Don't worry. God knows the situation. There are 4 horsemen all saddled up and ready to ride. They'll get rid of that excess in no time flat. It's already scheduled.
Are you suggesting that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply on earth because in several million years the sun will brown out?
That's not at all what the precision of a "closed" system is all about. It's about the absence of a control mechanism.
If nature were just a mix of blind inanimate forces as you claim, disorder would increase and entropy would progress. That's the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
But you're right, Earth is NOT a closed system, because there is indeed a controller behind nature watching over every single aspect of creation. Nature insn't just a collection of random inanimate forces. It's a finely tuned orchestra led by a living conductor.
Sorry, but "spontaneous generation" is part and parcel of the theory of evolution. If life doesn't spring from non-life, then there is no point in even searching for a process by which one species becomes another. Creation is already a given.
You seem more intent on eluding the issues than on addressing them.
Not your examples. In the case of the gulls, the "related" species don't interbreed, they hybridize. Hybrids exist but they don't lead to new species.
Scientists have even been able to hybridize species that can't do so naturally. But they are always sterile. No new species is created.
The fact that species can hybridize yet not truly interbreed only confirms the inviolability of the species boundaries.
As for the salamanders in California, even the article admits that the science is shoddy and that the situation is a lot more complex than admitted. In fact it seems like it was largely a hoax intended to support evolutionary theory. Like so many hoaxes in the past.
Of course. Predators, parisites, and germs all work together to cull the herd and weed out the weak. They are part of the symbiotic process.
You're off target again.
The question at hand was whether competition is the driving force behind the evolution of species, and that would of course only involve competition for the same environmental niche.
A wolf is not more "fit" than a deer. They are both ideally suited for the niche they inhabit.
The wolf can eat the deer, but the deer can eat grass and leaves whereas the wolf cannot.
Predators and their prey are not "competing" for an evolutionary niche. They complement each other in keeping the balance of nature.
For someone who "doesn't believe" you seem to be very interested in OT scripture.
I think its like the "strawman" tactic of disinformation.
You can't attack Christ head-on because the evidence of His effect on the world is too strong. So you pick an element that you think is more vulnerable, like the OT myths, and you pretend that in knocking that down you have somehow disproven Christ.
But you could rip the OT right out of the Bible and Jesus could still lick Confucious with both hands nailed behind his back.
We've already been there Krimsa. You know that I consider the OT to be mythology.
But despite everything a tiny spark of faith in God arose, God blew on the embers and kept it alive and raised up prophets who foretold the coming of a savior. And when the time was right Jesus came, healed, taught, exposed the lies, revealed the truth and finally was crucified. And the world has never been the same.
Can't say the same about Confuscious or any of those non-Mediterranean dead guys can you?
First of all, I don't expect any paleontologists to jump through hoops. It might be fun to watch if they did. But it's a little much to ask.
As for "Jack". I don't even know him. But if he'll jump through the hoop, that'll do.
RayfromUSA: (evolution) cannot be "proven" true by observation or experimentation. emannigol: History cannot be proven true by observation or experimentation either. Do you think that studying history is unscientific? RayfromUSA: Of course it is. History is written by those who hold power. RayfromUSA: Evolution violates some known physical laws. emannigol: Whitch laws? RayfromUSA: Well there's the second law of thermodynamics for example.
In any closed random system, disorder will increase, and energy, although conserved, will be increasingly unavailable.
Life violates that rule, actively reordering matter and making energy more available.
To imagine that life originated and evolved by chance combinations of chemicals and energy is far beyond reason.
Even in advanced labs with computers and equipment and skilled technicians, nobody can create life, even with ALL the organic chemicals right at hand (most of which could not exist whithout a living source).
RayfromUSA: Evolution has to be believed by faith. emannigol: Like we're believing that earth is revolving around sun. RayfromUSA: No, That can be confirmed by observation and experimentation. In fact that's why we know that the earth orbits the sun. It was proven experimentally.
All you have to do to prove evolution is to demonstrate it to mix some chemicals together and create some sort of life. Or, change one species into another. RayfromUSA: If evolutionary change depended on random mutation and survival of the "fittest" in constant competition for survival, we would be surrounded with "conflict" for every survival niche. But, apart from man, the natural world seems to exist in a great state of symbiotic harmony. emannigol: I don't know where you are living, but when I look outside it's a dog eat dog world out there. RayfromUSA: You probably need glasses. If it were a dog eat dog world, there would be no dogs left.
Instead, plants draw energy from the sun and matter from the earth and air. They process it into proteins, oils, starches, etc. Then herbivores eat the plants and are in turn eaten by carnivores (including dogs). And in the end all the componants are reprocessed so that life can continue. It's one big happy symbiosis. Not dog eat dog at all. emannigol: ... coming to my mind is something called invasive species. As it's well known fact that two similar species can not live in same ecosystem. RayfromUSA: Sure they can. It happens all the time. There are all sorts of similar species in the same ecosystem. The ocean is a good example of that. emannigol: Another example is pesticide and antibiotic resistent species. They're direct results of conflict. RayfromUSA: I can't see your reasoning. Resistance is not developed by conflict between species. It's developed by selective survival of individual cells.
All species have a lot of variation in their gene pool that allows them to adapt to changes in their environment.
But that isn't "evolution". One species doesn't become another. A dog is still a dog, whether it's a Great Dane or a Daschund. -----------------------------------
Well, I've gotten to know one woman on line (over a period of years) and we've developed a good friendship, even though we never really met physically. We love each other in the sense of being close friends.
But, as far as I'm concerned that's about as far as an internet relationship can go unless I actually meet someone in real life.
There is a popular doctrine that the Bible is entirely infallible and perfect and totally literally true.
