williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (05/30/85)
> Isn't this a conflict in terms? "continuous Quantum" > is oxymoronic. Quanta are discrete units. You can not have > discrete units continuous. Apparently not. > The idea that quantum uncertainty is perceived, and not > "real" is accepted among many scientists. But that does not > mean that the quantum aspects can be reconciled. What I was talking about was how a continuous function could manifest itself as discrete symbols, or quanta. Because we perceive quanta, or symbols, doesn't necessarily mean that the universe has a " smallest " particle. A stable wave pattern could easily constitute a symbol, with different patterns representing different energy levels ( more stable, less stable ). > But, if scientific theory collides with Biblical > scripture, then something has to give. For me, Science must > give. What if the Bible is *wrong*? Can *you* say wrong? > Various "scientists" I have talked to, however, have > definitely opposed Biblical teachings in preference to theory, > and have refuted the existence of God. THAT'S what I was > addressing. Perhaps you should clarify that by saying *your* God. > God is ultimately over all, and therefore ultimately > brings about His Will (I mean, we read about his ultimate will > in Revelation, don't we?). I have been over this a million times. You are pursuing a self fulfilling prophesy. I consider the chapter on revelations to be the work of fatalists, who feel that exercising authority is beneath their dignity. I should clarify that by stating that what is actually meant is admitting authority. If you wish the world to come to an end, could you please locate to another planet, so that the people who want to continue civilization can have this one? I was watching " The Day After ", and the panel discussion at the end, and the only representative who said that preventative measures were unnecessary was a Rabbi, who informed the audience that the world was going to end just like it said in the Old Testament. SOME CONTRIBUTION! HA! > Also, scientific study has shown that much of what was > thought of as evolution turned out to be the result of passive > genes that were stimulated by a different environment - hence, > the adaptability was built into the genes to occur - the result > is that the living being was still the same species, just > showing its pre- programmed adaptability. That is what I believe to be a gross misinterpretation. Passive genes are merely " options " that have turned themselves off. They just come along for the ride. It is not important that the be wiped out, within certain restrictions, but it is important that they have been somehow disabled. Disabled through evolution. > The Bible is the absolute Word of God. That's what I take > it to be. As I said before, I don't consider it a science > text. My specific references to scientific theory show the two > points where the Bible and general scientific thought > contradict each other. Those are the only two issues I'm > addressing. (evolution, and humanism) The problem is is that We will not take your word for it. Or God's word. Reality is not text. Text is not reality. Write that a thousand times on the blackboard. > I really don't see what you mean by your response to this > last point. For me, the Bible is the Word of God, and is > therefore absolute. The truths presented therein are absolute > truths. God can't make mistakes. But *YOU* can, in your assumptions and beliefs. > Yes, He inspired various authors to write the Bible, and > He preserved their idioms and styles. If that last remark was > meant to degrade the authority of the Bible, I take issue to > it. There is too much effort in this world to gloss over the > Bible. I'm determined to preserve it (in my own life, at > least) for what it is. Gloss it over? Why don't you try recatagorizing it as fiction. > Finally, it was good (and surprising!) to hear from a > believer on the net! You're the first one I've encountered. Why don't you two discuss all the intricracies of the Bible on your own little planet. We have better plans in mind for this one. > WE ALL LIVE THE RELIGIOUS LIFE!!! WE ALL WALK BY FAITH! > WE ALL 'WORSHIP' SOMEWHERE. WE ALL NEED GOD/S TO COMPLETE THE > LOOP AND TAKE THE NEXT STEP - OR ELSE WE JUST MAKE NOISE(an > interesting question is if we CAN really make only noise - if > we can avoid making a logical statement with real > 'noise',either on canvas, in print, or on the stage or music > without being contradictory. Remember Theater of the Absurd > died because it contradicted itself (and was boring) by making > a meaningful statement that there is no meaning to anything). > ** Double bosh. Physical 'laws' are based upon faith. > They are 'models' of the world. Ways of thinking that give > certain results and would give different results if different > models were used. YOU ARE TALKING 19C SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGY! > Total 'objectivity' doesn't appear to be possible for us. It's > another model. A construct of the human mind. RELIGION SHOULD > BE JUDGED ON THE SAME BASIS AS SCIENTIFIC MODELS! Logical and > 'fits'. Reread my posting that spoke to your 'fact'/'faith' > posting. What color does sugar taste like? Physical 'laws' > are about one set of thoughts and religious questions another. > But all seems part of one reality. Remember Michaelson-Morley > doesn't 'prove' anything. Look, all science is saying is that > some things can apparently be repeated by independent > observers. Does that 'prove' anything? Of course not. We > live such short lives, even collectively, that what happens so > many times in our view of it could be the exception in the > totality of time. We believe by 'faith' that there is > something to what we observe. An assumption because it's the > best we can do with our instruments in the time scale we can > observe. > PLEASE DON'T TAKE AN UNEXAMINED RELIGIOUS VIEW OF SCIENCE. > Leave that for Time-Life books and the anti-religious cranks. > AND DON'T CLAIM THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A NON-RELIGIOUS > VIEW OF SCIENCE. > Again, your statements confuse the notions of 'fact' and > 'faith'. When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME. I realize it's an old one, but it's especially relevant here. If you need a God for security, so that your life doesn't seem useless and futile, could you please have your beliefs agree with observation? I believe that is normally step one for science, and step one divided by zero for religion. I refuse to believe someone is possessed by God just because they experience psychotic episodes. How's that for fact? I'm catholic, and proud to be part of the fastest growing religion in the world. All things bright and beautiful, All creatures great and small, All things wise and wonderful, The church must pick them all. John Williams PS. If you wish to flame me, I'll tell you the same thing I told the Jehova's Witnesses this morning when they tried to get in my apartment complex. I'm too dangerous for career minded fanatics. I've seen far too many lives screwed up to take this whole thing passively. This goes for christians, jews, scientologists, and hare krsnas, as well as moonies, norse, greek, and roman. PSS. I don't consider you so much as an enemy as a victim. PSSS. I'm glad Billy Graham solved the crossword puzzle. PSSSS. You've been had. PSSSSS. Hare Krsnas have the highest IQ to date.