Join Us @:
Free email alerts!
I just happened to have some spare time today.
There's no having an honest conversation with a dishonest man. Or woman. Mamabear litters her interminable screeds with utter fallacies that betray her woeful ignorance of the Christian God she denies.
That's it? But... all that says is that man is made in God's image and given stewardship over the earth and the other creatures on it. How does that explain why some snakes have two lungs and some have one? God still bothered to make all of those other creatures, right? And if God is omnipotent there is no reason for him to put less effort into making one than another, because his effort is essentially unlimited. And if his effort is limited (maybe that explains needing to rest on the seventh day?) then why expend any of that effort creating vestigial appendages on a snake? You may be able to use that passage as "proof" that man should be better than all the rest of the animals, but not why some animals apparently warranted great care and intricate design while others were-- what, thrown together at the last minute? That sounds very un-God-like, at least to ignorant atheist ears!
It didn't say, "And then He was so exhausted He collapsed".
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
The Hebrew word here translated as 'rested' is shabath with means 'to cease' or 'to stop from labor'. To rest from weariness is indicated by the word 'nuach', or to refresh yourself from weariness is 'naphash'. The text indicates that God simply stopped the work of Creation at that point, it does not indicate that He did so out of weariness. If He had done so the other word would have been used.
If you had even a passing familiarity with the Bible you would know that snakes did originally have legs. You also do not seem to realize that an infinite God is infinitely small as well as infinitely great, and to think that any part of His Creation was ill thought out or somehow too small or unimportant to do well is quite childish. The smallest and simplest of creatures on the planet serve their own unique and vital purposes. Plankton, for example.
I really appreciate honest engagement in the discussion. Like I said, this conversation is important to me. You initial title of "blah, blah, blah" left me with little hope you were here to do anything other than disrupt, but if you want to join in then welcome!
I am only passingly familiar with the bible, so I appreciate the schooling. I did ask about the resting, not make statement, because I didn't know how that phrase is interpreted. My questions are not rhetorical, I do actually want someone to answer them, so thanks for doing so. The only reason I thought to mention it was I was thinking that an omnipotent God should be able to do everything right and put as much detail and attention into the smallest creatures as the largest, but then I thought "wait, maybe people don't think God is limitless. Maybe creating the universe was hard, and that's why he rested." So I asked.
I was not suggesting that God is limited in his ability to create small as well as great things, I was simply pointing out that the idea that he isn't limited makes it hard to explain those features of animals and plants that are not optimal, not sensible, not useful. The Bible says that snakes had legs, then okay, let's take that one off the table. Does it say that whales had legs too? The specifics aren't the most important thing, although I'm happy to argue any particular. The point is that nature is not a well-oiled machine where everything has its place, every animal is perfectly adapted to a unique role, and everything works exactly the way you would design it if you were the omnipotent creator. Nature is a beautiful mess! It's all over the place. Species drive each other to extinction, they get things done in stupid ways that no engineer would ever take past the drawing board. They have extra limbs and useless organs and strange bones floating around inside them. It's chaos, and in that chaos I don't see the telltale signs of intelligent creation. Nature is as functional as it is because of the process of natural selection, but if you were to create it all individually from the ground up, you wouldn't do it like this!
Now of course, God is supposed to be mysterious and unknowable and require faith (correct me if I'm getting that wrong). But if you take the tact of saying that maybe God had a reason for everything being the way it is, but we can't ever know it, then you make creation useless for learning about the world. The whole point of a theory like evolution is to provide a theoretical structure for approaching the unknown. If we are looking for a drug to treat a new disease, we start with the drugs that treat closely related diseases. That process is based on evolution, and it works because based on evolution there are rules we can follow to try and find answers. If there are no rules for God's creation, then it provides no guidance and no understanding. If there are rules, then they should be rules that encompass everything, the whale's beautifully streamlined body and powerful tail, but also its pelvic bone. And that's what I'm looking for from creation or ID-- what are the rules, what are the patterns?
The existence of the platypus alone should give you a clue that God has a whimsical sense of humor. Then there's giraffes, hippos, anteaters, penguins, and liberal trolls. By assuming that every single thing must follow a particular pattern, you put God in a box. I'm going to use Twain again to make my point..
"Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't."
Then there's giraffes, hippos, anteaters, penguins, and liberal trolls
I reflect that remark! No, I mean, I resemble that...no, that's not it either. I'm reminded...
RESENT! I resent it!
