Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Bacteria Raises Concern
KDLT ^ | November 29, 2012 | Laura Monteverdi

Posted on 12/03/2012 1:31:48 AM PST by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-168 last
To: marron; Alamo-Girl; allmendream; tacticalogic; xzins; metmom; spirited irish; TXnMA; YHAOS; ...
Some people look at an apparently automatic process and see a self-directed system; others marvel at the formula and the principle that undergirds it, and the marvelous intelligence behind it all. The more they discover about the nuts and bolts of creation, the more I marvel.

I marvel too, dear brother in Christ!

I marvel "at the formula and the principle that undergirds it, and the marvelous intelligence behind it all" — which alone accounts for why Nature "constantly 'reconfigures' herself" in lawful ways.

Which answers one of Leibniz's two great questions, "Why are things the way they are, not some other way?"

His other great question was: "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?" The answer to this question is arguably entirely beyond the competence of science. That is, a methodology based on direct observation has no means to address this question in principle. For no one has ever seen "nothing," better put "no-thing." This concept indicates more than simple "absence" or "empty space"....

So, I'm glad for the work of the "nuts and bolts" guys of science. It seems they mainly engage in "the instrumentalization of Nature," and their work has produced amazing benefits for mankind — but also some amazing risks.

If Nature were "lawless," or random in her deportment, she would be immune from such "instrumentalization" by scientists. This seems to be the point that orthodox evolutionists are always trying to forget.

In conclusion, I entirely agree with your statement:

The "who" of creation is a settled issue for me. Once you know God that issue rather evaporates. The "why" of it I look forward to seeing unfold as eternity itself unfolds.

Amen!!!

Thank you so very much for your penetrating insights — May God ever bless you, dear brother in Christ!

161 posted on 12/11/2012 12:16:54 PM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
in lawful ways

Who's making the law that draws a "red line" in taxonomy that says "nothing can reconfigure itself beyond this line."

162 posted on 12/11/2012 12:24:41 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; marron; joanie-f; xzins; allmendream
Who's making the law that draws a "red line" in taxonomy that says "nothing can reconfigure itself beyond this line."

Why, GOD IS the lawgiver here, dear tacticalogic. Where else did you think universal law could possibly come from?

Or do you believe that "finite man" creates universal law? Methinks he only discovers it. Universal law exists quite independently of human desire and will. And man is inescapably subject to it.

One can only "opt out of it", in the unreality of "one's dreams."

FWIW.

163 posted on 12/11/2012 2:12:59 PM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Where is this "law" that says an organism can adapt to it's environment, but cannot cross that line we've created that says it is a new species? Everybody agrees adaptation happens. It only falls into disagreement when it's submitted that adaptation can manifest itself in a way that makes an organism cross that line that makes them a new species. That's our taxonomy, not God's.
164 posted on 12/11/2012 2:22:26 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: marron; betty boop
marron, you are an unfailing blessing.
165 posted on 12/12/2012 11:57:55 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Or do you believe that "finite man" creates universal law? Methinks he only discovers it. Universal law exists quite independently of human desire and will. And man is inescapably subject to it.

SO very true, dearest sister in Christ!

Another example: geometric form, e.g. circles, exist and the geometer merely comes along and discovers it.

166 posted on 12/14/2012 9:57:56 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; TXnMA
Another example: geometric form, e.g. circles, exist and the geometer merely comes along and discovers it.

This would be the view of the mathematical Platonist (e.g., Einstein, Tegmark), in contradistinction to the view of the mathematical Formalist (e.g., Hilbert, Russell).

If I had to describe the principal difference between these two foundational mathematical "philosophies": Mathematical Platonism assumes the nature of universal reality is "given," and explores it on such terms. Mathematical Formalism assumes there is nothing "given"; that man creates the reality he explores as he goes along, via abstract methods.

Which usually don't work. See: Hilbert's attempt to reduce mathematical language to its syntactical elements only, in the attempt to remove all semantical elements by reducing them to syntactical structures.

To put it another way, both Hilbert and the great Bertrand Russell found axiomatic expressions perfect examples of "circular reasoning" — detestable impredicativities that could not be expressed at all in "yes/no," "true/false," "0/1" mathematical language. In Hilbert's formalism, they needed to find a way of expression in purely syntactical terms.

But then Kurt Gödel showed up, and demonstrated the sheer logical impossibility of trying to remove semantics by re-expressing them in terms of syntax only.

[Syntax refers to the rules of the road (so to speak) of any given language, preeminently including the universal language of mathematics; semantics carries meaning in any given language, the successful communication of which is highly dependent on there being agreed-upon "rules-of-the-road."]

It seems to me Platonists take the "long view" of the universe: They see it as something they are born into and depart from, in due course. It is what it is before they got here; and will be the same after they depart. In short, they recognize themselves as parts and participants in a vast cosmic enterprise.

On the other hand, for the Formalists, it seems the universe didn't begin until the day they were born, and will be extinguished on the day that they die. They don't consider themselves as "parts and participants" of it, but as the very lawgivers that determine and run it, via their sui-generis "creative" acts....

Looks to me like the birthplace of a Second Reality.... FWIW.

Thank you so very much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!

167 posted on 12/15/2012 11:59:04 AM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
It seems to me Platonists take the "long view" of the universe: They see it as something they are born into and depart from, in due course. It is what it is before they got here; and will be the same after they depart. In short, they recognize themselves as parts and participants in a vast cosmic enterprise.

On the other hand, for the Formalists, it seems the universe didn't begin until the day they were born, and will be extinguished on the day that they die. They don't consider themselves as "parts and participants" of it, but as the very lawgivers that determine and run it, via their sui-generis "creative" acts....

I couldn't agree with you more, dearest sister in Christ!

Looks to me like the birthplace of a Second Reality.... FWIW.

And I believe you just hit the nail on the head. The popularity of second realities may likely have sprung from man's desire to be his own "god."

168 posted on 12/15/2012 8:33:29 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-168 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson