james1010

alright, Justin, one or two more then I really gotta get some work done or I'll never get out of here. Here we go: As far as the laws or processes of the physical universe are concerned, these all devolve upon two extremely broad and powerful principles, the so-called first and second Laws of thermodynamics. Let it be emphasized that, if there is really such a thing as a law of science, these two principles meet that definition. There is no other scientific law supported more fully and certainly by more numerous and meaningful lines of evidence than are these two laws. All physical processes (and all biologic processes, for that matter) involve the interplay of two basic entities called energy and entropy. One could say that any event occurring in space and time is a manifestation of some form of exchange of energy. The particular event or process basically is just this transformation of one or more forms of energy (kinetic or motion energy, electrical, chemical, light, heat, sound, electromagnetic, nuclear, or other forms of energy) into one or more other forms. In this process, the total energy remains unchanged; no energy is either created or destroyed, although its form may and does change. This is the first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy. This law has been validated on both the cosmic and sub-nuclear scales and is a truly universal law, if there is such a thing. And, since energy really includes everything, even matter, in the physical universe, it is as certain as anything can possibly be, scientifically, that no creation of anything is now taking place in the universe, under the normal conditions which science is able to study. But in the process, some of the energy is always transformed into non-usable heat energy, and thus becomes unavailable for future energy exchanges. The concept of entropy has been developed to describe this phenomenon, entropy being a measure of the unavailability of the energy of the system or process. The second law of thermodynamics describes this by stating that there is always a tendency for the entropy of any closed system to increase. Or, in more general terms, the second law states that there is always a tendency for any system to become less organized. Its disorder or randomness tends to increase. If isolated from external sources of order or energy or "information," any system will eventually run down and "die." These laws are basic in every scientific system or process. As far as science has been able to show, they are universal in scope, with no exceptions known. They were only discovered and validated by science, however, about a hundred years ago, after much uncertainty and controversy. If men had been willing to develop their scientific systems on the basis of Biblical presuppositions, however, it should have been quite obvious all along that the basic physical processes were those of conservation and decay, as now formalized in the statements of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The Bible does not, of course, state these principles in the mathematical symbols or technical jargon of modern physics but the basic truths are quite clearly enunciated. The conservation principle is strongly emphasized in the summary statement at the end of the period of creation, when the Bible says: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his works which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Genesis 2:13; italics added). This statement is as clear as it could possibly be in teaching that God's creative acts were terminated at the end of the six days. Whatever processes He may have used in creating and making, all His work ceased when God rested on the seventh day. Nothing is now being created and this is what was finally formalized by science in the first law of thermodynamics. The most significant implication of this fact, for modern philosophers, is that it is therefore quite impossible to determine anything about certain creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wishes to know anything at all about creation time of creation, the duration of creation, the order of creation, the methods of creation, or anything else his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there, and there is nothing in present physical processes which can tell us about it. Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the SCIENCE of creation! more to come . . .

Read the post again, perhaps a bit slower, I was suggesting that present scientific and physical processes can be extrapolated from the Bible and should be. The point is that you don't have to shoehorn anything . . . jeez!

Pretty cool, be interesting to hear what comes of it. BTW, I use Quark Xpress at work everyday . . always wondered where that word came from. James

Justin, one more thing (maybe), "Science" (the very meaning of which is knowledge) necessarily can deal only with those things which exist at present. The scientific method involves reproducibility, the study of present natural processes. When we attempt to interpret the events of the prehistoric past or the future, we must necessarily leave the domain of true science (whose measurements can be made only in the present) and enter the realm of faith. This faith may be in the doctrine of uniformity, which assumes that the present processes may be extrapolated indefinitely into the past or future and that therefore all things continue as they were from the beginning. If one, because of his basic presupposition, wishes to believe in uniformity in this way, it is logically possible for him to do so and to explain all the pertinent data in this context. He can determine the ages of rocks and suns by projecting present rates of change into the limitless past; he can develop theories about the evolution of species and life and galaxies and chemical elements and everything in the universe, if he wishes, and no one can prove him wrong, for the simple reason that these events are not reproducible and therefore not subject to scientific checking. The most that can be done is to argue that his theories are either probable or improbable on the premise of his own uniformitarian presupposition, depending upon the logical consistency of the structure he has erected upon this foundation. But this is all within the context of his pure assumption. One can equally logically start with some other assumption and then develop his explanations of the data within that framework. For example, let's say that all things in the universe were created by divine fiat five minutes ago. We could say that our apparent memories of earlier events were also created five minutes ago, and once again, no one could prove us wrong. We have logically explained all the data that exist, given our initial premise. As a matter of fact, one could assume, if he wishes, that all existence is illusory, a disease of mortal mind. The point I'm trying to make, Justin, is that one may pretty well believe what he wants to believe. He can erect a logical system within which he can explain all the physical data upon any one of any number of mutually exclusive and contradictory premises. But I'm concerned here mainly with the Biblical framework, and with the assumption that the Bible is truly the Word of God as it claims to be. If one starts with the presupposition that God has written the Bible as His own perfect revelation of the origin, purpose, and destiny of the world, then it again is perfectly possible to correlate all the physical data of science and history within that framework. The decision as to which framework leads to the most logical and self-consistent system of interpretation must necessarily be based on statistical arguments, and these are notoriously subjective in nature. Thus, in the last analysis, it is a spiritual and moral decision rather than a scientific decision. One can interpret everything in terms of Biblical creationism and catastrophism or in terms of evolutionary uniformitarianism, and all the pertinent data can be understood, (at least in broad outline), within the framework of either system. My concern here is simply to show you that the Bible does provide a perfectly sound basis for understanding not only religious truth but also physical processes. It may very effectively serve as a "textbook" of scientific principles within which we can satisfactorily explain all the data of science and history. Whether or not we choose to accept this framework is basically determined by whether or not we want to. Those who elect the evolutionary framework do so not because the facts of science require this, but because this is the philosophic thought-structure they desire. James

