouting about having to respect the Scripture to notice that the science was wrong.

We don't idolize Scripture -- perhaps you'll find people who do over in the Origins Theology forum?

Assuming of course, you're not afraid to get your keester handed to you by people who know the Bible far better than you whom you can't dismiss as nonbelievers.

 

[ragarth]

There's a difference in they doing it with additional resources, and God doing it by suspending the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

I'm afraid God doesn't necessarily bow to your personal preferences for his actions. All the information we have is this passage in a book, even assuming the passage is indeed completely accurate is indeed playing by your rules. If you want me to get very technical about the issue I'd have to take into account many additional possibilities, including the potential for observer bias, exaggeration through oral tradition, etc. By assuming absolute accuracy of the multi-translated text, I'm playing to your bias.

The fact is, natural answers without deference to God flexing his almighty bicep answers this question just fine. Cobblers can make shoes just as God can make shoes and Tailors can make clothes just as God can make clothes. There is no *need* for God to turn the universe into a pretzel to fulfill this miracle.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm afraid God doesn't necessarily bow to your personal preferences for his actions. All the information we have is this passage in a book, even assuming the passage is indeed completely accurate is indeed playing by your rules. If you want me to get very technical about the issue I'd have to take into account many additional possibilities, including the potential for observer bias, exaggeration through oral tradition, etc. By assuming absolute accuracy of the multi-translated text, I'm playing to your bias.

The fact is, natural answers without deference to God flexing his almighty bicep answers this question just fine. Cobblers can make shoes just as God can make shoes and Tailors can make clothes just as God can make clothes. There is no *need* for God to turn the universe into a pretzel to fulfill this miracle.

Without looking --- and I'll trust you on this --- which is the correct verse --- first or second?

And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes upon you are not waxen old, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

 

[ragarth]

Without looking --- and I'll trust you on this --- which is the correct verse --- first or second?

Between your two choices, I'd say the 2nd, because it makes more grammatical sense. I also presume you're trying to say this play on words means that the clothes *must* be the originals. I counter you and say this text makes no such claim.

And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

"your clothes are not waxen old upon you"

"your clothes" "are not" ... "upon you"

These are the working parts of this sentence in question. For the first, "your clothes": Once I give you a nifty hawaiian tshirt, it is yours. So unless these clothes are just on loan from God, which would be more proof for my point, then they are indeed these people's clothes whether they've had them for 40 years or 40 seconds.

"are not" This is a statement in the negative. It simply denotes that the term 'waxen' is inverse, ergo, the clothes are not waxen, they are the opposite of waxen.

"upon you" denotes the location of the clothes, they are on the bodies of the people. If the text read "your clothes are not waxen in your wagon" then we'd be talking about clothing in their wagon, instead of on their bodies.

 

[AV1611VET]

Between your two choices, I'd say the 2nd, because it makes more grammatical sense. I also presume you're trying to say this play on words means that the clothes *must* be the originals. I counter you and say this text makes no such claim.

And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

"your clothes are not waxen old upon you"

"your clothes" "are not" ... "upon you"

These are the working parts of this sentence in question. For the first, "your clothes": Once I give you a nifty hawaiian tshirt, it is yours. So unless these clothes are just on loan from God, which would be more proof for my point, then they are indeed these people's clothes whether they've had them for 40 years or 40 seconds.

"are not" This is a statement in the negative. It simply denotes that the term 'waxen' is inverse, ergo, the clothes are not waxen, they are the opposite of waxen.

"upon you" denotes the location of the clothes, they are on the bodies of the people. If the text read "your clothes are not waxen in your wagon" then we'd be talking about clothing in their wagon, instead of on their bodies.

Fair enough, Ragarth, I'll put you down as incapable of comprehending the OP due to techno-bias and diabolical blindness.

 

[Athrond]

With respect AV - he has understood the OP he's just arguing that the passages doesn't need some natural laws "broken" to be literally true.

I mean it could be something soo easy as the faith in Gods promises that made them risk the wilderness - trust that they would manage perfectly when the situation seemed grim.

 

[AV1611VET]

With respect AV - he has understood the OP...

He may have you convinced of that, but he has a ways to go before he convinces me of it. I'm not even sure what he's doing replying in this thread, but seeing as how most atheists love to jump in on my challenges and prove to me they don't have a clue what I'm asking, I can understand.

This the the 31st post in this thread --- and that's 30 too many.

(Although Post 3 wasn't half-bad --- it was totally uncalled for --- since the OP is written as if it did happen.)

 

[Athrond]

Ok I get it

Given that it did happen and that God went in and prevented the cloths and shoes from being worn out;

Suspending the enthropy doesn't make sense, because it would render the clothes totaly inert right? being that no excange of energy is possible or indeed the chemistry of the clothes function.

