Creationists take heed

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


(Exodus 34:12 to 34:26, King James version):

"Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods."

Tell me how I interpret that a different way that doesn't make it amount to horrendous religious bigotry?

I don't see how you can interpret God's commands to the Israelites to slaughter thousands in the name of their moral bigotry ("They are different, kill them")

Look, I'm not saying all religious people would believe this by any means, but if one is (as I stipulated) a fundamentalist who believes the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant, then I don't see how one cannot be a religious and moral bigot, as it explicitly commands people to be such. If you're not, then you're not following the Bible to the letter (which suits me just fine).

Matthew 5:25
Agree thou with thy adversary quickly, whiles though are in a way with him; lest at anytime the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison.

Matthew 5:43 - 45
Ye have heard it hath been said. Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you Love thy enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you.
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the unjust and the just.



DIg it.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava

Don't laugh at me when I make a really ironic statement...

[Sava]

Originally posted by Fez


Don't laugh at me when I make a really ironic statement...

It wasn't ironic, it was comical because 'Poly is hardly a bastion of logic and fact.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


*snip* Most people who use the Bible to support their bigoted views make the grave error of ripping a few phrases out of their context. *snip*

I wonder who that applies to here???

[Cruddy]

Dr S, you quotes do represent progress of a sort - we no longer nail people to trees who suggest we edit the Bible (amongst any other crimes they may be accused of).

I have faimily who are Creationists, and I certainly would not deprive them of the comfot and security they gain from there beliefs. I don't agree with them, but it's not a point of dispute.

[BustaMike]

Well I am happy to learn that the second law of thermodynamics does not exist anymore. I learn something new here everyday. It is amazing that atheists will go to such extremes to deny deterioriation.

What does that have to do with anything? Do I have to go quoting MC Hawking again? "The second law is quite specific about where it applies, only in a closed system must the entropy count rise." Now we've learned that the second law also does not apply when a system gets small enough. This hardly disproves the second law, it just adds a condition.

Personally, I think Einstein is wrong in his claim that the speed of light is an impassible barrier.

I won't call you stupid, but I will call you naive. Relativity states that as you speed up, times slows down for you relative to objects at rest. This has been demonstrated by syncronizing two atomic clocks, leaving one in place, and flying the other at 600 mph around the world. When the plane returned, the clock in the plane had lost time... it was slower. Both Enstein's theories and empirical data show that time continues to slow until you reach the speed of light, at which point time will stop completely. Since you cannot accelerate if time isn't moving there's no going any faster. To be more accurate, you can't accelerate to the speed of light at all, you can only get infinitely close to hitting it

[Sava]

I won't call you stupid, but I will call you naive. Relativity states that as you speed up, times slows down for you relative to objects at rest. This has been demonstrated by syncronizing two atomic clocks, leaving one in place, and flying the other at 600 mph around the world. When the plane returned, the clock in the plane had lost time... it was slower. Both Enstein's theories and empirical data show that time continues to slow until you reach the speed of light, at which point time will stop completely. Since you cannot accelerate if time isn't moving there's no going any faster. To be more accurate, you can't accelerate to the speed of light at all, you can only get infinitely close to hitting it.

I'm not discounting the correlation between speed and time. I'm sure there is some difference. I just simply don't believe that's the limit. I also don't think light travels at a constant speed. Is it possible that the increase in G forces due to the acceleration in the atomic clock experiment affected the results? If so, that experiment cannot be effectively relied upon. I don't think it's prudent to rely on an experiment involving 600mph to predict what happens near or at the speed of light.

Einstein was a brilliant man, no doubt, but the brightest minds throughout history aren't perfect.

[BustaMike]

Lol, this is kind of funny. Your reasoning is almost identical to the reasoning of a creationist, whom we both would say it wrong. "Well theres evidence this way... but I just don't believe it."

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Lincoln


I wonder who that applies to here???

I dunno, got any suggestions?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Well I am happy to learn that the second law of thermodynamics does not exist anymore. I learn something new here everyday. It is amazing that atheists will go to such extremes to deny deterioriation. I guess we are all just getting younger and younger!

The point is that the second law of thermodynamics only refers to the energy dynamics of a system, not its structure. There are beaucoup de examples in nature where an increase in structural organization occurs simultaneously with entropy. Take crystalization for instance. Take the growth of any biological entity for instance. If one supposes that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, then so does life!

[Sava]

Originally posted by BustaMike
Lol, this is kind of funny. Your reasoning is almost identical to the reasoning of a creationist, whom we both would say it wrong. "Well theres evidence this way... but I just don't believe it."

