Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What are Darwinists so afraid of?
worldnetdaily.com ^ | 07/27/2006 | Jonathan Witt

Posted on 07/27/2006 3:00:03 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels

What are Darwinists so afraid of?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: July 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jonathan Witt © 2006

As a doctoral student at the University of Kansas in the '90s, I found that my professors came in all stripes, and that lazy ideas didn't get off easy. If some professor wanted to preach the virtues of communism after it had failed miserably in the Soviet Union, he was free to do so, but students were also free to hear from other professors who critically analyzed that position.

Conversely, students who believed capitalism and democracy were the great engines of human progress had to grapple with the best arguments against that view, meaning that in the end, they were better able to defend their beliefs.

Such a free marketplace of ideas is crucial to a solid education, and it's what the current Kansas science standards promote. These standards, like those adopted in other states and supported by a three-to-one margin among U.S. voters, don't call for teaching intelligent design. They call for schools to equip students to critically analyze modern evolutionary theory by teaching the evidence both for and against it.

The standards are good for students and good for science.

Some want to protect Darwinism from the competitive marketplace by overturning the critical-analysis standards. My hope is that these efforts will merely lead students to ask, What's the evidence they don't want us to see?

Under the new standards, they'll get an answer. For starters, many high-school biology textbooks have presented Haeckel's 19th century embryo drawings, the four-winged fruit fly, peppered moths hidden on tree trunks and the evolving beak of the Galapagos finch as knockdown evidence for Darwinian evolution. What they don't tell students is that these icons of evolution have been discredited, not by Christian fundamentalists but by mainstream evolutionists.

We now know that 1) Haeckel faked his embryo drawings; 2) Anatomically mutant fruit flies are always dysfunctional; 3) Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks (the photographs were staged); and 4) the finch beaks returned to normal after the rains returned – no net evolution occurred. Like many species, the average size fluctuates within a given range.

This is microevolution, the age-old observation of change within species. Macroevolution refers to the evolution of fundamentally new body plans and anatomical parts. Biology textbooks use instances of microevolution such as the Galapagos finches to paper over the fact that biologists have never observed, or even described in theoretical terms, a detailed, continually functional pathway to fundamentally new forms like mammals, wings and bats. This is significant because modern Darwinism claims that all life evolved from a common ancestor by a series of tiny, useful genetic mutations.

Textbooks also trumpet a few "missing links" discovered between groups. What they don't mention is that Darwin's theory requires untold millions of missing links, evolving one tiny step at a time. Yes, the fossil record is incomplete, but even mainstream evolutionists have asked, why is it selectively incomplete in just those places where the need for evidence is most crucial?

Opponents of the new science standards don't want Kansas high-school students grappling with that question. They argue that such problems aren't worth bothering with because Darwinism is supported by "overwhelming evidence." But if the evidence is overwhelming, why shield the theory from informed critical analysis? Why the campaign to mischaracterize the current standards and replace them with a plan to spoon-feed students Darwinian pabulum strained of uncooperative evidence?

The truly confident Darwinist should be eager to tell students, "Hey, notice these crucial unsolved problems in modern evolutionary theory. Maybe one day you'll be one of the scientists who discovers a solution."

Confidence is as confidence does.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwin; enoughalready; evolution; fetish; obsession; pavlovian; science; wrongforum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,551-1,6001,601-1,6501,651-1,7001,701-1,719 next last
To: King Prout

That's some nice way to 'leave the discussion', tossing ridicule and insult over your shoulder. Aren't you proud of your prouty self!


1,651 posted on 08/08/2006 6:47:59 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1650 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

this shall be my last post on this thread, assuming rationality continues to fail to break out.

ridicule and insult?
hrmn...
when one commits a sin, he has sinned, yes?
when that same one commits multiple iterations of the same kind of sin, say fornication, he is a sinner, a fornicator, yes?
when that same one persists in committing those sins, those fornications, despite multiple attempts at correction, he is an unrepentant sinner, a defiant fornicator, yes?
Would it then be ridicule or an insult to inform such an one that his consistent and documented behavior of sinful fornication has led you to wonder whether he is an habitual sinner, and that you have wasted your efforts to correct him?

Somehow, I doubt you think such a response constitutes an insult.

I have at this point patiently and politely responded to well over a week of insults, absurd logical fallacies, fictions, statements of opinion-as-fact, unsupported axioms, corrupt semantic games, fantasies of answers and posts which do not exist, unchecked dead links, constant avoidance of giving answers to pertinent questions, repeated direct personal insult, and -finally- an inexplicable error concerning the content of an old post to which I gave a direct hotlink and textually specified URL.

At which point, I have had enough - in full justice, I dare say.

Yet, somehow, you seem to believe that it is rude of me to inform the font of all this foolishness of the fact that I am wondering whether I have squandered my efforts on a complete idiot.

Look to the manure in your brother's stables, sir, before chiding me for giving sere hay to an ass.


1,652 posted on 08/08/2006 9:00:30 AM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1651 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine; hosepipe; Alamo-Girl; xzins; TXnMA
...such pride is actually from the evil one himself, the first to separate from his Maker and God, and all subsequent to him in this pride are in his service - Dylan said it best, "Still gonna have to serve somebody."