I don't believe that.
The Old Testament didn't float down out of Heaven fully formed and perfect. It is a compilation of writings by many different people who were all far from perfect.
I even believe that some parts of the OT such as the book of Esther (added a couple of centuries after Christ) are nothing but fables and have no business being there at all.
Other parts (such as the books of Moses) fall more into the realm of religious mythology than historical record. They may have had some basis in fact, but they have been greatly embellished.
They are important as they lay the fundamental foundational beliefs upon which faith in God was established. But they are not necessarily "literally" and "historically" true.
Personally I don't start with the OT and try to fit Christ into it.
I start with Christ and then if any part of the OT seems to fit with Him, then great.
But any part that seems to contradict Him, I don't give it much credence. Anything that doesn't fit, I don't necessarily consider to be inspired. I don't rip it out of the book, but I don't count it as proven either.
The God who is Jesus' father is certainly not the god described in much of the OT.
Jesus said "I and My Father are one" and "if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father".
So any OT description of God that doesn't match the attributes of Christ is, in my opinion, simply wrong.
Well we not only CAN pick and choose, we MUST do so.
Jesus himself didn't adhere to everything Moses said.
Many times he said: "Moses said (such and such), but I tell you...".
It must be realized that within Judea, the Pharisees were powerful. They could pressure even the Roman government as they did at Christ's trial. Pilat only gave in to their pressure when they threatened to accuse him as a traitor to Caesar.
Jesus couldn't directly contradict the Law of Moses because that could get him charged with heresy (a capital crime). And He had a job to finish first.
But He certainly did contradict the self-righteousness of the Pharisees and their critical condemning attitude.
You cannot read the beatitudes and believe that the same God who said "love thy neighbor as thyself" and gave the example of the good Samaritan, had also told the Israelites to massacre the people of Canaan just because they lived in the land He had designated for the Israelites.
The OT was written by a fiercely nationalistic and xenophobic tribal culture.
Yes, it contains seeds of prophecy and points the way toward christ. But that is far from saying that every word of the OT was divinely inspired. I cannot believe that at all.
God used the imperfect record of an imperfect people to bring about his perfect plan. That's what He always does.
As Paul said.
The law brought condemnation and death. But that condemnation made grace possible.
So yes, the Law was a part of God's plan. So was the crucifixion of Christ.
But we shouldn't look to either the Law or the Crucifixion as something to emulate. Just as necessary parts of the overall plan.
For guidance, the words of Christ are the ultimate authority. And you won't find much legalism in them.
I can agree with the above, but it falls short in comparing "God" to an operating system.
Can you imagine an operating system that has no author? Especially one that runs the entire universe?
God is not just the operating system. He's not just the computer. He's the designer and builder of the hardware and the author of the software. He's also the operator who runs the machinery and the power source.
We, on the other hand, are just floppy disks with a small amount of temporary data. We will be erased and recycled momentarily.
Well that's just not correct. There was no "original" Jewish calendar. All ancient civilizations had calendars of their own. The Etruscans/Romans had a calendar before they ever knew that Jews existed.
The Romans used a solar calendar of 365 days. The solar calendars is based on the time from one winter soltice to the next.
The Jews used a calendar of 12 lunar months. Thus the Jewish "year" was only 354 days long. To keep the months from drifting further and further across the year, every few years they added another month of variable length.
I think the idea of an "Original Jewish Calendar" must stem from a religious myth similar to the idea that "before the flood, everybody spoke Hebrew".
No matter where you are, there are local species adapted to the local environment, but closely related to other species in other areas and other environmental niches.
Clearly there is a common thread and a process by which species adapt to the environment and differentiate from other existing species.
However Darwins explanations of the mechanisms of those processes can be demonstrated to be false.
If evolutionary change depended on random mutation and survival of the "fittest" in constant competition for survival, we would be surrounded with "conflict" for every survival niche. But, apart from man, the natural world seems to exist in a great state of symbiotic harmony.
The process of evolution is not nearly as chaotic and random as Darwin's model.
All of creation evolves together in a great harmonious symphony, not a discordant cacophony of competing interests.
So although I do believe that species evolve, I don't attribute it to random mutation and competition.
I believe there has to be a watchmaker behind the watch, a composer/conductor behind the symphony.
But then, evolution itself is a sort of religion too. It cannot be "proven" true by observation or experimentation. It even violates some known physical laws. It has to be believed by faith.
Patriotism, politics, civics, faith in the government, secular humanism, and even atheism, are all religions too. Very dogmatic ones at that.
Schools routinely teach all sorts of dogma as "fact". And unless the kids have already been taught (at home) some basic standards by which to judge truth from falsehood, they will believe whatever they are told.
If you mean for adapting European current to US appliances, it's because European current is 240 volts AC instead of 110. Japanese house current is 100 volts AC by the way.
Actually in America, the current enters the house at 220 volts and is split at the outlet by taking only half of the phase to each outlet.
So you can install either one outlet of 22O V or 2 outlets of 110 V using the same source wire.
And you can bet that the remnant were the ones who stayed independent enough to survive. Hang onto your woodstoves folks. No matter what they tell you.
I wonder ... how many times has the earth been "destroyed"? and begun all over to re-populate itself? There is usually always some small remnant left behind ..../quote]
And you can bet that the remnant were the ones who stayed independent enough to survive. Hang onto your woodstoves folks. No matter what they tell you.
RayfromUSA Forum Posts (6,611)
RE: DIVINE CREATOR or Darwin's Theory ?
Don't worry. God knows the situation.There are 4 horsemen all saddled up and ready to ride.
They'll get rid of that excess in no time flat.
It's already scheduled.