Justin, Those are truly my beliefs, not to the falwell/robertson extreme, but beliefs nonetheless. I respect your beliefs as well, and wouldn't dream of imposing anything on anyone, I'm just presenting evidences that speak to me in one way and you, obviously, in another. Nice rebuttal, BTW James

" While St. Thomas was considered a very great thinker in his time, I do not accept his (in my opinion) fallacious arguments as proof of anything. " I agree he's full of garb, allow me to try something a bit simpler and down to earth: For example, consider the humanly incredible words of the Lord Jesus in the following prophecy. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). The same claim was also recorded by two other gospel writers (Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). It would be hard to miss! But how could any mere man (if that's all He was) ever make such an outlandish prophecy? He must have been either mad or a king-sized deceiver! As far as human credentials were concerned, He seemingly had none. His supposed father was an ordinary carpenter, he had no formal education and had never held any kind of office; He had written no books or any other writings, so far as we know. He lived in the despised village of Nazareth and had never traveled to other lands. He had a few disciples, but they also were unlearned and unimpressive, and the political and religious leaders of the nation were plotting to silence Him before He could recruit any others. It seems absurd for such a man as this Jesus, from Nazareth, to presume to claim that His teachings would survive His own short life-span, let alone outlast heaven and earth. But His words have, indeed, endured for well over nineteen centuries, and they are now known and taught all over the world. This is nothing less than an amazingly fulfilled prophecy. The earth is still here, of course, but looking more fragile every day, and there is no doubt remaining that the words of Christ will last at least as long as the earth remains. The very fact of the life and teachings of this man called Jesus as recorded not only in the Bible, but by secular historians as well, is proof enough for me . . . He couldn't have been just a man. James

That idea has always plagued me, I just don't understand it, either. James

Justin, The insights provided by cloning technology destroy the scientific and legal basis of distinguishing a preembryo from an embryo, the popular distinction made at 14 days after conception. This is significant because this distinction determines the handling and treatment of human life LESS THAN 14 days old, which is so basic to all ESCR. In short, our understanding of embryonic development as provided by cloning technology could force not only those who participate in ESCR specifically, but also those who participate in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures generally, to recognize there is no real preembryo—embryo distinction and that all human life begins at conception. Therefore, as a nation, we should rightly adjust the moral and legal treatment and status of all embryos to people not property from the point of conception. BTW, thanks Quade for opening this killer thread, debate is a healthy thing. James

" Oops, did I bring up abortion? Sorry... these issues overlap so much..." Don't be sorry, Marc, it has to be brought up. Abortionists biggest argument is when life begins . . the only and I mean ONLY good thing about the embryonic stem cell debate is that it proves life DOES begin at conception. Abortion advocates hate that part, cause now more than ever the morality and right to life issue has to be reevaluated. James

" Who outside of that family stood to be harmed in any way? " No one in that situation, except ofcourse the other fourteen embryos. Awful touchy subject right now, I'm just concerned that no lines will be drawn . . .Ah, technology, you gotta love it! (i think) James

