Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are dinosaurs fossils really that old? [vanity]

Posted on 10/28/2011 6:39:41 AM PDT by Ancient Drive

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-227 next last
To: faucetman

>We have no idea what decay rates were in the distant past.
>We just ASSUME they were the same as today.

For what it’s worth...

We can be confident that radioactive-decay rates have not varied over geological time for several reasons:

1) There is no known physical reason that would cause them to vary noticeably. The two main types of radioactive decay used for radiometric dating are alpha and beta decay, which are both well-understood physical phenomena, and which have rates that can be calculated from the decay energies and various fundamental physical constants. In particular, alpha decay takes place by quantum-mechanical tunneling; the emitted helium-4 nucleus spreads through its “forbidden” region near the nucleus to where it can escape. And beta decay takes place by the weak elementary interaction, which can convert neutrons and protons and emit or absorb electrons.

The electrons in decaying atoms do have an influence on their decay rates, but all but the outermost ones are essentially unaffected by different states of chemical combination and different pressures in the Earth. In particular, it is mostly the innermost electrons that are captured in electron-capture decay, and these are relatively unaffected by the outside world. The main exception, beryllium-7 (which is not used for radiometric dating, hence any anomalies in its decay are irrelevant to the question of whether or not radiometric dating techniques are valid), is easily accounted for by noting that its outermost and innermost electrons are right next to each other (beryllium has only 4 electrons in 2 shells with 2 each).

2) If such variations happened, then it would be very unlikely that they would happen in exact sync, which is what would be necessary to produce the observed concordances. In fact, if such discrepancies existed, it would be possible to produce plots of U-Pb age vs. K-Ar age. However, searching for such discrepancies has resulted in some sensitive upper limits, as described in The fundamental constants and their variation: observational status and theoretical motivations

3) The physics of stars (and other objects) which we can observe is independent of how far they are away from earth. Observing stars which are very far away means also looking very far back in time. The physics of stars is strongly dependend on nuclear reactions and thus also connected to decay rates. Therefore a change in decay rates which would affect the accuracy of radiometric dating can be clearly ruled out.

4) Studies on the isotopes left behind by the Oklo reactor, a natural occuring nuclear reactor about two billion years ago, are giving an upper limit of the change of constants and excludes changes in constants which are big enough to affect the accuracy of radiometric dating.

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Creationist_claims_about_radiometric_dating


101 posted on 10/28/2011 7:47:05 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: folkquest
Is it possible that God created the earth “old”? I mean, when He created it, maybe it came chock full of dinosaur bones, fossils, petrified trees, and the whole nine yards.

Which is more likely, do you think?

That God did it in the farcical way you describe, or he created it in the way and time that the scientific evidence suggests?
102 posted on 10/28/2011 7:47:14 AM PDT by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

Why do you say I’m mocking Him? Because I don’t believe as you do?


103 posted on 10/28/2011 7:48:09 AM PDT by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: CGalen
So basically you're saying that the God of truth set up the universe to lie to us?

I mean, if the universe is only 6000 years old, we're not just seeing light formed in transit from static objects; we're seeing the illusions of stars detonating that never existed.

Shalom

104 posted on 10/28/2011 7:49:19 AM PDT by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.wordpress.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R

As if there even is a lake of fire!!


105 posted on 10/28/2011 7:49:39 AM PDT by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

We all got punked by God.


106 posted on 10/28/2011 7:51:54 AM PDT by montyspython (This thread needs more cowbell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R

Scientific evidence does not negate God’s hand in creation, man’s turning from God, and the need for a savior who has come and will come again. The Divinely inspired books of the Bible teach us Salvation History, not physics, archeology, chemistry, biology, and the like. Embrace both, but not one over the exclusion of the other.


107 posted on 10/28/2011 7:52:49 AM PDT by folkquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: folkquest

I don’t see any contradiction between accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and also being able to read and understand scientific literature and being able to understand what the word “theory” actually means and how the practice of “science” actually works.

