Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Did we evolve from Monkey's? « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 18

The White Tiger

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11371
Offline
#150 : November 18, 2007, 01:32:13 AM

Sorry Galt - it was late - I did read the book.

And I believe the universe is described as a closed system. What happens if we apply the law of conservation within the universe - does it not also affect the "items" within the system? 

Can we then say that while we added sugar to the water in the cup we also added friction - by the work of dissolution - when we leave it alone we do see the sugar go back to a state similar to which it started. However, it seems ADW pointed out the sugar is not going ALL THE WAY BACK - it cannot as it has been changed, or degraded. 1st law and 2nd law working together = dissolution, the energy changed into heat. Would this cause the suger to absorb the water, thereby adding something to it at the atomic level? Sorry if I'm overthinking this but I'm becoming inspired...if so, how does this describe entropy? Does this not describe a corruption in the sugar? A trend that shows the sugar is less than it was prior to the experiment? Illuminator - as you can see, I'm still chewing on your discription of entropy NOT defined as dissaption of energy. It still seems to me that things do tend to corrupt over time. Energy also did not make the sugar stronger. I still like my ice cube experiment - especially if heat is equal. Ice will not reform, it has degraded to a liquid.

Regarding Galts explanation of God without the bible - it is possible for a deist to believe in God, or supreme being, without a book that tells how to personally know God, but what is the point of that? It would seem an incredible thing to have been created by God, be aware of His presence - as His handiwork describes - yet have no way to actually know Him.

Since it is claimed that (some) Christians do not understand the term theory as it applies to evolution - perhaps many secularists are guilty of the same thing? Perhaps those secularists struggling with the concept could free themselves to explore God if they understand Him in the context of a "theory". There simply is too much evidence around us to deny the existence of superior being. Perhaps if we supposed that laws governing this research were called "spiritual laws" that are as complex in thier workings as the laws of relativity, or the laws governing QM. When we began to have problems measuring very small things "general relativists" began having problems measuring very small distances, so we wandered  into (became aware of) quantum laws - whose theories we find ourselves even now groping in the dark to establish. Perhaps the same signposts warning men to "turn back or abandon sanity" that secularists established at the edges of their understanding prior to recognizing the laws of relativity or quantum mechanics - also apply to these spiritual laws?

What if those that scoffed and resisted Newton, Joules, Mayer are no different than those scoffers that propose that there is no God. Why do we deny that part of ourselves that still looks for God?

If you look at the problem in this light perhaps it begins to make sense to see the Bible as a theory which explains the existence of a supreme being and the spiritual laws governing man in his spiritual nature/world and how he relates to his supreme being? Just a thought.

You know since a theory is simply an operational fact - waiting to be borne out...

Anybody noticed the correllation between the age of earth and how long evolution has taken are exactly the same as the age the sun has been burning? All of them are approximately 4.5 billion years old. Statistically speaking - I wonder what the probability of all this happening simultaneously, yet randomly?

ADW - you're into that kind of stuff...

Incomparable sig by Incognito

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#151 : November 18, 2007, 01:09:09 PM

Quote from:  Buc Buckeye . . . . .
Regarding Galts explanation of God without the bible - it is possible for a deist to believe in God, or supreme being, without a book that tells how to personally know God, but what is the point of that? It would seem an incredible thing to have been created by God, be aware of His presence - as His handiwork describes - yet have no way to actually know Him.

Remember Abraham, Isaiah, and Moses didn't have a bible.  All those early followers of Jesus didn't go to Barnes and Nobles to get a book and figure out what was going to happen next. 

In fact, the bible was not compiled until a series of eccumenical councils between 373 and 765 AD decided what books went in and what was excluded.

There isn't even a single bible, the catholic version includes macabees and some other books not in the KJV.




The White Tiger

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11371
Offline
#152 : November 18, 2007, 04:14:27 PM

I think I know what you mean. However, the laws were well known by the people - they also were aware of the prophets - which is the reason for a passage such as this:

2 Kings 17:13
The LORD warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets and seers: "Turn from your evil ways. Observe my commands and decrees, in accordance with the entire Law that I commanded your fathers to obey and that I delivered to you through my servants the prophets."

And then this one from the New Testament - Jesus making the disciples aware of His purpose:

Luke 24:44 (Whole Chapter)
He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

There is also a misunderstanding about the interpretations of the bible. They are not continuously revised or interpreted. The King James version is an original translation. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoeretic Text (Hebrew Scholars intent on preserving and codifying the Hebrew language), New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (also known as the recieved text, or the Byzantine Greek text).

Personally I was trained and taught to read the King James, I use it today for reading and as a study Bible. I like the New International Version - but if I ever have a question I compare it to the KJV. I have read passages from the Maccabeans and from the book of Mary. I think these are pretty cool adding some historical perspective - just not reflective of the core beliefs of Christianity.

