Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mohler takes on 'theistic evolution'
Associated Baptist Press ^ | January 13, 2011 | Bob Allen

Posted on 01/16/2011 4:09:10 PM PST by balch3

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- A Southern Baptist seminary president and evolution opponent has turned sights on "theistic evolution," the idea that evolutionary forces are somehow guided by God. Albert Mohler

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote an article in the Winter 2011 issue of the seminary magazine labeling attempts by Christians to accommodate Darwinism "a biblical and theological disaster."

Mohler said being able to find middle ground between a young-earth creationism that believes God created the world in six 24-hour days and naturalism that regards evolution the product of random chance "would resolve a great cultural and intellectual conflict."

The problem, however, is that it is not evolutionary theory that gives way, but rather the Bible and Christian theology.

Mohler said acceptance of evolutionary theory requires reading the first two chapters of Genesis as a literary rendering and not historical fact, but it doesn't end there. It also requires rethinking the claim that sin and death entered the human race through the Fall of Adam. That in turn, Mohler contended, raises questions about New Testament passages like First Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."

"The New Testament clearly establishes the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the foundation of the Bible's account of creation," Mohler wrote. "If there was no historical Adam and no historical Fall, the Gospel is no longer understood in biblical terms."

Mohler said that after trying to reconcile their reading of Genesis with science, proponents of theistic evolution are now publicly rejecting biblical inerrancy, the doctrine that the Bible is totally free from error.

"We now face the undeniable truth that the most basic and fundamental questions of biblical authority and Gospel integrity are at stake," Mohler concluded. "Are you ready for this debate?"

In a separate article in the same issue, Gregory Wills, professor of church history at Southern Seminary, said attempts to affirm both creation and evolution in the 19th and 20th century produced Christian liberalism, which attracted large numbers of Americans, including the clerical and academic leadership of most denominations.

After establishing the concept that Genesis is true from a religious but not a historical standpoint, Wills said, liberalism went on to apply naturalistic criteria to accounts of miracles and prophecy as well. The result, he says, was a Bible "with little functional authority."

"Liberalism in America began with the rejection of the Bible's creation account," Wills wrote. "It culminated with a broad rejection of the beliefs of historic Christianity. Yet many Christians today wish to repeat the experiment. We should not expect different results."

Mohler, who in the last year became involved in public debate about evolution with the BioLogos Foundation, a conservative evangelical group that promotes integrating faith and science, has long maintained the most natural reading of the Bible is that God created the world in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago.

Writing in Time magazine in 2005, Mohler rejected the idea of human "descent."

"Evangelicals must absolutely affirm the special creation of humans in God's image, with no physical evolution from any nonhuman species," he wrote. "Just as important, the Bible clearly teaches that God is involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation and the universe. That rules out the image of a kind of divine watchmaker."


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: asa; baptist; biologos; creation; darwinism; edwardbdavis; evochristianity; evolution; gagdadbob; mohler; onecosmos; southernbaptist; teddavis; theisticevolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 1,701-1,733 next last
To: bvw
You said one can "see" Wisdom. I asked you to tell me what Wisdom "looks" like and you give me a Stroop answer blue. This is your description of what "Wisdom" looks like? I am sorry, I can't take this seriously. That's about as credible as pink unicorns on Jupiter. You can play your games with someone else.
351 posted on 01/18/2011 6:33:22 AM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit...give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- Mithral prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

I’m sorry, Subject K, I can’t raise your grade on this test.


352 posted on 01/18/2011 6:36:16 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: bvw
I’m sorry, Subject K, I can’t raise your grade on this test

The only one who is stuck is you. You didn't answer my question. Deflecting the issue doesn't help your either. What does "Wisdom" look like, bvw? You claim you you can "see" Wisdom. Tell us what it looks like.

353 posted on 01/18/2011 6:49:40 AM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit...give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- Mithral prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Alamo-Girl
I've discussed this before with A-G. That's not what she believes, unless I'm seriously mistaken. She believed Adam had feet in both those worlds, a with their existence being a much larger footprint on the spiritual side than now. Which is quite reasonable. God walked in the garden

The Bible says God comes "down" in order to "see" so he can "know" what's going on, too. What does that prove?

As for A-G beliefs, I have no problems with them. I merely reminded her that what she was saying is not Christian any more than, say, LDS beliefs are. Mixing Christianity with Gnosticism or Cabala is not Christianity.

If you agree that anyone who claims to follow Christ, no matter what theology, be it Unitarian, LDS, JW, etc. then I suppose Gnostic beliefs are "Christian".

To be sure, all believers are to some extent "gnostic" in that they claim esoteric knowledge. Christians who believe only the "spiritual man" can know the Truth are also echoing Gnostic beliefs, because they are the cornerstone of Gnosticism Christains adopted as their own.

Specifically, in her post, AG makes the following statements that suggest Adam's created purpose was to live in the spiritual realm:

"Indeed, I perceive the creation of Adam and the Garden of Eden in the spiritual realm and thus see no contradiction at all in Genesis 1 to 3. The tree of life is in the middle of the Garden of Eden and Paradise (see below) and therefore not strictly physical."

"I perceive Adam was created in the spiritual realm before he was banished to mortality, the physical realm, and his mortal calendar/clock began. Or to put it another way, I do not perceive Adam as strictly physical."

"Adam was not made for a mere physical existence like a bacteria, daffodil, fish or cow. He doesn’t 'belong' in the physical realm and he knows it. But because he was banished to mortality, this peculiar creature made for Paradise/Eden, having immortality at his finger tips, now is grounded in the physical universe whose life forms were his to name."

Furthermore, AG proceeds to suggest that his sin resulted in "death death", i.e. the death of the soul and the body. Christian belief is centered around the immortality of the soul.

The only problem I see with AG's translation of the Hebrew is that, according to experts who actually know the language, the verse does not read muwth muwth (i.e. "death death"), but muwth tamuwth (to-die you-shall-die).

354 posted on 01/18/2011 7:31:17 AM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit...give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- Mithral prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
In a sense, all fossils are transitional. But who needs fossils when living creatures will do...


355 posted on 01/18/2011 9:06:26 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Sorry, I’m not a cosmologist so my opinion is baseless.


356 posted on 01/18/2011 9:14:03 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus

you may be right.

“how can we be so certain about the origin and history of background radiation?” I doubt that you will find physicists who claim certainty on these matters. It is an ongoing study.

But some come on here and are opposed to the research because they OPPOSE PHYSICS. Anybody on here who opposes and has contempt for the scientific method as uselessly corrupt and that they know better ... these people are fools.

That is why I said:
“Through experience we have found that these threads usually leads to endless exchanges that have no impact upon each other’s beliefs. If you are a young earth creation science believer wishing to argue your cause, your post will be read, but in most cases no response will be given.”

- paraphrasing Greg Neyman, geologist, M.A., Liberty University


357 posted on 01/18/2011 10:15:54 AM PST by campaignPete R-CT (Palin '12 begins in '11. In western New Hampshire pour moi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: stormer
I think the evolution of the eye is another great example of such.

The supposed “missing links” that would connect a photosensitive spot, to a photosensitive spot in a cavity, to a covered with a lens photosensitive spot in a cavity (an eye); are hardly “missing” - but living among us.

In fact the evidence suggests that the eye evolved at least twice in two independent lines, and in two distinct and different ways.

358 posted on 01/18/2011 10:19:53 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

dreamer, that is amazing. But I don’t have time to look into the eye issue any further right now.


359 posted on 01/18/2011 10:47:39 AM PST by campaignPete R-CT (Palin '12 begins in '11. In western New Hampshire pour moi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; LomanBill; betty boop
LOLOL! And thank you so much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!

The reference to "equiv earth days" was to establish the unit of measure in reference to the inception event at which point earth did not yet exist.

Schroeder explains the concept further by looking at the Hebrew roots of the terms and the Scriptural reference to "evening" and "morning" - namely, that the terms mean from "chaos" to "cosmos." He also underscores the wording of the First Day as compared to Day 3 etc. - namely, that it was the first day, the beginning of time.

360 posted on 01/18/2011 10:52:03 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Christian belief is centered around the immortality of the soul.

Christianity is centered around the conditional attainment of immortality. To wit:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

See also Annihilationism.

All of this religious banter is far off track, of course, and is only being discussed because the pillar of Darwinism supports the crossbeam of atheism in the rickety structure known as Secular Humanism.

And it's interesting you bash someone's faith in an unproven cosmological origin hypothesis with your faith in another unproven cosmological hypothesis.

There's actually more evidence for the former than the latter.
361 posted on 01/18/2011 10:54:59 AM PST by angryoldfatman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

When you copypasted the “Heisenberg’s microscope” section of the Wikipedia page in response to my telling you that Heisenberg proved you wrong, did you happen to notice the “microscope” was a theoretical one?

It’s not our equipment that’s the problem in simultaneously measuring the position and momentum of a particle. It’s that matter isn’t made of neat little particles, but messy waveforms that only collapse into particles when we observe them (given the Copenhagen interpretaion, of course).


362 posted on 01/18/2011 11:10:29 AM PST by angryoldfatman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; xzins; TXnMA; betty boop; James C. Bennett; MarkBsnr; Kolokotronis; MHGinTN
On your first issue concerning what constitutes "fact" I once again offer my testimony:

God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for a half century and counting.

On your second issue concerning the beginning of space/time and multi-verse theory, I once again offer these insights:

Physical causation requires both space and time and there was a beginning of real space and real time. From the 1960s forward, measurements consistently agree that the universe is expanding, that there was a beginning of real space and real time. Indeed, that was the most theological statement ever to come out of modern science. (Jastrow) “In the beginning, God …”

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.

In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

Truly, all physical cosmologies rely on physical causation – space and time – whether inflationary, multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, cyclic, imaginary time, etc. All of the prior universe models superimpose this universe’s physical causation, space/time and indeed, physical laws onto prior universes all the while admitting that there is no such requirement that a prior universe would be like this one.

The big bang is the most widely accepted point of agreement among them, but a singularity is not nothing – the big bang also requires space and time:

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. Again,

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.

In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

Both space and time are required for physical causation.

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 physical cosmologists. 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.

Indeed, to me, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics (Wigner) is God’s copyright notice on the cosmos.

Logos is the Greek word which is translated “Word” in the following passage. It is also the root for the word “Logic:”

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. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. – John 1:1-4

And finally, concerning your sidebar with xzins, I say here as I have said on many threads before that Paradise/Eden and Adamic man, like the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple and the Holy Mountain, are not strictly physical.

The insight of some Jewish mystics may be helpful on this point. They perceive the firmament is not a geometric separation between "here" and "there" but rather the boundary between the physical and the spiritual. Some have further conjectured that the separation may be the speed of light, the speed limit of the universe, or pressure waves.

That said, in higher dimensional dynamics (e.g. P.S. Wesson's 5D/2T) the separation can indeed be geometric and yet overlapping at some or all points (think a tesseract four space versus a cube, a three space.)

Likewise, some Jewish mystics offer an insight that might be helpful in comprehending that God is the Creator of "all that there is" including space, time and causation. More specifically, they use the term Ayn Sof to refer to Him as the Creator. The term literally means "no thing" and conveys the point that any word we mere mortals would use to describe Him (e.g. time, space, causation) limits our ability to know Who He IS to the term that we used.

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 1:8

Man is not the measure of God.

363 posted on 01/18/2011 11:46:21 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Well and truly stated. Kudos, Sister in Christ!

God Created all that there is and was nothing made that was made except that God Created ... God creates by His Word, by information. Things--like light--are not what God made the universe with/from, His Word--Information--is what God Creates with. He builds with things and things must have time and space in which to be (the first command, 'Light be'), thus prior to the time and space and energy packets there IS His Word, His Information ... God created/creates/will create with Information, His Word. Even the realm of spirits will be found to have spatio-temporal limits set by His Word.

364 posted on 01/18/2011 12:06:58 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Indeed.

Praise God!!!

And thank you so much for your testimony, dear brother in Christ, and for your encouragements!

365 posted on 01/18/2011 12:11:30 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Can you please declare me the winner? In re: Subject K.

I created a test to gauge minimal capacity to understand wisdom and, at this time, Subject K has not met the requirements for entry into the halls of the enlightened.

In any case for me to proceed to the next level I need a declaration of absolute eternal Winnerhooddom. Thanks!

If it could be printed on purple-shaded sheepskin so much the better to indicate super-wisdom, eh? Thanks again!


366 posted on 01/18/2011 12:34:52 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: bvw

I may be able to dig up a peel and stick gold star for you. Would that help?


367 posted on 01/18/2011 12:45:18 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
Consider the example of picking up a rock from Earth, taking it in a spacecraft to a planet much more massive than Earth, outside the Solar System, and then dropping it near where this particular planet can begin to attract this rock towards itself.

I think I'm going to show my ignorance here. Does this mean potential energy is completely quantified by gravitation and mass?

What if you transport a massive rock to a weightless environment? Have you decreased its potential energy? Wouldn't this violate conservation of energy?

368 posted on 01/18/2011 12:56:39 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

I think you are getting into the classic First Cause argument - which hasn’t been definitively decided/proved/disproved one way or the other.


369 posted on 01/18/2011 1:05:42 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: bvw; MHGinTN
Pink was the best I could do. Will that work?

Your certificate of winnerhood will be mailed out to you shortly.

370 posted on 01/18/2011 1:08:14 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: angryoldfatman

*snicker*


371 posted on 01/18/2011 1:11:23 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
"Lower entropy, higher energy."

Got a reference for that claim?

372 posted on 01/18/2011 1:25:46 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT
Through experience we have found that these threads usually leads to endless exchanges that have no impact upon each other’s beliefs.

I think your probably right.

But though there is as little likelihood of impacting each other's beliefs as radiation being in suspended animation at the beginning of the universe, the truth of what Wills and Mohler are saying:

"Liberalism in America began with the rejection of the Bible's creation account," Wills wrote. "It culminated with a broad rejection of the beliefs of historic Christianity. Yet many Christians today wish to repeat the experiment. We should not expect different results."

is something we may be able to agree on.

Humanism (calling itself science) and Christianity are on the same sort of galactic collision course as they say Andromeda and the Milky Way are. Speaking for myself, I don't know when the collision will be at it's greatest intensity but I believe the results will be astronomically catastrophic and decisively destructive of a worldview.

373 posted on 01/18/2011 2:21:13 PM PST by Theophilus (Not merely prolife, but prolific!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Thanks. Pink is very calming.

HOORAY! I’ve evolved!

I’m one of the Winnerhood!


374 posted on 01/18/2011 2:28:55 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

What, no stickers for my stickerbook? How can I measure academic progress in the New American Classroom?


375 posted on 01/18/2011 2:31:11 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: angryoldfatman; kosta50; stormer
Waveform location cannot be determined precisely, and particles comprise of waves, bringing forth the uncertainty as you mentioned.

However, this doesn't take away from the point of the discussion that introducing mysticism into areas of scence that are yet to be fully explained as a stop-gap "solution" is not an acceptable mode of scientific progress. The common trick that's played by these proponents of the 'theology of the fringes', involving vagueness of terminology and inappropriate usage of concepts, is as follows:

1. First, they make the presumption or the implication that science knows or can explain everything.

2. Next, they pick and choose those areas that are still insufficiently explored, and demand an explanation for them. This was what was being done when the earlier poster attempted to bring in not just a deity, but a deity of his / her choice, to pose as if that deity is the solution to the incomplete understanding of the position-momentum uncertainty - a classic case of introducing a god-of-the-gaps.

To such proponents, the tactic to be employed to counter their "reasoning" is simple. Make them climb down from the vanguards of scientific knowledge, and instead force them to go into the doctrinal and scriptural basics of their faith, straight to the definitional roots of their deity(s). To these proponents, I ask that they answer questions such as these:

Firstly, if their adopted deity(s) is (are) beyond the realms of time and space, then it implies that time has no influence over it (them) - in essence, it is (they are) timeless and has / have existed forever. Since the beginning of anything requires a transformational change from the moment of non-existence to the moment of existence, so too must the beginning of even the process that leads to creation, undergo a period of change. The present Universe (and they assume is the only universe) had a finite 'beginning', they believe. This implies that this Universe also was once under the realm of non-existence. Now for the deity to have begun the process of creation, it must have undergone a transformation, or change, from within the realms of its timeless existence, to the period of change that occurred when it decided to create. Since change implies time, how then is this deity existing in a timeless realm?

Secondly, and this is more specific to the religions under consideration, if you believe in the deity of the Old Testament, and also believe the deity to be the source of all morality, then what happened during the moment when this deity ordered for the son of David to suffer a week-long illness and then perish, for no fault of its? Additionally, how was it moral for the same deity to order for the slaughter of the Amalekite children and infants as detailed in 1 Samuel 15:3?

These are merely examples of forcing such introducers of the gods-of-the-gaps to reconcile the contradictions of their own adopted religions. To them, the choices available are as follows:

1. Reconcile with the contradictions by means of logical arguments.

2. Adopt the an agnostic, or at best, a deistic concept for the god they introduced to fill in the apparent gap.

 

 

 

 

376 posted on 01/18/2011 3:58:44 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

I used that example of taking a rock from one planet to another to show that the contained potential energy cannot be determined.


377 posted on 01/18/2011 4:02:30 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

To which post were you replying to, in #369?


378 posted on 01/18/2011 4:03:22 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus

“The just will rule over the insolent.”

-not sure who said this.


379 posted on 01/18/2011 4:03:41 PM PST by campaignPete R-CT (Palin '12 begins in '11. In western New Hampshire pour moi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
In reply to #334:

how did the changeless entity change, without itself being under the realm of time?

380 posted on 01/18/2011 4:46:41 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
I used that example of taking a rock from one planet to another to show that the contained potential energy cannot be determined.

Oh. Then..

Nevermind. :)

I must have OCD on this. Now I'm wondering: "what is the location of potential energy?

381 posted on 01/18/2011 4:49:30 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
Now, could you have calculated how much potential energy that rock on Earth possessed, prior to it being released in the other, massive planet?

Are you referring to two-body gravitational potential energy or total gravitational binding energy?

382 posted on 01/18/2011 4:58:47 PM PST by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: SeeSac

I was referring to the total potential energy in the rock - whatever is stored in it on account of its configuration and position.

Isn’t it relative to the frame of reference?


383 posted on 01/18/2011 5:04:06 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

In reply to #380:

Yes, and that’s the paradox that cannot allow a timeless entity to suddenly perform an act at a particular, finite moment in time.


384 posted on 01/18/2011 5:05:50 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: balch3

What a goofball this guy is.

These inerrancy types love to throw around the terms liberal and conservative. But they consider you a “liberal” if you don’t believe their centralized authority (in direct opposition to baptist tradition) and a 4000 year old earth,,,you are a “liberal”.

People would be surprised at some of the old school Texas baptists that woke up to find they were actually liberals. SB Seminary used to be respected.


385 posted on 01/18/2011 5:09:41 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stormer

You’re trying to say this is a transitional between fish and amphibian.

But it doesn’t help your case.

The supposed linear progression of species, if true, would have to be immensely complicated. It’s not just a matter of gills changing to lungs, or fins to feet.

The total number of transitional forms, if evolution were true, would be vastly greater than the total number of species. Because for any two species, there are countless necessary genotypic and phenotypic changes necessary to make the change from one to the other. It seems the number of discrete species between a fish and a salamander would be in the hundreds, or maybe thousands or even more.

The number of transitional forms, if evolution were true, would be far greater than the total number of species. Even if there were only a hundred transitional forms between two known species, we would expect produce at least a few if not a couple dozen fossils evenly distributed along the linear progression.

There are none. We have only discrete species separated by vast morphological, and thus genotypic, differences.

Again—the number of transitional forms, if evolution were true, would be far greater than the total number of species.


386 posted on 01/18/2011 5:13:18 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Rules will never work for radicals (liberals) because they seek chaos. And don't even know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
I was referring to the total potential energy in the rock - whatever is stored in it on account of its configuration and position.

What is the chemical and atomic composition and what is the charge?

387 posted on 01/18/2011 6:09:24 PM PST by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: SeeSac

Even if you knew it, could you have determined it? Even position matters.


388 posted on 01/18/2011 6:18:57 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
ell me what Wisdom "looks" like

Multidimensional sense and sensuality:

Hearing Colors And Seeing Sounds: How Real Is Synesthesia?

ScienceDaily (July 26, 2007) — In the psychological phenomenon known as "synesthesia," individuals' sensory systems are a bit more intertwined than usual. Some people, for example, report seeing colors when musical notes are played.


389 posted on 01/18/2011 6:42:43 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
"Additionally, a timeless, everlasting entity - an entity outside the realms of time, is also a changeless entity."

"Changeless"? How did you determine that?

390 posted on 01/18/2011 6:44:17 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
Yes, and that’s the paradox that cannot allow a timeless entity to suddenly perform an act at a particular, finite moment in time.

I don't follow the First Cause argument that way. It argues for the necessity of something uncaused to begin the chain of causation. Though causation and time are intertwined, perhaps I'm wrong in associating the First Cause argument to your point.

Nevertheless, your statement:

a timeless, everlasting entity - an entity outside the realms of time, is also a changeless entity. How then did this entity, that from all eternity, suddenly rose up just prior to when the Big Bang occurred, to create it?
is not self-evident in my opinion. It would be more sensical to state that only something outside time could cause time. This (being outside time) also avoids the infinite regresses of "what was before..." and "what caused the cause before that one.."

It is precisely by being outside time, change, cause that avoids "the paradox that cannot allow a timeless entity to suddenly perform an act at a particular, finite moment in time."

391 posted on 01/18/2011 6:44:48 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; James C. Bennett
Changeless"? How did you determine that?

If I may but in: the logic is that change requires time.

392 posted on 01/18/2011 6:47:44 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Exactly, change cannot happen without time.

Therefore, the First Cause argument comes up short.

Being outside of time implies a “forever-ness”. Any change in that state that causes the creation of something, requires time to have been operative even before the change in the situation occurred, so that change could occur.

Confusing, I know, but that is the paradox.


393 posted on 01/18/2011 6:50:59 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: bvw; kosta50

You do know that synesthesia is not an ordinary condition, right? It’s a problem with the brain wrongly interpreting signals that it receives from various parts of the body.

Nice to see you’re doing the research, though. Look it up in YouTube, there are some good videos there.


394 posted on 01/18/2011 6:53:53 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; D-fendr

Timeless implies changeless.

How can anything change without being under the realm of time?

If you do not have time, one microsecond and a million years wont feel much different.

You can experience this in approximation, when you’re in deep sleep and don’t feel the passage of time.


395 posted on 01/18/2011 6:56:41 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
I think I see why you're not seeing this correctly. :)

Being outside of time implies a “forever-ness”

No, no, no. Not in this use of eternal. Eternal in this use does not mean never-ending. It means outside time - no beginning, middle, end comes into play. Nothing dealing with time applies. Outside time. Transcending time might be an easier term to grasp.

396 posted on 01/18/2011 7:12:06 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Like I mentioned, without time, you can’t have change. If there is no change, that’s forever.


397 posted on 01/18/2011 7:13:27 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Thank you, but don’t be so quick to call it out-of-the-ordinary. Research in these areas — including perception of colors — is new. What imaging technology allows. I suspect — just speculating at this point — that everyone has some degree of synesthesia, and it’s more subtly entangled than can be appreciated in today’s culture.


398 posted on 01/18/2011 7:16:58 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett; kosta50; stormer

James,
That’s a lot of words about religion from a guy who’s supposed to be talking about science.

I came to dislike Darwinism for the same reason one of my compatriots here did. I read Darwin’s The Descent of Man.

Why have religious reasons for genocide when there are perfectly good scientific ones?

I always wondered why Australians were so enamored of Darwin and his ideas of white superiority. It’s the best scientific reason to shove some aboriginals off the planet.

Just like it will be the best reason for the Marxists to shove the Christians off the planet.

After all, if sexual preferences are genetic, so are practically all other preferences, including religious ones. Why else bother hypothesizing a “God gene”? Tie religion to genetics, declare the Christians incapable of deconversion because theism is inborn, and start eliminating them so they stop using up undeserved finite resources. The fit survive, the slovenly unfit stupid God botherers don’t.

Right?


399 posted on 01/18/2011 7:35:55 PM PST by angryoldfatman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; betty boop

>>the first day, the beginning of time.

I like it.

It’s consistent with my view that time is a derivative function of state change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frames in which it’s being observed.


400 posted on 01/18/2011 7:48:46 PM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 1,701-1,733 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