Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /home/content/73/13971573/html/bb/common.php on line 88
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/session.php on line 821: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:88)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/session.php on line 821: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:88)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/session.php on line 821: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:88)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4209: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:88)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4211: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:88)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4212: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:88)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4213: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:88)
hiphop-elements.com • View topic - Perhaps A Perspective...

hiphop-elements.com

It is currently 11/18/17 12:16:37 PM

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Perhaps A Perspective...
PostPosted: 04/03/10 03:56:54 PM 
Offline

Joined: 08/23/08 08:36:18 PM
Posts: 309
Second Law of Thermodynamics - In the Beginning...
The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?

The theological implications are obvious. NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow commented on these implications when he said, "Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)

Jastrow went on to say, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.) It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken...

_________________
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.--
Archibald Macleish


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perhaps A Perspective...
PostPosted: 04/04/10 01:13:21 PM 
Offline

Joined: 08/23/08 08:36:18 PM
Posts: 309
Quote:
Big Doub wrote: ...lines of evidence for evolution by natural selection and an old earth


Even science is still up for debate, even science understands it lack of absolutes concerning this world and its beginning (as stated in the abovementioned)

_________________
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.--
Archibald Macleish


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perhaps A Perspective...
PostPosted: 04/05/10 04:04:44 PM 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05/04/03 05:34:16 PM
Posts: 812
Location: GA
Big Doug wrote:
And I'm still unclear on your point.


Then I'm sure we'll agree that I'm unable to explain myself well enough for your understanding.

_________________
This opinion has been brought to you by:
Image
NOTE: 99.8% of his words are laced with some form of sarcasm.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perhaps A Perspective...
PostPosted: 04/05/10 04:24:03 PM 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 04/17/01 05:00:00 PM
Posts: 4618
Location: Oxnard, California
Free$peech:

Free$peech wrote:
Even science is still up for debate, even science understands it lack of absolutes concerning this world and its beginning (as stated in the abovementioned)


Of course science is up for debate. Saying that you're wrong about something is not the same as saying that science gives absolute answers. That's not what science does. Even axioms and theorems that are considered to be fundamental are, in a sense, just provisionally true. You mentioned thermodynamics, for example. But quantum fluctuations show that the first law of thermodynamics can be violated for small periods of time.

What science does do is allow us to find explanations for what we observe in the natural world. And the answers that science gives are really just the best current explanation for what we have observed. Over time, we will observe new things and have new ideas. In the process, scientific explanations will be replaced or refined by explanations that better fit what we observe.

For example, in earlier times scientists assumed that the universe was geocentric. On this view, the earth was in the center and everything orbited around it. This model, however, did not fit with the data, as so-called wandering stars (we now call them planets) appeared to have erratic orbits. Eventually, the heliocentric model, which made sense of planetary orbits, was proposed and accepted. And since then, our understanding of planetary orbits has been refined and improved upon by people like Sir Isaac Newton, who's ideas were, in turn, refined by people like Pierre Laplace and Albert Einstein.

In other words, you're right that science doesn't give absolute answers. I would go as far as saying that it is unreasonable to expect absolute answers. For example, we're discussing the big bang model. This model was developed after we learned that the universe was expanding. But one of the implications of the universe's expansion is that, at a certain point in the distant future, the universe will have expanded to such an extent that, if there are intelligent beings somewhere that are capable of doing astronomy, they will not be able to discover the evidence for the big bang. With this in mind, it is not unreasonable to assume that there are things that we, being limited by the space and time in which we happen to exist, cannot know and therefore will never know. In other words, there will always be unknown unknowns.

But still, none of this means that we can't throw out explanations when they fail to explain what we observe. Special creation, young earth creationism, and the aforementioned geocentric model are all examples of explanations that utterly fail when we try to use them to explain what we observe in nature. This is why I feel perfectly justified in saying that these explanations are very clearly wrong. And that therefore you are very clearly mistaken in believing that special creation is true.

I suppose I should say that neither the success of big bang cosmology nor the failure of special creation disproves God's existence. In fact, Dr. William Lane Craig, a prominant Christian apologist and philosopher uses the big bang as evidence for God's existence in his famous Kalam Cosmological argument. He usually even uses that Jastrow quote you pulled in presentations of that argument. However, as I will discuss, I think that his use of the big bang, like Jastrow's, is an overreach.

Free$peech wrote:
Second Law of Thermodynamics - In the Beginning...
The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?

The theological implications are obvious. NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow commented on these implications when he said, "Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)

Jastrow went on to say, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.) It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken..


First of all, I don't think that the big bang model proves that the universe had an absolute beginning at the big bang. It describes what happened a tiny fraction of a second after whatever happened to initiate the universe's expansion (the big bang). This is because current theories break down in their ability to describe how particles behave in conditions like those present at the earliest moments of our universe. It's therefore unsurprising that there is an ongoing debate about what might have happened at the big bang. For example, some people believe that the universe must have come into being from an initial singularity. Others do not. Stephen Hawking, for example, has been on both sides of the debate, asserting now that there was no singularity. Therefore, Jastrow appears to be overreaching in describing the implications of the model. If physicists can't agree on what happened at the big bang then there's no reason to assume that we have good evidence to assume whether or not there was anything before it.

