|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 What does this mean? 3Ed: Thank's for your appropriate comment about "Godthinking" and the miraculous nature of the Cosmos. |
||
|
|
||
|
saintinsanity 23-Sep-14, 13:06 |
and it never will be |
||
|
anomalocaris 23-Sep-14, 13:56 |
Pawn |
||
|
the easiest religion? When this was posted a couple of day ago I immediately felt compelled to respond - somehow this was such utter nonsense that it boggles my mind that it was pronounced as if the secret to winnings lotteries had been discovered. But of course we all should know that getting to heaven is not like a lottery. The Bible has set down definite decisions by those who are desiring to enter heaven. The "alternative" - to me is very undesirable. But even while we are here on earth it does behoove us to try and at least give serious thought to our behavior in light of Who we have to deal with. (Perhaps henny does not believe seriously about what this means, that would explain some things) In Galations 6:7 the Apostle Paul declared God is not mocked (or ridiculed), whatever we sow that we will reap. That simpley means God will return to us what we give to Him. What are you giving to God, henny? He says you'll get that back wth interest. |
||
|
awaiting a response from STINKY How science and "religion" (in quotation because to me my religion is more accurately described a "relationship" - I continually touch base with God through the day) relate to men is important. More could develop this interested except that understanding the dynamics between the two is clouded by intense prejudices according to whether or not the science is pro or con Creation/ Creator. An example of this was a piece from a book I read which was titled something like "Evidence of God in Science". One article described the intricate and complex mechanics within cellular physiology. In describing how these intricate microscopic parts interact to keep the cellular tissue functioning - well that to me points to a Master designer. My position is that since evolutionary "mechanics" necessarily depends on randomness and chance to function (at it's most basic level) and because these operations are opposite of the laws of thermodynamics that does not make sense. Has evolutionary theory found a dynamic or "propensity" in organisms to which would account for their bypassing these thermodynamics laws? Also, there is that rational about the "first cause" which got the whole "ball of wax" moving in the first place. I do not think naturalists have adequately explained this one neither. Finally, recently I have been introduced to one Dr Caroline Leaf. Several of her "lectures" on youtube explain how we humans control our lives in very positive or negative ways by what thoughts we choose to concentrate on. The reason I mention her here is that as a devout Christian for all of her life she has through her studies of the human brain substantiated truths as declared in the Bible. What I am especially keen about Dr Leaf is how she proves that we are masters of our lives by our decisions which we make. "genes" or brains do not control us, we are individuals with the power of free will. |
||
|
better than exercise! Written by Dr. Caroline Leaf Over the last few years research has been showing that a belief in a loving and benevolent God has many health benefits. A large proportion of these studies have been done in the USA but now in a large Norwegian longitudinal health study called HUNT, researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) were able to find a clear relationship between time spent in church and lower blood pressure in both women and men. It was initially thought that the large cultural and religious differences between the US and Norway would make it difficult to apply findings from the US to Norway. However, despite these differences, and the fact that only 4% of Norwegians (as opposed to the 40% of Americans) go to church on a weekly basis, the findings of the health benefits of believing in God were almost identical: those who were religiously active were healthier than those who were not religiously active! |
||
|
anomalocaris 24-Sep-14, 15:29 |
IHS So evolution to me could be a fact of life but that doesn't rule out God in any way. Best I can do right now. |
||
|
Would you mind quoting the law of thermodynamics that you believe causes trouble for evolution? |
||
|
Once started it does not need any intervention. It grows, expands, and creates all things in the Universe which are "born", evolve and eventually "die-out" into another form. It continues on and on, and probably has since it was first created... whenever that was. |
||
|
anomalocaris 24-Sep-14, 19:17 |
Actually softy Except that the universe is continually expanding and it gets harder and harder for these clumps to happen. It is theorized that eventually (long after we are gone) the universe will be nothing but darkness as every star in the universe will be so far from every other star that no new star birth will occur. But that's a different thread, don't get me started on the universe. I love that topic |
||
|
ITCHY The first of the three most basic scientific laws is the First Law of Thermodynamics. This law states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed, but they may change forms. This law of science suggests that matter must be eternal. But this conflicts with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which indicates that if matter and energy had always existed, the universe today would be nothing but a weak homogeneous field of energy. When you add these two laws together, the only conclusion you can come to is that matter and energy, as we now know them, had to have been created in some way that went beyond the natural laws we see operating today. One could say that the First and Second Laws predict a supernatural creation of the Universe. Specifically, evolution claims that inanimate matter somehow was able to develop; that is become more complex and to overcome the laws of disorder and randomness becoming in time complex organisms which gave rise to life as we know it. |
||
|
STINKY It isn't my position to ascribe "God" to the wonder which is our world, but that this wonder is worthy of our taking note of it leads me to "give credit" to the the likelihood it is by "Design". Basic laws of science tell me mere random happenstance are very doubtful. Along with this line of thinking it is doubtful God would utilize faulty science (the evolutionary theory) to govern life. As for diseased and deformed animals giving way to healthy and sound animals, yes, this is so. That is how we have breed dogs and cattle. |
||
|
anomalocaris 24-Sep-14, 19:52 |
IHS |
||
|
STINKY And "nature" can do this while operation CONTRARY TO THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS? Pray tell, how? That is why evolution is not a fact, sir. Unless you take it by faith. |
||
|
anomalocaris 24-Sep-14, 20:24 |
I am not following But if something changes due to its environment laws have been broken? Sorry not following. Also what does thermodynamics have to do with living creatures? I thought this was to do with mechanical devices?? Sorry you will have to be a little more specific for me. |
||
|
Well actually it's the second of four, but I guess this is pedantry. <<This law states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed, but they may change forms.>> No, it states that the total amount of mass-energy must be constant. If neither matter nor energy could be created or destroyed, then how could they change form from one to the other? <<But this conflicts with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which indicates that IF matter and energy had always existed, the universe today would be nothing but a weak homogeneous field of energy.>> If...? Matter and energy having always existed is not the opinion of modern physics. Would you mind directly quoting (ie, in a sentence) what you believe the second law to be, I want to know if you are using the correct definition (because I suspect you aren't). <<Specifically, evolution claims that inanimate matter somehow was able to develop; that is become more complex and to overcome the laws of disorder and randomness becoming in time complex organisms which gave rise to life as we know it.>> Indeed it does, but every single person alive today was once a random ball of cells (a zygote) that became more ordered over time into a person with systems of specialised organs. If your claim is that nothing in the universe can ever become more ordered (which is not what the second law says by the way, which is why I'd like you to quote it) then your very existence would violate the laws too. |
||
|
Hi Itchy! The Human Brain Isn't Science readily w3illing to admit the possibility of quantum level function for just about anything? |
||
|
STINKY But if something changes due to its environment laws have been broken?" Your first observation about animal husbandry is true because in that "closed system" certain animals are purposely bred which we know by hereditary laws will reproduce those traits which are desirable. All aspects of this breeding are controlled. Meaning the energy of the animals involved are not allowed to "escape" nor are outside forces "allowed" to come in and otherwise disrupt or alter the balance of that closed system. The evolutionary theory is also a "closed system" in that it's basic premise is that no outside influences were brought to bare on all the elements and components which make up our universe. That is what the laws of thermodynamics are; a study of energy and how that energy - if left alone - will in time atrophy. It will dissipate and cease to exist. In a word it will decompose. Evolutionary theory would have you believe that natural forces (changes due the environment) would bring together energy and matter - after mixing together long enough - and viola! we have life! |
||
|
inhiss ! buy Thermo Dynamics and all that stuff for the Physical, but where did the Physical come from? Or: Has it always been? I can't question that "The Physical" needs to be random, but it certainly appears to have been assembled -- even at the quantum level -- in the only way that would have allowed Us to exist. I suppose there are two chances for this: Either our Physical occurred after a near infinite number of tries or there is but one Physical. |
||
|
ITCHY <<No, it states that the total amount of mass-energy must be constant. If neither matter nor energy could be created or destroyed, then how could they change form from one to the other?>> How? Look at the 2nd law. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy. A watchspring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some energy will dissipate as heat. Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die. <<Matter and energy having always existed is not the opinion of modern physics.>> See, this is were science must grapple with the origin of our universe. Where did "all of this begin"? The subject of "First Cause" stumbles and fumbles over plausible scenarios without outside (i.e. God). intervention. That is plausible scenarios which are not dependent on outrageously impossible odds. <<Would you mind directly quoting (ie, in a sentence) what you believe the second law to be, I want to know if you are using the correct definition (because I suspect you aren't).