Life From Dirt?

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, faith is a nice psychological trick for training yourself to see things in a certain way and that can have certain psychological benefits. But, even in saying that the value is that it works, the question is what it works to do. Does it help to make me happier or to help me find the truth?

You see,I am interested in the truth, whether or not it makes me happy or more productive. I am interested in the truth whether or not it makes me rich.

And that means I am not interested in psychological tricks that amount to self-deception.

I would agree that the pursuit of truth is a noble aspiration, seemingly endemic to our nature as thinking creatures. Truth is elusive, and for that matter so is a working definition of the word. We are inevitably led to the question Pontius Pilate asked in John’s Gospel; “What is truth?

Factual accuracy is only one form of truth, and even where this is seemingly established there is almost always room for doubt; and where there is doubt, there is contention. This is as true among scientists as it is among philosophers and theologians, as I’m sure you will recognise. Laws of science and of nature give us approximations of reality, but do they tell us facts about the world? It would be contentious to state that they do; we know that Newton’s Laws of Motion tell us something we may call real about objects and forces, and we know this because they work. We also know that they have limitations. They are not “true” in any enduring sense.

If we are to approach truth, sometimes we have to do so obliquely; we should be willing to use all the tools at our disposal, not limiting ourselves only to logic and reason. John Keats wasn’t just being lyrical, but rather offering a profound insight when he observed;

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty.
That is all you know on earth, and all ye need to know.”

A century later, Paul Dirac may have had Keats in mind when he similarly observed that a theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one which fits the experimental data. Was Dirac following logic and reason here, or was he intuitively trusting his inner voice?

 

[darkbloom5150]

So, you take a bag of seeds.
The seeds are dead.

You put these in the ground.
You end up with a Huge Sunflower, many, as tall as you are.

How did "dead seeds", stuck in the ground..."LIVE" ?? (come to LIFE )

See that?

Now you can "wikipedia" and "science says" and you can find many explanations, but if you have a brain, and you realize that DEAD became ALIVE once you stuck it in the ground...

A.) Magic

A.) Mystical

A) God stuff

Thats a fact.

Accept no substitute.

So just to clarify, if someone is not stupid then they must see things the way you do. Do I have that about right?

 

[darkbloom5150]

Why do you think the Almighty God must be composed of atoms? We can't even understand our own bodies, how they are formed (please don't get started). Much less to figure out about God except what He tells us...through creation and the Bible.

It's honest of you to admit you don't know, but to go from the recognition that you don't know to a position that you can't know is not even trying. And to go from I don't know to there must be a god is giving up completely and reverting to Magical thinking? Read the Bible; get to know Yahweh. He is a real treat that's for sure. How anyone can persist in the belief that He is the ultimate source of morality after a serious read I do not know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The prophesies about the restoration of Israel.



“Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store" (Weekly Standard, 5/11/1998).


Against all odds, the Jewish people have once again returned to the “land of milk and honey” promised by God in Exodus and as exclaimed by prophets throughout the Old Testament.”

The Biblical Prophecies of Israel: Predicted End Times Events in 2024?

Where does the nation of Israel fit into God’s plan for the End Times? What does God have in store for Israel and the gift of eternal life at the end of the world?

www.christianity.com

That's it? Just the one. And one that was widely known and used as the reason and incentive to make it happen? Sort of self-fulfilling.

Thanks for answering.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's honest of you to admit you don't know, but to go from the recognition that you don't know to a position that you can't know is not even trying. And to go from I don't know to there must be a god is giving up completely and reverting to Magical thinking? Read the Bible; get to know Yahweh. He is a real treat that's for sure. How anyone can persist in the belief that He is the ultimate source of morality after a serious read I do not know.

It is an interesting read, and of course cultures must be taken in context. Either one considers life important or not important. As an example, we can see the war raging in Ukraine. Obviously a high value on life is not in the mindset of many.

 

[Astrophile]

There’s no legitimate reason not to start with the foundation position that there’s a Creator. That’s how I see it. If you don’t begin there then you’re thinking is off from the beginning.


“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.”

