Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

More Fluctuations Found in Isotopic Clocks
Institute for Creation Research ^ | 8-17-2012 | Brian Thomas

Posted on 08/17/2012 11:21:22 AM PDT by fishtank

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-205 next last
To: MHGinTN; Alamo-Girl
Great points, MHGinTN. Thank you oh so very, very much!

It seems to me that statistics must always be an approximation of what is not directly known or knowable. In that sense, it is never "direct" knowledge of anything, just a substitution for that direct knowledge....

101 posted on 08/19/2012 11:45:03 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I aver that the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences is like God's copyright notice on the cosmos.

Oh, I so agree, dearest sister in Christ!

There's nothing "accidental" about mathematics.... It didn't "make itself up"; that is, it has a "given" structure.

Or so it seems to me!

God's Name is I AM. [IOW, perfect, absolute, eternal BEING.]

102 posted on 08/19/2012 11:50:18 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Thats partly why I mentioned it...
Theres something fresh, clean, and simple about duality..

Some prefer complicated, dirty and stale... buts thats another Oder of Magnitude..


103 posted on 08/19/2012 1:39:06 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
"I suspect, because you’re not as dumb as you look"

Still leaves me plenty of room.

Better to remain silent and be thought dumb, than to speak and remove all doubt (to coin a phrase . . . oh, did someone beat me to it?)

Nevertheless, I propose to hazard a small opening:
"In the beginning" is a none to subtle hint that perhaps there is no such thing as eternity or infinity (except, of course, as useful mathematical or philosophical constructs). Let's see . . . what was the initial question that got this started?

104 posted on 08/19/2012 6:55:41 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

In my very humble opinion, science has to being back Final Cause if it expects to make any further progress. It seems to be at a dead end without it.

It seems to me that issues of relativistic and quantum behavior could be further illuminated by the reintroduction of Final Cause to science.

So very true. Biology, now that it has invited physics and mathematics (including information theory) to the table is in particular need of Final Cause (Rosen et al.)

It is even awkward to speak about information theory in molecular biology without mentioning final cause. Phrases such as "apparent function" are being used evidently to avoid the word "purpose" or any other obvious reference to Final Cause.


105 posted on 08/19/2012 9:38:07 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; hosepipe
Thank you so very much, dear hosepipe, for sharing your vision about designated and undesignated energy/matter!

And thank you, dearest sister in Christ, for relating that to your insights about things which change and things which do not change!

Fascinating and informative!

106 posted on 08/19/2012 9:44:30 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; Whosoever

[ “In the beginning” is a none to subtle hint that perhaps there is no such thing as eternity or infinity ]

True but it generates a question.. The beginning of what?..

1) the earth....
2) the universe..
3) humans....
4) God...
5) a remodeled earth..
6) the devine drama..
7) something we can barely conceive of...
8) Hubris....
9) Wives...
10) Gender..

** seems like to me the only ones concerned about eternity are people that will die.. The bible(and other sacred texts) indicates virtually every human that ever lived will live for eternity somewhere.. Maybe humans lived before but were given a fleshly space suit to exist on this planet.. and will live again somewhere..

You know... after their space suit assumes room temperature.
The divine drama may be legendary lore BUT maybe it’s NOT...
We being spirits sent here to obtain a human experience..


107 posted on 08/19/2012 9:48:47 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; YHAOS; betty boop; MrB; TXnMA
I agree with YHAOS. "In the beginning" is used twice in the words of God when speaking of the Creation.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - Genesis 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. - John 1:1-3

That there was a beginning means there is no infinite past.

Cosmic microwave background measures since the 1960's forward agree - space/time is expanding, i.e. there was a beginning of real space and real time.

Or to put it another way, space/time does not pre-exist but is created as the universe expands.

To people who have difficulty with geometric physics, may I suggest that energy/momentum may be seen as comparable to time passing and the same observation applies: there was a real beginning of energy/momentum.

Indeed, Aristotle explained the concept of "time" by simply counting: 1, 2, 3 etc.

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.

In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

Both are required for physical causation.

In other words, there can be no physical causation (energy momentum, wave fluctuation, etc.) without real space and real time.

Also, the singularity of big bang cosmology is not nothing:

Mathematically, the dimension of a space is the minimum number of coordinates (axes) necessary to identify a point within the space. A space of zero dimensions is a point; one dimension, a line, two dimensions, a plane; three, a cube, etc. That is the geometry of it. In zero dimensions, the mathematical point is indivisible.