>> No, I would not mind at all... The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy. A watchspring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some energy will dissipate as heat. Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die. (www2.estrellamountain.edu) << Indeed it does, but every single person alive today was once a random ball of cells (a zygote) that became more ordered over time into a person with systems of specialised organs. If your claim is that nothing in the universe can ever become more ordered (which is not what the second law says by the way, which is why I'd like you to quote it) then your very existence would violate the laws too.>> This statement has one part of truth ( every single person alive today was once a random ball of cells (a zygote) that became more ordered over time into a person with systems of specialised organs. ) and one part misinformation (your claim is that nothing in the universe can ever become more ordered (which is not what the second law says by the way ) THIS IS what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says; closed systems left to themselves "entrophy" - become disorganized and die. |
||
|
It is possible we are talking at cross purposes, You stated that: <<This law states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed>> Which I took to mean that you were saying that the amount of mass and energy in the universe was constant. Which is definitely not true. Nuclear reactions for example end up with the loss of mass and the equivalent gain of energy (according to E=mc^2). The second part: <<but they may change forms.>> I took to mean they may change from matter to energy and vice versa, which is true but would be incompatible with my interpretation of the first part of your statement. If this is not what you meant I may have misunderstood your wording. Could you confirm? Re The Big Bang Theory: <<See, this is were science must grapple with the origin of our universe.>> not really "must" no. We can, and at the moment we fail to have a consistant model. The Big Bang theory is not a theory of the origin of the universe, so far that is a big fat question mark, the BBT is a theory as to how the universe has been in the past. It is a theory based on observation. The origin of the universe currently has no reliable observation, so science is content for the moment to not have an answer. In the same way, the theory of evolution is a theory of the origin of speciation. It is not a theory about the origin of life. Abiogenesis is a different subject altogether and conflating them as one and the same is misleading. Evolution has concrete observation and theory behind it, for the moment Abiogenesis does not. We do not have to be able to explain everything in order to be able to explain anything. In science, it is ok to leave gaps as gaps. Re The Second law: <<The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.">> It's not a wording I have seen before but I can accept it as accurate. The problem is the middle part of the sentence for the situation you are attempting to apply the law to ("If no energy enters or leaves the system"). Energy enters and leaves the earth all the time. Thus is is not a closed (or more correctly, isolated) system, and thus the second law of thermodynamics does not apply. Just as it does not apply to you or I, since we are not isolated systems either. << and one part misinformation ([IF!!] your claim is that nothing in the universe can ever become more ordered (which is not what the second law says by the way )>> It is extremely poor form to chop off a quite important word and then claim I am making misinformed statements. I was asking IF you were making that claim (It is quite a common one among creationists making a second law argument in my experience). IF you are not making that claim, then why should a more ordered person forming from a less ordered group of cells be allowable by the second law, but a more ordered species forming from a less ordered species is not? |
||
|
jan It's a possibility. I don't know of any neuroprocess that would only work according to the rules of quantum mechanics, as a quantum computer would (ie that the bits of information are not 1 or 0 but some superposition of the two), but that does not rule it out. That said at the level of cells, the size of objects is large enough that quantum effects would reduce to classical mechanics with a high degree of accuracy, so it's possible that it's just not necessary. |
||
|
|
||
|
Star Trek speak notwithstanding There is not one word published on the North American continent today that I would want to die by! If I knew that tomorrow evening was to be my last, and that I would never see another sunrise, there isn't a newspaper published anywhere in the world that I would want to see. There hasn't been a book published this year that I would want to read. There hasn't been a word uttered in the United Nations that I would want to hear. There is no authority anywhere. Everybody is writing and talking, but for dying men there is not one word of authority anywhere, except as you hear the sure, true, terrifying words of Jesus Christ! The only authoritative word ever published is that which comes from the Holy Scriptures. “Holy” books that have been compounded out of all the high, fine, lofty thoughts of mankind since the beginning do not change the basic facts and the basic problems. Jesus alone could teach: “I am the Light of the world and he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness.” You are responsible to the Light – and to the authority of the Word of God. You cannot hide behind the differences of opinion, behind church politics, behind the philosophies of men. Neither can you hide behind this crazy relativity of morals now being taught in the schools. If you quench the light, and dim it down, how great will be that darkness! From Renewed Day by Day; A. W. Tozar ; 1980 |
