What's new
  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • No longer will OSAS vx OSNAS be allowed to be debated, argued, or discussed in theology forum. Too much time is required to monitor and rescources used to debate this subject which hasn't been definitively decided in 3,000 years.

[_ Old Earth _] Evolution Vs Evolution Concerning Textbooks

J

JakTak

Guest
I recently read a magazine article in National Geographic concerning Evolution in the Textbooks of the public school system. It was the first time I have ever TRUELY seen evolutionists battle other evolutionists over what they believe happened, and what should be included in the science textbooks.

The battle over textbook contents was very interesting because both scientists believed the same exact thing. The earth is billions of years old and on and on with their story. What was interesting is that both had their own ideas as to what should and shouldn't be allowed in the textbook. Because I have forgotten their names, I'll use Bill and Bob.

Bob, being a conservative scientist, believes that absolutely NOTHING should be included in a scientific textbook unless it has first been completely proven. Secondly, he said it's ok to include theories as long as the writer explains clearly that a THEORY is only an EDUCATED GUESS and that IT MAY NOT BE TRUE. He went on to argue that the books present this information as if the theories HAVE BEEN PROVEN and are infact, TRUE.

Bill argued that if such a 'theory rule' was imposed on textbooks, it would lead students to believe that scientists such as himself do not know what they are talking about. As this would make students wonder what the truth is, and the object of school is not to make children wonder, but to give them answers. The theories we have now are completely fine, it is when children grow older that they can form their own opinions about evolution.

Of course Bob had to step in and counter this argument because 1) A scientist who makes unproven claims should not be in the position in the first place, as he obviously does not have proof. and 2) That without a desire to learn, a wonder, children would all grow up to be dumb.

Bills only response to Bob was that he was unable to make decisions, and that children would become 'confused' because theories are already hard to understand.

-----------------

My only statement on this is that it's finally great to see leading scientists battle each other over evolution, whether than creationists. It may be possible that the evolution vs evolution battle will lead to more clear-headed views about using unproven 'theories' in textbooks.

Anyone else care to comment? Maybe you've seen or read this article and remember more about it.
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
I agree with 'bill' here. Textbooks to children are filled with plenty of half-truths as it is, designed chiefly to prepare them for recieving knowledge, rather than to give it all in one big clump.

An example would be experiments with prisms and how children are told that this refraction is what causes rainbows. As you will realise if you really think of diffraction angles and so forth, this is no answer at all, but it prepares the children for a more accurate answer when or if they come to study it in more depth.

A theory is usually rather more than 'an educated guess' when we are talking about a scientific theory; that would be a hypothesis. A theory, in scientific terms (though the terms often get jumbled) is a hypothesis which has been backed by a certain amount of repeatable empirical data and has gone through the process of peer-review.

When teaching children, it is best not to confuse them with this, frankly, but merely to teach them the basics as facts. As with the example of the prism, this can then be deconstructed if they go into higher education where the details become more important, but the important things is getting the foundations there first.
 
S

saved4life

Guest
Why are kids even talking about this stuff at such an early age? It doesn't even need to be discussed until High School, if even then. Biology can be studied without talking about the "origin" or things, and the theory of evolution can be studied as an advanced concept as a senior or when they are 18 and in college.

I don't agree with "Bill" at all.
 
B

bjdea1

Guest
This always frustrates me

I just really dislike the way evolution has got such a foot hold in science. I am all for a really forceful attack on this theory as often as is possible. Its just so obviously a load of rubbish, I think world scientists are making open fools of themselves and exposing just how uneducated they really are. And really, all the Evolution debate is really about is scientists Ego's. Its just too much of an embarassment for them to back down.

I personally would love to raise enough money to put a creation program on Discovery Channel some day. I would just love to stamp all over the devils Lies - I hate not being in power - I tell you if I had the power and money I would take this one all the way. Maybe one day I will.
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
You believe there is a gigantic scientific conspiracy afoot? That scientists are lying to you for the fun of it?
 
B

bjdea1

Guest
No

No I believe scientists are lieing because they want to believe the lie, plus it hurts their pride and reputation too much to admit they are wrong. They are trying to find anyway to prove their belief so they can avoid public disgrace and ignore reality as the Bible states it. They want to replace God with something of their own imagination.

It has alot to do with pride, scientists are the holders and keepers of knowledge - they have built and developed a respectable position in society as the ones who "know things". Therefore any attack on what they have tried to establish as truth - is strongly resisted - its an attack on their place in society - on their whole collective position and authority in the world. It just puts too much eggs on all their faces and reveals they are ordinary people who often make mistakes and are still half guessing a lot of the time.

Look at the main core of evolution - basically its saying matter can organise itself in complex and intelligent structures and birth forth life itself - given enough time. Take a look at a building and ask yourself how many millions of years you think would have to pass until you'd see something like that come together by itself - including full electrical wiring and plumbing and furniture - how stupid - a building is obviously designed and constructed by a human being! The human body is FAR more complex and intelligently made than any man made building and yet they say it came together by chance - how could anyone believe this?