Absolutely true, dear .30Carbine! If a person refuses to serve God, still he must serve something. It is simple, basic, created human nature. Bob Dylan's profoundly true statement recalls Chesterton's remark that (to paraphrase) when a man ceases to believe in God, he does not then believe in nothing; he'll believe in anything. That's a state of affairs that Satan is delighted to work with, for it effectively leaves man defenseless....

Thank you ever so much for your beautiful essay/post, and the scriptual passage from Colossians .30Carbine!

1,653 posted on 08/08/2006 9:13:34 AM PDT by betty boop (The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. -J.B.S. Haldane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1649 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
This is another glorious sidebar! Thank you so very much for all of your outstanding posts!

As usual I have much to say (LOL!) - but it'll have to wait until perhaps this evening.

1,654 posted on 08/08/2006 10:05:59 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1653 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

I'm sorry to see that you are in fact unable to communicate a close without being rude. Your rudeness detracts substantially from the worthwhile material you post, leading one to wonder if you actually want to add to the data set of others or just be rude and condescending, serving your ego in the final outcome, as if you're more concerned about winning some argument than carrying on a constructive discussion from which those reading along can gain information not in their previous data set. There are after all many more reading these threads than you respond to ... think about it KP.


1,655 posted on 08/08/2006 10:09:26 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1652 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
As usual I have much to say (LOL!) - but it'll have to wait until perhaps this evening.

Hello Alamo-Girl! "Long time no see." I'll be looking for you tonight!

1,656 posted on 08/08/2006 10:45:12 AM PDT by betty boop (The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. -J.B.S. Haldane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1654 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

I had went to your link and it was a thread about a suppossed evolution skull find. I don't think that was my error. And giving my insight as to what goes on in our minds was not a personal insult. You just took it that way. I believe I have been fair with you and simply have presented some good facts. I don't think you are an idiot...just too full of false knowledge. Take care, Fabian


1,657 posted on 08/08/2006 9:00:09 PM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1650 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; hosepipe; YHAOS; .30Carbine
Thank you all so very much for your excellent meditations on the observer problem!

Your analysis of the two primary aspects at posts 1642 is profound, betty boop! Truly the observer problem is a human problem – perhaps as hosepipe suggests, precisely because man has a spirit – and a mind?

The spirit may give him a sense, ears to hear and eyes to see beyond the spatio-temporal/corporeal limitations - and the human mind can be destructively willful and imaginative.

As .30Carbine notes ”There are two 'places' now and forever, the Kingdom of God which is Truth and Light and Love, and the Kingdom of the evil one, which is deception, darkness, and hatred. The one we know in this present age is the one we will know forever.” To that I would add Colossians 3:1-3:

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

And then there is the observer problem in science per se!

I tend to spend more time on this one because the tendency of some disciplines of science (perhaps seeking to be autonomous?) is to ignore and/or deny the observer problem. That tendency casts a dark shadow over many pronouncements, particularly those of the metaphysical naturalists who practice philosophy under the color of science.

And again I’m very pleased with the epistemological zeal of the mathematicians and physicists who seldom ignore the “observer problem!”

1,658 posted on 08/08/2006 10:23:40 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1656 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I also seek those things that are above and set all my affection upon Him who is the Word and Spirit, seated upon the throne of my heart and seated at The Right Hand on High! While you made mention on this thread of the four winds (Matt. 24:31 in particular), I've been making study of other aspects of the Scripture which speak of and to our being gathered! (What 'scientific' explanation will be given for that I wonder?!)

Every morning I add to my knowledge of Him! And I see Him displayed througout my day!

1,659 posted on 08/08/2006 10:44:51 PM PDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1658 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Nice graph, very convincing but too bad your guy is a modern man.

Homo erectus

According to the fanciful scheme suggested by evolutionists, the internal evolution of the Homo genus is as follows: First Homo erectus , then so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), and finally, Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens). However all these classifications are really only variations and unique races in the human family. The difference between them is no greater than the difference between an Inuit and an African, or a pygmy and a European.

The large eyebrow protrusions on Homo erectus skulls, and features such as the backward-sloping forehead, can be seen in a number of races in our own day, as in the Malaysian native shown here.

Let us first examine Homo erectus , which is referred to as the most primitive human species. As the name implies, Homo erectus means "man who walks upright." Evolutionists have had to separate these fossils from earlier ones by adding the qualification of "erectness," because all the available Homo erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in any of the australopithecines or so-called Homo Habilis specimens. There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus .

The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primitive" is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance). It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organization of the brain, rather than on its volume.197

The fossils that have made Homo erectus known to the entire world are those of Peking man and Java man in Asia. However, in time it was realized that these two fossils are not reliable. Peking man consists of some elements made of plaster whose originals have been lost, and Java man is composed of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was found yards away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same creature. This is why the Homo erectus fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance. (It should also be noted that some of the fossils said to be Homo erectus were included under a second species named Homo ergaster by some evolutionists. There is disagreement among the experts on this issue. We will treat all these fossils under the classification of Homo erectus .)

The most famous of the Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome Homo erectus ," or the "Turkana Boy," which was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in adolescence. The upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal."198 As we will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a modern human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human race.

Since the difference between monkey and man is nearly as great as between amoeba's and monkey there should be millions of transitional fossils. Yet scientists have to twist and spin these frauds into your nice little graph.

Are these the same scientist who claim that we cause global warming or that we would run out of oil decades ago? Too bad not everyone believes these frauds.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

Shalom Israel

1,660 posted on 08/13/2006 9:43:59 PM PDT by bray (Jeb '08, just to watch their Heads Explode!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1275 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp; All
you mean I cant eat roaches? there goes the barbecue i was planning. I'm all for eating no ham but i don't want bugs in its place. why do u think these things are called clean or unclean? does that have any scientific validity? just curious
1,661 posted on 08/14/2006 3:45:48 AM PDT by graced (some people are just unharvested free-range soylent green)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: graced
why do u think these things are called clean or unclean? does that have any scientific validity? just curious

I don't know for sure, but I can take a stab at it. Hares and hogs (unclean animals) eat their own poop (intentionally, and unintentionally, respectively), making them highly succeptable to tularemia. Scaleless fish are bottom feeders, as are shellfish, and arthropods, and are succeptable to a variety of diseases due to dead things sinking to the bottom. Locusts and grasshoppers, while insects, are actually grazers/browsers. The likelihood of getting sick off of eating them is rather low. They are very rich in protein, and considered a delicacy in many parts of the world.

Actually, the dietary requirements section of Leviticus is fascinating. I love going through it. However, the more that I go through it, the more errors I come across. Not a bad bit of work for bronze age nomadic goat herders, but it has its problems.

1,662 posted on 08/14/2006 11:01:14 AM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1661 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; marron; xzins; cornelis; Coyoteman; DaveLoneRanger; .30Carbine
"I’ve been thinking about this question for a week now [I’m a really slooooow thinker. :^)]"

I'll not take a backseat to anyone when it comes to slooooow thinking. { 8^)

"That the Observer Problem" is not confined to matters scientific, as you and others (A-G) have noted, is a happy event for those of us who do not possess a strong background in science, because it permts us to relate to the concept by way of our understanding of its application in other disciplines. Such as history:

Whenever we undertake to study historical events or the acts of historical figures, we are "privileged" (as the historian Bernard Bailyn is wont to describe it) to know of subsequent events and outcomes, of which those earlier figures had no more than a glimmer, if even so little as that. This is true whether we are dealing with the past of, let us say, a mere 241 years ago, or of a much greater length of time, for example as in 3,500 years ago. If we study and judge events and human actions out of the context of their particular historical time and not on their own terms, then that is an observer problem which must lead to error. As one evidence of the Observer Problem in historical matters, it might be noted that, in a peculiar variation on Branden's Falacy of the Stolen Concept, on occasion we are so influenced by some events and figures that our grasp of their significance can be considerably effected.

The aforementioned Bailyn (Considering the Slave Trade: History and Memory, The William and Mary Quarterly Vol. 58, No. 1, Jan 2001), describes the historical Observer Problem in these terms: "As historians we shrink from telescoping past and present, hoping to explain the things that happened for their own sakes and in their own terms. And we select from the documentation what seems to illuminate the outcomes, which we, as opposed to the people in the past, are privileged to know. But we do so critically, skeptically, because we know that we can never recapture any part of the past absolutely and completely. So we keep our distance from the past, from the stories we tell, knowing that facts may be uncovered that will change our stories; other viewpoints may turn us away from what we now think is relevant, and other ways of understanding may make us reconsider everything."

So it follows that I'm inclined to think, as Ive always been inclined to think, that the 'Observer Problem' is indeed a problem for the observer, and that the Universe not only has no problem with it, but in fact takes no notice of it. The Universe, like 'Ol Man River', just keeps rolling along, knowing everything and knowing nothing. But, unlike 'Ol Man River,' we are obliged to take notice.

So that brings us to you and A-G (and others), who have engaged to enter into discussions with The Masters of the Universe over their 'tendency to deny the 'observer problem' and to indulge in philosophical speculations 'under the color of science.' I understand you are presently on vacation, but upon your return, I look forward to benefitting from a continuation of those discussions, and in the hopes that I may make some small contribution on the rare occasion.

1,663 posted on 08/23/2006 2:32:11 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1642 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; betty boop
Thank you oh so very much for your insights into the "observer problem" especially as it relates to history!

What a fascinating aspect it is - and every bit as relevant to the historical sciences such as anthropology, archeology, Egyptology and evolutionary biology. In these fields, the investigator may be working mostly with physical fragments of the past with little or no recorded language to "frame" the evidence. Even so, they attempt to reconstruct what likely happened in an environment which is not always "information-rich".

Nevertheless, as your except noted "So we keep our distance from the past, from the stories we tell, knowing that facts may be uncovered that will change our stories; other viewpoints may turn us away from what we now think is relevant, and other ways of understanding may make us reconsider everything."

IMHO, that is the responsible way to deal with the observer problem in looking at the past.

1,664 posted on 08/23/2006 9:42:07 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1663 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
Hi, YHAOS!

Here's another example in play: "After a heated debate, 2,500 scientists and astronomers voted at the International Astronomers Union General Assembly that Pluto, which has been called a planet since being discovered in 1930, would be put into a category of planets called "dwarf planets".

1,665 posted on 08/24/2006 11:41:41 AM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1663 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
FYI, Ortega Y Gasset has the following about definition (and a bit about planets at the end):

A world whose being is known is composed solely of necessities. Always, when we say of something that 'it is thus' or 'is so', 'is this' or 'is that other way,' we have abandoned the thing as it first appeared before us and have substituted a thought of our own, an interpretation . . .

The earth is here beneath my feet or under the foundations of the building in which I find myself. It has, in my life, a primary role which is to uphold and sustain me. But suddenly it shakes, moves from side to side, ceases to be firm and to sustain me. It is then that I make a question of it. . . Now it is . . . a question, a problem. I ask myself, 'What is the earth?'

Earlier we were resting on the earth, sustaining ourselves on it; but when it becomes that which fails to uphold us, we do not know what to do with the earth, what to look for in regard to it. And we do not know the latter because we do not know the former. so that becomes a question for us. Fundamentally, the question is one of our behavior toward it, our conduct, what we do with the earth . . . .

If the earth shakes, ceasing to uphold us, thereby denying us its habitual service, we ask ourselves, 'What is the earth?' When the sun suddenly, and in full daylight, refuses its habitual illumination so favorable to men, the latter ask, 'What is the sun?'

The same thing happens with my body. When it is sick, it is opposed to me and does not serve me. Ipso facto, it remains foreign to me, and does not serve me. Thus, man, as he lives, discovers the basic duality of his life; he feels that he is amid something other than himself, in a foreign country, dépaysé.

After asking himself, he asks other men; . . . finding out 'what is said' about it. The subject of this saying is what we called 'people'; the social environment, the collective personage, without individuality, which is no definite person and is, therefore, irresponsible. . . .

There is a great lack of congruence between the question and the reply. The question, 'What is the earth?', I have thought and have felt in all its moving and inevitable anguish; but the reply, 'the earth is a planet' or something similar, this I neither thought nor rethought, but with this reply I repeat what 'is said,' and with this repetition I enter into and become part of 'the people,' which is nobody. I, then, turn into nobody, which is what Ulysses, punning with his name, did when he wanted to hide or to disappear.

Interesitng icorrigible individualist!
1,666 posted on 08/24/2006 12:26:02 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1665 | View Replies]

To: cornelis

Thank you so much for that excerpt - what a fascinating analysis of that aspect of the observer problem!


1,667 posted on 08/24/2006 8:50:11 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1666 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop; cornelis
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,

Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

. . . . . The Rubaiyat Omar Khayyam, 1120 AD, the FitzGerald Quatrain LXXI

the tendency of some disciplines of science (perhaps seeking to be autonomous?) is to ignore and/or deny the observer problem. That tendency casts a dark shadow over many pronouncements, particularly those of the metaphysical naturalists who practice philosophy under the color of science.

That that is, is. Such a simple statement to cause Man so much trouble. Truly A-G, as you note, the observer problem is a human problem. And, it is as much the human will which betrays Man, as it is his senses or the boundries of his knowledge. And thank you, cornelis, for the ruminations of Ortega Y Gasset, agonizing over this self-same 'observer problem'. There then arises the issue where lies the boundry between the Individualism of Gasset and the chaos of wilful intemperance. How to distinguish liberty from license. How may Man enjoy the benefits of living in a state of nature, yet find the necessary security provided by association.

A-G, I've had the opportunity to discuss various of the practical aspects with some of those whom you call metaphysical naturalists (i.e. The Masters of the Universe). They exhibit an appalling disinterest in, or perhaps instead a lack of appreciation for, the most basic concepts of the consent of the governed. Do you suppose that to be a manifestation of their metaphysical naturalism? I think maybe so.

1,668 posted on 08/25/2006 1:48:20 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1664 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; Alamo-Girl; cornelis; hosepipe; marron
If we study and judge events and human actions out of the context of their particular historical time and not on their own terms, then that is an observer problem which must lead to error.

Hi YHAOS! Sorry for my tardy reply; have been on a splendid vacation where excellent things happened, even when it rained. :^)

It happens I'm a great admirer of Bernard Bailyn. His Ideological Origins of the American Revolution and the Ideological Origins of American Politics are cherished volumes on my bookshelf.

You wrote: "the 'Observer Problem' is indeed a problem for the observer, and that the Universe not only has no problem with it, but in fact takes no notice of it. The Universe, like 'Ol Man River', just keeps rolling along, knowing everything and knowing nothing."

Deeply perceptive IMHO my friend.

"Ol' Man River" in this context is the totality of God-ordained Being. The "Observer problem" goes to epistemology: "What can we know about this Being, and how do we know it? And how do we know we know it?"

In short, we are dealing with questions of ultimate truth, and how truth can be accessed and understood by human minds. Fortunately, as we have been told before now in holy scripture, the "imago Dei" which is man, as the image or reflection of the divine, a creature of reason and free will, was set up in the beginning to understand such things.

Which understanding probably is the reason why systematic science arose only in the Western cultural tradition. If the East ever got a hang of it, is was only through cultural borrowing from the West.

But I digress. To get back to the point at issue: The Observer problem putatively is not restricted to problems in science, in particular to relativity and quantum theory, but is a fundamental issue in observations of our own space-time experience, a la Newton and classical physics.

I'd just have to agree that this is manifestly true, with ample historical backing evidence.

It was Laplace who indicated the full extent of the ambition of classical physics:

“The Marquis Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827) was known as the Isaac Newton of France. A brilliant mathematician and wily politician, he’s an almost perfect embodiment of the arrogance of the ‘Age of Enlightenment.’