I don’t see any contradiction, or collision, at all.


108 posted on 10/28/2011 7:53:03 AM PDT by samtheman (Newt? Can you do it? Can you repudiate your time on the Pelosi couch?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R
Science is nothing more than a series of observations of how God went about his work. Saying any less makes him a magician. Besides, just think of how much more amazing he is when you consider his methods and processes. Harry Potter wand waving is instant gratification without effort or understanding of the processes involved.
109 posted on 10/28/2011 7:53:35 AM PDT by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Very imaginative; trump nonsense not with fact, but with even greater nonsense.


110 posted on 10/28/2011 7:54:46 AM PDT by Captain Rhino (“Si vis pacem, para bellum” - If you want peace, prepare for war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
“Radiometric measurements can be accurate into the billions of years (in Uranium-Lead dating), Samarium-neodymium to about 20 million years, Potassium-argon at 1.3 billion years... etc.. “

and we should believe this because “scientists” say so?

Think meteorologist. (weather man)

Think Photosynthesis.

Photosynthesis: Definition: Natural chemical-process by which chlorophyll (magnesium-containing pigment in green plants, blue-green algae, phytoplankton, and green and purple bacteria) uses sunlight (radiation) energy to convert (synthesize) water and atmospheric carbon dioxide into life sustaining organic compounds such as glucose. Being also responsible for almost all the oxygen in atmosphere, >>>>>photosynthesis is the basis of all life on earth.<<<<<<

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/photosynthesis.html

OOOPS! >>>>> Until recently, all life on Earth was believed to be dependent on the sun. But in the last 30 years, several new deep-sea ecosystems have been discovered that utilize an alternative source of energy.
Instead of sunlight, vent life relies on hydrogen sulfide - more commonly known as rotten egg gas and toxic to most land-based life.

In a process called chemosynthesis, specialized bacteria create energy from the hydrogen sulfide present in the mineral-rich water pouring out of the vents. These bacteria form the bottom level of the food chain in these ecosystems, upon which all other vent animals are dependent.

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/deep_sea/vents_seeps/

Scientists are only right until they are wrong. Which is unfortunately for them, is all too often.

111 posted on 10/28/2011 7:55:52 AM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: folkquest
"Scientific evidence does not negate God’s hand in creation, man’s turning from God..."

I would argue the Science reinforces God's existence, God didn't go and create the universe with very specific properties and laws just to pull Moses' leg.

112 posted on 10/28/2011 7:56:18 AM PDT by montyspython (This thread needs more cowbell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny; All

To some people The Flinstones was a documentary..


113 posted on 10/28/2011 7:57:54 AM PDT by KevinDavis (Obama is siding with the American Nazi Party with the OWS Protestors..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny; All

To some people The Flinstones was a documentary..


114 posted on 10/28/2011 7:57:54 AM PDT by KevinDavis (Obama is siding with the American Nazi Party with the OWS Protestors..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
I don’t see any contradiction between accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and also being able to read and understand scientific literature and being able to understand what the word “theory” actually means and how the practice of “science” actually works.

I don’t see any contradiction, or collision, at all.

...neither do I! ...by the way, I like your tagline.

115 posted on 10/28/2011 7:58:56 AM PDT by folkquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Leto

Ah, so your contention is that God is a liar?


116 posted on 10/28/2011 7:59:48 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
Then along cam Kazoo and the whole thing fell apart.

"Oh hello dumb dumbs!"


117 posted on 10/28/2011 8:00:19 AM PDT by montyspython (This thread needs more cowbell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Overall, the most important thing is that you place your trust and faith in Jesus as your Savior.

Having done that, you read His Word. It says:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

The Word, is also the Bible.

Genesis is true, as written. God and Jesus being one, and the Word, I’ll beleive Them/Him rather than a mans theory.