You're in remarkably good company. You should be flattered.
A few days before Christmas and he is telling us he has no dog. 4 months later, he looks to have a fully grown St. Bernard.
#96 Those poor pups look so
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 8:20pm.
Those poor pups look so miserable!
Can't wait 'til I get a dog!
And that is hardly a full grown St Bernard. Hell if I know, she's probably got some boxer and some kind of freakishly high jumping breed in her. We rescued the one year old from the shelter on Christmas Eve. Does that fill in the holes for you?
Admit you are a 25 time retread troll. No skin off my back.
#96 Those poor pups look so
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 8:20pm.
Those poor pups look so miserable!
Can't wait 'til I get a dog!
Yep, guttermouth, you got your dog 2 days later, guttermouth AKA The Irishman.
List the 25 names I've gone by and I'll disappear forever.
And we will tell you if your right, I doubt it's been 25
And you know where to pack it. Up yours with your troll condition games.
Woa, a talking doggie!
[Oh, shush, GG. Nobody cares if you think the dog is talking.]
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
So are you taking the position then that there are no predictions we can make based on rules that God's creation follows? That's fine for a belief system, for spirituality, but it is useless for science. Science needs to be able to put knowledge to use, to make predictions. If there is no pattern to follow, then God's fingerprint can't guide us to make good scientific decisions. He can guide us to make good moral decisions, but not scientific ones. Science is about finding patterns and using them. Evolution by natural selection matches the pattern of the natural world, it makes sense of what we see. You can think that that is God's pattern, but then you aren't denying evolution. I have no problem with people who think that evolution was God's design. There's no reason not to think that. But I do have a problem with people who want to deny evolution and replace it with a concept that explains LESS of the world than evolution does!
And expect Him to act like a robot that can only perform according to it's code. He made the universe as it pleased Him. Evolution does not match the pattern of the natural world, as the universe is not building towards perfection, but moving away from it.
The story told in Genesis explains not only what we see in the physical universe, but the human condition. No child has to be taught how to lie. Or how to cheat. Or how to steal. Yet every child manifests guilt in so doing. There is only one answer to this, we know in our hearts that we were once more than we now are. We know what good is, what right is, yet we do not do it. Why?
Yet God has made everything beautiful for its own time. He has planted eternity in the human heart, but even so, people cannot see the whole scope of God's work from beginning to end. Eccl. 3:11
All men are born with the truth in their hearts, and many spend a lifetime trying to silence it.
Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin—a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat. --G. K. Chesterton
"Evolution does not match the pattern of the natural world, as the universe is not building towards perfection, but moving away from it."
I'm curious what kind of things you think are evidence that the world is getting worse instead of better.
Evolution, though, does not predict that perfection will ever be achieved, for several reasons. The main one is that the environment we are adapting to is changing all the time, on all different scales. So the goal posts are always moving ,you'll never reach an "end" to evolution unless the physical parameters of the world somehow become static, which they never have and no one thinks they ever will.
Evolution has an explanation for human morality. You can see rudiments of morality in other social, big-brained animals too. The explanation is that the benefits of group living outweigh the costs of helping one another. If the best thing a human can do to ensure survival is be part of a successful group of humans, then natural selection should promote behavioral traits and predilections that increase group cohesiveness-- cooperation, obeying social rules and norms, the emotion of shame, dislike of cheaters, tendency towards helping, even at a cost to the individual. Evolution would predict all of these in humans and other highly social animals.
On the other hand, engaging in those behaviors is a trade off with short term benefits that can accrue by cheating, being selfish, behaving badly. We expect their to be a conflict between behaviors that benefit the group and thus the individual in the long term, and behaviors that harm the group but benefit the individual in the short term. And we often think of poor behavior that way psychologically-- people who make stupid decisions are said to be short-sighted, blinded by greed, etc.
Also, evolution does not predict that all behaviors will be beneficial. There is such a thing as pathology, failures of the body or mind. We see it in animals, and we see it in humans. It may be the result of a linkage between traits-- male dark-eyed juncos with high levels of testosterone are great at defending territories but bad at taking care of their babies. If those were people, we'd describe their parenting abilities as a failure, a pathology, but they are performing well in another part of their life because of that same trait. Life is complicated, and just because we are subject to natural selection, not everything will always work out perfectly. Sin may be one possible explanation of our failings, but there are others that fit with evolution.
I'm curious what kind of things you think are evidence that the world is getting worse instead of better.
