Posted on 01/07/2009 6:00:18 PM PST by Inappropriate Laughter
Beats me, but I’ve seen the teacher criticized on other threads about this incident by religious people simply for the act of burning.
This is far from the only thread that has addressed the topic.
Misrepresented...... again.......
Are humans flesh? or souls?.. If "souls/spirits" then can a soul be unique?..
When the Sun eventually explodes, would it’s mass have accounted for a significant increase in entropy, of atleast the solar system of which we are all a part? Increased order in localized zones is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics specifically cannot have jurisdiction over. That is why the precondition of isolation is so important; and for the law to be perfect, so must the isolation be perfect. That is not what we have on this planet.
There are millions of external factors influencing what happens on this planet. For a crude example, people congregate near zones of observation, to witness, say the appearance of a comet. Hasn’t this miniscule agent (compared to the scale of the solar system) affected the “entropy” of that group of people?
Interesting that they should use something like that as justification to reject intelligent design or creationism, but when it comes to evolution, yawn...... well, things like that happen, it’s just survival of the fittest.
As would be expected from someone who couldn't understand that knowing someone's actions beforehand is not the same as orchestrating them.
Physical reality as interpreted and communicated from one subjective observer to another.
That’s real reliable. /s
Perhaps you would care to represent your position correctly. How does the 2nd Law of thermodynamics apply to biochemistry?
What physical process is required for evolution that is barred by the 2nd Law?
js: And yet things get invented and built using the findings of science. Things like medicine, anesthesia, satellites, computers, cool digital watches, iPods.
Not all these things will be beneficial to society, and some may be harmful, but science is about what works.
All of which has nothing to to with the observer problem.
So, I'll ask again, as you've been asked before.... Can you ever just address the comment you're responding to without going off on some tangent?
I think religion would better serve itself and the world by addressing what should and should not be done with the findings of science.
That's a keeper.
Religion tries but is soundly shut down by the scientific community with much the same reaction as we see here. Separation of church and science.
Define *error*.
In order to do that, you'll likely to first need to define *truth*.
The "observer problem" is a very technical term in quantum theory. It is not a New Age touchie feelie catch-all term for asserting that science can't be objective.
That use of the term is a central theme in deconstructionism. Feminist science and the like.
Science cannot be objective because it’s a thing.
Scientists can’t be objective because they are subjective beings inside the system they are studying and have preconceived philosophical presuppositions about the universe around them.
Pretty much a concise definition of the deconstructionist philosophy.
And yet you sit at a computer built because science works. Or is your existence just a preconceived philosophical presupposition of mine?
So God knows how my life will play out, yet, wants me to choose between right and wrong. If He knows my life, what am I doing living it?
Eh? Think through what you just said, and elaborate, please.
What's the alternative to chance and selection?
If ID is ever taught in school it will feature the ideas and writing of Michael Behe, since he wrote the technical chapters in the ID textbooks. When asked to list some "intricate and advanced biologic units" that could not have evolved through Darwinian processes, he cites the maria parasite and the bacterium responsible for dysentery. Here's what Behe says in his latest book, The Edge of Evolution.
"Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. (...) What sort of designer is that? What sort of "fine-tuning" leads to untold human misery? To countless mothers mourning countless children? Did a hateful, malign being make intelligent life in order to torture it? One who relishes cries of pain? Maybe. Maybe not." (p.237)
Evolution sucks, Buy my book.
The funny thing is I actually thought about that word before typing it. A true Freudian slip.
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.