Imagine you're walking along a path and pass an orange tree. You look on the ground and see 16 oranges all perfectly placed on the ground in a circle. Now what are you going to think - "gee how amazing all 16 oranges fell out of the tree and landed in a perfectly spaced circle", or "I wonder who did that and why?". The natural world (matter) has things move towards disorder - it takes human beings (or God) to bring order to matter.

To me evolution believing scientists show that many of the worlds so called "great mnds" are really blind guides with their own agendas in life. Once you realise this it makes you see that you need not look to them, but have more faith and strength to look for the truth yourself elsewhere.

I happen to believe children should be taught that scientists are often wrong and indeed any man (and man made theory) is fallable and prone to error. Children should not be taught this junk at all, but that God created all things.
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
Re: No

bjdea1 said:
No I believe scientists are lieing because they want to believe the lie, plus it hurts their pride and reputation too much to admit they are wrong. They are trying to find anyway to prove their belief so they can avoid public disgrace and ignore reality as the Bible states it. They want to replace God with something of their own imagination.
And yet most scientists are theists in one way or another. Why should a Christian scientist, for example (which would be the most numerous, outnumbering Islamic, Hindu and atheist scientists), act in such a fashion?

It has alot to do with pride, scientists are the holders and keepers of knowledge - they have built and developed a respectable position in society as the ones who "know things". Therefore any attack on what they have tried to establish as truth - is strongly resisted - its an attack on their place in society - on their whole collective position and authority in the world. It just puts too much eggs on all their faces and reveals they are ordinary people who often make mistakes and are still half guessing a lot of the time.
So you confirm my initial reaction; you believe there is a big conspiracy.

Look at the main core of evolution - basically its saying matter can organise itself in complex and intelligent structures and birth forth life itself - given enough time. Take a look at a building and ask yourself how many millions of years you think would have to pass until you'd see something like that come together by itself - including full electrical wiring and plumbing and furniture -
1) The generation of self-replicating organic structures is the province of abiogenesis, not evolution. In any case, the formation of self-replicating proteins, ligases and so forth from base substances has been experimentally verified. The first step; forming the first ligases and self-replicating ligases, is not that extraordinary a step.
2) A building has no method of long-running natural selection, no method of storing given characteristics over generations, no means of reproduction and so therefore is hardly a valid analogy.
3) It is not 'by chance' that species arise. Natural selection, the passing on of genetic characteristics and so forth provides very strong selection criteria; i.e something that is not entirely based on chance.

how stupid - a building is obviously designed and constructed by a human being! The human body is FAR more complex and intelligently made than any man made building and yet they say it came together by chance - how could anyone believe this
How is the human body obviously created from an outside, sentient, source, exactly? I expect you to back your claim with evidence and provide a self-consistent method by which such design and construction may be performed, using the fewest assumptions.

I doubt you can, which is very much the point. The scientific method encourages the backing of hypotheses and theories with hard evidence and the use of functioning, internally-consistent models. Religion and creationists say no such thing, instead opting to say "god did it, because I cannot comprehend an alternative answer". Saying 'god did it' does not answer anything, however, and is not a valid explanation.

Imagine you're walking along a path and pass an orange tree. You look on the ground and see 16 oranges all perfectly placed on the ground in a circle. Now what are you going to think - "gee how amazing all 16 oranges fell out of the tree and landed in a perfectly spaced circle", or "I wonder who did that and why?". The natural world (matter) has things move towards disorder - it takes human beings (or God) to bring order to matter.
Not at all. The natural world has a tendency towards balance in many circumstances. Examples:

1) Take a jar and fill with water, adding some oil. Shake the two.
Leave to rest and the oil will settle in a coherent layer. Even if you can isolate this experiment entirely, you will see that although entropy (something creationists frequently misunderstand, as thermodynamic disorder is not disorder per se) has increased, the 'ordering' of the oil and water has occured, arriving at a stable state.

2) Throw a paper aeroplane. The aircraft will undergo dynamic oscillations as lift, drag and thrust factors interact in different directions and different intensities. The process is incredibly complicated; drag will vary as zero-lift drag coefficients and induced drag coefficients vary with angle of attack, speed and orientation, which varies with airspeed and other factors, which will affect lift, which will affect moments on the aircraft, which will affect orientation, which feeds back (to oversimplify everything going on).
-And yet, if you have made a dynamically stable aircraft, it will settle quickly into a stable glidepath, with near-perfect balance of those interacting forces. Amazing, huh?
Not really. It is a natural tendency, despite in fact being far more complicated than your '16 oranges' example.

Now please define order and disorder next time, and back up your assertion that 'it takes human beings or god to bring order' with decent evidence and models.

To me evolution believing scientists show that many of the worlds so called "great mnds" are really blind guides with their own agendas in life. Once you realise this it makes you see that you need not look to them, but have more faith and strength to look for the truth yourself elsewhere.
So again; you believe there is a huge conspiracy going on.

Seriously; is it more likely that a great scientific conspiracy is going on, with each and every geologist, biologist, astromoner (and all the other various diciplines that have contradicted your religion at one time or another) is engaged in a huge concerted operation to mislead the world?

Or could it be that they simply know some things you don't?

Which is more likely, exactly?

I happen to believe children should be taught that scientists are often wrong and indeed any man (and man made theory) is fallable and prone to error. Children should not be taught this junk at all, but that God created all things.
So you would force religion on a child?

