|
Post by jxr on Aug 9, 2006 7:29:28 GMT -5
Why are we, as a species, so sure about our own natural and spiritual superiority and worth, from God's viewpoint, when we still haven't much of a clue about the society and values of many other species? www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1497634.htmAre we a little parochial and misguided?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2006 8:36:52 GMT -5
jxr - what are you talking about? The whole plan of God as dictated to us by the bible, that is, that God has prepared a world for us so that we may seek after Him. In God's plan other species are only here to help serve that end. We talk about 'spiritual superiority" in the understanding that only man has a spirit.
|
|
|
Post by Great question on Aug 9, 2006 9:00:24 GMT -5
Why are we, as a species, so sure about our own natural and spiritual superiority and worth, from God's viewpoint, when we still haven't much of a clue about the society and values of many other species? www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1497634.htmAre we a little parochial and misguided? It is indeed a very limited view and I think due to the fact that people do not relate well to long periods of time. 10,000 years seems like a long time but , geologically speaking, it is just a flash. Humans have been around for a very short time. If longevity is a criteria for measuring the success of a species, humans rank rather low on the scale. As to humans being on the top of the developmental scale, this is just a snapshot of how things are right now. Who knows what the next 20,000 or 400,000 years will bring. Humans, as we know then today, could very well go the route of the Mauritius Dodo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2006 9:11:58 GMT -5
Here is something to consider. We, Homo sapien sapien, are the last humans left on earth. We may one day see another species, Homo neanderthal, emerge again. Work being carried out by the Max Plank Institute and the US based 454 laboratory intend to sequence the three billion base neanderthal genome - in theory we could see an extinct hominid walk the earth again. How will another human affect our perception of ourselves?
|
|
|
Post by More to the point on Aug 9, 2006 11:47:15 GMT -5
Here is something to consider. We, Homo sapien sapien, are the last humans left on earth. We may one day see another species, Homo neanderthal, emerge again. Work being carried out by the Max Plank Institute and the US based 454 laboratory intend to sequence the three billion base neanderthal genome - in theory we could see an extinct hominid walk the earth again. How will another human affect our perception of ourselves? What will the effect of a new spcies of humans mean to the existing species? We will be at least as advanced as Homo neanderthal but how will we deal with Homo futurama when they can out think and out fight us and we all are reduced to the state of slaves and organ replacement donors! And will God like his new people better than the old dull ones that have been whining and confounding him for the last 2 million years?
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Aug 10, 2006 7:06:57 GMT -5
What I find interesting is that people create this almighty God figure, then retroactively assign credit for all goodness to it. Then people need something to assign credit for all the badness, so they invent Satan. However, by creating this second being, they are immediately usurping the supposed omnipotence of the God figure.
Then, as an epilogue to this, the progeny of those who made this load up get lost in their own sense of self-importance (as ascribed by their self-created God figure), and try to convince the rest of the world that heavy handed defence tactics are legitimate.
|
|
|
Post by Bert unlogged on Aug 10, 2006 8:04:04 GMT -5
jxr, you wrote "What I find interesting is that people create this almighty God figure" That's an opinion presented as a fact. and "get lost in their own sense of self-importance" Really? What has loving God got to do with self-importance? Bert
|
|
|
Post by Yahooo on Aug 10, 2006 9:00:08 GMT -5
Here is something to consider. We, Homo sapien sapien, are the last humans left on earth. We may one day see another species, Homo neanderthal, emerge again. Work being carried out by the Max Plank Institute and the US based 454 laboratory intend to sequence the three billion base neanderthal genome - in theory we could see an extinct hominid walk the earth again. How will another human affect our perception of ourselves? What will the effect of a new spcies of humans mean to the existing species? We will be at least as advanced as Homo neanderthal but how will we deal with Homo futurama when they can out think and out fight us and we all are reduced to the state of slaves and organ replacement donors! And will God like his new people better than the old dull ones that have been whining and confounding him for the last 2 million years? Yahoo--BENDER is comming to rule
|
|
|
Post by importance on Aug 11, 2006 7:55:16 GMT -5
jxr, you wrote "What I find interesting is that people create this almighty God figure"That's an opinion presented as a fact. and "get lost in their own sense of self-importance" Really? What has loving God got to do with self-importance? Bert To believe that humans are of such importance that we, spinning on a minute speck of rock around an insignificant star that is part of a non-noteworthy spiral arm galaxy in a universe of galaxies, would be of interest to an omniscient and omnipotent being that created the whole universe.
|
|
|
Post by biblr tells us so on Aug 11, 2006 8:06:07 GMT -5
The bible tells us so...Gods greatest work right now is on planet earth in all universe
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2006 8:06:46 GMT -5
To importance - I have no doubt that our size in the universe is of no significance to God, not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by Bible on Aug 11, 2006 8:25:09 GMT -5
The bible tells us so...Gods greatest work right now is on planet earth in all universe The Bible also tells us that at one time the earth stopped spinning and reversed. Do you believe that? Did you ever think that in a galaxy far, far away there might be another even greater Bible?
|
|
|
Post by importance on Aug 11, 2006 8:35:43 GMT -5
To importance - I have no doubt that our size in the universe is of no significance to God, not the other way around. I was adressing the point that by thinking that we are the best that God can make is a bit of hubris.
|
|
timber
Senior Member
Posts: 249
|
Post by timber on Aug 11, 2006 8:42:13 GMT -5
guest wrote: To believe that humans are of such importance that we, spinning on a minute speck of rock around an insignificant star that is part of a non-noteworthy spiral arm galaxy in a universe of galaxies, would be of interest to an omniscient and omnipotent being that created the whole universe.