118 posted on 10/28/2011 8:03:20 AM PDT by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

You call His Word a lie. Kinda mocking don’t you think?


119 posted on 10/28/2011 8:04:25 AM PDT by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: montyspython

God as the primary mover...


120 posted on 10/28/2011 8:05:41 AM PDT by folkquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

I would think by taking the position that God put dinosaur fossils in rock strata just to fool man more aggressively tries to reach that conclusion.


121 posted on 10/28/2011 8:05:54 AM PDT by montyspython (This thread needs more cowbell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

You are confounding the Koran with the Bible. The Koran is supposedly kept in Heaven and the Earthly copies faithfully reproduce it. The Bible, though, is written by human beings inspired by God.


122 posted on 10/28/2011 8:08:28 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"The Koran is supposedly kept in Heaven and the Earthly copies faithfully reproduce it."

Until mohammed changed his mind on a few things and it got edited for content.

123 posted on 10/28/2011 8:11:21 AM PDT by montyspython (This thread needs more cowbell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

No. Perhaps what you believe to be His word, isn’t. Like you said, it takes faith, our faiths are different.


124 posted on 10/28/2011 8:11:36 AM PDT by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Guy Gardner

As I said, (some branches) of science has taken a backseat to money and politics in the last 100 or so years.

You can have your opinion, I can have mine.

The most hate-filed, knee jerk reactions come from the community that claims to be unbiased.

Mythology? How about the myth that there were once large creatures (dragons) roaming the earth with scales, some with wings that could fly. It was myth (according to science) for 1,000 years. People mocked. Until they found the bones and then changed the name to dinosaurs.

One man’s myth is another man’s truth.

Don’t be so closed minded.


125 posted on 10/28/2011 8:11:52 AM PDT by BereanBrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

You are not following the thread.


126 posted on 10/28/2011 8:12:40 AM PDT by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

I do not believe you have ‘faith’ as such. You are in my prayers, as you have been over the past 2 years, over several threads.


127 posted on 10/28/2011 8:14:14 AM PDT by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan

I “think” you are trying to say that a day might not be a 24 hour day as we know it.

I have seen a video study on this and according to the bible, there is no doubt that God meant a 24 hour day.

Genesis 1:5.
“5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.”

Genesis 1:8
.......”And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. “

Genesis 1:13
“And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.”

Genesis 1:16-19
“God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. .”

Genesis 1:23
“And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.”

Genesis 1:31
........ “And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.


128 posted on 10/28/2011 8:15:14 AM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

How The Earth Was Made: The Alps:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKhTUmZX_k0


129 posted on 10/28/2011 8:15:32 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Please, I do not need some youtube video. I grew up believing all about billions of years, evolution and all that tripe.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I’ll hitch my wagon to Jesus, not man, thanks.


130 posted on 10/28/2011 8:21:29 AM PDT by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

What do you mean by ‘’having ‘faith’ as such’’? What does the such mean?

Like you, I believe I do have ‘faith’. Unfortunately, there’s no way to prove either of us do or don’t...at least not without having ‘faith’.


131 posted on 10/28/2011 8:23:23 AM PDT by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: montyspython
Actually, Mohammad was dead by the time "they" got around to writing it in Damascus.

For a good century it was the ONLY work written in Arabic. This has made many people suspect it was mostly Aramaic. Then, recently, they began reading it in Aramaic and found out it's a whole different body of work ~

132 posted on 10/28/2011 8:24:53 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I always thought the Koran was written by the Jews just as a joke to play on the Arabs.


133 posted on 10/28/2011 8:26:47 AM PDT by montyspython (This thread needs more cowbell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: montyspython

There is a case to be made for the early Moslems encountering an old Torah buried in the desert that contained some anomalous material.


134 posted on 10/28/2011 8:28:40 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

Probably a little more palatable to a man who doesn’t know there are other planets orbiting other stars (some not having a day/night rotation). It’s a story told to a child in terms that he may understand.