It is not nothing. It is a spatial point. A singularity is not nothing.

In ex nihilo Creation (beginning of space/time) - the dimensions are not merely zero, they are null, dimensions do not exist at all. There is no space and no time. Period.

There is no mathematical point, no volume, no content, no scalar quantities. Ex nihilo doesn’t exist in relationship to anything else; there is no thing.

In an existing physical space, each point (e.g. particle) can be parameterized by a quantity such as mass. The parameter (e.g. a specific quantity within the range of possible quantities) is in effect another descriptor or quasi-dimension that uniquely identifies the point within the space.

Moreover, if the quantity of the parameter changes for a point, then a time dimension is invoked. For example, at one moment the point value is “0” and the next it is “1”.

Wave propagation (e.g. big bang, inflation) cannot occur in null dimensions nor can it occur in zero spatial dimensions, a mathematical point; a dimension of time is required for any fluctuation in a parameter value at a point.

Moreover, wave propagation must also have a spatial/temporal relation from cause point to effect point, i.e. physical causation.

For instance “0” at point nt causes “1” at point n+1t+1 which causes "0" at point n+1t+2 etc..

Obviously, physical wave propagation (e.g. big bang/inflationary model) cannot precede space/time and physical causality.

The wise man asks: Why this instead of nothing at all?

And he realizes that only God, beyond space/time and physical causation, can be the uncaused cause of causation, the first cause, The Creator of the beginning.

Space, time and physical causation are not properties of God the Creator. They are properties of the Creation. Only God is uncaused.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:20

The origin of space, time and physical causation – although striking - are not the only open questions that vex scientists. There is also no explanation for the origin of information (Shannon, successful communication,) inertia, semiosis, autonomy and so on. And yet the universe is logical – if it were not, we could not understand it at all.

Order cannot arise from chaos in an unguided physical system. Period. There are always guides to the system whether one is using chaos theory, self-organizing complexity, cellular automata or whatever to analyze complexification, entropy and order.

God's Name is I AM, YHwH (HE IS), Alpha, Omega, Word.

108 posted on 08/20/2012 6:31:58 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee
Hello. The latest news about non-constant nuclear decay rates has further convinced me that the world-universe is amazingly non-linear.

Here's another non-linearity article, it's quite thought provoking.

Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.


109 posted on 08/20/2012 8:29:08 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
It is even awkward to speak about information theory in molecular biology without mentioning final cause. Phrases such as "apparent function" are being used evidently to avoid the word "purpose" or any other obvious reference to Final Cause.

RE: "apparent function": Oh my, them be "weasel words."

Why can't they simply state the obvious — A biological function operates for a purpose or goal; that is, it indicates a Final Cause is at work.

Thank you dearest sister in Christ for your outstanding observations!

110 posted on 08/20/2012 9:36:42 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; YHAOS; MrB; TXnMA
... only God, beyond space/time and physical causation, can be the uncaused cause of causation, the first cause, The Creator of the beginning.

Indeed — the "prime mover" of all that exists.

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for this amazingly informative essay/post!

111 posted on 08/20/2012 9:41:00 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; MrB; TXnMA
The beginning of what?..

The “beginning.” The “Big Bang” (inflation) according to the Mullahs of Science (a concept they would have adamantly rejected less than a century ago, when “everything” was in an eternal “steady state”). We have not a clue what came before the “Big Bang,” but “something” must have (surely). It is at this point in their speculations that the Science Mullahs leave the pure rarified atmosphere of the icy confines of Science and descend into the sordid and murky depths of (P)philosophy and (R)religion (absent the consciousness of an abrupt change of venue – apparently).

With respect to “eternity” and “infinity,” I do not understand the point of trying to place a value on things that are, by definition, measureless (I’ve previously noted a mathematical and philosophical exception). The logical impossibility of a literal “eternity” or “infinity” should be obvious (as A-G illustrates in #108).

112 posted on 08/20/2012 10:03:59 AM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

I heard a great analysis of the eternal, and of origins.

If there was EVER a time in the past when there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, what would there be “today”? Nothing, of course.

So, there had to be something. But that “something” could neither be matter or energy, because either could not, according to scientific law, be eternal - they’d go to null or non-existance in the eternal before “now”.

So, that Something had to be Mind. The Eternal Mind, the I Am.


113 posted on 08/20/2012 11:11:22 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
The two are not at all directly comparable.

Understood, and agreed. The question is, how does one end up being argued in a discussion about the other, and why?

114 posted on 08/20/2012 11:38:25 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; YHAOS; betty boop; MrB; TXnMA

Good post Alamo-Girl.

Here’s another scripture quote w/ modern day scientific framing added...

Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the Word of God.

Science has found that we only ‘learn’ our language skills through mimicry; iow if we did not hear it from another [originally our Higher Source] then there’s no learning it without a translator. Furthermore even if we only ‘see’ it [the written word] someone still needs to provide us some feedback in order to begin deciphering it.

So God commands that faith must be shared even though God has provided the DNA programming for us to hear and see physically.

[I’m sure this could be improved/re-worded, but I’m short on time.]


115 posted on 08/20/2012 12:26:38 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl
The question is, how does one end up being argued in a discussion about the other, and why?

That's a great question, tacticalogic!

Why do people want to compare apples and oranges?

Simply to say they are both "fruits" removes all distinctions between them, in advance.

This may simplify argument; but it does nothing to explicate the facts of reality (i.e., that apples are not oranges).

The great physicist Niels Bohr once remarked that "we are suspended in language," such that "we don't know what is 'up' or 'down'." I gather his point was that even science must acknowledge the perils and pitfalls of "mere" language, and do its "epistemic homework."

The knowledge we think we have of the world is nonsense, if it does not directly correspond to the actual facts of reality as observed by "objective" (e.g,. non-ideological) observers.

In short, he was referring science itself to the philosophical discipline of epistemology — the "science" of what do we humans know, how do we know it, and how do we know we know it. Plug in a little experience-based observation and logical reasoning there, and we must acknowledge that apples are not the same thing as oranges.... And thus ought not to be described in identical terms (i.e., because they're both "fruits").

I'm not sure these remarks help much in answering your question....

Thank you so much for writing, dear tacticalogic!

116 posted on 08/20/2012 12:43:15 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: MrB
"So, that Something had to be Mind. The Eternal Mind, the I Am."

And it is this "Something" that so frightens the Mullahs of Science.

117 posted on 08/20/2012 12:54:22 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

There’s a big difference between “science” as defined by application of the scientific method,

and the “science”, falsely so-called, that is merely extrapolation and conjecture based on assumptions with no founding besides a worldview.


118 posted on 08/20/2012 12:59:52 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

[ So God commands that faith must be shared even though God has provided the DNA programming for us to hear and see physically. ]

Literally everyone has some faith...
It takes faith to go from point “A” to point “B”, faith that you will get back alive.. or why leave..
Its more a matter of what you have faith in I think...

People that commit suicide seem to have lost some faith in something..
But still have faith that doing it will relieve the pain of something haunting them..

Some even have faith that they have no faith..
Strange religion that... woo hoo... I’m thinking democrats..


119 posted on 08/20/2012 1:56:25 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

[ The “beginning.” The “Big Bang” (inflation) according to the Mullahs of Science ]

I’m not sure there even was a Big Bang... nice Yarn though..
Gives some a base to ride like a trampoline.. or springy bed..
The Big Bang could be a juvenile way of looking at things..
Juveniles so love to jump on beds..

It does take some “faith” to believe that some “GOD THING” could perform telekinesis.. all at once..
And create a Universe out of whatever he/it had to create it out of.. like say; “dark energy”..

The Big Bang looks to me like science fiction...
Which MUST be logical to a human, reality has no need to be logical to humans..


120 posted on 08/20/2012 2:09:10 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Mere "extrapolation and conjecture based on assumptions with no founding besides a worldview."

And so the quibbling begins.

121 posted on 08/20/2012 2:17:42 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
"I’m not sure there even was a Big Bang... nice Yarn though.."

Plausible . . . at least.

But . . . likewise requiring some faith.

122 posted on 08/20/2012 2:22:57 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; YHAOS; betty boop; MrB; TXnMA

[ God’s Name is I AM, YHwH (HE IS), Alpha, Omega, Word. ]

What IF God has no name like the Holy Spirit.?.
Joseph or Mary nicknamed Jesus, Jesus.. he may not have had a spiritual name either..
Surely “I AM” is a nickname for humans.. God did not say that was his name..

My vision showed me that in the hereafter language will become obsolete.. therefore... Names..

How can language become obsolete and you can still communicate??
The answer is the thing dreams are made of.. a subject for another time perhaps..


123 posted on 08/20/2012 2:32:37 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; Alamo-Girl
Joseph or Mary nicknamed Jesus, Jesus. he may not have had a spiritual name either.

Pure BUNKUM, dear brother in Christ!

Revelations makes it very clear that Christ has a name, but only HE (and presumably, His Father) knows what it is.

Language will only become obsolete when human beings — made to be "social animals" from the get-go — no longer have any need to "communicate." With each other — or with God their Father.

Certainly (it seems to me), "I AM" is NOT a "nickname" for humans. The only claim that humans can make is that they "exist."

Humans only EXIST. They have no BEING in themselves — they have existence only by means of participation in BEING.

And that BEING is spelled: I AM. And such a designation can only belong/apply to the Source of Being, whose Name is spelled "I AM."

That is, God Himself.

Can we get clear about that?

124 posted on 08/20/2012 3:38:37 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Well not exactly but then don’t all scientists [ and other researchers ] often each end up with their own unique yet constantly changing [or evolving if one must] worldview?

- so c’est la vie [that’s life] - or to each his own.

But I do find it interesting how often the freeper evos here willingly defend evolution and Darwin yet show little consideration or understanding of opposing yet highly regarded scientific discoveries...

1) What Einstein has added to the worldview equations regarding time paradoxes and the elusive true age and shape of the universe.

and

2) What Shannon has contributed with information theory [in regards to a Higher Power ] requiring an intelligent being to author codes, languages and embedded [or innate] functions.

In my 25 years of computer coding I’ve probably not written more than a million LOC ~ Lines of Code [ with far more errors and modifications to I care to admit ] so I ask you?

How much higher an intelligence than mankind is required to write all the DNA code found in every type of living organism where the smallest is still approx 500 million LOC, human beings roughly 3 billion LOC, and the largest genomes [see marbled lungfish & paris japonica in link below] upto 50 times larger yet? If recorded in books [of approx an inch and a half thick] each of the 3 stacks above would be 100 ft, 600 ft and 30,000 feet high respectively.

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/white-flower-has-worlds-longest-genome


125 posted on 08/20/2012 5:43:23 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Better yet consider what Dr Walt Brown wrote in section 33 of part I of his online book...

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

33. Genetic Information

Information never self-assembles. The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books. Even if matter and life (perhaps a bacterium) somehow arose, the probability that mutations and natural selection produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero. It would be analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4,000 books were produced:

a. Start with a meaningful phrase.

b. Retype it, but make some errors and insert a few letters.

c. See if the new phrase is meaningful.

d. If it is, replace the original phrase with it.

e. Return to step “b.”

To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10^40,000 trials. (To begin to understand how large 10^40,000 is, realize that the visible universe has fewer than 10^80 atoms in it.)

In 1972, evolutionists, out of ignorance, began referring to large segments of DNA as “junk” DNA, because that DNA supposedly had no purpose and was left over from our evolutionary past. What evolutionists called “junk” DNA is now known to produce microRNA which is vital for each organism’s health and also controls to a large extent the production of proteins. Cancers (lung, breast, stomach, prostate, colon, pancreatic, and brain) are frequently a result of damaged microRNA.

Based on all known experience—scientific or otherwise—information only comes from intelligence. Vast amounts of information require a vast intelligence.

The Elephant in the Living Room

Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular biologist. George asked Sam about his work. Sam said he and his team were scientific “detectives,” working with DNA and tracking down the cause of disease. Here is their published conversation.

G: “Sounds like pretty complicated work.”

S: “You can’t imagine how complicated!”

G: “Try me.”

S: “I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.”

G: “With the computer power, you can just use ‘spell check’!”

S: “There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.”

G: “So how do you do it?”

S: “We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some ‘typo’s’. It should get easier as time goes by.”

G: “How did all that information happen to get there?”

S: “Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?”

G: “Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?”

S: “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He’s been there!”

G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”

S: “No. It all just evolved.”

G: “What? You just told me — ?”

S: “Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.”

G: “I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”

S: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the living room’.”

G: “What elephant?”

S: “Design. It’s like the elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn’t there!”

George V. Caylor, “The Biologist,” The Ledger, Vol. 2, Issue 48, No. 92, 1 December 2000, p. 2. (www.ontherightside.com) Printed with permission.


126 posted on 08/20/2012 6:05:40 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you for your encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!
127 posted on 08/20/2012 9:48:54 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
The “beginning.” The “Big Bang” (inflation) according to the Mullahs of Science (a concept they would have adamantly rejected less than a century ago, when “everything” was in an eternal “steady state”). We have not a clue what came before the “Big Bang,” but “something” must have (surely). It is at this point in their speculations that the Science Mullahs leave the pure rarified atmosphere of the icy confines of Science and descend into the sordid and murky depths of (P)philosophy and (R)religion (absent the consciousness of an abrupt change of venue – apparently).

Well and truly said, dear YHAOS! Thank you for sharing your insights!

128 posted on 08/20/2012 9:51:40 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Science has found that we only ‘learn’ our language skills through mimicry; iow if we did not hear it from another [originally our Higher Source] then there’s no learning it without a translator. Furthermore even if we only ‘see’ it [the written word] someone still needs to provide us some feedback in order to begin deciphering it.

Excellent point, dear BrandtMichaels, the information content is encoded.

Thank you for sharing your views and thank you for your enouragement!

129 posted on 08/20/2012 9:55:26 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
In short, he was referring science itself to the philosophical discipline of epistemology — the "science" of what do we humans know, how do we know it, and how do we know we know it. Plug in a little experience-based observation and logical reasoning there, and we must acknowledge that apples are not the same thing as oranges.... And thus ought not to be described in identical terms (i.e., because they're both "fruits").

What a splendid analysis of the issue! Thank you, dearest sister in Christ!

130 posted on 08/20/2012 10:00:09 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; hosepipe
Exactly. There is no ambiguity in the Names of God.

Hallowed be thy Name...


131 posted on 08/20/2012 10:03:20 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; YHAOS; Whosoever
[ Revelations makes it very clear that Christ has a name, but only HE (and presumably, His Father) knows what it is. ]

I am honored that one as yourself agrees with me...
to continue along these memes you and I have a name that will be revealed as well.. (as it is written)

SO then; pretty much everyone has nicknames given to them by their parents or devised by themselves..
language is indeed such a clumsy way of expressing yourself..

If I remember the bible correctly the God thing punished humans by giving them "languages"...
When punishments cease then why not language?...

I love talking to you....
(hold my beer and cigar).... ((( HUG )))

132 posted on 08/20/2012 11:04:15 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; YHAOS; Whosoever

[ In my 25 years of computer coding I’ve probably not written more than a million LOC ~ Lines of Code [ with far more errors and modifications to I care to admit ] so I ask you? ]

I became a programmer in 1968 and served for 20 years then served for at least 15 more years as a “Cat Herd”..
You know.. managing programmers(Systems Analyst).. because thats exactly like herding cats..

Now I’m a humble fisherman much too dumb for this conversation...
I fooled AG and BB for years as a smarty pants now I think their on to me...
A little support would be appreciated..


133 posted on 08/20/2012 11:19:09 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Why do people want to compare apples and oranges?

Because what they really want to talk about is oranges, and comparing apples to oranges is a way to turn a conversation about apples into a conversation about oranges?

134 posted on 08/21/2012 5:54:12 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Surely you know the whole story don’t you hp?

From one language to many at the tower of Babel.

Back to one language in Rev with the new world order too.


135 posted on 08/21/2012 6:54:35 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; BrandtMichaels; betty boop; YHAOS; TXnMA
The Names of God are as serious as a heart attack. Therefore, I very strongly disagree with the characterization of the Names God has given Himself as "nicknames" though I would agree that they are terms of endearment, e.g. I AM, YHwH (He IS), Alpha, Omega, El Shaddai (God Almighty), Adonai (Master), Jesus, Christ, Messiah, Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit.

And certainly there are Names yet to be given or revealed (or not.)

There has also been some theological speculation that the language mankind was speaking when building the Tower of Babel was a spiritual language, i.e. "speaking in tongues." The speculation goes that man was not ready to speak in such a powerful language, that the Holy Spirit had to indwell man before he would be ready.

Also, as I recall, some Jewish mystics believe the power of a certain language is so great that it must be kept secret and passed down to only a select few.

But whatever one might speculate about languages, spiritual languages, powers and such - it is very clear that God Himself wanted us mere mortals to know some of His Names.

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. - Revelation 1:7-8

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. - Revelation 19:11-13

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. - Isaiah 9:6


136 posted on 08/21/2012 9:28:58 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Dear Sister in Christ,

Thank you for this most thought-provoking and insightful essay-post! IMO, you are dealing with the very "essence" of understanding the fact of creation.

Early on in your essay, you made a statement that (IMO) demands clarification, qualification, and expansion:

" That there was a beginning means there is no infinite past."

Please allow me to add a qualification that makes the statement reflect both physical and Scriptural reality:

" That there was a beginning of this universe means it has no infinite past."

And, then, you proceed to discuss this universe (and clarify your above statement) in a most delightful and insightful manner...


Even philosophers and scientists who place no credence in Scripture have discussed the possibility of "other" or "parallel" universes.

And Scripture clearly indicates that there is a "place" of existence "beyond" the confines of this created universe. We believers usually call that existence, "Heaven".

And, since Scripture reveals that that "extra-universal reality" is where "I AM" "is", we must look upon both Him and His creation -- and His description of His creative acts in the 31 sentences in Genesis -- with perception that transcends our "earthbound" viewpoint.

...only God, beyond space/time and physical causation, can be the uncaused cause of causation, the first cause, The Creator of the beginning.

Space, time and physical causation are not properties of God the Creator. They are properties of the Creation. Only God is uncaused.

Praise HIM for these insights He has given you to share with us!!

~~~~~~~~~~

...and that leads to my comments-to follow (on the attributes of "I AM")...

137 posted on 08/21/2012 10:38:54 AM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop; YHAOS; Whosoever

[ And certainly there are Names yet to be given or revealed (or not.) ]

A wonderful screed on your(and most/many others) point of view... I liked it..
I realize it would hard for a human(any human) to conceive of zero language.. it was hard for me as well..
I had to warm up to it.. I’m such a hard head..

After(during) my vision I talked to the Holy Spirit about this..
About the “merging concept” and got images of people merging together as if in a “meeting”....
But a meeting with no language we all knew what each other was thinking...
Therefore no need to vocalize anything.. lies were not possible..

Not only knew what each was thinking but all with sound(harmonics) and light(in various patterns)...
It was(will be) a wonderous sound light and idea show..
With nuances of thought displayed in varying patterns of light and sound(sometimes)..

With individual and corporate experience of it..
I do like this conversation about language...
Don’t wish to bore you but you pushed one of my buttons..

Sooo then, I asked the Holy Spirit should go tell people about this.?.
The answer was, it makes no difference whether you do or don’t cause nobody will believe you anyway...
I so love direct answers.. I think I like this Holy Spirit guy..
Its true too, I’ve bored more than a few.. LoL...

signed: “waiting to be blessed with the merging gift”...
p.s. maranatha....


138 posted on 08/21/2012 12:28:38 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; BrandtMichaels; betty boop; YHAOS
AH!! The Names of God! What a providential introduction to what I feel led to discuss: the attributes of God...

(I invite all of you to add to and expound upon this meagre list...)

In no particular order (and most certainly, not complete):

(Click on image for full, high resolution view...)

139 posted on 08/21/2012 1:05:23 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; BrandtMichaels; betty boop; YHAOS
Intended to copy the rest of you to my #137 -- as a preface to my #139...

Too bad FR has no "Reply All" option... ;-(

140 posted on 08/21/2012 1:32:05 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; Alamo-Girl; BrandtMichaels; betty boop; YHAOS

I suppose I can accept “I AM” as a nickname for God..
or even Jesus as a nickname for whoever he really is...

Heck; God does duets with Jackie Evancho why not a nickname..
Barretta used to call him “Louie”....
I cannot consider why God would even need gender..

I doubt God, a real God would be lame or petty...
God I think is not too BIG for a “handle”..
He/it can handle a handle..

Pope Pipus I... <<- handel...


141 posted on 08/21/2012 3:04:21 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Hello. The latest news about non-constant nuclear decay rates has further convinced me that the world-universe is amazingly non-linear.

And what does that have to do with the universe being 6,000 years old. You've offered no proof whatsoever. None. I can look up into the sky and see objects whose light has taken billions of years to reach us. That pesky speed of light will get you every time.

142 posted on 08/21/2012 3:20:32 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (Goode over evil. Voting for mitt or obie is like throwing your country away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee
First, even the evidence of a SMALL change in nuclear decay rate is enormous news. In my almost 30 years in the 'business', we've always referred to them as "nuclear decay constants". So, if there is an accidental observation of a very small variation in nuclear decay rate, then that opens up the possibility for very very large decay rate variabilities from as-yet undiscovered mechanisms.

Second, for the starlight question, I recommend the following book:

The author is an astrophysicist who used to work at Sandia.

The key to the starlight question is 'gravitational time dilation'.

By the way, do you have a technical background?

143 posted on 08/21/2012 4:23:34 PM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