“[For Laplace said:] ‘Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective positions of the beings which compose it, if moreover this intelligence were vast enough to submit these data to analysis … to it nothing would be uncertain, and the future as the past would be present to its eyes.’

“This mechanistic view was a dream of many, starting with the ancients who talked about the ‘music of the spheres’ as they envisioned the universe as a series of interlocking crystalline spheres spinning inside each other.

“[But it might be objected:] ‘This “intelligence” of yours, would it be the author of the universe, who I note you left out of your book Méchanique Céleste?’

“Hmph. I know what you’re driving at, sire, but I have no need of this … ‘God’ hypothesis.”

[Mon Dieu!] :^) [Ottaviani and Purvis, Suspended in Language, 2004]

Well, that may all be well and good as far as it goes. But human beings fully live "in spirit" as much or more than they live "in matter." It seems Laplace, in consigning God and spirit to the ash heap of history, cut man down to sub-human level.

Which, it seems to me, makes him a far less capable truthful "observer" than were he to be left with his original divinely-ordained legacy still intact, in faith and reason....

Thank you so much, YHAOS, for your beautiful essay/post!

1,669 posted on 08/27/2006 1:46:57 PM PDT by betty boop (Character is destiny. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1663 | View Replies]

To: cornelis; YHAOS; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; marron
Interesting incorrigible individualist!

Either that, cornelis, or maybe he is just looking for an excuse to absolve himself of his duty to be human. Who is to say?

Still, he seems to subject ontology to epistemology here. Oftentimes that proves useful.

How to get traction on these problems?

1,670 posted on 08/27/2006 1:54:04 PM PDT by betty boop (Character is destiny. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1666 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
[ But I digress. To get back to the point at issue: The Observer problem putatively is not restricted to problems in science, in particular to relativity and quantum theory, but is a fundamental issue in observations of our own space-time experience, a la Newton and classical physics. ]

Observation begins the moment we are born the first time, and is kick started on the second birth.. Some it seems have trouble shaking the observations of stage one trying meld stage one with stage two.. Not separating the two paradigms..

Because its certain there are two paradigms.. observed with two different organs(metaphor).. The relativity of Quantum theory is relevant to stage one, the relativity of stage two is still playing out and the relativity is in progress.. Changing daily even moment by moment.. for some..

Observology is quite an occupation.. The study of which can expand a persons abilty to observe.. Neat ain't it.. What a plan..

1,671 posted on 08/27/2006 2:50:31 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1669 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; cornelis; hosepipe; marron
"It happens I'm a great admirer of Bernard Bailyn."

In my opinion, he is a most accurate and careful historian/historiographer.

"Ol' Man River" in this context is the totality of God-ordained Being.

Darn. I can't slip a thing past you. {8^)

"we are dealing with questions of ultimate truth, and how truth can be accessed and understood by human minds"

With us, is this not always so?

[Man, the] "reflection of the divine, a creature of reason and free will, was set up in the beginning to understand such things"

Yes. And my point being that Man is his own worst problem. To be sure, there are other features of 'the observer problem', but IMHO Man himself (his will) is the greatest of these.

"Which understanding [man, as the reflection of the divine] probably is the reason why systematic science arose only in the Western cultural tradition"

Or so was the thought in Judeo-Christian Western Civilization until recently when it has become fashionable to believe that Western Civilization can do better absent the Judeo-Christian part.

1,672 posted on 08/28/2006 3:42:26 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1669 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; YHAOS
Still, he seems to subject ontology to epistemology here. Oftentimes that proves useful.

Reminds me of a passage in the Timaeus:

For this ordered world is of mixed birth: it is the offspring of a union of Necessity and Intellect. Intellect prevailed over Necessity by persuading it to direct most of the things that come to be toward what is best, and the result of this subjugation of Necessity to wise persuasion was the initial formation of this universe.
Have you ever read the opening chapter in Tolkien's Silmarillion? Tolkien recognizes how the contest of intellect is the effort toward formation and creation, but that this effort is complicated with the contest for recognition as opposed to greater harmony.

And we wish to be served, rather than to serve. Sam calls Frodo Master. The observer problem is tangled up with the contest for power. And on top of all this Jesus says, "I call you my friends" and adopts us as sons of God.

1,673 posted on 08/29/2006 9:57:46 AM PDT by cornelis ("We have the words of everlasting life")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1670 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; cornelis; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; marron
And my point being that Man is his own worst problem. To be sure, there are other features of 'the observer problem', but IMHO Man himself (his will) is the greatest of these.

It seems we live in an age that celebrates radical egoism: the doctrine that holds individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action, and legitimately so. But of course this gives short shrift to the social dimensions of man's life: The "Good" is defined as "what's 'Good' for me," not any wider or more comprehensive Good beyond the self. Lost, or nearly so, is any idea of connection to other human beings, of a sense of duty or responsibility to others. Above all it seems the human person is losing all sense of being a participant in a "great hierarchy of being," which extends beyond the selfish self to society, history, nature -- and above all to God, who is the Author of the hierarchy.

In falling away from the life of the Spirit (greatly enabled by the prestige of positivism and reductive materialism which arguably includes at least the popularized form of neo-Darwinism), man is plunged into disorder, and from there disorders all that he comes into contact with.