—Isaac Newton

Can you please give me a proper reference for this quotation? It doesn't sound like Newton's normal prose style.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Can you please give me a proper reference for this quotation? It doesn't sound like Newton's normal prose style.

As near as I can tell, it is manufactured from something similar Newton did write in his personal correspondence. It is repeated on the many different internet sites, but no reference is provided that I can find.

I suppose it is used to show that a famous scientist believed in God, but in his time most of them did. Many still do. That doesn't make the Bible stories true or false.

 

[Astrophile]

Sediment can include the sandy seafloor, lava, and even sticky tar.

Lavas are volcanic rocks, not sediments. The sea-floor can be muddy or limey as well as sandy.

Preservation of fossils in tar appears to be very rare. According to McKittrick Tar Pits - Wikipedia , there are only five natural asphalt lake areas in the world, three of which are in California, although Binagadi asphalt lake - Wikipedia provides a sixth example (in Azerbaijan).

 

[darkbloom5150]

I would agree that the pursuit of truth is a noble aspiration, seemingly endemic to our nature as thinking creatures. Truth is elusive, and for that matter so is a working definition of the word. We are inevitably led to the question Pontius Pilate asked in John’s Gospel; “What is truth?

Factual accuracy is only one form of truth, and even where this is seemingly established there is almost always room for doubt; and where there is doubt, there is contention. This is as true among scientists as it is among philosophers and theologians, as I’m sure you will recognise. Laws of science and of nature give us approximations of reality, but do they tell us facts about the world? It would be contentious to state that they do; we know that Newton’s Laws of Motion tell us something we may call real about objects and forces, and we know this because they work. We also know that they have limitations. They are not “true” in any enduring sense.

If we are to approach truth, sometimes we have to do so obliquely; we should be willing to use all the tools at our disposal, not limiting ourselves only to logic and reason. John Keats wasn’t just being lyrical, but rather offering a profound insight when he observed;

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty.
That is all you know on earth, and all ye need to know.”

A century later, Paul Dirac may have had Keats in mind when he similarly observed that a theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one which fits the experimental data. Was Dirac following logic and reason here, or was he intuitively trusting his inner voice?

You bring up some interesting ideas. Beginning at the end, physicists and philosophers have been debating the value aesthetics in applied mathematics for as long as it has been a field. Sabine Hossenfeider wrote an entire book on that very subject called "Lost in Math - How Beauty Leads Physics Astray". You can probably guess the position she takes just by reading the title, but as you might expect there is more to it. In a way I think you were asking that very question except you didn't. The question you asked has a clear answer. Correct answers are always correct and beautiful mathematics will always be beautiful. What we would prefer is both, but when we can't have it both ways we have to drop the beauty.

That quote from Keats you mentioned has often been taken literally and you can go that way if you want; I just don't know how useful it is. Beauty is many things but truth it is not; not unless you are a Grecian Urn; then it makes sense.

You are right, truth is a very flexible word but at bottom it must be connected to those things which are true, hence accurate. But how do we know something is true? It's not true because it's beautiful, nor is it because we wish it was so.Things are true that we understand to be true and understanding does in fact require a set of presupposed axioms. The axioms can never be proven to be true; they are outside of the system; but if the system works then at least we have that. So you are right; "reality" is beyond our ability to perceive purely, but it's there. Whatever it is we interact with it; for that matter we are it; and still that brings us only as close as our measuring sticks can. I can accept that there are different kinds of truth but again I'm not sure how that helps us. If you want to know if your neighbor is home you probably don't rely on dream information, but it is information. Information of what can be endlessly debated but not many people seriously think it has predictive power and those who do will almost assuredly be disappointed. Control over our lives is the domain of science and even non-scientists benefit. The fact that I saw rabbits in my dream could mean something about fecundity or it could mean I shouldn't have had three extra pickles with that
Rubin. Meaning may be subjective; quantitative reasoning not so much. Anything can feel compelling. Mathematical equations and the girl next door can feel compelling and maybe both of them can get you to the moon but they are, in the end, totally different things.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's it? Just the one. And one that was widely known and used as the reason and incentive to make it happen? Sort of self-fulfilling.

