Posted by Tyler on January 02, 1997 at 02:06:14:
In Reply to: Re: late entry into Lynn and Stephen's conversation posted by Lynn on January 01, 1997 at 12:36:25:
: I suppose by "orderly", I am referring to things like the revolving of the planets, the fact that you can use the stars and such to tell time, months, days, etc., the complexity of DNA, mathematics, a leaf, you name it. We have not even begun to comprehend the awesomeness of creation. If the universe is "experiencing a continuously decreasing energy density" it is because it is aging. The Bible says it will "wear out and be rolled up like and old garment".
Hi Lynn...
My response to you would be that orbital mechanics breaks down after two-body systems are described. This is called the "three- or many-body problem" in astronomy and predictions of orbital position in a 3-space appear to be unsolvable. I do not think that there is any order to such a system. Eventually we may be able to solve it through chaos or complexity theory, those newest of branches in mathematics but I'd hardly label solutions through them orderly! Time, months, days, etc. are human constructs, and as such may be called orderly only from a human perspective. This is hardly the ONLY criterion upon which to resolve the issue given that time is very probably external to, and independent of, human experience. With regard to mathematics, study chaos theory if you have not, then make your argument. No, I would not say that the aging process is causation. A static universe would not experience such a flux unless you posit the universe radiating into something larger. Then you have other theological difficulties; universes _ad infinitum_ both above and below our scale, so which one is God involved with? Why so much if we are the locus of His intentions? None of it makes much sense for me. The phrase "wear out and be rolled up like an old garment" is too vague for me; perhaps you can unpack it for me. One it is rolled up, then what? Worn out, in an energy context, means finite energy be spread throughout an infinite volume. It is POSSIBLE only in an expansionary scenario... one that many Creationists reject in favour of a static model. So which Creationist are we to pay attention to?