But he is "free to do as he likes." And this is how human liberty is defined these days. Truth has no bearing on one's choices; utility is king, and what passes for "success" is the standard of "correctness." All truth is just opinion anyway....

These are suicidal tendencies, IMHO. And so yes, I do agree with you, YHAOS: Man is his own worst problem.

1,674 posted on 08/29/2006 10:57:06 AM PDT by betty boop (Character is destiny. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1672 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
[ All truth is just opinion anyway.... ]

Which is the condensation of the question, "My truth or your truth"...
Another view of the scale of the "observations" of the Observer.. The scale weighs observations.. With no scale the weight is just an opinion.. Without the Bible as a scale humanity is just fishing for concepts, and proudly lying about their size.. As Neils Bohrs "implys", even the reciprocal of a truth is a truth.. Its possible that the whole unvarnished truth of any matter is too much for one man to contain.. meaning we need each other to even approach understanding a portion of the truth, any truth..

Would make the metaphor of the "Body of Christ" even deeper in its concept.. meaning it takes us all to understand the truth, any truth.. It might take a corporate structure to contain the truth, any truth.. i.e. the truth MUST be shared corporately to even approach it.. (spirits Merging <- BOW)

1,675 posted on 08/29/2006 11:23:12 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1674 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
"The observer problem is tangled up with the contest for power."

Can there be any better example of the truth of your statement than the antics of a Democrat out of power? {8^)

1,676 posted on 08/29/2006 11:28:23 AM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1673 | View Replies]

To: cornelis; YHAOS; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; marron
The observer problem is tangled up with the contest for power.

Fascinating insight, cornelis. And yet the Demiurge of the Timaeus uses persuasion, not naked power, to make a world. Persuasion is by its very nature an appeal to reason, not a demand that the other party to the transaction "submit" to a sovereign will.

1,677 posted on 08/29/2006 11:31:48 AM PDT by betty boop (Character is destiny. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1673 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; cornelis; YHAOS; Alamo-Girl; marron
As Neils Bohrs "implys", even the reciprocal of a truth is a truth.. Its possible that the whole unvarnished truth of any matter is too much for one man to contain.. meaning we need each other to even approach understanding a portion of the truth, any truth..

So very true, hosepipe. Yet still people will act as if they had a monopoly on truth....

No one can possibly know absolutely everything that is relevant to even a single simple problem. So we can just forget about having "certainty" in this world....

1,678 posted on 08/29/2006 11:43:33 AM PDT by betty boop (Character is destiny. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1675 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; cornelis; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; marron
"It seems we live in an age that celebrates radical egoism: the doctrine that holds individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action . . . "

A self-interest, devoid of rationality and lacking any sense of conscious, purposeful direction, would be nothing if not a disaster. Man reduced to a state of nature without the protection of society.

"Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this.

"This sense is as much a part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, and not the truth, &c., as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense."

. . . . . Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ME, Vol 5, pg 257)

"Lost, or nearly so, is any idea of connection to other human beings, of a sense of duty or responsibility"

Recall the rape of Nanjing or the bombing of Guernica.

"But he is "free to do as he likes." And this is how human liberty is defined these days. Truth has no bearing on one's choices; utility is king, and what passes for "success" is the standard of "correctness." All truth is just opinion anyway.... "

Yes, but not an evidence of 'free will'; instead an evidence per my observation (in #1668), that if truth is mere opinion we experience great difficulty in retaining the ability to know "How to distinguish liberty from license."

1,679 posted on 08/29/2006 6:52:48 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1674 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; .30Carbine; Whosoever
[ Yes, but not an evidence of 'free will'; instead an evidence per my observation (in #1668), that if truth is mere opinion we experience great difficulty in retaining the ability to know "How to distinguish liberty from license." ]

To some.. truth 'is' merely their opinion... to others truth is the opinion of others.. and to others truth is a matter of personal spiritual revelation.. My experience is truth usually is a matter of all three.. At its highest level..

1,680 posted on 08/29/2006 10:41:22 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1679 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
Thank you so much for your outstanding post, YHAOS!

A-G, I've had the opportunity to discuss various of the practical aspects with some of those whom you call metaphysical naturalists (i.e. The Masters of the Universe). They exhibit an appalling disinterest in, or perhaps instead a lack of appreciation for, the most basic concepts of the consent of the governed. Do you suppose that to be a manifestation of their metaphysical naturalism? I think maybe so.

I agree with your assessment.
1,681 posted on 08/30/2006 9:58:58 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1668 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
No one can possibly know absolutely everything that is relevant to even a single simple problem. So we can just forget about having "certainty" in this world..

So very true. Thank you for all your wonderful posts!
1,682 posted on 08/30/2006 10:00:35 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1678 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; .30Carbine; Whosoever
"truth usually is a matter of all three.. At its highest level.."

At its highest level, yes. How often does that occur? Surely it does, but few would say it occurs often enough. As boop remarked just barely the other day, "No one can possibly know absolutely everything that is relevant to even a single simple problem." This is not an understanding unique to her, nor would she ever claim that it was. Boop was simply reminding us that truth is difficult to know even absent attempts to erect a barricade or to assert a monopoly. Your point, I think, is that knowing truth, even in the imperfect state we know it, demands a good will and a collaborative effort.