You (not you personally) minimize God and make a mockery of Christianity when you discount scientific observation. God gave you the ability to read between the lines. No right minded individual would join what appears to be a cult that believes Genesis in its literal interpretation. You push them away by attempting to argue against a uniform theory of God and Science being compatible.


135 posted on 10/28/2011 8:29:36 AM PDT by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

The video is from one of the best geologic doc series ever put out. It presents the evidence of how the Alps were formed. How much older (2 billion year old) rock layers were folded over younger ones in the mountain building process. Don’t confuse this sort of science with the bogus “GoreBull Warming” variety.


136 posted on 10/28/2011 8:30:05 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

The Jackie Mason edition.


137 posted on 10/28/2011 8:30:27 AM PDT by montyspython (This thread needs more cowbell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

You profess ‘faith’ yet, if I recall correctly, over many threads, you have never preofessed what that might be, only that ‘it is’. Instead, you engage in tear-downs of others.

Do you beleiev in Jesus? If so, why do you discount His Word? That, just for the record is a two-part question.


138 posted on 10/28/2011 8:31:24 AM PDT by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Theories all, changing as more is seen/interpreted.


139 posted on 10/28/2011 8:32:30 AM PDT by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan
a uniform theory of God and Science being compatible.

"Lothar Schäfer is the author of the book, In Search of Divine Reality - Science as a Source of Inspiration, . The book is, in essence, a brilliant description of the encounter of Science and Religion, wherein Schäfer proposes “that the traditional conflict between the two disciplines is mainly one involving classical, Newtonian Science; and many of its most pressing issues have obtained an entirely different meaning by the change in world view effected by the discovery of Quantum Mechanics.”

Lothar Schäfer is the Edgar Wertheim Distinguished Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. He received his Ph.D. (in Chemistry) from the University of Munich in 1965, and is the recipient of numerous awards for his scientific work. His current research interests include topics in Applied Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Structural Studies by Electron Diffraction.

In a review of Schäfer’s book, Professor Quentin Smith, Department of Philosophy, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, writes:

“Schäfer’s book is an integrative approach to Modern Science and Religion that aims to show how some traditional religious and philosophical notions can be understood or redefined in terms of modern science. The scientific explanations are reliable and the scientific interpretations of religious ideas are interesting and should be taken seriously and respectfully by even the most sober-minded adherents of the scientific world-view. Rather than science being opposed or subordinated to religion, religious views are refashioned in terms of currently accepted scientific theories. Most of the arguments of the book are based on conclusions drawn from the phenomena of quantum reality and it is one of the clearest introductory explanations of quantum mechanics on the market. Schäfer’s book is written in a lively and accessible style that will appeal to the general reader. I really enjoyed reading this book.”

On the Foundations of Metaphysics in the
Mind-like Background of Physical Reality

by Lothar Schäfer

That the basis of the material world is non-material is a transcription of the fact that the properties of things are determined by quantum waves, - probability amplitudes which carry numerical relations, but are devoid of mass and energy. As a consequence of the wave-like aspects of reality, atoms do not have any shape - a solid outline in space - but the things do, which they form; and the constituents of matter, the elementary particles, are not in the same sense real as the real things that they constitute.

Rather, left to themselves they exist in a world of possibilities, “between the idea of a thing and a real thing”, as Heisenberg wrote, in superpositions of quantum states, in which a definite place in space, for example, is not an intrinsic attribute. That is, when such a particle is not observed it is, in particular, nowhere.

In the quantum phenomena we have discovered that reality is different than we thought. Visible order and permanence are based on chaos and transitory entities. Mental principles - numerical relations, mathematical forms, principles of symmetry - are the foundations of order in the universe, whose mind-like properties are further established by the fact that changes in information can act, without any direct physical intervention, as causal agents in observable changes in quantum states. Prior to the discovery of these phenomena information-driven reactions were a prerogative of mind. “The universe”, Eddington wrote, “is of the nature of a thought. The stuff of the world is mind-stuff”.

Mind-stuff, in a part of reality behind the mechanistic foreground of the world of space-time energy sensibility, as Sherrington called it, is not restricted to Einstein locality. The existence of non-local physical effects - faster than light phenomena - has now been well established by quantum coherence-type experiments like those related to Bell’s Theorem. If the universe is non-local, something that happens at this moment in its depths may have an instantaneous effect a long distance away, for example right here and right now. By every molecule in our body we are tuned to the mind-stuff of the universe.

In this way the quantum phenomena have forced the opening of a universe that Newton’s mechanism once blinded and closed. Unintended by its creator, Newton’s mechanics defined a machine, without any life or room for human values, the Parmenidian One, forever unchanging and predictable, “eternal matter ruled by eternal laws”, as Sheldrake wrote. In contrast, the quantum phenomena have revealed that the world of mechanism is just the cortex of a deeper and wider, transcendent, reality. The future of the universe is open, because it is unpredictable. Its present is open, because it is subject to non-local influences that are beyond our control. Cracks have formed in the solidity of the material world from which emanations of a different type of reality seep in. In the diffraction experiments of material particles, a window has opened to the world of Platonic ideas.

That the universe should be mind-like and not communicate with the human mind - the one organ to which it is akin - is not very likely. In fact, one of the most fascinating faculties of the human mind is its ability to be inspired by unknown sources - as though it were sensitive to signals of a mysterious origin. It is at this point that the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. Ever since the discovery of Hume’s paradox - the principles that we use to establish scientific knowledge cannot establish themselves - science has had an illegitimate basis. Hume was right: in every external event we observe conjunction, but infer connection. Thus, causality is not a principle of nature but a habit of the human mind. At the same time, Hume was not right in postulating that there is no single experience of causality. Because, when the self-conscious mind itself is directly involved in a causal link, for example when its associated body takes part in a collision, or when the mind by its own free will is the cause of some action, then there is a direct experience of, and no doubt that, causal connections exist. When this modification of the paradox is coupled with the quantum base, a large number of pressing problems find their delightful solutions.

Like the nature of reality, the nature of knowledge is counter-intuitive, and not at all like the automatic confidence that we have in sensations of this phenomenon. The basis of knowledge is threefold. The premises are experience of reality, employment of reason, and reliance on certain non-rational, non-empirical principles, such as the Assumptions of identity, factuality, permanence, Causality, and induction. Where do these principles come from? Neither from an experience of external phenomena, nor from a process of reasoning, but from a system program of the self-conscious mind. By being an extension of the mind-like background of nature and partaking of its order, mind gives the epistemic principles - those used in deriving knowledge - certainty. Since they are not anchored in the world of space-time and mass-energy but are valid nevertheless, they seem to derive from a higher order and transcendent part of physical reality. They are, it can be assumed, messengers of the mind-like order of reality.

In the same way, moral principles. Traditional societies based their social order on myths and religious explanations. By assuming a purpose in the world, they told people why things are the way they are, and why they should act the way they were supposed to act. In the “animist ontogenies” values and knowledge derived from a single source, and life had meaning in an “animist covenant” as Monod called it. By destroying the ontological base of the animist explanations, - their astronomy, physics, and chemistry, - science also destroyed the foundations of their values.

In this process Monod saw the origin of the contemporary sickness in culture, das Unbehagen in der Kultur: on the one hand science is the basis for our power and survival; on the other, it has broken the animist covenant, rendered life meaningless in the process, and disconnected the world of values from the world of facts.

The sickness of spirit and the concomitant erosion of moral standards are the great danger for the future of mankind, already apparent in the public adoration of violence and debased behavior. At its roots is the unsolved question, on whose authority are the moral principles to be based now that the authority of the animist myths has been found lacking?