Guest, I believe in might be interested in Deism or perhaps Agnosticism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2006 8:44:12 GMT -5
People will tell you, in all scientific seriousness, that miracles can't happen because everything conforms to natural laws. The problem here is that the bible suggests things happen outside of these laws, and also, we have no idea what these natural laws are.
Someone told me that "it is not possible to walk through a wall." And yet, our understanding of exra spacial dimensions suggests that it may be possible.
Science since the 1920's has understood that a lot of what we see is illusion. Reversing the planet? To do so would mean switching off angular momentum - momentum may simply be another illusion, just as time and mass are illusions.
|
|
|
Post by Come on on Aug 11, 2006 9:11:31 GMT -5
The problem here is that the bible suggests things happen outside of these laws, and also, we have no idea what these natural laws are. So does the Spiderman comic book. TThis is no sayingthey are the same but it is clear that the Bible has drawn from a wide variety of sources, many of which are myths. There is no suggestion that the existance of Calabi-Yau shapes or any of the many details of superstring theory will allow a human to walk through a wall. Any details onthese illusions? Momentum is only a calculation. You will have to support your claim that mass is an illusion. What about velocity? Also an illusion? [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by botany on Aug 11, 2006 11:14:10 GMT -5
Why do you question humans' superiority over everything else on earth? Humans are better because of having God on their side. How can other beings be better, or even close to the same level? *sigh* andy
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Aug 11, 2006 18:40:41 GMT -5
Why do you question humans' superiority over everything else on earth? Humans are better because of having God on their side. How can other beings be better, or even close to the same level? *sigh* andy Andy, These other beings: Have you met them? Have you communed with them? Have you enquired of their spiritual views? Just because homo sapien is the dominant and most invasive species on earth, does not justify our status before the creator. We are but one species in the biosphere. Are you sure that the creator has no interest in the other [n -1] species?
|
|
|
Post by Bert unlogged on Aug 12, 2006 8:51:25 GMT -5
Hi from Bert I have no idea about this "Calabi-Yau shapes" and I am not referring to "superstring theory" about higher spacial dimensions.
Mass is an illusion is provided, if I can recall, by studies into electron and muon masses, ie one is heavy, one is not, but both particles are otherwise identical. That property called "mass" may be mediated by the Higgs Boson.
Up and Down are now seen essentially as illusions. Einstein said much the same about time. The effect of gravity, Newton's "spooking action at a distance" also may be nothing more than the curvature of spacetime.
re the bible borrowing myths - maybe other cultures created myths around things recorded in the bible? Can God do such things as found in the bible? If not, can there be a God at all?
This is getting wildly off the subject...
|
|
|
Post by I see on Aug 12, 2006 10:09:45 GMT -5
Hi from Bert I have no idea about this "Calabi-Yau shapes" and I am not referring to "superstring theory" about higher spacial dimensions. This is the current thinking regarding multi-dimension space. What spacial concepts are you referring to? They do have the same charge. You are correct, the muon (mu meson) does have a mass that is 209 times the electron. But they are different particles. Different masses is just part of their characteristics. It is not unlike the proton and the neutron having about the same mass but one is uncharged. Mediated? First, it is a hypothetical, massive particle. Thought to have zero electric. It does not mediate but rather explains the mass of the elementary particles. Not illusions but rather relative to various frames of reference. Newton was was explaining gravity in terms that he had available. Einstein refined the work of Newton an broadened the theory. Large masses not only effect other masses they also effect the relative speed of light and in so doing effect the passage of time. But the other myths are found in cultures that existed prior to those recorded in the bible. Only by suspending the physical; laws of the universe. You will get no argument from me. doesn't it always!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2006 7:47:12 GMT -5
To I See I defer to your understanding of physics. Physics teaches us that we ought to be humble - the universe truely is weirder than we can imagine (reading last week about a star which orbits inside another star!)
And when people read the bible and say "that's impossible" I urge caution. A wonderful illustration of illusion is how the moon orbits the earth - seems it doesn't "orbit" but goes in a "straight line," only the line itself is curved. Illusions vs frames of reference - they can be one and the same.
re Can God do the miracles of the bible you wrote, "Only by suspending the physical; laws of the universe" It is possible that the erruption of a volcano on Thera was the basis for the plagues of Egypt, for example, a wholly natural event. The "omen" appearing over Jerusalem before AD 70 was Halley's comet. And so on.