Since, then, you believe that your religion deserves a place in the classroom, you must logically hold it to all the standards that school-taught scientific principles hold up to. In other words, you must give a viable, internally consistent hypothesis, fitting with known and observed factors and basic physical laws, and back it up with observed evidence and, preferably, repeatable experiment.

No religion has managed to back itself like that, which is why religious beliefs are not taught as fact or theory in schools in our respective countries.
 
R

Rebecka

Guest
OIL and WATER

Hope you all don't mind my comments here.

Put water in a jar with oil, now watch what happens?

Back up. Why is someone needed to put the water and oil in the jar? Why doesn't it just happen by itself? Someone HAD to do it. It could not happen without someone doing it. There had to be someone to do it.

"Because" is what it is all about.

Why are the water and oil in that jar? BECAUSE someone put them in there toether. You won't find them together unless SOMEONE put them together.

Evolutionists cannot come up with something from nothing. They have to start with something. Forget the water and oil. Start with nothing and go from there as God did. Of course, it cannot be done. God spoke and it happened. No water, no oil, now watch the oil do it's thing to the water. There has to be a "Because" The evolutionist had to have something to start with.

The paper aeroplane has no pilot, so it must go down.

The evolutionist always starts with creation, or something, then proceeds to prove that SOMETHING came from NOTHING when using SOMETHING to illustrate his point.

Go find a garden of weeds. Stay there until the roses bloom from nothing out of the dry ground.

The biggest proof that evolution is a lie is there isn't nor have ever been any transitional fossils.

Not even one. NONE.

One atheist on his website said he has seen transitional fossils, but his statement is an automatic withdrawl from his weird mind.
He didn't see something that doesn't exist. He lied or is incredibly dumb.

The Peltdown Man was the desperate act of scientists who know nothing important to deceive us.

Scientists are not as smart as they think. God is just too good as what he does for any scientist to figure him out. God isn't a puzzle, but the Creator.
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
Re: OIL and WATER

Rebecka said:
Hope you all don't mind my comments here.

Put water in a jar with oil, now watch what happens?

Back up. Why is someone needed to put the water and oil in the jar? Why doesn't it just happen by itself? Someone HAD to do it. It could not happen without someone doing it. There had to be someone to do it.

"Because" is what it is all about.

Why are the water and oil in that jar? BECAUSE someone put them in there toether. You won't find them together unless SOMEONE put them together.
Well that's a fine way to take my example way out of context. My point was that mechanisms for balance and ordering do exist in nature, and therefore the statement that 'all things tend towards disorder' is bunk. Whether it is the balancing of populations in an ecosystem or simply the glidepath of the paper-aeroplane, balancing mechanisms can be seen to exist.

Read up on Langton's Ant and Conway's Game Of Life for a fascinating display of emergent order. You can program them simply yourself or even run them on a spreadsheet.

Evolutionists cannot come up with something from nothing. They have to start with something. Forget the water and oil. Start with nothing and go from there as God did. Of course, it cannot be done. God spoke and it happened. No water, no oil, now watch the oil do it's thing to the water. There has to be a "Because" The evolutionist had to have something to start with.
Well to extend your logic; what is the 'because' that created god? In order for your views to be internally consistent, you must not leave your creator out of it.

One of the most frequently-used arguments I have heard from creationists is "how did something come from nothing without god?" and "how did the universe come into being?" These arguments have several flaws of assumption and internal consistency:

1) The creationist has first asumed that there must have been a 'nothing' to start off with, with no defining forces.
2) The creationist has assumed that their god is exempt from this law of theirs, that 'everything has to come from something else', by assuming infinite continuity for their god and assuming that nothing created him/ her/ it. This is a classic example of internal inconsistency in logic.
3) The creationist has also assumed that if the question cannot be answered satisfactorily, then there must be a deity by default. This, again, is a flaw in reasoning, since there is no logical reason in which one should assume the existence of a deity where a scientific explanation is not available. This 'god-of-the-gaps' is a weak argument. A few hundred years back, the god-of-the-gaps was used to explain why disease occured; now we know differently, so isn't it dandy that some people did not trust the god-of-the-gaps as an explanation?
4) Furthermore, the assumption of a deity is in fact no explanation at all. Saying, for example, "Science does not know how the universe was created; I say God did it!" does not answer the question of how it was created.
*How did god do it?
*By what methods did he use?
*What is the nature of god? How does he exist?
*What created god?
In the final analysis, saying 'god did it' does not answer any of these questions, so on top of the basic fact that the god of the gaps is an example of faulty assumption, it doesn't even answer the query that brought it up!

The biggest proof that evolution is a lie is there isn't nor have ever been any transitional fossils.
There are plenty of them, actually. There are transitional fossils between jawless bony fish and hinged-jaw bony fish, transitionals between primitive bony fish to amphibians, transitionals between sharks and rays, transitionals between amphibians and primitive reptiles, transitionals towards the early mammals, transitionals showing the evolution of whales and similar seagoing mammals and masses of transitionals within these groups themselves.