For those who are willing to listen, the answer is: on the authority of mind. In the same way that the self-conscious mind grants certainty to the epistemic principles, it invests authority in the moral principles. Like the former, the moral principles are non-empirical and non-rational, - not derived by a process of logic nor verified by experience - messengers from a higher reality beyond the front of mass-energy sensibility.

Epistemic principles give us a sense of what is true and false; moral principles, of what is right and wrong. The former establish the certainty of identity, permanence, factuality, causality; the latter, of responsibility, morality, honesty. By the same process that allows us to accept, without possible verification, the epistemic principles, we can also accept the authority of the moral principles. Violation of any one of them will put us in contrast to the nature of reality. If the nature of the universe is mind-like, it must be assumed to have a spiritual order as well as a physical order. As the epistemic principles are expressions of physical order, the ethical principles are expressions of the spiritual order of physical reality. By being an extension of the transcendent part of the nature and partaking of its order, mind establishes the authority of the ethical principles.

The challenge of reality and the ability to explore it are wonderful gifts to mankind. Understanding reality requires refinement of thought. That is, it has to do with culture. It requires an effort, is not afforded by automatic, intuitive reflex. Making sense of the world takes the response to a challenge, not the complacency of common sense. It is one and the same as striving for the moral life. An important part of it is the need to become aware of the specific character of human nature, to recognize “the human mystery” as Eccles called it: the mystery of how mind and body interact, how self-conscious human beings with values emerged in an evolutionary process supposedly based on blind chance and brutality. The evidence is growing that there is more to human nature than the laws of physics or chemistry, more to the process of evolution than blind chance and brutality; that evolution is more than, as Monod wrote, “a giant lottery, and human beings live at the boundary of an alien world that is deaf to our music and indifferent to our hopes and suffering and crimes”.

The barbaric view of reality is mechanistic. It is the easy view of classical science and of common sense. In epistemology mechanism is naive realism, the view that all knowledge is based on unquestionable facts, on apodictically verified truths. In physics mechanism is the view that the universe is clockwork, closed, and entirely predictable on the basis of unchanging laws. In biology, mechanism is the view that all aspects of life, its evolution, our feelings and values, are ultimately explicable in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. In our legal system, mechanism is the view that the assumption of precise procedural technicalities constitutes perfect justice. In our political system, mechanism is the view that the assertion of finely formulated personal rights constitutes the ideal democracy. In our public administration, it is the view that responsible service manifests itself by the enforcement of finely split bureaucratic regulations. All of these attitudes are the attitudes of barbarians.

The quantum phenomena have taught us that, without naive realism, knowledge is possible. They have taught us that, without naive animism an ethic of knowledge, as Monod has called it, and a life with values are possible. Principles exist which are valid even though they cannot be verified. The discovery of the quantum phenomena has established a new covenant - between the human mind and the mind-like background of the universe - one that provides a home again to the homeless and meaning to the meaningless life. Whether or not the human mind is separate of the brain, as Sherrington and Eccles thought, I do not know. But I do not doubt that it is human only in some parts, and in others shares in the mind-like background of the universe. It is now possible to believe that the mind is the realization of universal potentia, a manifestation of the essence of the universe. Therefore, the only good life is in harmony with the nature of reality.

140 posted on 10/28/2011 8:35:58 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

If so, why do you discount His Word?..................................................................Help me here, show me what he wrote. What?? He never wrote anything himself, I wonder why?


141 posted on 10/28/2011 8:38:49 AM PDT by eastforker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

Yet He did. I’ll help you out, 5 simple letters, B-i-b-l-e.


142 posted on 10/28/2011 8:41:00 AM PDT by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Looks like an interesting read.


143 posted on 10/28/2011 8:41:05 AM PDT by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

The same can be said about God, in theory it is just that, a theory.