Thanks for answering.

Romans 9:6 - "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;" For @InChrist also.

 

[YoursTrue]

Lavas are volcanic rocks, not sediments. The sea-floor can be muddy or limey as well as sandy.

Preservation of fossils in tar appears to be very rare. According to McKittrick Tar Pits - Wikipedia , there are only five natural asphalt lake areas in the world, three of which are in California, although Binagadi asphalt lake - Wikipedia provides a sixth example (in Azerbaijan).

I got that from National Geographic explaining fossil. Fossil "For an organism to be fossilized, the remains usually need to be covered by sediment soon after death. Sediment can include the sandy seafloor, lava, and even sticky tar."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I got that from National Geographic explaining fossil. Fossil "For an organism to be fossilized, the remains usually need to be covered by sediment soon after death. Sediment

Yes, we know that. But you are still confused. We get relative ages from fossils. so leaching does not make any difference. And we get absolute ages from igneous rocks, for the most part. Once again, leaching does not matter with them since that does not occur with them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, we know that. But you are still confused. We get relative ages from fossils. so leaching does not make any difference. And we get absolute ages from igneous rocks, for the most part. Once again, leaching does not matter with them since that does not occur with them.

I'm still investigating with the help of some people that are actually helpful. ("relative ages from fossils..." hmm...and now what about the leached in minerals from sediment. Any time you want to explain without the insults, that will be great.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, we know that. But you are still confused. We get relative ages from fossils. so leaching does not make any difference. And we get absolute ages from igneous rocks, for the most part. Once again, leaching does not matter with them since that does not occur with them.

Now I read this: "Sediment is solid material that is moved and deposited in a new location. Sediment can consist of rocks and minerals, as well as the remains of plants and animals." Oh, that's interesting. Sediment
So -- definition of sediment is: SOLID MATERIAL moved and deposited in a new location. Now that's interesting. Can consist of rocks and minerals also the remains of plants and animals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm still investigating with the help of some people that are actually helpful. Thanks! (but no thanks) ("relative ages from fossils..." hmm...and now what about the leached in minerals from sediment. Any time you want to explain without the insults, fine and dandy.

Really? I tried to help you. Don't blame me for your inability to keep your word.

If you apologize and promise to try to reason rationally I will promise to not insult you. By the way, where do you think that I have insulted you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now I read this: "Sediment is solid material that is moved and deposited in a new location. Sediment can consist of rocks and minerals, as well as the remains of plants and animals." Oh, that's interesting. Sediment
So -- definition of sediment is: SOLID MATERIAL moved and deposited in a new location. Now that's interesting. Can consist of rocks and minerals also the remains of plants and animals.

No one has ever proposed anything else. If you did not understand what sediment is you should have asked. The following is not an insult Far too often you pretend to understand a concept that you do not understand at all. As a result it will look as if you are lying to the people that believed your claim about understanding something.

 

[YoursTrue]

Really? I tried to help you. Don't blame me for your inability to keep your word.

If you apologize and promise to try to reason rationally I will promise to not insult you. By the way, where do you think that I have insulted you?

If you can't explain kindly, please don't bother.

 

[YoursTrue]

No one has ever proposed anything else. If you did not understand what sediment is you should have asked. The following is not an insult Far too often you pretend to understand a concept that you do not understand at all. As a result it will look as if you are lying to the people that believed your claim about understanding something.

If I'm wrong I don't mind being corrected in a kind way. So do you agree that sediment is something that moves?

 

[YoursTrue]

No one has ever proposed anything else. If you did not understand what sediment is you should have asked. The following is not an insult Far too often you pretend to understand a concept that you do not understand at all. As a result it will look as if you are lying to the people that believed your claim about understanding something.

P.S. I was told by a poster that lava is NOT sediment. but according to what I read, it is. Do you agree that lava is considered as sediment? Maybe I forgot, but that's what I remember I read. So if it is, that should be a point of agreement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you can't explain kindly, please don't bother.

It is a two way street. And that was kindly.