Furthermore, an absolute beginning of our universe does not entail the existence of a personal creator and therefore the analogy of physicists reaching a mountain top to be greeted by theologians is mistaken. There are plenty of possible explanations of what might have brought the universe into being besides a deity. Leonard Susskind, for example, posits that our universe may be one of many in what he calls the anthropic multiverse hypothesis. Lee Smolin has argued that black holes may provide the means by which new universes can be created. On either of these views our universe could have been created by natural processes in other previously existing universes, in which case an absolute beginning to our universe at the big bang does not necessitate a personal god. Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff have proposed that the total energy of the universe is zero. On this view, quantum fluctuations in the vacuum of some previously existing spacetime could have brought our universe (and possibly others) into being. (Quantum fluctuations, which are described in the wikipedia entry I linked earlier, are events that occur in which particles pop into existence seemingly uncaused in particle-antiparticle pairs which will quickly annihilate one another.)

These are all, as far as I can tell, speculative at best. And not knowing much in the way of theoretical physics, I know that I'm not qualified to assess their respective merits. But still, the point is not that any particular hypothesis accurately explains the existence of the universe but rather that an absolute beginning does not entail the existence of a personal creator. I suppose that I should also say that the god hypothesis is less simple than any hypothesis I've mentioned. And therefore, using Okham's razor, we can be reasonably justified in assuming that it is probably less likely than naturalistic explanations.

Edit: I should probably add that although I'm unconvinced that the big bang provides evidence that our universe has an absolute beginning, I think that the philosophical case against the possible existence of an infinite past that the aforementioned Dr. Craig mounts is strong. While I don't agree with his conclusion (that what we observe necessitates a personal creator god) I do find his argument here to be compelling.

Free$peech wrote:
"According to evolutionary theory, starting with the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and the simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases, the universe created itself. This is clearly a violation of natural law, namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to this law an isolated system can never increase in order and complexity, transforming itself to higher and higher levels of organization. An isolated system will inevitably, with time, run down, becoming more and more disorderly. There are no exceptions. Contrary to this natural law, evolutionists believe the universe is an isolated system which transformed itself from the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases into the incredibly complex universe we have today. This is a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If natural laws are natural laws, the universe could not have created itself. The only alternative is that it is not an isolated system."


This is a misrepresentation of the implications of the second law of thermodynamics. In a closed system, entropy will increase. Sure. But that doesn't mean that it has to increase uniformly within that system. And an expanding universe in which there are areas that vary in terms of their heat and density is a universe in which entropy can increase and decrease in different areas. Therefore complex galaxies do not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

In conclusion, big bang cosmology and evolution by natural selection are better explanations for what we see in nature than the model of a young earth and/or special creation. Therefore, a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis makes no sense. Adam and Eve were not historical people. And thus it follows that your "perspective" on history is wrong.

One Term:

That's cool. This is the first time I've tried to defend this position at length. So it shouldn't really be surprising that I'm unfamiliar with all of the objections and failed to understand, let alone properly rebut or accept yours.


Peace

_________________
Ya tu sabes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perhaps A Perspective...
PostPosted: 04/06/10 08:21:31 AM 
Offline

Joined: 08/23/08 08:36:18 PM
Posts: 309
It is funny how you say that I am wrong about my perspective, but we live our days in a 7 day rotation; why not 3, 8, 11 or 12? Where did this idea of 7 days come from? Creation!

_________________
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.--
Archibald Macleish


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perhaps A Perspective...
PostPosted: 04/06/10 09:53:42 AM 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 04/17/01 05:00:00 PM
Posts: 4618
Location: Oxnard, California
That's an interesting argument, I suppose. But I can't help but think of something that you wrote earlier:

Free$peech wrote:
I understand your perspective, but believe that your conclusion on this matter is short sighted, lacking universal and historical input.


We use a seven day week because our culture is heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. So yes, our conception of a week is based on the creation story. But it's not universal. If you had lived in another culture, your week would have probably been a different length of time. In ancient Egypt, it would have been 10 days.

Special creation is wrong.

_________________
Ya tu sabes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perhaps A Perspective...
PostPosted: 05/02/10 09:06:54 AM 
Offline

Joined: 08/23/08 08:36:18 PM
Posts: 309
Our Story

Security like liberty has to be won and re-won says history!,
but the slave and indigenous, outdone under a mean western sun, born learn'n a concession is how we see victory!
See we even turn'n over our faith,
and stand'n blind to our own destiny.
So naturally we full of hate,
when there's forgotten annals of family, home and history,
and it's presently repeat'n without reprieve under a mean western sun, our story!
Under a mean western sun...

_________________
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.--
Archibald Macleish


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perhaps A Perspective...
PostPosted: 05/15/10 08:00:50 AM 
Offline

Joined: 08/23/08 08:36:18 PM
Posts: 309
Practice, practice, practice becoming individually educated to join the collectively stupid, delusional. Who has always run the government, the rich or the poor, the learned or the unlearned? Of course, the rich and the learned!

And across the world this is the same, the rich and learned leading the way. And their consistent failures they blame on the poor and unlearned...so now in the valley and in the shadows, the poor and unlearned practice, practice, practice resistance, from Mexico to Africa, from Africa to the Middle East, together, as Paul testifies, God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

Isn't it funny that those inside the Golden cage live in fear and have anxiety caused by people that are supposedly poor and unlearned? The poor and unlearned causes so many issues for the learned and the rich, but they are yet to be fully mobilized. Isn't it funny that the rich and learned do not understand the simplicity of cause and effect, action-reaction? The pillaging of cultures and the maltreatment of Mother Nature has been a "great" cause and action-like a rubber band fully stretched-and now the unfolding of the unstoppable effects and reaction-the snapping back of the rubber band!

There's not any good outcome or glory to be had from this resolve, only that enough is enough.

We wait fa' no Sarah Palin or no elected, but for a bless'n, the go ahead to move beyond practice. Watch!

_________________
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.--
Archibald Macleish


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group