Posted on 06/02/2003 1:46:54 PM PDT by Heartlander
On the subject of origins, I invite any who are willing to post their view to this compilation: Freeper Views on Origins
Reminiscent of "ancient astronauts." ;-) (astro-naught)
One of the most profound discoveries of science is that there was a beginning, which of course is the first phrase in the Bible - and is a great difficulty to metaphysical naturalism.
I wonder if it was to counter the obvious theological importance of that discovery - that the multi-verse theories were proposed. At any rate, even under a multi-verse, there must be a beginning.
Robert Jastrow's book God and the Astronomers underlined the significance:
JASTROW: Oh yes, the metaphor there was that we know now that the universe had a beginning, and that all things that exist in this universe—life, planets, stars—can be traced back to that beginning, and it's a curiously theological result to come out of science. The image that I had in my mind as I wrote about this was a group of scientists and astronomers who are climbing up a range of mountain peaks and they come to the highest peak and the very top, and there they meet a band of theologians who have been sitting for centuries waiting for them.
So? How many times do you have be told that science is not built upon philosophy?
Unless, of course, time doesn't mean what we assume it does.
"I was in fact a naive believer (of sorts, I suppose) in Evolution for some 3 decades before looking into its claims. When I "woke up", I was quite angry at being lied to by "society"."
Socialists lie, [about society] granted. They have a reason.
There is no reason [for society] to lie for a theory. You imagine [that society has] one.
Dataman, you too have an overactive, paranoid imagination. Find help.
Diamond:
Hmmmm... tpaine, the idea of dysfunction implies some sort of original purpose, does it not? It's a notion for which evolution can give no adequate accounting. If evolution is purportedly responsible for everything that is, what basis is there for condemnation or criticism of the neural activity of Dataman's brain (or anything else for that matter)?
You have your own 'disfunction' diamond me boyo..
No one here is claiming evolution can give an adequate accounting for the relative unfitness of your or datamans brain.. These malfunctions/sicknesses happen. No disgrace to it.. Just be aware that nature will take its course, and the flaws you two share will affect your lines reproductive capablities, at some point..
Life is not fair fellas.
"I was in fact a naive believer (of sorts, I suppose) in Evolution for some 3 decades before looking into its claims. When I "woke up", I was quite angry at being lied to by "society"."
Socialists lie, [about society] granted. They have a reason.
There is no reason [for society] to lie for a theory. You imagine [that society has] one.
Dataman, you too have an overactive, paranoid imagination. Find help.
Dataman said none of the above. Help with cutting and pasting.
Me? Disagree with your ad hominem fallacies? How droll!
LackingDataMan posting a real point - BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
What about the Nylon-eating bacteria
AG: Indeed, there are many such false presumptions on these threads. Intelligent design supporters are frequently not young earth creationists. And some are neither ID nor YEC, but are also not comfortable with evolution theory for speciation.
(me): Seems clear to me there is at least in part an intentional (sometimes subconsciously intentional as Dallas Willard might just say) corruption of words here, often I think, by fundamentalist Christians, but also by those antagonistic to Christianity. Someone who believes the universe is created, by the face value of the word (as well as Merriam-Webster) is a creationist. I think we should work to maintain straigtforward meanings of words, lest meaning suffers "incredibly."
(As for me, if I find a theory of evolution fully formed and substantiated enough to be worth my confidence, I think I will be a evolutionist creationist. ;-` Annnnd, I tend to lean, albeit, very apperceptively-go-lightly toward the hypothesis I mentioned in the post referring to Ez. 28, which is one reason AG, why I was so interested in what you 'first' related about kabbalah stuff vis-a-vis the creation and evolution. If you'd like to summarize that some week, I'd be interested, though I find post-classic mystic judaic philosophy to be, well, pretty much what you find it to be, I think. ;-` Dead Sea Scrolls type stuff is significantly more interesting, eh? Thank you very much again for your tenderhearted patience with that set of subjects.)
You said: By the same reasoning, the same goes for God, unless, of course, time doesn't mean what we assume it does.
The only way to get perspective on time is to understand the mathematical constructs of dimensions – or more directly, the spiritual realm and God – i.e. that which is non-temporal, non-spatial and non-corporeal.
For Lurkers: the term cosmological constant is used to describe what is necessary to achieve critical density of Omega at 1. The going theory is dark energy, to account for some 70% of the mass of this universe. However, dark energy does not show up in local space, i.e. the laboratory. This gives even more weight to string theory (multiple dimensions) to account for the observed mass of the universe (among other things.)
For more information: Beyond Cosmological Parameters - Tegmark (ps)
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.