Not quite... I accept the evidence, and am simply citing we can be sure the results fit for the level of the experiment. I do think time slows down to a certain extent with speed... but I also think things can go faster than light. Human knowledge of high-level physics is still very young. I doubt very much we've got all the answers.

Am I flat out preaching that all should believe Einstein is wrong? No! But you seem to be equating my opinions to this, and you are wrong for doing so. In fact, I'm preaching the opposite. I'm saying we should be open minded and not take things as absolute fact. The day I believe the Speed of Light is the absolute limit is when we try to reach it with a sizable craft or probe. Doing experiments with atomic particles in a particle accelerator is fine and dandy, but I don't think that we should generalize the results to encompass everything.

Plus, the modern experiments and such support Einstein, they don't prove him.

[Elok]

"Creationistical"...
And now "truthicide"?

Make the madness stop, people. Sheesh.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


The point is that the second law of thermodynamics only refers to the energy dynamics of a system, not its structure. There are beaucoup de examples in nature where an increase in structural organization occurs simultaneously with entropy. Take crystalization for instance. Take the growth of any biological entity for instance. If one supposes that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, then so does life!

I for one, do not believe that evolution violates any law including the second law of thermodynamics. The whole idea that some creationists put forth, that order cannot arise in nature is almost as absurd as the belief of some that the laws of physics can produce specified information without intelligent input.

My only argument here is that the second law of thermodynamics has not been overturned and that deterioriation in nature is still a fact. There is no magical law of physics that allows for the creation of the information-based machinery of life. BTW, the posted article does not claim that there is, so I wonder why UR titled this thread the way he did. This is certainly no threat to intelligent design.

[Kuciwalker]

Where did God come from then? He is "specified information without intelligent input". Belief that there must be an ultimate creator is a paradox.

[Lincoln]

How do you figure that God is not intelligent? And it is a paradox, but that does not make it false.

[Cruddy]

Off topic skywalker - but it's not a bad idea for a poll.

Belief without "proof" is illogical. Unfortunately, "proof" is a rare commodity - evidence is all around, but determing its significance depends on one's beliefs.

A truly circular argument. Flawed though.

[Lincoln]

Has anyone ever heard of "Maxwells paradox"?

[Lincoln]

Since I am bored today, here is the essential problem:

quote:

The program to re-investigate the fundamental principles of physics from the standpoint of information theory is still in its infancy. However, it already appears to be highly fruitful, and it is this ambitious program that is summarized here.

Historically, the concept of information in physics does not have a clear-cut origin. An important thread can be traced if we consider the paradox of Maxwell's demon of 1871.

Recall that Maxwell's demon is a creature that opens and closes a trap door between two compartments of a chamber containing gas, and pursues the subversive policy of only opening the door when fast molecules approach it from the right, or slow ones from the left. In this way the demon establishes a temperature difference between the two compartments without doing any work, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics, and consequently permitting a host of contradictions.

In this illustration the demon sets up a pressure difference by only raising the partition when more gas molecules approach it from the left than from the right. This can be done in a completely reversible manner, as long as the demon's memory stores the random results of its observations of the molecules. The demon's memory thus gets hotter. The irreversible step is not the acquisition of information, but the loss of information if the demon later clears its memory.

A number of attempts were made to exorcise Maxwell's demon, such as arguments that the demon cannot gather information without doing work, or without disturbing (and thus heating) the gas, both of which are untrue. Some were tempted to propose that the 2nd law of thermodynamics could indeed be violated by the actions of an "intelligent being.'' It was not until 1929 that Leo Szilard made progress by reducing the problem to its essential components in which, the demon need merely identify whether a single molecule is to the right or left of a sliding partition, and its action allows a simple heat engine, called Szilard's engine, to be run. Szilard still had not solved the problem, since his analysis was unclear about whether or not the act of measurement, whereby the demon learns whether the molecule is to the left or the right, must involve an increase in entropy.

[Dr Strangelove]

Uhhhh, If this engine doesn't exist then what's the problem? It's a fantasy!

[Lincoln]

So are you ready for the solution?

[Lincoln]

Have to go for now. Here is the solution:

quote:

...A definitive and clear answer was not forthcoming, surprisingly, until a further fifty years had passed. In the intermediate years digital computers were developed, and the physical implications of information gathering and processing were carefully considered. The thermodynamic costs of elementary information manipulations were analyzed by Landauer and others during the 1960s (Landauer 1961, Keyes and Landauer 1970), and those of general computations by Bennett, Fredkin, Toffoli and others during the 1970s. It was found that almost anything could in principle be done in a reversible manner, i.e. with no entropy cost at all. Bennett (1982) made explicit the relation between this work and Maxwell's paradox by proposing that the demon can indeed learn where the molecule is in Szilard's engine without doing any work or increasing any entropy in the environment, and so obtain useful work during one stroke of the engine.

