- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,999
- 52,622
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I don't use it regularly, that's true --- but I think that's about to change.
I miss that term.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't use it regularly, that's true --- but I think that's about to change.Wouldn't "used to" imply that you don't use it anymore?
In reading about entropy just now (symbolized by the letter H), I came across this definition:Thus I would like to submit this as the equation for the entropy of the Bible:
In English, it simply states that the change [Δ] in the entropy [H] of the Bible equals zero.
- ΔH[sub](Bible)[/sub]=0
Which is: "A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message."
entropy: Definition from Answers.com
Note that it is a measure. That means there is a number associated with it. In the OP you claimed that the number was zero.
Here is how the measure is calculated:
"For a random variablewith outcomes , the Shannon entropy, a measure of uncertainty (see further below) and denoted by , is defined as
(1)whereis the probability mass function of outcome ."
Entropy (information theory) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now you, AV1611VET, said:
I have asked you to assign values to the variables so as to arrive at the value of zero for the entropy, and explain how you arrived at the values for those variables.
Surely, you will find it a simple matter to do that! I would really like to know.
You know how I feel about people changing the wording of OP's, I hope?
Your formula can take a hike.
The quote was a cut and paste from your OP, as can be seen by simple inspection.
...
How did you derive S(sic) (or H as corrected) =0? What formula did you use?
You made a specific claim. Can you support it? Or were you just blowing gas from your ... ears? (Pardon my dyslexia!)
Noted and corrected --- thanks for the 411.
I disagree, because I think we're all creationists --- even atheists - (and I know you disagree).
"Theocreationist" just distinguishes us from, say, "geocreationists".
He's not wrong, he just has his own vocabulary. 'Creationist', to him, doesn't refer to people who believe something (the universe, the Earth, etc) was created ex nihilo by divine intervention; rather, 'Creationist' refers to someone who believes the thing was created at all (be it by mundane processes, divine intervention, or magic sky gnomes).I tend to disagree with people who are wrong.
In his book, Five Equations That Changed The World*, Michael Guillen reduced entropy to the following formula:<staff edit>
But he was talking about thermodynamic entropy. It is not the same thing.In his book, Five Equations That Changed The World*, Michael Guillen reduced entropy to the following formula:
- ∆S[sub]universe[/sub] > 0
You thought it would be neat to make a baseless claim, and support it with a false and inappropriate metaphor.Since I'm a believer in both Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Preservation of the Scriptures, I thought it would be neat to combine the two doctrines into one formula, then make an OP out of it, so as to just QV people to that thread whenever the subject of the validity of the Bible comes up.
Why do you think I claried that in my OP --- by providing the Internet definition of entropy, as it applies to information being lost (or preserved)?But he was talking about thermodynamic entropy. It is not the same thing.
Why do you think I claried that in my OP --- by providing the Internet definition of entropy, as it applies to information being lost (or preserved)?
I am not having trouble with this, I am taking trouble with this.(And why are you the only one who seems to be having trouble with this?)
Alright AV, here we go again.In his book, Five Equations That Changed The World*, Michael Guillen reduced entropy to the following formula:
Since I'm a believer in both Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Preservation of the Scriptures, I thought it would be neat to combine the two doctrines into one formula, then make an OP out of it, so as to just QV people to that thread whenever the subject of the validity of the Bible comes up.
- ∆S[sub]universe[/sub] > 0
Say, for example, someone starts harping on the Johanine Comma not being in the "original manuscripts" --- I just QV them here.
*
AV would still have to explain how Mark 1:18 changed from "angry" to "compassion." Which he has yet to do, as I've asked him before and he just glosses over.Alright AV, here we go again.
1. As Gracchus pointed out already, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to abstract concepts such as information. If you're going to argue that because of Michael Guillen's equation the Bible can't have changed from the original manuscripts, you'll have to argue the same thing about every ancient myth, all folklore, and even all telephone calls.
2. Even if you decide to ignore problem 1, you're still stuck with the fact that you have nothing more than a claim here; you yourself admitted that you're a "believer in both Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Preservation of the Scriptures." Your argument is based on a premise that you believe, not an actual known fact. QVing people to this thread wouldn't provide an answer to any question about the preservation of scriptures; it's like if you asked me how evolution works and I QV'd you to a post saying "i believe evolution works."
All you've done here is come up with a fancy way of saying, "I believe the Bible has been preserved miraculously to retain its original meaning." You're fooling no one.
Gloss over this:AV would still have to explain how Mark 1:18 changed from "angry" to "compassion." Which he has yet to do, as I've asked him before and he just glosses over.
Mark 1:18 said:And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.
My bad, Mark 1:41 actually:Gloss over this:
Here's the AV1389 Wycliffe:My bad, Mark 1:41 actually:
Then Jesus, moved with compassion, stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, "I am willing: be cleansed."
Earliest existing manuscipt have Jesus becoming angry.
Can you honestly answer why it was changed to compassion?
The textbook answer to your question is simple: God made sure we have a copy of what He really said in Mark 1:41.Mark 1:41 said:And Jesus had mercy on him, and stretched out his hand, and touched him, and said to him [Forsooth Jesus, having mercy on him, stretched out his hand, and, touching him, saith to him], I will, be thou made clean.
Actually, he corrected me, and I changed the OP accordingly.1. As Gracchus pointed out already, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to abstract concepts such as information.
There were many more objections than just that, AV. You've got to explain all of them. That's how it works.Actually, he corrected me, and I changed the OP accordingly.
You mean "S" doesn't apply to abstract concepts --- but "H" does --- right, Gracchus?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?