Answers in Genesis Second Law of Thermodynamics | ANG
  • October 4, 2023

Youth Legal Service Wa

I am giving a starting point, but one would have to call or go to the actual organizations to clarify the actual requirements, phone numbers or detailed processes for using these …


Yacht Legal Traineeship

Stemming from our heritage of over 100 years of Dutch craftsmanship, Damen Yachting today is a strong international team of 500 men and women. From our North Sea headquarters in Vlissing, …


Write a Detailed Note on the Salient Features of the Legal Services Authority Act 1987

Taluk legal services committees are also formed for each taluk or mandal or for groups of taluk or mandals to coordinate the activities of taluk legal services and organize lok adalats. …

However, it is important to note that not all aspects of entropy are necessarily “bad.” This is a common misconception that many Christians have developed that leads them to assume (wrongly) that the second and third laws did not begin until after the Fall (Genesis 3), when all creation was cursed as a result of the sin that came into the world. The laws of nature, like the laws of thermodynamics, are the different names we give to the way God maintains the universe: Why am I writing these two pages? My motivations are similar to Allan Harvey`s, so I simply borrow what he says on his page about the second law of thermodynamics in the context of the Christian faith: My main purpose here is to prevent my followers of Christ from pursuing false arguments based on a lack of understanding of the second law. One wonders if it is really important for Christians to think maturely about entropy. For many, this is probably not the case. But for those who study apologetics, and for those who might defend the faith against those who are scientifically educated, I think it`s important for three reasons. The first is that by abandoning these mistakes, we can more effectively focus on legitimate arguments in favor of faith. The second reason is the special responsibility for the truth that we have as God`s people. There is no place for lying in the kingdom of God, not even in defending the gospel. We must make diligent efforts to provide false testimony. Secular politicians or marketers may say, “I don`t mind using a little lie as long as it helps convince my audience,” but it`s unacceptable to a Christian. We, who serve the God of truth, must make special efforts to cleanse our words of all lies. Finally, there is Christian witness to the world. It is tragic that many Christians only consider “those people with crazy arguments about a young land and entropy” and do not even consider the gospel because they think it forces them to believe things they know to be as stupid as a flat earth.

The myth that Christianity is for stupid people is widespread, and part of the blame must lie with some Christians. This damage to our testimony will only be overcome if Christians refocus their message on central truths (such as the fact that God created everything). and reject arguments (such as the abuse of Act 2) that are simply false. Many will still reject and belittle Christ and those who follow Him. But if the world wants to make fun of us, it is at least for a central doctrine like the cross or the resurrection, or for our insistence on loving everyone, not for false pseudo-scientific arguments on marginal issues. Option 1 is obviously self-refutable, and in general, many secular scientists would also agree,1 as it would violate the laws of thermodynamics itself (among a host of other problems). Option 2 is also simply wrong, as it is inconsistent and scientifically impossible that nothing can do everything. Moreover, this option would make uniformity in nature unreliable, which is exactly what is needed for science to work.

Again, note the inconsistency. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are well established and appear to be universally applicable. Of course, there is no problem with both working at the same time today, but a surprising conclusion emerges when we extrapolate it into the past. If the first law of thermodynamics has always been true, then the universe has always existed. Otherwise, the energy must have appeared spontaneously at some point in the past, when none existed before. However, this would violate the first law of thermodynamics. Therefore, the first law of thermodynamics requires that the universe be eternal. But what happens if we extrapolate the second law of thermodynamics into the past? If the universe were eternal, there would have been more than enough time for the universe to have already reached its maximum state of entropy, with no useful energy remaining. The fact that we can use heat engines today and that biological systems are functioning today shows that the universe is far from the maximum entropic state. Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal, and therefore the universe must have had a beginning in the finite past. In this case, the evolutionist will find that the Earth is an open system, as living things constantly exchange energy and matter with their environment (for example, receiving energy from the sun). This is technically correct, but the mere invocation of an open system is not enough to contradict the second and third laws.

Essentially, a large amount of “hand gestures” are required to reconcile the alleged increase in the biological complexity of evolution with thermodynamics.