I mean doesn't clothes function because they are breaking down constantly as part of the whole dynamic system they belong to?

Soo a better option is God continually repairing the clothes or making them more durable?



Ok you can see I'm not a physicist or a chemist at all my field of the scienceses is archaeology... Don't shoot me ok?, but DO correct me

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok you can see I'm not a physicist or a chemist at all my field of the scienceses is archaeology...

Fair enough --- I'll start a thread then just for you ---

 

[thaumaturgy]

I would have thought, since I invited you guys to answer from a scientific perspective, that you would have busted your keyboards to answer it

I DID. I gave you the answer it REQUIRED in Post #6

YOUR point was wrong because you were asking for science to be abused in the process of its use.

Let's try this on for size:

Without disrespecting the following passage, please explain it, using Dispensational Theology and KJV-Only Literalism:

God never existed and Jesus, if he existed, was merely a human being.

(HINT: Do you get the point yet? Think about it. Now, try again.)

--- but apparently asking you to respect the passage was asking too much.

Science doesn't work when you put arbitrary limits on wht is off limits to investigation. DON'T YOU GET IT YET???

How many times do I have to say it? Are the words too big? Is it the wrong language for you? What gives?

Are Christians here the only ones who are capable of melding science with Scripture?

Do you realize how ridiculous that question actually is?

 

[Hespera]

>>>>>>>>>>Are Christians here the only ones who are capable of melding science with Scripture?
​

Do you realize how ridiculous that question actually is?<<<<<<<<<<<<


I think there is not a chance in the world that he will ever understand that.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Now you know why I chose my tag line: SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.

I'm impressed. Others still don't get it, even though I have explained it to them. You seem to have come up with it on your own. Good job.

See, I told you you didn't want a "scientific" explanation.

It would appear that from the start you really just wanted a religious sodomization of science in service to a religious point!

Then you guys must love Chinese tea made from an abortionist's scalpel. You guys seem to target us Christians for your scientific explanations on about a 100 to 1 ratio --- and I'm being conservative here.Ya --- I seen'em --- I usually ignore people who think they're funny.

No, I don't. I don't want anyone to give up their religious faith unless it requires that those people who couldn't care less about science (ie the ones who tell it to arbitrarily take a hike when it disagrees with their interpretation of scripture) want to tell scientists how they got it wrong and how they can do it better.

That's called hypocrisy. And no matter which side you're on: science or religion, it isn't valued.

Your god doesn't like hypocrites and scientists don't like hypocrites and even atheists don't like hypocrites.

If you want to be a hypocrite, fine, be one. Don't expect anyone will "like" you for it.

(I thought all along you were under the impression we were against "christians", because I thought your religious faith was christianity. It appears the problem was communication. I don't have anything against "Christians", but if your religion is really "Hypocrisy", then indeed, you will get people like me who speak against you for what you "are". )

 

[Nathan Poe]

See, I told you you didn't want a "scientific" explanation.

It would appear that from the start you really just wanted a religious sodomization of science in service to a religious point!

Actually, what AV wanted, as always, was a "let's all line up and pat AV on the back for being so clever" explanation.

Fundamentalist religion serves to stroke egos and offer some measure of security from the Big Bad World -- but for some people, the stroking and security just isn't enough.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Fair enough, Ragarth, I'll put you down as incapable of comprehending the OP due to techno-bias and diabolical blindness.

Diabolical blindness????

Oh my. Now if someone comes up with an alternative interpretation of the verbiage that happens to disagree with you, AV1611VET, they are under the control of THE DEVIL?

Oh my. Your estimation of yourself is getting more inflated with each passing day.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Actually, what AV wanted, as always, was a "let's all line up and pat AV on the back for being so clever" explanation.

Fundamentalist religion serves to stroke egos and offer some measure of security from the Big Bad World -- but for some people, the stroking and security just isn't enough.

Indeed. But I find it fascinating that in his love of the Bible he treats it like it's made of the thinnest glass imaginable, that can be broken and shattered with a hint of touch.

So he starts off all these types of commentaries with the line "without disrespecting this passage..."

If I were a Bible-Believer, I would hope that I would have sufficient faith to think the bible I so earnestly believed was the inerrant word of God would be made of stronger stuff.

 

[ragarth]

Fair enough, Ragarth, I'll put you down as incapable of comprehending the OP due to techno-bias and diabolical blindness.

I think I comprehended it quite well, as does several others, AV. Perhaps, if there's a failure to comprehend the OP, it's because you were too vague in your post. Is what you're looking for something more like:

"Explain this sentence, assuming that the travelers never changed or repaired their clothes."

This seems more like the question you're after, even though it's putting more restrictions upon the situation than what's within the actual text.