"Worse" and "better" are purely subjective terms that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
When I say that the universe is not building towards perfection, but moving away, I'm referring to the fact that order does not come out of chaos. Ever. If you throw a bunch of blocks into the air, they will never, never, never come down in a perfect hexagon. Or any other perfect shape. They will not come down and land in the form of a wall, or stairs, or a tower. It takes an intelligent outside force to arrange them in any sort of logical sequence, pattern, or shape. You can throw an infinite number of blocks into the air an infinite number of times, but all you will ever get is infinite chaos.
For that matter, where did the blocks come from? Did a bunch of atoms arrange themselves into that form over billions of years? Where did the atoms come from? Why do people build things, anyway? Why do they paint? Why do they write songs? Why do they seek a deeper meaning in life beyond the fulfillment of their physical appetites? Cats eat, lie in the sun, and purr. No existential angst, there.
We are different because we are made in the image of God. We build because He is the Great Builder. We create because we are made in the image of a Creator.
We are also lonely. Men hunger for that which they do not know, and attempt to fill the void with that which does not satisfy. "Everybody's got a hungry heart". Through poems, music, and story, throughout history, in every culture, humankind expresses a sense of something missing, something lost. Something all seek, and few find. Evolution has no answer to this, the study of the theory of evolution would give no clue that such a longing even exists. The very premise of Christianity is the answer to mankind's eternal question.
“If I discover within myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world”--C. S. Lewis
Hydro has debunked the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument before. Order does occur in the universe, even without life.
The emergent properties of the human brain and consciousness are fascinating. Science can't explain them all yet, and if you want to believe that those yearnings are a reflection of God, science isn't going to stop you. Evolution isn't going to stop you. Science may one day find a mechanism for those thought and feelings, but that will only explain the how of it, not the why.
In an existential sense, science can't ever explain the way, that's not science's job. That is a need that religion fills for many people, vague-er spirituality for others. Science is never going to answer that question. What evolution tells us is the how, and while that may be related to the why, it is an independent truth.
I guess I don't understand why religion is not content being most people's answer to the biggest of all the questions! The how can fit into the why, if you let it. But you won't, you insist on taking your human, and therefore presumably flawed, interpretation of God's words and insisting that the how has to work like that. And when the results are nonsensical, as they are, you bend them and twist them to try and make them fit. What if evolution is God's tool? Why is that not considered as a possibility?
Order does occur in the universe, even without life.
Who said it didn't? I said order doesn't come out of disorder. Try again.
If order exists in the universe, but order never comes from disorder, then aren't you positing that the universe must have begun in an ordered state and simply deteriorated from there? I don't think that is the current thinking on the origin of the universe, but I could be wrong.
In any case, based on the short term fluctuations idea, on the scale of the entire universe you could easily argue that the history of life on earth constitutes a short term fluctuation, couldn't you? I mean, we've been around for the blink of an eye, and we'll likely be gone again just as fast, on a universal time scale.
If the universe started in the form of a singularity (i.e. Big Bang idea) then it started in the lowest possible entropy state - zero entropy. So it would have started in the most ordered state you can have.
However, based on what I've already posted here, that doesn't prevent the formation of long term (not just short term) subsystems which evolve in such a way as to have their entropy decrease with time.
I stand corrected, thanks!
There is no doubt the the entropy of the universe is always increasing. Here is a good article on that.
I found this interesting:
The entropy of a system is proportional to the logarithm of the probability of that particular configuration of the system occuring. The more highly ordered the configuration of a system, the less likely it is to occur naturally - hence the lower its entropy.
There is also a school of thought that the entropy of the universe will increase until every particle is in a state of equilibrium, at which point, poof.
Just supposing here, but perhaps at that point, there is a flash decrease of entropy to zero. Assuming the universe is no more at this point, perhaps the rules of the universe no longer apply, and the Second Law doesn't come into play. Seems to me that this would put in play the circumstances that were in place at the creation event. Don't really know, but who does, what happens after "the end".
Now, I understand that to have zero movement of entropy in local systems involves reversible heat exchange, something that does not happen naturally, but like I said above, the rules of a nonexistent universe may not apply.
Please note, and this may by painfully obvious, but I have an understanding of entropy only at the higher level, garnered from what I've read on the internet, so I may be completely off base, but from what I've read, the universal entropy is always increasing. Whether or not this means it started as a system of complete order, I honestly don't know.
Just to be nitpicky, entropy doesn't move. It's a property of a system like temperature or pressure or volume.
Although you do sometimes talk about rates of entropy change, but even then you don't really think of something as actually moving into or out of the system.
And the quote you put in your post points to the actual definition of entropy. Calculate all of the possible ways that the entities (atoms, molecules, whatever) can be, stick that into a log and multiply by the Boltzmann constant and that's the entropy (in units of Joule/Kelvin) of the system.
Since messing with a system tends to change the number of ways the entities can be arranges (or be), messing with a system tends to change its entropy.
Not sure why I put "movement" there. Should have indicated a zero increase of entropy.
The quote struck me in that, if the universe started from a big bang, and at that time entropy would be zero, and IF entropy were to somehow return to zero at end of the universe, the likelyhood of this happening without an outside force is nil.
The issue of how to look at the Second Law within the context of an oscillating universe theory has been around for a while. Since we still don't fully understand the Big Bang, still don't understand the universe itself (what it's made up of - does dark matter exist?) and we still don't have a complete handle on how to deal with non-equilibrium systems (such as the universe), at this point, the different views are just educated guesses. Here are some views:
1) Since the universe isn't in equilibrium - particularly near the times of the Big Bang and Big Crunch, the Second Law might simply not apply (not sure about this one but I'm not up on non equilibrium thermo).
2) The universe might not be an isolated system so its total entropy can increase or decrease or stay the same the Second Law doesn't impose restrictions on subsystems.
3) If you consider the Big Bang and Big Crunch as zero entropy states, then overall, the entropy of the universe during one complete cycle increases from zero, then decreases back to zero and so ultimately it stays the same - which is allowed by the Second Law
4) If you assume that the Big Crunch doesn't actually involve the universe going back to an actual singularity (zero entropy) like in the original Big Bang then you can make an argument that with each cycle, the overall entropy of the universe does increase (you might have to assume the existence of dark matter to make this work).
Your comment about an outside "force" is, I think, closest to option 2, but you see that there are other options.
I'd say closer to a hybrid of one and two if you take you take my reply to MB into account. I did mention there that maybe the state before the existence of the universe and after it ceases to exist may be one in which the Second Law doesn't apply.
On the you third option, I'm a bit skeptical. Have we seen this naturally? Have we seen a naturally occurring system increase and, more importantly, decrease it's entropy without the force of an outside system? I understand the net effect would be that entropy stays the same, and that we're just kinda spitballing here, but are there examples, or is it theory, (kinda funny since we're knee deep in theory on all of this).
I will have a more in depth response later, (mostly questions, I'm sure. I like to learn.), as you have given me some things I'll have to read up on. Like I said, that third option is bothering me. I can't quite put my finger on it enough to ask a reasonably intelligent question though.
It began in an ordered state when God spoke it into existence. I'd imagine it was something like what we call singing, though.
I don't think physics supports that view, but again, we have plenty to talk about on the subject of evolution without trying to cover life, the universe, and everything.
that the existence of computers and the programs they run proves there's no such thing as people. Without people, there would be no computers running the programs.
Without God, there would be no such thing as the universe or the laws it's governed by. The very existence of physics is a testament to God, just as the existence of computers is a testament to the existence of people.
I certainly get that that is your opinion, but nothing about the nature of the universe "proves" that God exists. It also doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. Scientists have learned some things about what the beginning of the universe was like, and I don't think that they would agree that everything began in a state of perfect order and then deteriorated from there.
The fact that we live in a universe that can support life is selection bias-- of course we live in a universe that supports life, we can't live in a universe that doesn't. But there may be an infinite number of universes, many of which don't support life. Either way, it isn't proof of God.
if there weren't an infinite number of universes, many of which have a kind of life we wouldn't even recognize as such. Ants wouldn't recognize us as something alive. What makes you think we aren't surrounded by something too vast and complex for us to even begin to comprehend the existence of?
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Declaring that the universe itself is no proof of God is like an ant declaring that the existence of a picnic basket is no proof of people. Carry on.
Just LOOK at that picnic basket. Just look at it! Awesome, people, just awesome.
I've tried to explain why Brunette is not interpreting evolution correctly, but she keeps returning to words like "pinnacle." I don't think I mentioned insect biomass, so that is presumably an argument someone has tried unsuccessfully to persuade her with before.
You are close, but it wouldn't be quite correct to say that evolution "stops," once functionality is achieved. It would be more accurate to say that directional change slows down drastically.
Yeah dumbass, I can't think anything up myself, can I? I've got to be parroting some long-suffering mental giant who has tried futilely to educate me, right? I threw out an example at random, but don't let the truth interrupt your presumptions.
I get exactly what you're trying to say about evolution, I'm just not biting. You're bullsh!tting in order to dodge the point, as I said above.
You know perfectly well that humans are unsurpassed in their ability to adapt to and overcome their environment. Humans have populated every continent but one and thriven in every environment from the polar icecap to the Sahara desert. No other single species is as widely dispersed over the planet in such myriad climes. While a few types of animals are using rudimentary tools we're building rocket ships and going to the moon. And smacking down psuedo-intellectual hacks on the interwebs.
Now quit pretending I just don't understand you, it only makes you look like a weasel who can't face an argument squarely.
I only presume that someone else tried to argue biomass with you because you disagree with it. Why would you invent an argument no one else is making for you to argue against? Oh wait, that's called a strawman. So you'd prefer I assume you are creating strawmen than assume you heard that somewhere before? Okay then, stop creating strawmen!
I'm not dodging the point, I'm telling you that I think you've got it wrong. Thriving on many continents and in many environments might make us more successful than other species, but really only if we outlast them. That's the only meaningful test (from the point of view of evolution). We've barely been around for any length of time at all, compared to many other species, so you are ASSUMING that we will last longer, but that hasn't been put to the test. Maybe adaptability will keep us going longer than any other species in history. Longer than the coelacanth, longer than sharks, but we don't know yet. Maybe one particularly inconvenient virus will end us before another hundred years have gone by. All those other things-- visiting the moon, writing pretty poetry-- those are just things you value. Nature does not value them. From an evolutionary standpoint, there is nothing particularly special about building interwebs compared to, say, spiderwebs.
I made a referral just trying to do my share
and apologize to cute little weasels everywhere. They didn't deserve that crack.
That's why I consider evolutionists and atheists as narcissists. They can't conceive of anything that doesn't place humans -or more correctly, enlightened humans like themselves- at the top rung of every ladder.
It's funny how one's world view can affect how they perceive others.
Some might suggesting that claiming to have knowledge of and a personal relationship with a supreme being who created everything and who's genuinely interested in you shows a bit of narcissism.
that hold that personal relationship with God don't believe that their relationship is the only relationship that God has; in fact, they believe -generally- that they are but one very small part of God's great creation. Narcissism among true believers would seem to be incompatible.
Oddly, I think you can argue that the scientific view of the Earth just being one small rock floating around an average star in one of a ton of galaxies in a unimaginably large universe with us being the by-product of purely physical and blind processes is pretty humbling as well.
But if it makes you feel better to pigeon hole scientists (given that most do believe in evolution) as a bunch of arrogant jerks, OK.
I said narcissists. One can think he has all the answers without being a jerk (I stand as an example ;-b )
Bk was speaking in broad terms.
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? Ps. 8
LORD, what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him! or the son of man, that thou makest account of him!
Man is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away. Ps. 144
The very process of being a Christian, (loving God, in other words) is deeply humbling.
“No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good.”
by C. S. Lewis
And many in science (myself included) have said that doing science - recognizing how little we understand about the world around us using the approach that science does - is also very humbling.
My point to bkeyser was that it is easy to attach negative character traits to someone based on a slanted interpretation of what their world view is about. So easy, in fact, that the other guy can just as easily do it to you.
The teachings of the Bible inspire humility (there is none righteous, no not one) and submission to a Higher Authority, while evolution indicates that man is at the pinnacle of nature and answerable to none.
I'm not sure about evolution indicating anything about man's place in nature.
How exactly would you write "man is the pinnacle of nature" in a scientific formula?
Plus that view would seem to assume that Earth is the only planet with intelligent life on it, which a lot of scientists will acknowledge probably isn't the case (from a statistic point of view, oddly enough).
My point is that different people can draw different things from different world views. Pick any group - atheists, theists, scientists, theologians - you will find arrogant and humble people in all of them.
If you want to believe that a belief in evolution - something most scientists are guilty of - somehow promotes or encourages an arrogant world view, OK. My personal experience over the years, having met lots and lots of folks in science doesn't agree with that - but whatever.
Personally, I don't think one view or the other promotes much of anything as far as how much of jerk you are or aren't.
Media Research Center
L. Brent Bozell III, President
Editor at Large
P. J. Gladnick
Julia A. Seymour
Copyright © 2005-2014 NewsBusters.