Excellent list

I’d like to add one more

Abba or Father.


144 posted on 08/21/2012 5:00:17 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Loved that book - Starlight and Time - by Russell Humphreys.

I first learned about him here on freerepublic back when a NASA probe had just proven a couple of his predictions true - about Mercury iirc.


145 posted on 08/21/2012 5:10:03 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
So, if there is an accidental observation of a very small variation in nuclear decay rate, then that opens up the possibility for very very large decay rate variabilities from as-yet undiscovered mechanisms.

Every radioisotope on the planet, accelerated to a decay rate of 4 billion times normal for a year is going to leave them with some interesting thermodynamic problems to solve. That's a lot of heat to get rid of.

146 posted on 08/21/2012 5:27:50 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
So, if there is an accidental observation of a very small variation in nuclear decay rate, then that opens up the possibility for very very large decay rate variabilities from as-yet undiscovered mechanisms.

In other words, you're speculating. You haven't shown me how such tiny variations (and for your theory to work, they would only be allowed to vary to one side of the equation, and that hasn't been observed) justify the orders of magnitude that would be require to recalibrate the age of the universe from the observable billions, to a few thousand.

You have to ignore the fossil evidence, radioactive decay, the speed of light, gravitation, erosion, sedimentary layering - such a preponderance of things you can count and measure, in order to buy into YEC that it completely fails the Occam's razor test. The book it junk science BTW. According to his theory of a 6,000 year old universe due to there only being a few observable supernova, we should still be able to see the Hiroshima explosion. The idea that once a star explodes it dissipates and cools must have never occurred to him. I'm embarrassed for him.

147 posted on 08/21/2012 6:53:31 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (Goode over evil. Voting for mitt or obie is like throwing your country away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
So, if there is an accidental observation of a very small variation in nuclear decay rate, then that opens up the possibility for very very large decay rate variabilities from as-yet undiscovered mechanisms.

In other words, you're speculating. You haven't shown me how such tiny variations (and for your theory to work, they would only be allowed to vary to one side of the equation, and that hasn't been observed) justify the orders of magnitude that would be require to recalibrate the age of the universe from the observable billions, to a few thousand.

You have to ignore the fossil evidence, radioactive decay, the speed of light, gravitation, erosion, sedimentary layering - such a preponderance of things you can count and measure, in order to buy into YEC that it completely fails the Occam's razor test. The book it junk science BTW. According to his theory of a 6,000 year old universe due to there only being a few observable supernova, we should still be able to see the Hiroshima explosion. The idea that once a star explodes it dissipates and cools must have never occurred to him. I'm embarrassed for him.

148 posted on 08/21/2012 6:53:39 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (Goode over evil. Voting for mitt or obie is like throwing your country away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
"I’d like to add one more
Abba or Father."

Good grief! Did I overlook that one?!?

I also overlooked the entire Trinity - but, remember, it was A-G who was listing Names. I was listing Attributes.

And I have an ulterior motive... ;-)

(A-G & BB -- do you see the makings of "Universal Now" in that list? And how about a "Heavenly reference frame"?) '-)

149 posted on 08/21/2012 7:37:36 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; betty boop; BrandtMichaels; hosepipe
Thank you so very much for your wonderful posts, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!

I do indeed see the "Universal Now" in your list of attributes of God.

And I would add one more which goes to that very point: God is Truth.

More specifically, He alone sees "all that there is" all at once - every where and every when.

He alone knows objective Truth. He alone speaks objective Truth.

He is Truth for when He says a thing, it is. It is because He said it:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. - Genesis 1:3

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. - Psalms 33:6

For he spake, and it was [done]; he commanded, and it stood fast. - Psalms 33:9

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; - Titus 1:2

Concerning multi-verse or parallel universe models, I would add that most physical cosmologies apply the present universe's physical laws to prior universes thus carrying over the same issue of the beginning of the prior universe, etc. The only closed physical cosmology known to me is Max Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe which posits that the present universe is a manifestation of real mathematical structures which actually do exist outside of space/time.

God is The Creator whether He made one universe or many.

Praise God!!!

150 posted on 08/21/2012 9:08:52 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-205 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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