In each, the features evidenced by the fossils in question vary. There are, for example, several different transitionals between jawless and hinged-jaw bony fish, showing the slow evolution of different characteristics; it is not an on/ off flip between groups as many creationists seem to imagine.

One does have to wonder exactly how far you are willing to stretch the definition of 'transitional' in order to make it appear that there are none when in fact there are masses of them.

The Peltdown Man was the desperate act of scientists who know nothing important to deceive us.
'Piltdown man' was a hoax, indeed, and was exposed as a hoax by the scientific community when more evidence came to light. Again; you would simply like to believe in a giant conspiracy.

Scientists are not as smart as they think. God is just too good as what he does for any scientist to figure him out. God isn't a puzzle, but the Creator.
That's a wonderful quote:

God isn't a puzzle
Well that's convenient. I expect we have just been wasting our time asking questions about the nature of the universe, life on Earth and so on; evidently it is 'not a puzzle'.

'God did it'.

Explains everything, doesn't it? :roll:
 
R

Rebecka

Guest
Evolution a hoax

First, what I said about God isn't a quote. I say that. If it sounds like a quote, I guess someone out there thinks like me.

You say I assume, but you assume more than I would ever dream of.
You assume that God must explain his methods and might to you, that he cannot know MORE than you, his creature or he isn't real. You assume that if he doesn't reveal his secrets, then he doesn't exist.
You assume that if you cannot understand God, know how, and when, where and why God did what he did, then God is non existent because in your mind, unless God is transparent and hangs from a clothesline, for you to examine or be in a cage in a lab for your inspection and analysis, then you doubt his existence. God answers to no man, neither is he accountable to any.

This is arrogance on your part, no offense, but it is.

Your reasoning assumes that an opposite must produce an opposite,ie:chaos into order.
How about black into white or night into day or hot into cold and thin into thick and so on. Or men into women

Chaos is the opposite of order, and each is distinct from the other. Chaos cannot become order as you think, or it would no longer be chaos, but order in it's beginning form.
This takes from the absolute it absolutely is.

There are absolutes in the natural world as in the spiritual world.

Your mind thinks even as the world does, that if it feels right to you, then it must be alright.

That isn't so, but a sign of the times that men's mind will be darkened to believe what isn't true.

Wrong is wrong and right is right. Chaos is chaos and order is order and the two shall never meet, nor shall one become the other.

All things tend toward disorder is true.
Let's start by looking at you;
You are a person made of flesh and blood and muscle and bone, and you not only tend toward disorder and decay, but will most definitely die and decay. What is more disordrly than that?

That alone should tell you that any thoughts produced by creatures subject to decay, which they are ,cannot be trusted to make any sound judgements about anything, and certainly not about God. Use common sense, my friend.

Why would I believe or place my trust in a man whom I know will die someday, and who knows how he will die being that man is so prone to doing wrong.

The second law of thermodynamics. I'm no scientist, but I do know about that law. It is in the Bible.

Oil and water seperating proves nothing, only that oil and water don't mix. Neither does iron and clay. Gold and silver, coke and pepsi, sweet and sour, or man and sin.

To deny that things wear out is denying what is plainly written in your very existence.

There are no transitional fossils.
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
Re: Evolution a hoax

Rebecka said:
First, what I said about God isn't a quote. I say that. If it sounds like a quote, I guess someone out there thinks like me.

You say I assume, but you assume more than I would ever dream of.
You assume that God must explain his methods and might to you
I don't even assume his existence; how could I possibly assume this?

that he cannot know MORE than you, his creature or he isn't real.
Nope. I never said or implied that either. I merely pointed out your logical error in assuming that god will not hold to any of the laws and assumptions that you lay down.
If you say that everything comes from something else, then that blanket statement must either cover god too or you must recognise that it may be incorrect and may not be universally applicable.

You assume that if he doesn't reveal his secrets, then he doesn't exist.
Nope. I simply do not make the assumption that an omnipotent being for which there is effectively zero evidence exists. I could apply your argument just as well to showing your 'arrogance' in not believing in my invisible mind-lizard who talks to my dog when he sleeps.

You assume that if you cannot understand God, know how, and when, where and why God did what he did, then God is non existent because in your mind, unless God is transparent and hangs from a clothesline, for you to examine or be in a cage in a lab for your inspection and analysis, then you doubt his existence. God answers to no man, neither is he accountable to any.
Again you assume his existence with no backing evidence of it. It is the 'god of the gaps' that makes the massive assumptions, as I stated earlier, of 'if we do not understand something scientifically then it must be the work of god'. That thinking is not logically consistent. Mine, based as it is on accumulation and weighing of evidence, is.

Your reasoning assumes that an opposite must produce an opposite,ie:chaos into order.
How about black into white or night into day or hot into cold and thin into thick and so on. Or men into women

Chaos is the opposite of order, and each is distinct from the other. Chaos cannot become order as you think, or it would no longer be chaos, but order in it's beginning form.
This takes from the absolute it absolutely is.
Well I shall be fair and let you run with this, but first you must answer one query:

How do you define 'order' and 'chaos'?

It is trickier than you might think.

There are absolutes in the natural world as in the spiritual world.
But of course. The speed of light is one, for example. There are many others.

Your mind thinks even as the world does, that if it feels right to you, then it must be alright.

That isn't so, but a sign of the times that men's mind will be darkened to believe what isn't true.
Not at all. Compressible supersonic flow and many of it's characteristics do not 'feel right' in many respects, but I use current models for it as they are experimentally backed.
A universe where matter is particulate in nature doesn't 'feel right', but again it is experimentaly verified.

Wrong is wrong and right is right. Chaos is chaos and order is order and the two shall never meet, nor shall one become the other.
Yes, yes, yes, but can you define those absolutes?

All things tend toward disorder is true.
Let's start by looking at you;
You are a person made of flesh and blood and muscle and bone, and you not only tend toward disorder and decay, but will most definitely die and decay. What is more disordrly than that?
I also regulate proteins and sugars in startling accuracy and make up for chemical concentrations in my bloodstream by filtering them out.

Again; define your terms.

That alone should tell you that any thoughts produced by creatures subject to decay, which they are ,cannot be trusted to make any sound judgements about anything, and certainly not about God. Use common sense, my friend.

Why would I believe or place my trust in a man whom I know will die someday, and who knows how he will die being that man is so prone to doing wrong.
Your logic is flawed. "People cannot make sound judgements because they die" is ridiculous and based in error from the start, since clearly a great many people have indeed made sound or accurate observations about the world.

The second law of thermodynamics. I'm no scientist, but I do know about that law. It is in the Bible.
No it isn't. Only in some impossibly-skewed metaphorical fashion could you ever claim that.

Oil and water seperating proves nothing, only that oil and water don't mix. Neither does iron and clay. Gold and silver, coke and pepsi, sweet and sour, or man and sin.

To deny that things wear out is denying what is plainly written in your very existence.
Things 'wear out'; yes, certainly. So?

I was responding to the earlier comment about order and disorder. As yet I have not seen any participants in this thread actually define those terms as they are using them. Do so.

There are no transitional fossils.
Yes. There are. Read up on some archaeology, do an internet search or research the subject in some other way instead of countering with blind stubbornness. I'm not about to do your research for you.
 
R

Rebecka

Guest
Evolution?

Define order you say? Order is always right. Chaos is order's servant.

Let's look at a tempest or storm, even a tornado. It is in order simply because it is part of nature, even though it's winds create chaos, and I use the word "create" purposely. Still, the chaos is not order, but serves order's purpose. Chaos does not create order, but serves order.

Winds can devastate, yet they are right because they serve a purpose in creation. There is nothing unholy about the wind. If the winds were not necessary, God would not have built them into his universe.

Two opposing forces guide our planet or it would go off into desolation.
The two centri's are necessary to maintain order and guidance.

Chaos and order are both needed to maintain stability. One cannot become the other or there would be no order.

Chaos is as necessary for order as order itself, yet it is not order, nor does it become order,but serves as an opposing force even as the human being is made of good and yet commits evil.
Evil is our opposing force. We can use it for good.

You can tell a lie and cause much destruction, yet that lie will remain destructive, yet you can learn from it's destruction and strive to not lie again. If you fail to learn from the destructive force, you will go off into desolation.

It served a purpose as all things are subject to God, who is right and who is love and goodness. And he is order. Order is greater than chaos. Chaos is not order's father, but it's servant.

All things whether good or evil must bow to God's sovereign laws which are immutable and cannot be broken.

I don't assume there is a God. I know there is a God.

The entire structure of the human mind and soul with it's abilities to build what is right is based and built on the knowledge that there is a God.

God isn't something to be denied or doubted, but to build on. God is everything that is Right. We can trust what is right.
The ancient Hebrews to whom were entrusted with the oracles of God told us his Name.
Right has a Name.
It is Yahweh.
 
R

Rebecka

Guest
Man

You say there are some who have made sound judgements about the world.

Like who?

Every person born into this world will die. I will not trust anyone who cannot keep himself alive.

Cancer is a killer and what sound judgements have been made about it? What about our flawed judicial system? And the greatest country in the world America having the fattest and most unhealthy people on the planet? America has the most diseases and illnesses on earth and who is making these "sound" judgements.

God gave me a sound mind when he filled me with the Holy Spirit and a sound mind is a mind free of defect. It is flawless.

There is no one without Christ who has a sound mind and that is why we are a dying race of people.

If even one sound judgement had been made for this world,we would'nt be in the mess we are in. Not one person is capable of making sound judgements, obviously and apparently.

I study archaeology, it is part of my studying the Bible and there are no transitional fossils.
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
Re: Evolution?

I still haven't seen a solid definition for order and chaos/ disorder here; some lovely poetic language indeed, but no solid definition.

Rebecka said:
Define order you say? Order is always right. Chaos is order's servant.
So what; are they personified characters? Can you define 'right' in this sense?

Let's look at a tempest or storm, even a tornado. It is in order simply because it is part of nature, even though it's winds create chaos, and I use the word "create" purposely. Still, the chaos is not order, but serves order's purpose. Chaos does not create order, but serves order.

Winds can devastate, yet they are right because they serve a purpose in creation. There is nothing unholy about the wind. If the winds were not necessary, God would not have built them into his universe.
So you define order and disorder/ chaos/ choose-your-term as being facets of divinity (taken from your mention of the wind not being 'unholy')?