But one point - so-called biblical myths which preceeded the biblical story. The classic here being Noah and Gilgamesh. The boffs say the bible "borrowed" the Epic Of Gilgamesh. It is possible they both come from a similar event.
|
|
|
Post by Careful on Aug 13, 2006 13:13:52 GMT -5
To I SeeI defer to your understanding of physics. Physics teaches us that we ought to be humble - the universe truely is weirder than we can imagine (reading last week about a star which orbits inside another star!) You need to read these reports with a little more care and try to gain a fuller understanding of how stars work. It is true that the second star was withing the 'envelope' of the first star, much as the earth will be within the 'envelope' of our own sun when it finally runs out of hydrogen, cools and expands to become a red giant. In this case the earth is within the envelope of the sun but not really within the sun, which at this time, would have a smaller core where the helium would be forming elements as heavy as carbon. Oddly enough, I urge caution when they read the bible and say some of the things are possible. I think we may be using different definitions of 'illusion'. An illusion is erroneous perception of reality. What you have described is not due to erroneous perception an error in conception by most people. You are correct - viewed from above the ecliptic, the moon does not circle the earth but rather weaves from side to side. However, to a person on the earth the moon appears to circle the earth just as the sun appears to rise and set. I do see what you are hinting at but rather than illusion I believe it is just viewing events from a different frame of reference. Agreed. And other examples are perhaps used for illustrative purposes. In either case - the original is older than the Bible. As far as other myths - there are many regarding virgin births and semi-divine offspring due to human/god mating.
|
|
Bert off the planet
Guest
|
Post by Bert off the planet on Aug 13, 2006 20:09:45 GMT -5
Hi to Origin re the origin is older than the bible - trouble is deciding how "old" the bible is. I don't accept current theories about the exile writing of the bible. Some sources can be proved as having been written well back in the bronze age. re the moon orbit. I might be wrong, but my understanding is that the moon can be seen as travelling in a strict, pure straight line through curved time space - not merely an illusion of the ecliptic or whatever. And, in a sense, the earth today is orbiting inside the sun's outer atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Aug 13, 2006 21:18:46 GMT -5
I don't accept current theories about the exile writing of the bible. Some sources can be proved as having been written well back in the bronze age. The first sentence seems quite convenient. As to the second, what proof is there that something was written during the bronze age?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2006 0:37:58 GMT -5
Hi Greg. Re writing of the bible done before the exile. Prue would say we should have "faith in the bible as God's word" and leave it at that. But what if this statement is not the common reference point? I have no proof of an older writing, but we have evidence - some of the Canaanite practices referred to in Genesis were not known to Israelites during Babylonian times. Some stupid people feel they can"prove" Moses didn't write Exodus because it records his death. Perhaps in exile the modern bible was compiled, but from ancient and respected sources.
|
|
|
Post by tough sell on Aug 14, 2006 0:46:15 GMT -5
I might be wrong, but my understanding is that the moon can be seen as travelling in a strict, pure straight line through curved time space - not merely an illusion of the ecliptic or whatever. And, in a sense, the earth today is orbiting inside the sun's outer atmosphere. A straight line in curved space? That makes little sense. The moon does travel around the sun so the straight line would be a difficult situation. No one said it was an illusion 'of the ecliptic'. I only said said that looking down on the ecliptic the path would be a wobbly circle. It is one relative view.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2006 1:00:23 GMT -5
There was this solar eclipse of a star if I recall. Prior to the eclipe the star "shifted" its position in space. As a result of this proof of the curavature of spacetime Einstein became a household name. Photons from that star would not have "known" they were being bent by the sun - they would simply have been following a "straight line." Out of interest - the Catholic church condemned those who believed that the earth went around the sun, and used verse to "prove" otherwise. In respect to the Catholics, they simply believed what was considered common sense, and common knowledge. But it is true that the sun "rises" and it is true that if you stand on the moon you can watch the earth orbiting around you. Just once on this board we can believe that some things are truely relative!
|
|
|
Post by Quite true on Aug 14, 2006 1:49:14 GMT -5
There was this solar eclipse of a star if I recall. Prior to the eclipe the star "shifted" its position in space. As a result of this proof of the curavature of spacetime Einstein became a household name. Photons from that star would not have "known" they were being bent by the sun - they would simply have been following a "straight line." I don't think this is quite true. Think of yourself driving a metal car. As you drive by the big magnet in the middle of the freeway the car is pulled towards the magnet. You feel the pull and the path of the car, if not corrected, is altered. The same is true of the photon. As it neared the sun it was attracted to the sun and changed its velocity. The change in velocity can be said to be due to the curvature of space-time or gravational attraction. Actually, it was fairly well known to a lot of people that the earth was not the center of the universe. And people did know that the earth moved. The church was just a little slow on the uptake. It was only in 1992 that the Catholic Church exonerated Galileo and admitted their findings had been wrong.
|
|