144 posted on 10/28/2011 8:41:20 AM PDT by eastforker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

I do not engage in tear-downs of anyone or their faith.

My faith is in God. He doesn’t get broken down into different parts or persons or deities, just a one God for all. I also believe that there is no way for anyone to actually prove or disprove His existence, or that anyone’s belief is right, wrong, correct or incorrect or that that there should or shouldn’t be one faith for everyone.

I believe Jesus existed as a man, yes. I do not believe He came back from the dead, or is the Son of God anymore than any other man is.


145 posted on 10/28/2011 8:43:39 AM PDT by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

Whether you believe in God or not, you do have ‘faith’ in something. In your case, it appears that you have ‘faith’ in chance, that you are but a cosmic accident, a roll of the dice, here today, gone tomorrow. Quite a sad way to live. I know, I was there.

IF there is no God, then why is there a premium set on ‘good’?

IF I am just here a little while, to disappear forever, then why should I, or anyone be concerned with anyone else? It is then in my best interest not to subjugate myself to anyone, but to get all that I can, even if it hurts someone else. Because there is no tomorrow for me. What a world that would be.


146 posted on 10/28/2011 8:45:30 AM PDT by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Those are sad words. You are prayed for stuart.


147 posted on 10/28/2011 8:47:15 AM PDT by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
you said:
“Correct, much of it is written by many, some unknown,King James edited it, and shoved down our throats as absolute truth.”

“much of it is written by many, some unknown”

All inspired by GOD. 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

“King James edited it”

“Arrangements for this version were completed by the appointment of fifty-four learned men, who were also to secure the suggestions of all competent persons, that, as the king put it, “our said translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom.”

“Only forty-seven of the men appointed for this work are known to have engaged in it. These were divided into six companies, two of which met at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at Westminster. They were presided over severally by the Dean of Westminster and by the two Hebrew Professors of the Universities.”

“When the translators had finished their work, a copy each was sent from Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster to London, where two from each place, six in all, gave it a final revision, and Dr. Miles Smith and Bishop Wilson superintended the work as it passed through the press. The former wrote the Preface, which is entitled, “The Translators to the Reader.”
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html

While the king did give a list of 15 (”INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS”) He did not “edit” their work.

“shoved down our throats “

No one “shoves” any bible or God down anyone’s throat. That's Islam. It is your free will to read or don't read whatever bible you want, believe whatever you want, accept or reject Jesus as you will.

“as absolute truth.”

For those of us who “believe”, (faith) yes, it is “absolute truth.” You may decide to believe it or not at your own peril.

Mathew 7:13-14

“13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

“destruction” = Hell
“life” = Heaven

You decide where you want to spend eternity, no shoving, just information. You do with it what you will.

148 posted on 10/28/2011 8:52:02 AM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
There you go assuming. I never said there was no God, I said he didn't write the bible and Jesus didn't either. Oh, and is God just earth God or does each solar system and other galaxies have their own God and savior. Now lets get back to dino’s and fossils. You believe the Eden, Adam and eve story and this being a young earth, do you then believe the Dino's and man coexisted. Who wrote Genesis anyway?? I don't think anyone has determined just exactly who the author is.
149 posted on 10/28/2011 8:56:27 AM PDT by eastforker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
In your case, it appears that you have ‘faith’ in chance, that you are but a cosmic accident, a roll of the dice, here today, gone tomorrow. Quite a sad way to live. I know, I was there.

That's a bit presumptious.

If there is no God, then why is there a premium set on ‘good’?

What is more impressive:

1) Someone who follows a strong moral code. who believes that they, Mother Theresa, Adolph Hitler, and everyone else will be the same place - nowhere - after they die,

2)Someone who follows a strong moral code because they believethat they will be punished or rewarded for it after death?

A set of moral standards and ethics doesn't require a deity. People blindly assert that because it makes them feel better (and superior), however.

150 posted on 10/28/2011 8:57:34 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-227 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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