Two opposing forces guide our planet or it would go off into desolation.
The two centri's are necessary to maintain order and guidance.

Chaos and order are both needed to maintain stability. One cannot become the other or there would be no order.

Chaos is as necessary for order as order itself, yet it is not order, nor does it become order,but serves as an opposing force even as the human being is made of good and yet commits evil.
Evil is our opposing force. We can use it for good.
But you have still not yet defined order and disorder when using your terms.

I would personally define order as being the extent by which given forces collaborate towards a net result. This, of course, is hopelessly vague unless you define what the 'given forces' are and in what situation. In terms of thermodynamic disorder (entropy) for example, it would be the extent to which particles in a given medium contribute towards an average force in a set direction. This net momentum, according to the law of entropic increase (well not a law per se, but as close a thing as you are likely to get) will tend towards zero as time goes on. No energy loss (in a closed system) has occured, but the forces within have become increasingly randomised.

And yet this particular definition of 'order' (thermodynamic order) is entirely separate from other definitions. A jet engine, for example, sees massive increases in entropy throughout the system but produces a net thrust when taken as a whole (though it is of course an open system; it would not work as a closed one). Disorder on the thermodynamic scale has increased dramatically by the time you reach the jet exhaust but the result is no less useful and ordered as an open system.

Again with the oil and water; many people define order as being the extent to which a system may have it's behaviour predicted; the final, steady oil/ water state is, in this sense, much more 'ordered' than the initial shook-up state, even though thermodynamic disorder has increased. This was my point. If you are talking about order and disorder you must first rigidly define your terms; not in poetic metaphor and allusion to cosmic balance, but in a hard empirical fashion.

It served a purpose as all things are subject to God, who is right and who is love and goodness. And he is order. Order is greater than chaos. Chaos is not order's father, but it's servant.
But what are they, by this definition? Is god thermodynamic order? Is he pedictability in a system? What?

I don't assume there is a God. I know there is a God.

The entire structure of the human mind and soul with it's abilities to build what is right is based and built on the knowledge that there is a God.

God isn't something to be denied or doubted, but to build on. God is everything that is Right. We can trust what is right.
The ancient Hebrews to whom were entrusted with the oracles of God told us his Name.
Right has a Name.
It is Yahweh.
Very stirring, but doubtful nevertheless. You said:

The entire structure of the human mind and soul with it's abilities to build what is right is based and built on the knowledge that there is a God.
I do not believe in a deity, and yet I have excellent analytical abilities and a sound grasp of morality. Elaborate.

But carrying on (and keeping it to one post):

You say there are some who have made sound judgements about the world.

Like who?

Every person born into this world will die. I will not trust anyone who cannot keep himself alive.

Cancer is a killer and what sound judgements have been made about it? What about our flawed judicial system? And the greatest country in the world America having the fattest and most unhealthy people on the planet? America has the most diseases and illnesses on earth and who is making these "sound" judgements.

God gave me a sound mind when he filled me with the Holy Spirit and a sound mind is a mind free of defect. It is flawless.

There is no one without Christ who has a sound mind and that is why we are a dying race of people.
Like Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Prandtl, Tesla, Gauss... and these are merely a selection of the more notable (well; perhaps not Prandtl) scientists. I could further go on to include writers, artists and poets that have made sound judgements about the world, it's texture and feel and so forth. Even political analysts and trend-spotters could be included as people who have made sound observtions.

But I would prefer to refer to scientific observers, as their findings can be backed by experiment and observation. Newton's laws of motion can be experimented on by anyone; Prandtl's aerodynamic findings by anyone with a paper aeroplane and some imagination to hand, Tesla's and Gauss's by anyone with access to electronics and magnets.

Do you not trust such observations (which you can repeat yourself) simply because their founders are now deceased? That is a highly peculiar view.

And your assumption that only people who accept Christ can think straight is frankly laughable. Think about that, with your 'flawless' mind.

I study archaeology, it is part of my studying the Bible and there are no transitional fossils.
I can only presume that your definition of 'transitional fosils' varies slightly from most of the profession, then. I would be interested in hearing it.
 
R

Rebecka

Guest
Let's look at the ancient myth. The ancient Sumerians believed in gods, as many primitives did. The chaotic god sent lightnings and thunders, rained on their crops and basically destroyed their work and homes. They saw it as bad. They saw the sunshine and warm breezes as a god also, but a nice one. They were forces they didn't understand, so called them gods, even offered the chaotic god gifts to gain favors.

Order was present in their world even as it is now, yet they were unable to see it for what it was, nature.

Order was present in the chaos. You say it is tricky, but it is understandable to a point.

Chaos is a part of order, it is needed to maintain stability.

Your position is that chaos became order and time was it's means of accomplishing this. Right? Please answer this.

You say given forces produce a net result and this is order.
Then wonder, but what forces.

I see what you're saying, but it seems you are giving forces the position of gods as the ancient Sumerians did. That they act on their own.
Let's stay with one thing at a time, but let's look at the forces, which you say produce the order or chaos. Are you saying forces produce forces?

I wasn't trying to be poetic at all. Sorry if I presented myself as such because I do not claim to be a poet.

I mean by flawless mind, that I have the mind of Christ.

Example; a judge pounds his gavel and shouts to all; "Order in the court!"

What is he demanding? Order.

He is demanding that all in the courtroom obey his command, which calls for quietness and attention to what is going on.

What if he pounded the gavel and shouted, "Chaos in the court!"

Everyone would think he was out of order, right? Order has a definiton here as calmness, but I disagree to a point because of the centri's which keep our planet in orbit. Order is order and chaos both.

Order in the universe are immutable laws which govern the universe and cannot be broken. Yes, they are right.
Chaos is the opposite of order, but used by order to produce and maintain stability.
Is order a personified charactar? Jesus Christ claimed to be the personification of truth when he said he is the truth itself, in other words, everything HE SAYS goes. All other opinions are meaningless.

He told us what is right and orderly,ie: to love your neighbor is orderly, it is right.

Tornados and tempests are not gods or forces which think for themselves, but forces as you say. Not gods who act on their own though. Not facets of divinity, but expressions I would say. God holds lightning in his fists. That tells me something.

(I was amazed at finding out that in light, there is actually darkness and in darkness, no light. Rays of pure light revealed thin lines of darkness, yet the darkness revealed no light. (Some science book)

Do you think forces act on their own?
PS, I do not trust anyone who dies.
These men you mentioned were gifts given to the world, but as for sound judgments, they were gifted in one area, but failed in the rest.
Example; Bill Gates is a gift to the world with his Microsoft,but is ignorant in many things and cannot make sound judgemetns that will preserve life..
 
B

bjdea1

Guest
My Judgement

victorhadin

Gee you really know how to go on and on about something :). Hey look - don't worry about it then - you are free to believe what you want to - personally its no loss to me - you're really the only one who has to live with your beliefs.

You see the thing is I don't need to argue this point - I know the answer - you still don't seem to really know for sure - this is why you are going on and on about it. I hope you get through it all and come to the right conclusion in the end.

God is the only one who can really settle the matter with you - hopefully He will be gracious enough to deal with you in whatever way is most appropiate - only God can really know what to do.

And just for the record - I am a Mechanical Engineer - so this is not really my field but I am educated.

I pray God is gracious to you.

The main thing that proves things to me is common sence and things God has personally done in and around my life. I've been blessed with some profound events in my life that have really opened my eyes to God and the whole spiritual world. If only you could have seen and experienced what I have. If you're open to God you can. To me this need you have for extensive proofs is somewhat of a stumbling block (barrier) for you.
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
Re: My Judgement

bjdea1 said:
victorhadin

Gee you really know how to go on and on about something :). Hey look - don't worry about it then - you are free to believe what you want to - personally its no loss to me - you're really the only one who has to live with your beliefs.

You see the thing is I don't need to argue this point - I know the answer - you still don't seem to really know for sure - this is why you are going on and on about it. I hope you get through it all and come to the right conclusion in the end.
Not at all. I go on and on about it because I love debating. :)

Cheers for the sentiments, all the same, but I have never felt that 'knowing' a thing was a particularly good answer in and of itself; evidence and understanding are the keys.

God is the only one who can really settle the matter with you - hopefully He will be gracious enough to deal with you in whatever way is most appropiate - only God can really know what to do.

And just for the record - I am a Mechanical Engineer - so this is not really my field but I am educated.

I pray God is gracious to you.

The main thing that proves things to me is common sence and things God has personally done in and around my life. I've been blessed with some profound events in my life that have really opened my eyes to God and the whole spiritual world. If only you could have seen and experienced what I have. If you're open to God you can. To me this need you have for extensive proofs is somewhat of a stumbling block (barrier) for you.
Not a barrier really; just a need for evidence, which goes for most things in life. I will be all too happy (really; it would be a lovely feeling knowing that there was an afterlife of sorts) to believe in god, but only if his existence is backed by suitable evidence that I can observe and judge rationally, from an objective standpoint.

I'm involved in aerospace engineering myself. I never assumed that you were uneducated, so do not fear that, but it was merely your statement that the theory of evolution is 'clearly a load of rubbish' that set me off. The scientific community is not engaged in a giant conspiracy and it would be paranoia and nothing else to think so.

I will elaborate (especially on the points of 'order and disorder') later on, but I have work to do at the mo. :)
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
OK; work done for today, too tired to go out on the town and get drunk, so I shall instead sit down here and address this 'order' thingy:

The order/ disorder quibble (in case, Rebecka, you forget) was raised by bjdea1 with his assertion that 'nature has a tendency towards disorder' as an argument against evolution. I asked in this case for the definitions of order and disorder he was using, as otherwise he would only have made a baseless statement of opinion.

Now to skim forward, you seem to picture order as an ever-present element, and to be heavily involved with nature or god (correct me if I'm wrong). Not only has you not given a strong and certain definition, per se, but it is rather irrelevant to the original point at hand, which brings us to:



Rebecka said:
Your position is that chaos became order and time was it's means of accomplishing this. Right? Please answer this.
With regards to evolution, I assume.

But not at all, because you have still not defined your terms. There is no increase in cosmic order given by the evolution of a new species or the birth/ death of an individual; order is a specific which is defined very narrowly to certain situations only, not a generalised force or presence.