However, the information about the molecule's location must then be present in the demon's memory. As more and more strokes are performed, more and more information gathers in the demon's memory. To complete a thermodynamic cycle, the demon must erase its memory, and it is during this erasure operation that we identify an increase in entropy in the environment, as required by the 2nd law. This completes the essential physics of Maxwell's demon.

Classical information theory is founded on the definition of information. A warning is in order here. Whereas the theory tries to capture much of the normal meaning of the term "information", it can no more do justice to the full richness of that term in everyday language than particle physics can encapsulate the everyday meaning of "charm". "Information" for us will be an abstract term. Much of information theory dates back to seminal work of Shannon in the 1940's (Slepian 1974)...

[Dauphin]

I don't see why Maxwell's gremlin requires a memory at all. When a sliding door opens or closes by sensory input it has no memory of the event, it merely reacts.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lincoln
How do you figure that God is not intelligent? And it is a paradox, but that does not make it false.

That is if there is a god which I doubt.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln


I guess you have never read where Jesus said to forgive the woman rather than stone her to death. And you apparently do not understand that Jesus said to turn the other cheek when offended. And I suppose that you do not undesrtand that the New Testament teaches that "mercy rejoices over judgment" or that we are under "the law of grace" now because of the death and resurection of Jesus. No, Chrisitans are not bigots if they believe what Jesus said.

IIRC, he doesn't tell them to forgive the woman, but just says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." That's neither here nor there, however.

The New Testament says a lot of things, certainly, and not all of them consistent.

Since mercy rejoices over judgement, what about the mercy that is going to be shown to those non-Christians after death? Oh wait, they get cast into Hell for eternity. How merciful!

Jesus himself practiced bigotry with the Caananite woman (if you called someone a dog because of their ethnic background, wouldn't that make you a bigot?). He also tells his disciples to only go out and do good deeds among the Jews (Matthew 10:5), not the gentiles. Non-Jews weren't worthy of healing, cleansing etc., and this was after the Good Samaritan!

If Jesus himself was a bigot, and his adherents should follow his example, what else should one conclude?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I don't see why Maxwell's gremlin requires a memory at all. When a sliding door opens or closes by sensory input it has no memory of the event, it merely reacts.

I guess that is one reason why they call it information theory. The so-called proof was found in the computer age because of the storage of information. Erase your hard drive and see what happens.

[Lincoln]

Boris, you still take passages out of the context of the whole. Jesus called Peter "Satan" and he was a Jew. He also called some of his followers "fools". He does not single out the gentiles for reproach in fact he calls all people sinners. If you read his teachings carefully you will find that his main objection is toward hypocrites.

And no where does it say that only Christians go to heaven, nor does it say that all that call themselves Christian escape condemnation. He is an equal opportunity saviour.

And there is no way that you can call the true followers of the teachings of Jesus "bigots." He even instructed us to love our enemies.

[Cruddy]

Lincoln - I've lost the thread, but I beleive that you said something along the line of "those that BELIEVE what Jesus said are not bigots".

Had you said something along the lines of "Those that PRACTICE what Jesus taught are not bigots" I would have agreed with you, in so far as loving your God and your neighbour goes.

The problem a lot of your mockers have is with those people who describe themselves as Christian but who do neither of these things.

[Lincoln]

Well I agree with you. Jesus didn't care for hypocrites either.

[cinch]

Skywalker:

The Universe isn't "expanding into something". When they say the Universe is expanding, it can mean two things - in an infinite universe, that the distance between any two points has increased, and in a curved (spherical, torus, etc.) universe, that the circumference has increased. You are trying to picture yourself looking down on the Universe, which is again impossible because there is nothing outside the Universe. Picture it from inside the Universe, especially from inside a curved Universe, and it makes sense.

I'd like to see your answer to GePap's main question: What would you see/encounter if you were able to catch up to the outermost expanding particles of the universe? I suppose you could never 'catch them', as one could never reach the speed of light, only approach it... But could you look beyond it, if you became infinitely close to 'c'?

On second thought... It'd probably just be black, eh?

Oi, existence...

[Cruddy]

Living that close to a propogating causality effect would probably be a major health hazard.

You probably wouldn't "see" anything before you popped your clogs.