Let the discussion continue . . . came across this brief article on EMBRYONIC stem cell research, scary stuff: The un-programmed cells of an early embryo are derailed from their natural course of development and coaxed through chemical manipulation to become very specific tissue types that will be used to treat the unhealthy or diseased tissue of those already born. Opponents of funding ESCR have argued vehemently against this stark utilitarian treatment of human life, unfortunately with little effect. Regarding the justification that the embryos "left over" in IVF clinics (reportedly >300,000 in the US alone) will simply be discarded anyway, reflects a chilling absence of moral conscience. We do not consider it appropriate to take organs from dying patients or prisoners on death row before they have died in order to increase someone else's chances for healing or cure. Neither, then, should we consider any embryos "spare" so that we may destroy them for their stem cells. How far down this road have we already come? Consider the story of Adam and Molly Nash. Molly was diagnosed with Fanconi anemiaa hereditary and always fatal disease. Doctors determined that the best hope for Molly was a cell transplant from a relative whose cells matched Molly's, but without anemia. So Molly's parents produced fifteen embryos by IVF, only one of which had the right genetic material. It was implanted in Mrs. Nash who gave birth to Adam. Adam's stem cells were taken from his umbilical cord and implanted in his sister. Despite all the success of the treatment and the medical justification, the fact remains that Adam was conceived, not just to be a son, but a medical treatment. Adam was a meansvaluable only insofar as he carried the right genetic material. If he hadn't, he would have been rejectedlike the other fourteen discarded embryos. The undeniable conclusion is that we are growing humans for body parts. Whaddaya think of that? James

What do gay termites eat? woodpeckers!

They'd go freakin nuts . . . . destination??

50% I appear to be a softy. Ofcourse some of the questions didn't offer a good response . . had to choose the closest . . unfortunately the Mid-Cities between Dallas & Ft. Worth is a terrible place to drive so I can get pretty edgy.

My humble opinion . . . sounds like she's stringing you along. It's easy to say and hard to do, but you should wish her well and send her on her way . . continue with your life. You mentioned you contacted her family . . that's the best you can do. Ofcourse, the heart is a funny thing and only you know what's really in there. LOL James

" The debate itself is healthy, " I agree with you, Justin, debate can be alot of fun, too. Unfortunately alot of times it gets some folks downright steamed, especially if it concerns liberal vs. conservative. . that's not healthy. I enjoy a good debate and expressing my views, but I don't think any less of those who don't share it, especially in this community. . I was just telling my wife (whuffo) that skydivers are the most full of life people you'll ever meet and the comradery among them is astounding, even with those you've never met . . that's one of the big things that's pulling me further into this sport . . . but I guess that's another thread. James

" Simply having biological functions isn't normally how we define death. Why would we use that same criteria for defining life?" WWWHHHAAATTT???? . . . . life and death are opposites, they don't share the same criteria . . . . amazingly strange statement. Anyway, Quade, I didn't mean to start a creation/evolution debate yesterday, but since so many decided to respond I feel led to give just one more reply . . . Evolution is a theory, it cannot be tested, it's not happening today, the fossil record shows no transitional forms, and the second LAW of thermodynamics dissproves it . . complex systems do not arise out of chaos or by chance . . all complexity in this world stems from design . . name one that does not. Anyway, back to Bush . . I agree with you, Quade, on the advantages of ADULT stem cell research, but not embyonic, and Bush should draw the line there . . not shutting down all research . . he's wrong on that. BTW, promise I'll hush about the creation/evolution thing. SKYDIVE!!!!!

"I'm sure profits from this type of research will be staggering" Very true . . . morals are always traded for profits.

"Bush is trying to tie his personal religious beliefs about the start of human life into this" That's kinda what you're doing. You may not use the word 'religious', but if you don't accept creation then you must accept evolution, which is nothing more than a belief system itself that requires faith because it too is an unprovable theory. Don't let the fact that it's allowed in schools fool you . . . this is gonna turn into an awesome thread, I can see it comin . .

"Life is a creation, not a commodity." That pretty much sums it up . . I mean, give me a break, there has to be a line you can't cross. Just my view . . . awful touchy subject. James

The Bible has a good one on that topic: PRO 17:28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

You make a great point . . but you're trying a little too hard to drive it home to those who already know. Just rest assured that I am aware of the danger (ie: things do and will go wrong), but I'm equally aware of the safety (ie: great training, equipment, continued risk awareness). The increased safety over the past twenty or so years is not widely known . . . that's all I'm saying. Blue Skies and Safe Dives, James

" Because in a year _most_ skydivers don't die, doesn't make this sport any less dangerous, that is a testament to the advanced training and gear that we now enjoy." er . . umm . . advanced training and gear make the sport alot less dangerous, I'm pretty sure that's the reason for ongoing advances . . to reduce the risk and make the sport safer and therefore more enjoyable. Sorry to strike a cord with you, but my view of skydiving doesn't cause me to be any less aware of the risk. I know impacting the ground at 120 will kill you, but I also KNOW the chances of that happening are slim, especially with excellent training and gear.

Well said!

" if you listen to the class and do the stuff we tell you to do, you have a really good chance of having no problems." My original point exactly . . that and the FACT that most people do not realize that. So why can't you promote the sport as safe yet somewhat risky? Isn't that exactly what the USPA has been doing for years? Just want your thoughts, don't beat me up. James