You say given forces produce a net result and this is order.
Then wonder, but what forces.
No. What I said was that thermodynamic order could be defined this way, with thermodynamic disorder being the extent to which momentum in a particulate matter is randomised.

And you have indeed chanced upon my original point here with 'what forces'. The forces involved change with each different definition of order. Thermodynamic disorder is not the same as order when talking about a company of soldiers, or the ordered array of molecular lattices within crystals. Different situations, different definitions.

And with regards to evolution and the supposed 'tendency in nature towards disorder', not one definition has been given in this thread. I have asked enough, so perhaps bjdea1 could tell us what he actually meant by this.

My only point here is that if you are going to set down an argument rather than an assertion you had best be prepared to define and bolster your points rigidly. What specific factor, what specific form of order, decays in nature and would inhibit evolution? That is what I originally called upon one of you to answer.

I see what you're saying, but it seems you are giving forces the position of gods as the ancient Sumerians did. That they act on their own.
Let's stay with one thing at a time, but let's look at the forces, which you say produce the order or chaos. Are you saying forces produce forces?
On occasion. A 'force' can be defined as an influence which acts upon an object with the potential to cause a change in momentum. More loosely defined, it could include a number of factors; a 'force of nature', a gravitational field (even though technically a force is only produced when that interacts with something). I am unsure of what exactly you are referring to here.
But giving forces the position of gods? -Don't be daft.

To summarise, I believe we had better cut back to the first point of a tendency towards disorder being raised by bjdea1, and whether it is valid or not. Otherwise we could wax poetic forever. ;)

PS, I do not trust anyone who dies.
These men you mentioned were gifts given to the world, but as for sound judgments, they were gifted in one area, but failed in the rest.
Example; Bill Gates is a gift to the world with his Microsoft,but is ignorant in many things and cannot make sound judgemetns that will preserve life..
Whyever not? People are not specialised automatons. Bill Gates, I would wager, could perform first aid and in any case gives large amounts to charity. Tesla was a genius above and beyond his specialisation and an inventor of many items in wide use today for many, many purposes; medical, industrial and others. Einstein was a family man. Leonardo da Vinci was by no means a hyperspecialised observer or solely an artist.

I find it highly puzzling that you would have so little faith in your fellow human being. A large portion of humanity may be unspectacular, but a small portion is stunningly brilliant and a larger portion does it's own little bit as it goes along, small but useful. We are part of a spectacularly creative species, whose cultural, technological and creative variety is vast and ever-changing. The idea that a person should view themselves or others as nothing whatsoever simply because they are mortal is quite frankly repellant to me.

Once again to cut to the original point:

That alone should tell you that any thoughts produced by creatures subject to decay, which they are ,cannot be trusted to make any sound judgements about anything, and certainly not about God. Use common sense, my friend.

Why would I believe or place my trust in a man whom I know will die someday, and who knows how he will die being that man is so prone to doing wrong.
Justify the above.
 
B

bjdea1

Guest
I just want to make my point clear on one thing. I do not believe their is a big conspiracy as you put it. That would mean all scientists are deliberately deceiving the world - for the majority of scientists I would NOT say this is the case. I am saying that your emotions and very nature at your core is imperfect. Every human being has prejudices, things that have happened to them that influence their beliefs and views. These other very human qualities are what cause many scientists to believe something that could be false - without realising it.
Look deeply into your own soul and heart and tell me do you really know what is at the real root and core of everything you are saying? Do you really know why sometimes you can't control your emotions lets say. Like why does something "get you started" for example, like when I said "evolution is obviously a load of rubbish". Its because at the core - a mans heart is a deep well of all sorts of motives, needs, longings, etc - only God knows the reason why you got started because of my comment. You see no man really has full control over what's in their heart - no man can always do good - there are all sorts of conflicting things deep down in a mans heart that cause him to behave one way or the other - to support one view as opposed to the other. In the end you will find it really has very little to do with actual scientific proof and everything to do with whats in your heart.

This is why we need God to shed light into our heart to show us what's really going on. No man can pull himself out of darkness - we all need God to bring us out of it with His help. All mens hearts are pretty much in the dark - and the majority of scientists who go on and on about evolution being right - I believe they really don't know what is driving them - deep down in their heart, and they are basically "in the dark" and cannot see whats really in their heart. Can you honestly say all your actions and behavior in your life has always been pure and right? No of course not - why? because all men are FAR from perfect, one day we can do good the other day we can do evil. This shows we are all somewhat in the dark and controlled by forces outside of ourselves. If those scientists could see clearly they would surely turn from it and repent and be saved. But so many aren't because the enemy of all - Satan - wages war on all to keep peoples heart in the dark at all times - so they will not understand, not see the truth and not be saved.

I believe you can only really see and understand something from the heart - or spirit - the mind is basically just a good piece of hardware we have - but thats it - true understanding comes from God - many scientists therefore don't know they are believing something false. They are being controlled, unknowingly, by forces they are NOT aware of. They don't really see what's in their own hearts.
 

2020 Hosting Fee

Total amount
$30.00
Goal
$667.40
Top