||
|
anomalocaris 26-Sep-14, 09:10 |
Who cant hide? |
||
|
This is directed to those who for varied and multiple excuses try to minimize the truth which is found in Christ Jesus. It may also be labeled deflection I dare say. Not unlike the bully who will point to the sky shouting, "Oh, look!" and when the unwary looks to where the bully is pointing suddenly he finds that his pocket has been picked! The thread here had been revolving around whether or not scientific evidence may or may not reasonably give credence to God for creating our universe. Suddenly, there is talk of Einstein and quantum physics and mechanics and << but that does not rule it out. That said at the level of cells, the size of objects is large enough that quantum effects would reduce to classical mechanics with a high degree of accuracy, so it's possible that it's just not necessary.>> What? Was anybody able to follow that? I certainly was not. That being so I felt it needful to bring the thread back to the subject "What does it all mean?" |
||
|
Evidence for God What we do not know about the creation is as much evidence for God as what we do know about creation. Our knowledge limitations point to the probability of God within the information we have not yet comprehended. How can we dismiss the existence of God when all is not yet known? If the proof of God cannot be dismissed, why dismiss Him? If the nonexistence is inconclusive, why declare Him not here? We do not dismiss others areas of life as nonexistent or irrelevant if we are not fully able to comprehend them. We enjoy the fruits of electricity, though we are severely limited in understanding its origin and makeup. But we enjoy the light, heat, comfort, and security it generates. Most of us do not understand aerodynamics, but we like the option of traveling quickly and safely across the land and sea by airplane. The physics of tons of steel floating on water are not one hundred percent comprehensible to the average seafaring person, but most of us invite the opportunity to relax on a cruise ship. We accept what we do not fully know. The truth is, evidence for God continues to stream into our knowledge banks. We are rich with informational deposits for God. Every time the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, it is evidence for the unchangeableness of God. Every time the human body is explored in all its intricacies, it is evidence of God's sophistication and attention to detail. The mountains point heavenly to His majesty, and the ocean waves clap for His glory and praise. The Lord God is the beginning of creation and the sustainer of creation. And one day He will recreate a new creation, much like His original paradise with Adam and Eve. He is a creative, masterful artist and brilliant beyond the imagination of man. We are a dot on His canvas of creation, though we are a very important dot. God does not create anything insignificant. You are very, very important to your creator. You are the pinnacle of His creation. Enjoy Him in what you comprehend of His creation, and trust Him with what is inconprehensible. “Then I say a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, 'Now the dwelling place of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God'” (Revelation 21:1-3) Seeking Daily the Heart of God Vol II by Boyd Bailey.2012 |
||
|
Rebirth of the Holy Roman Empire It happened on November 3, 2009 This is the precursor to the rise of the Antichrist and the False Prophet There is in Brussels, Belgium in front of the the Council of Europe building is “Europa” astride a bull, which could easily be interposed as the image given in Revelation 17:6 “the mystery of the woman and the beast she rides”. This prophecy of the rise of the Holy Roman Empire was first given in Daniel 2:31 – 45. Daniel interpreted the dream which King Nebuchadnezzar had about the image with head of gold, torso and arms of silver, waist made bronze, legs made from iron and feet and toes made of iron and clay. The Babylonian Empire was the golden part; the Medo-Persian Empire came next represented by the silver portion; then came the Grecian Empire which was represented by the Bronze; the Iron represented the Roman Empire which was followed the the first Holy Roman Empire. The dream of Nebuchadnezzar then showed that a stone fell onto the portion of the statute of Nebuchadnezzar''s dream represented by the mix of the iron and the clay (the first Holy Roman Empire). This mix of iron and clay represents the alliance of the first Holy Roman Empire when Charlemagne proposed that the political powers of the Roman government align themselves with the religious powers of the various factions then vying for preeminence among the people of that land. After the 2nd World War ended Europe was in shambles and they were at the mercy of the those who were victorious after the war. Unless the European countries which survived the war began to unite and they would lose all hope of ever influencing the world as they once had. So in the 1958 six countries signed the Treaty of Rome; also, known as the TEEC (the Treaty of European Economic Community) Later they would push for a thing called the Common Market. In 1992 several more European countries came on board with the signing of Maastricht Treaty which totaled 25 European countries. A complete inclusion of ALL European countries was finally accomplished on November 3, 2009. |