Interestingly enough - we judge the Bible much like those pre-dating the Bible judged prophets and teachers. Who is the focus of the book, are they drawing attention to an agenda? Are they leading to or away from Christ? Is Christ represented as both God and Man? Are the miracles stated, or diminished. Is it profitable for study, does it improve our condition,? Does the text lead to the transforming message of Christ as it's central theme? Each of the 66 books of the King James Bible supports the others before it and beyond it, even though some of the old testament books were written a few hundred years apart.

Regardless - ancient Jews knew the law and they knew a prophet. And remember, the punishment for being a false prophet in ancient times was death - pretty easy to spot false prophets, the prophecies either came true or they didn't. If they didn't, the prophet was taken outside and stoned. Much of the New Testament was contributed by a couple of scholars (Dr. Luke - a physician, and Paul a scholar/Lawyer of Hebrew language and law as well as Roman law - as he was both a Jewish and Roman citizen). Remember as well - that while technically there was no bible for the early church - except the Law the prohets and the Psalms - they did have the epistles (letters) to the churches of the 1st century by the disciples written to each church. This is what was translated over the years. By the growth of the early church - I'd say they all had a pretty good idea of what they believed. Much like the claim from evolutionists about the loss of some the fossill record - we don't still have some of those original manuscripts - but we do have texts that eminated from them.

Not to spend any more time on this - it really is boring to read this much text - here's a good website for historical perspective on the translation known as the Authorized King James Version of the Bible: A Creationists Defense of the King James Bible

Incomparable sig by Incognito

ONEBIGDADDY

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4525
Offline
#153 : November 18, 2007, 05:01:09 PM

Quote from:  Buc Buckeye . . . . .
Regarding Galts explanation of God without the bible - it is possible for a deist to believe in God, or supreme being, without a book that tells how to personally know God, but what is the point of that? It would seem an incredible thing to have been created by God, be aware of His presence - as His handiwork describes - yet have no way to actually know Him.

Remember Abraham, Isaiah, and Moses didn't have a bible. All those early followers of Jesus didn't go to Barnes and Nobles to get a book and figure out what was going to happen next.

In fact, the bible was not compiled until a series of eccumenical councils between 373 and 765 AD decided what books went in and what was excluded.

There isn't even a single bible, the catholic version includes macabees and some other books not in the KJV.



Actually John if you read your old testament you will find that most leaders in the bible had what they called "Recorders" who would scribe the accounts of the times/days into history...OBD


Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#154 : January 28, 2014, 02:58:47 PM

Bump. Not highly inclined to explain the same concepts to the same people over again every time their selective memory filters out what has previously been explained to them.

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2548
Offline
#155 : January 28, 2014, 03:05:40 PM

Inevitable means 100 percent certain. Yet outside of Earth, where is that supported? If you were correct, which you clearly are not, life would have existed on literally every single planet in existence. That's what "inevitable" means. Unfortunately your 100 percent claim still stands firmly at 0 percent. Shocking.

Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#156 : January 28, 2014, 03:09:27 PM

Still ignoring the post about liquid water, Escobar? In order to maintain your delusion, you've twisted inevitability into 'must exist everywhere.'

Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#157 : January 28, 2014, 03:12:46 PM

It is inevitable that the sun is going to shine. Yet according to your interpretation, if it's not shining in underground caves, then it's not inevitable that the sun is going to shine. This is how badly you're forced to twist reason in order to make it support your point of view.

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2548
Offline
#158 : January 28, 2014, 03:17:12 PM

Again, you're attempting to twist your theory that life is "inevitable" around to mean "but I was talking about inaccessible places, not anywhere we can actually observe".

Fact: If you were correct there would be life now, or at some point in the past, on 100 percent of planets in existence.

MSU_Fan

****
Starter

Posts : 317
Offline
#159 : January 28, 2014, 03:20:59 PM

If this is a thread about evolution, it's a MUST to post this classic



And no, we did not evolve from monkeys, we evolved from apes. Monkeys have tails, apes don't. Goddamn.

Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#160 : January 28, 2014, 03:23:49 PM

No, dunderhead, you're trying to twist 'it was inevitable that life would spring up' into a claim that life must exist everywhere. It's a strawman you're trying to create, a weakened position for you to debate against, since you apparently doubt your ability to contest the actual statement.

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2548
Offline
#161 : January 28, 2014, 03:28:45 PM

Why wouldn't life exist everywhere? You said it was guaranteed to happen. I didn't say that, you did. Is it only guaranteed to happen where it's guaranteed to happen? You're using hindsight to support nonsense.

Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#162 : January 28, 2014, 03:36:01 PM

Escobar06:
  "Why wouldn't life exist everywhere?"

Because liquid water doesn't exist everywhere. But it does exist in a sufficient number of places to make life inevitable.

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2548
Offline
#163 : January 28, 2014, 03:41:01 PM

Why wouldn't water exist everywhere if life is inevitable? You're applying different rules to whichever part of the universe you feel like focusing on.

Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#164 : January 28, 2014, 04:07:50 PM

Escobar06:
  "Why wouldn't water exist everywhere if life is inevitable?"

Temperature and vapor pressure.
Page: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 18
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Did we evolve from Monkey's? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools