The Christmas event and its value to history
7 am
in Denver and
listening to Perry Como sing, "White Christmas." Shame none of our
kids know who "Perry Como" is or was. Hate many of the changes in our
world, but, so too, was the case with our parent generation. So too
("change is coming") will be the case with the Millennials. Kind of
scary thinking about what changes their kids will come up with, in their world,
no?
And the beauty of it all is the fact of the "adaptability" of the Christ event throughout the ages - able, somehow, to survive the organic and collective exhale and inhale of generations and generations of people, each thinking their changes are final, written "in stone" as it were, not grasping the importance of irresistible change as a function of an organism coupled with the need of that organism for a Superintendent (God) who is unchangeable but adaptable, at the same time. One without the other is the very definition of "chaos," in my humble opinion.
And the beauty of it all is the fact of the "adaptability" of the Christ event throughout the ages - able, somehow, to survive the organic and collective exhale and inhale of generations and generations of people, each thinking their changes are final, written "in stone" as it were, not grasping the importance of irresistible change as a function of an organism coupled with the need of that organism for a Superintendent (God) who is unchangeable but adaptable, at the same time. One without the other is the very definition of "chaos," in my humble opinion.
This
ultimate and undeniable necessity (history as supervised chaos) is my proof for
the existence of "God." Chaos, by definition, is the end of history,
not a function of history. It is antithetical to any definition of history. Without a superintending
"normalcy," our world would have ended with its very beginning.
Speaking of "superintendent normalcy," you should see the eggs I just spilled on the floor, for a perfect example of "history in motion" but without any sense of "superintendent normalcy." Geeeesh, kind of a mess.
Oh. MERRY CHRISTMAS and be normal, today, for God's sake . . . . . seriously.
Speaking of "superintendent normalcy," you should see the eggs I just spilled on the floor, for a perfect example of "history in motion" but without any sense of "superintendent normalcy." Geeeesh, kind of a mess.
Oh. MERRY CHRISTMAS and be normal, today, for God's sake . . . . . seriously.
12/25/2013
The intelligent people are pantheist, deist, agnostic, atheist ... like Einstein and our founding fathers. Take a broader view.
ReplyDelete"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual."
-- Carl Sagan
Still, folks such as Einstein, believed in a force that was in addition to the chaotic influences of the so-called "big bang." My point is this: we cannot demonstrate - at any level - that chaos birthed an organized creation of anything. Science is NOT the analysis of chaotic processes. Rather, it is the acceptance of structure and design in an attempt to understand those predictive influences . . . . . period. Besides, there are millions of scientist and pragmatist who understand and accept that there is much more to the beginnings of our universe than the fantasy of the big bang..
DeleteBig bang? Just one in an infinite number of 'big bangs' .... it's hard for the simplistic human mind to comprehend and even consider the infinite. Human religion is so arrogant. Humans won't last long in the grand scheme.
DeleteIn fact, the creation cannot fathom its Creator; structurally/logically, it is an impossibility. The "arrogance" of human religion (is there any other kind?) is found in the claim that "we know and understand" the God we serve. But, to throw religion out the window because some claim divine awareness, is to deny the created innateness within all of mankind, that is the search for God in our lives.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=923jxZY2NPI
DeleteNot sure what you might have thought when you posted the Segan Series video. Kind of a nothing burger when it comes to commentary that is not trite to a fault.
DeleteIts a matter of scientific literacy. It's not about belief. It's about understanding basic science and critical thinking. You and yours evidence a disturbing growing level of abject and dangerous IGNORANCE. I'd be embarrassed to be a part of this group.
Deletehttp://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/poll-republican-belief-evolution-decline/ncYrJ/
Delete“Big bang” will always be a theory because it cannot be tested and confirmed in lab experimentation . . . . . period. Non-directional genetic mutation is the mechanism for the ordered advancement of the evolutionary process. Since “selective breeding” is not something animal populations do without outside and supervised controls, a population of mutants cannot survive in its uniqueness, within a larger and established population. Put 100 pure black Angus in a population of 10,000 Herefords, and within 6 generations, you will not be able to identify the Angus influence. The only populations in which evolution is observable are species less than a centimeter in size.
Finally, the axiomatic postulate is both the basis for all advanced mathematics AND the foundation for all science, yet, this “postulate” has no mathematical proof for its accuracy, Did you know this? You cannot advance math or science without the unprovable “postulate.” We accept that these postulate will always work, simply because they have not failed us, to date. In other words, the postulate is a faith statement of fact, It is never wrong, but we do not know why, mathematically speaking.
Your “scientific world” is as full of blind faith as is mine. Anyone see the humor in that?!
Smithson said, "The only populations in which evolution is observable are species less than a centimeter in size. "
DeleteUnbelievable ignorance. I understand you may have forgotten basic biology or never studied it in college, but I think you owe it to yourself to obtain an education before you embarrass yourself further.
For starters, you might view the excellent 3 part NOVA series on human evolution. But I doubt that you will, perhaps some of your readers will.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/becoming-human.html
And btw... advanced axioms are completely logical expressions proven by deduction and defining properties.
Smithson is best described by this devolution:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Xle2uzeA9jM/T9z9ArfdQ4I/AAAAAAAAVbY/eSaWlyevcj0/s400/Devolution-of-American-Politics.jpg
So, let me get this right: I am wrong according to you, because YOU say I am wrong. How intelligent is that argument? Geeeeesh. My comment recorded in your paragraph #1, above, stands on its own. You have no examples otherwise . . . . period. Your paragraph #2 is Ad Hom and, therefore, not germane to the discussion. The NOVA series assumes a provable connectivity, biologically speaking, for each and all of its evidence. It does not argue that point. Your last paragraph #5 is more Ad Hom. Apparently that is how you think . . . . so, you call me a name, which means (to you) that you win the debate. Wow.
DeleteAnd your comment in paragraph #4 misses my point entirely. OF COURSE the postulate is a "logical expression." I didn't say postulates do not work. But I am saying that a postulate, any postulate, stands without mathematical proof as to WHY it works. It is only "logical" because it works. Postulates are not the end result of a mathematical process, but the beginning. they are extensions of what must be, and have been created without mathematical process. In other words, they are the product of sheer faith, logical and critical but without proof for their own existence. They are ASSUMPTIONS that are needed before reasonable theory can proceed. And, they could be wrong, since we do not know why they work. And the missing link, when it comes to a comprehensive list of advanced axioms, is that one postulated formula that ties Quantum Theory and Relativity Theory. "God" is my TOE and that missing postulate. Plug in a "Designer Force" into the story of man's biological historicity, and you have something that makes sense. Or you can go through life arguing for the eternity of particulate matter and motion, and continue to pretend that your theory of the eternity of matter and motion to be superior to my theory of the eternity of a Designer God.
Finally, the very moniker "postulate" proves my point. Here is a definition of "postulate" and it is the working definition of same: "[postulate] . . . . . a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief." THAT, my friend, also works as a definition of "faith." A postulate is an ASSUMPTION of [a] truth that provides for intelligent discussion and theory. You know I am right on this, that is for certain.
The NOVA series assumes a provable connectivity? No it reports the latest provable science by scientists who know more about it than Smithson.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing provable about the "big bang" or the "eternity of matter" or unsustainable change via chance mutations. There is not a single one of these assumptions that can be demonstrated to have scientific consequence, much less evolutionary application. They are not verifiable in lab experimentation. In short, these are philosophical conclusions, not scienfiic, and I know something about philosophy. My question to you is this: how can you have "provable science" that is never tested in controlled experimentation? And why in the world do you call t is "science?"
DeleteAnd why aren't you embarrassed with your own silliness?
DeleteTell us Smithson, what is more feasible and believable, A or B
ReplyDeleteA) the infinite universe gave rise to simple life forms on earth or in space that migrated to earth (panspermia) and evolved over billions of years. It is a fact that microbial life is virtually immortal and can survive in spore form for hundreds of millions of years and knowing that essential building blocks of life like amino acids are found in space.
B) A god created the universe, the earth, and mankind - starting from a single breeding pair (Adam and Eve) ... sent his 'son' to earth as an "immaculate conception" to teach, perform miracles suffer, be killed, and rise from the dead... and created heaven for those who believe and a place of eternal torture for those who do not... according to texts written by men during the Dark Ages when most believed the earth to be flat.
Which is more feasible, likely, believable? Tell us Smithson, and your readers.
Well, "A" is out but you already know this. Look, your own "intellectual" fantasies prove my point (and I do believe that much of what is considered "evolutionary evidence" is fantasy).
ReplyDeleteI have made my point about the eternity of matter and particulate motion and the faith required to believe in such. Now, with nowhere to go intellectually, you have decided to push for the fantasy of “microbial immortality.” Good grief.
The choice you offer in your point A, is an admission for the necessity of an eternal “something or other.” My “something” is God and your “something,” is “microbial life” that is ALMOST eternal . . . . “virtually immortal” you say, where “virtually” actually means “almost.” Again, your argument, from a scientific point of view, does not answer the question, "Where did all this matter come from," nor does it deal with origin of particle motion. You have no idea what started all that particulate banging around that resulted in your "big bang" fantasy . . . . not a clue. Here is the stark difference between you and I on this matter: as a Christian, I don’t have to explain God . As an infidel, you are stuck needing to explain everything, because there is no room, in your science, for “faith” or believing that “I don’t know” is the final answer.
Your “B” paragraph isn’t even close to what I have in mind as a believer. But I will have to deal with this later, maybe today. Suffice it to say: Adam and Eve were the first created in Jewish heritage but not the only humans created, according to Genius 2; the six days of creation involved a creative process that took considerably longer than the time required for the several “voice commands” recorded in Genius 1. I am saying that if creation was spoken into existence, the recorded commands of God in chapter one, did not take much more than 10 or 15 seconds, so there is much more to the “Genius Account” than first meets the eye; your late date for the biblical message is baseless, but so trivial as to demand little comment. And, as far as talking about the Christ of God, history has proven His value, but, more on all this later, if that is where this discussion takes us.
How does the editor defend his thinking, denying the 24 hour framing for each of creation's six days? The Bible does not mean what it says in the repeated comment, "And the evening and morning" as it pictures a 24 hour period of time?
DeleteNo one knows the evangelical opinion on this, better than I, not that I am anything special. . And no one respects the biblical message more than I . . . . BUT, the fact remains that if God spoke the worlds into being, how much time did that take? Take a look at Gen. 2: 2 and 3 and note the word "therefore" (in some versions). Ask yourself, if you are still searching for truth, “why verses 2 and 3 at the end of the author's 6 days of creation?” It is apparent to me, that the "6 days of creation " commentary was about giving reason for observation the Sabbath. I do not believe that the commentary was intended to be a "scientific commentary" or it would have solved the problem of the "evening and the morning" statement in contrast to God speaking the worlds in existence, and given us much more detail.
DeleteI do believe that the “six days” presents the order of creation events. I do not believe that creation was accomplished outside the notion of "process." But my thinking is not important. You could be right, and I mean that. In the end, we must never devise an explanation that renders the biblical record as irrelevant. What is critical to the Genius account, what cannot be disregarded by believers, is the faith fact that God was and is the creative force of our origins.