Guest guest Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 Interesting, Deanna. Thanks! > > > , > > > > > I've been thinking some more on this and some of your other posts, > > > and have some new questions (lucky you . In your opinion, would it > > > be correct to say that the natural laws themselves appear inherently > > > non-random and purposeful? > > > > The natural laws are self-evidently decidedly non-random. > > [snip] > > > > > Whether this is " purposeful " or not is more of a matter of guess or faith. > > Yes, the laws of physics demonstrate predictable order. However, the > entropy of the universe is always increasing <g>. The arrow of time is > a consideration here. Interestingly, temporal direction is not > demonstrated in the laws of nature, yet we see time marching on in one > distinct direction. But this is a big tangent I won't address unless > pressed. > > As to whether this has purpose, ABSOLUTELY! All of our technologies are > based on the laws of nature. We saw pictures of the earth from the moon > because of the non random and very useful laws that we could use to this > purpose. Very many examples exist, of course. All technologies are the > result of manipulating the laws of nature (even if the laws used weren't > know about when the technology was developed). > > If you are looking for God in this order (not , Chris), you > would not be alone. I think God can most easily be found in > mathematics. Math is the language of science, and many observations > come solely from the possibilities that math presents. Black holes are > a prime example. Once we theoretical saw the possibilities, we started > looking for them. > > An aside: You know, when the age of the universe comes up, I am always > astounded that some Young Earth Creationists question the big bang > theory. For you see, even Einstein resisted the notion of a beginning. > He saw God as the Great Mathematician, not some Creator. So when the > evidence of an inflationary universe (see Hubble's Law) basically showed > that there was a " In the Beginning, " this hammered a nail in the coffin > of the then popular steady state theory of things always being as they > are in the cosmos. Does anyone know why some Creationists dispute the > big bang? > > > > Related to that, I also wanted to run by you another area under the > > > ID umbrella and see how you'd characterize it. I saw a documentary > > > called The Privileged Planet (based on the book Rare Earth) and it > > > basically challenges the conclusions of Carl Sagan in his book Pale > > > Blue Dot that there are likely tons of Earth-like planets out there > > > (I honestly don't know much about Sagan except he was an atheist who > > > gets a lot of face time on the Discovery Channel). > > Carl Sagan was a highly distinguished astronomer and astrophysicist. > His books are pretty religiously charged, which may be why the ID > community doesn't like him. > > > Anyhow, in this > > > documentary they assert that the universe is largely very hostile to > > > life, especially terrestrial life, and delve into the numerous > > > variables that all had to converge for Earth to sustain complex life- > > > being within the narrow hospitable zones of the galaxy and solar > > > system, planet of the right size and composition, right size moon, > > > type of sun, type of atmosphere, etc, etc. Then they take it one > > > step further and make the observation that the very conditions that > > > make a planet habitable coincidentally (or not) also make it ideal > > > for observing the universe and making scientific discoveries, which > > > some believe implies purpose. > > The arguments presented in the movie are fallacious beyond belief. I > haven't time to go through them one by one, as much as I would love to. > First off, the universe is largely unexplored, so how in the world can > anyone conclude it is largely hostile to life? But like Sagan said, > their are billions and billions of stars in the Milky Way alone, and > there are billions and billions of galaxies- the estimate I saw recently > was 7 x 10^22 stars > (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/star_count_030722.html). Our > star is a pretty common main sequence star also. The universe is > billions of years old, and stars are created and destroyed regularly. > We have only the slightest observational ability due to our limited > lifespan. We aren't somehow privileged in this respect! In fact, we > become more privileged leaving the planet to observe! > > Here is a Christian physicist's rebuttal of the design inference made in > The Privileged Planet. > http://www.ps.uci.edu/~kuehn/personal/asa2003.ppt > In the book _Life Everywhere_, astronomer Darling rebutted the > Rare-Earth arguments one-by-one. Lastly, NASA has information on just > what conditions we have found life thriving, and they are pretty variable: > http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/overview.html > > As for purpose and significance, it is up to the individual to find > those meanings in life. I highly recommend that you study the science > behind these ideas, . You are asking great questions. Seek, and > you shall find. > > > Deanna > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.