Necessarily so, I think . . . at its highest level. {8^)

1,683 posted on 08/31/2006 1:38:14 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1680 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; hosepipe; Alamo-Girl; cornelis; .30Carbine; marron; MHGinTN; TXnMA; xzins; DaveLoneRanger
As boop remarked just barely the other day, "No one can possibly know absolutely everything that is relevant to even a single simple problem." This is not an understanding unique to her, nor would she ever claim that it was. Boop was simply reminding us that truth is difficult to know even absent attempts to erect a barricade or to assert a monopoly. Your point, I think, is that knowing truth, even in the imperfect state we know it, demands a good will and a collaborative effort.

LOL!!! Your interpretation of "boop" (you can call me "boopster" if you prefer) is right on the money, YHAOS!

But the problem of Truth goes much deeper than that. In an age of moral relativism -- and to me Truth has fundamental moral implications that cannot be evaded with impunity -- people cannot even agree what Truth "is."

This would be my own view FWIW:

"Truth is not a body of propositions about a world-immanent object; it is the world-transcendent summum bonum experienced as an orienting force in the soul, about which we can speak only in analogical symbols." [Eric Voegelin, in Order and History Vol. III]

You can instantly see the problem: With the denial of the soul, Truth loses its connection to reality. In our age, both God and soul are strenuously denied among the more fashionable intelligentsia: They insist God is a superstition held by primitive, ignorant, "unenlightened" people; and soul is a similar superstition, a "ghost in the machine," or an epiphenomenon of the neural activity of the physical brain.

The problem is you cannot get the two sides of this issue "together" in rational discourse because they do not share the same world view at all. What you end up with is people just "talking past each other," as we see so often here at FR: In the end, it's a battle between "first reality" and "second realities."

But of course the problem surfaces in far more devastating ways, socially and culturally speaking. Because people will not agree about what Truth "is," our society is divided and increasingly more disordered, with the result (for example) that in wartime, some significant fraction of the American people works for the benefit of an enemy that would destroy us in an instant, if they could but get the chance. Still, these self-same folks would take great umbrage if you were to suggest they were acting "unpatriotically," let alone treasonously....

The "common ground of human existence" is destroyed when we can no longer agree what Truth is.... This, to me, is the single most horrific problem of our time. FWIW.

In short, Truth is the source of the "good order" of the soul, and by extension of society -- and also of the universe itself: Ultimately, Truth is One. To say that it is merely an "opinion," and that one opinion is just as good as another, is to deny the fundamental structure of all reality.

Thank you so much, dear YHAOS, for your reply!

1,684 posted on 09/01/2006 7:42:09 AM PDT by betty boop (Character is destiny. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1683 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
Prior to the advent of Adam, the humankind living upon the Earth would have thought they could define truth based upon what worked best in their experiences and in their collective behaviors. And that was indeed all they were capable of attaining with a natural soul (a nephesh).

With the advent of Adam, God mixed the spirit dimension into the universe of physical and mental life, and with spirit in mankind there was a means by which the human mind could, even if fleeting and brief in nature, tap into the field of God Truth ... Adam possessed a sense of right and wrong sourced in his spirit component (the neshama), not his loins. There is a huge hint of this state in the fact that God planted a garden with only one entrance/exist, and placed His special creation, Adam, in it for protection ... the same protection Cain realized he would not have with the banishment sentence God issued after Cain slew his brother Abel.

With the fall, the process of regeneration (in Christ) is essential to regaining this sense of God Truth right and wrong, for to reflect the character of God (and that's what God Truth is, a wording of the character of God) requires the life of God in the human spirit, as the earnest of an inheritance to come in fullness at some later where/when of final regeneration.

Science seeks admirably to establish truth (as far it may measure and quantify it) in reality of how the universe actually works, but this is an exercise confined to the spacetime, 4D realm and thus incapable of touching that which lies beyond this 4D realm, as in the dimension of soul and spirit, the neshama of our human reality.

1,685 posted on 09/01/2006 8:23:50 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1675 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
In the physical realm, the universe is the observer, constantly taking measure of subatomic particles via the quantum field. This same QF allows the interactions of everything from quarks to galaxies via the ascending complexity from virtual particles and anti-particles to atoms, to molecules, to compounds, to planets, to solar systems, to galaxies, to super clusters. Understanding the fundamentals of the QF might someday allow Science to understand how time and space and soul and spirit are all intertwined and dangling from the God thread rather than resting upon physicality. But we're not there yet, however, with the concept of information theory, humanity is approaching the problem in a new way which may yield the fundamentals of the problem.
1,686 posted on 09/01/2006 8:38:32 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1663 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

BTW, boopster, thank you for the pingski.


1,687 posted on 09/01/2006 8:42:09 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1684 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Alamo-Girl; YHAOS; hosepipe; Quix; marron; cornelis
Science seeks admirably to establish truth (as far it may measure and quantify it) in reality of how the universe actually works, but this is an exercise confined to the spacetime, 4D realm and thus incapable of touching that which lies beyond this 4D realm, as in the dimension of soul and spirit, the neshama of our human reality.

Beautifully said, MHGinTN!

We can only directly observe phenomena that are taking place in time: Cause-and-effect ineluctibly involves a temporal process. The interesting thing is that once an observation has been made, it instantly becomes a part of "the past."

As you insightfully point out, humans live "in the dimension of soul and spirit, the neshama of our human reality" -- which do not belong to time proper, as conventionally understood. Science can't "go there"; but that doesn't mean that human participation in timelessness is an "illusion."

Thank you so very much for this beautiful essay/post!

1,688 posted on 09/01/2006 8:48:06 AM PDT by betty boop (Character is destiny. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1685 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

You're entirely welcome my friend!


1,689 posted on 09/01/2006 8:48:49 AM PDT by betty boop (Character is destiny. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1687 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; YHAOS; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; Quix; marron
Understanding the fundamentals of the QF might someday allow Science to understand how time and space and soul and spirit are all intertwined and dangling from the God thread rather than resting upon physicality. But we're not there yet, however, with the concept of information theory, humanity is approaching the problem in a new way which may yield the fundamentals of the problem.

FWIW, I think that's ineluctibly the direction we're heading in, MHGinTN -- notwithstanding a certain amount of resistence from "classical" pysicists (and biologists)....

Thanks again for writing!

1,690 posted on 09/01/2006 9:07:47 AM PDT by betty boop (Character is destiny. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1686 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Thanks for the ping.

BTW, relative to all that . . . LOL . . . Where do the angels on pin heads come in?


1,691 posted on 09/01/2006 9:32:05 AM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1690 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Very excellent points. SO abundantly illustrated here on

redundantly redundantly again again.


1,692 posted on 09/01/2006 9:42:41 AM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1684 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Where do the angels on pin heads come in?

I don't believe that angels dance on pins. :^)

1,693 posted on 09/01/2006 10:11:21 AM PDT by betty boop (Character is destiny. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1691 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; YHAOS; cornelis; .30Carbine; Whosoever
[ The problem is you cannot get the two sides of this issue "together" in rational discourse because they do not share the same world view at all. What you end up with is people just "talking past each other," as we see so often here at FR: In the end, it's a battle between "first reality" and "second realities." ]

So true.. Truth decided by "the Observer" (of truth).. is what FR is all about.. But "engrams" of truth can be transacted.. in the process.. So these discussions have some merit to lurkers I think.. The "observer" problem has so many sidebars.. not the least of which God is an observer too.. Observing "US"... Wonder if prayer about the observer problem is in order.. One would think its extremely pertinent.. God might us even recognizing that.. ya think?..

1,694 posted on 09/01/2006 10:13:06 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1684 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; cornelis; .30Carbine
[ Science seeks admirably to establish truth (as far it may measure and quantify it) in reality of how the universe actually works, but this is an exercise confined to the spacetime, 4D realm and thus incapable of touching that which lies beyond this 4D realm, as in the dimension of soul and spirit, the neshama of our human reality. ]

I buy the Spiritual Dimension.. But current science DNA and "Survival of the fittest" theory seems to war against the "Spirt/spirit", not God.. Seeming to "prove" the "ghost in the machine".. is a myth.. Which disproves God whom is a Spirit.. Evolution seems to "prove" that there is no such thing as a spirit/Spirit except as a literary operator..

My opinion is human kind are spirits riding Donkeys(human bodies) with the Donkey existing in one paradigm and the spirit existing in another(the Spiritual Dimension).. Human life being a Donkey Rodeo and human familys organized by Donkey Wranglers(parents).. The Donkey can die but the spirit lives on.. "somewhere".. If there is Not a Spiritual Dimension, well then, there ought to be..

1,695 posted on 09/01/2006 10:40:41 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1685 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; .30Carbine
[ We can only directly observe phenomena that are taking place in time: Cause-and-effect ineluctibly involves a temporal process. The interesting thing is that once an observation has been made, it instantly becomes a part of "the past." ]

True... timing is far more importasnt than time.. All past and future moments are composed of the present moment..

Jesus->> "Do not worry about tomorrow: tomorrow will take care of itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." (Matt. 6:34)

1,696 posted on 09/01/2006 10:50:57 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1688 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Neither do I but I had to be tweaky about it. General principles. LOL.


1,697 posted on 09/01/2006 12:07:47 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1693 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine
Neither do I but I had to be tweaky about it. General principles. LOL.

LOLOL!!!! "Tweaky" is okay with me Quix!!!

Still, I do believe in angels. Do you? :^)

1,698 posted on 09/01/2006 1:21:41 PM PDT by betty boop (Character is destiny. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1697 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Of course I believe in angels. They ARE Biblical.

Besides, the way I live my clumsy life . . . they are desperately needed 24/7!


1,699 posted on 09/01/2006 1:44:58 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1698 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; marron
Besides, the way I live my clumsy life . . . they are desperately needed 24/7!

I KNOW the feeling, Quix! My life has been pretty "clumsy," too.... I gather that's a good way to meet up with angels.

Did you know that (according to Plato) even Socrates believed in angels? Only he called them daemons. He said (in the Apology) his daemon never told him what to do. What he claimed his daemon did do was to "point him" in helpful ways -- and to warn him when he was about to make a fatally bad decision.

Sounds about right to me. :^)

Thanks so much for writing, Quix!

1,700 posted on 09/01/2006 2:40:20 PM PDT by betty boop (Character is destiny. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1699 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,551-1,6001,601-1,6501,651-1,7001,701-1,719 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson