Creationism - Revision history

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "--" to " — "

2022-12-10T10:03:48Z

Text replacement - "--" to " — "

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€œ" to "“"

2022-12-10T09:21:11Z

Text replacement - "â€œ" to "“"

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:21, 10 December 2022
Line 219:		Line 219:
	Besides the fact that texts and translations have become more accurate in the last five centuries, there is also the symbolism of the day of Pentecost to be taken into consideration for those who are willing to go beyond the mere letter of the text and open their minds to the spirit of the Scriptures. One of the miracles of the coming of the Holy Spirit was that each person whose native language was foreign to Jerusalem "heard [the apostles] speaking in his own language" [http://usccb.org/bible/acts/2:6 (Acts 2:6-12):]		Besides the fact that texts and translations have become more accurate in the last five centuries, there is also the symbolism of the day of Pentecost to be taken into consideration for those who are willing to go beyond the mere letter of the text and open their minds to the spirit of the Scriptures. One of the miracles of the coming of the Holy Spirit was that each person whose native language was foreign to Jerusalem "heard [the apostles] speaking in his own language" [http://usccb.org/bible/acts/2:6 (Acts 2:6-12):]

	:: They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, ~~â€œAre~~ not all these people who are speaking Galileans? Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language? We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.” They were all astounded and bewildered, and said to one another, ~~â€œWhat~~ does this mean?”		:: They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, “Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans? Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language? We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.” They were all astounded and bewildered, and said to one another, “What does this mean?”

	This passage does not contain the words, ''"The inspired Word of God can be heard in every human language,"'' but that seems to me to be a reasonable moral to draw from the story.		This passage does not contain the words, ''"The inspired Word of God can be heard in every human language,"'' but that seems to me to be a reasonable moral to draw from the story.

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€" to "”"

2022-12-10T09:20:36Z

Text replacement - "â€" to "”"

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:20, 10 December 2022
Line 219:		Line 219:
	Besides the fact that texts and translations have become more accurate in the last five centuries, there is also the symbolism of the day of Pentecost to be taken into consideration for those who are willing to go beyond the mere letter of the text and open their minds to the spirit of the Scriptures. One of the miracles of the coming of the Holy Spirit was that each person whose native language was foreign to Jerusalem "heard [the apostles] speaking in his own language" [http://usccb.org/bible/acts/2:6 (Acts 2:6-12):]		Besides the fact that texts and translations have become more accurate in the last five centuries, there is also the symbolism of the day of Pentecost to be taken into consideration for those who are willing to go beyond the mere letter of the text and open their minds to the spirit of the Scriptures. One of the miracles of the coming of the Holy Spirit was that each person whose native language was foreign to Jerusalem "heard [the apostles] speaking in his own language" [http://usccb.org/bible/acts/2:6 (Acts 2:6-12):]

	:: They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, â€œAre not all these people who are speaking Galileans? Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language? We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.~~â€~~ They were all astounded and bewildered, and said to one another, â€œWhat does this mean?~~â€~~		:: They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, â€œAre not all these people who are speaking Galileans? Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language? We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.” They were all astounded and bewildered, and said to one another, â€œWhat does this mean?”

	This passage does not contain the words, ''"The inspired Word of God can be heard in every human language,"'' but that seems to me to be a reasonable moral to draw from the story.		This passage does not contain the words, ''"The inspired Word of God can be heard in every human language,"'' but that seems to me to be a reasonable moral to draw from the story.

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€™" to "'"

2022-12-10T08:48:50Z

Text replacement - "â€™" to "'"

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:48, 10 December 2022
Line 50:		Line 50:
	:; C. S. Lewis, ''The Case for Christianity''		:; C. S. Lewis, ''The Case for Christianity''

	:: Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? ~~Itâ€™s~~ like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I ~~canâ€™t~~ trust my own thinking, of course I ~~canâ€™t~~ trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.		:: Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.

	==== Observational science is different from historical science ====		==== Observational science is different from historical science ====

Mxmsj: /* Standards of proof are not self-evident */

2016-09-01T20:01:09Z

Standards of proof are not self-evident

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:01, 1 September 2016
Line 202:		Line 202:
	The fires that came from the high energy of the Big Bang are burning out. The galaxies are moving further apart from each other. The stars are dying. There is no free lunch. There are no renewable resources through which we can relight the sun after it goes nova, incinerates the earth, and subsides into a dwarf star. The universe is finite, and we can see that it is running out of steam. Entropy increases.		The fires that came from the high energy of the Big Bang are burning out. The galaxies are moving further apart from each other. The stars are dying. There is no free lunch. There are no renewable resources through which we can relight the sun after it goes nova, incinerates the earth, and subsides into a dwarf star. The universe is finite, and we can see that it is running out of steam. Entropy increases.

	:; A. S. Eddington, "The Nature of the Physical World"<ref>1928. The Gifford Lectures 1927, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75. Emphasis in the original.</ref>		:; A. S. Eddington, "The Nature of the Physical World"<ref>1928. The Gifford Lectures 1927, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75). Emphasis in the original.</ref>

	:: The practical measure of the random element which can increase in the universe but can never decrease is called ''entropy.'' Measuring by entropy is the same as measuring by the chance explained in the last paragraph, only the unmanageably large numbers are transformed (by a simple formula) into a more convenient scale of reckoning. Entropy continually increases. We can, by isolating parts of the world and postulating rather idealized conditions in our problems, arrest the increase, but we cannot turn it into a decrease. That would involve something much worse than a violation of an ordinary law of Nature, namely, an improbable coincidence. The law that entropy always increases--the second law of thermodynamics--holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations--then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation--well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.		:: The practical measure of the random element which can increase in the universe but can never decrease is called ''entropy.'' Measuring by entropy is the same as measuring by the chance explained in the last paragraph, only the unmanageably large numbers are transformed (by a simple formula) into a more convenient scale of reckoning. Entropy continually increases. We can, by isolating parts of the world and postulating rather idealized conditions in our problems, arrest the increase, but we cannot turn it into a decrease. That would involve something much worse than a violation of an ordinary law of Nature, namely, an improbable coincidence. The law that entropy always increases--the second law of thermodynamics--holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations--then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation--well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

Mxmsj: /* Science vs. Creationism */

2015-01-03T17:16:18Z

Science vs. Creationism

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:16, 3 January 2015
Line 355:		Line 355:
	:::- Newton's law of gravity		:::- Newton's law of gravity
	:::- stellar parallax		:::- stellar parallax
			:::- Hubble's constant
			:::- dark matter (?)
			:::- dark energy (?)

	::- chemistry		::- chemistry

Mxmsj: /* Science vs. Creationism */

2015-01-02T00:24:02Z

Science vs. Creationism

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:24, 2 January 2015
Line 359:		Line 359:
	:::- the periodic table (atomic mass, electron shells, isotopes)		:::- the periodic table (atomic mass, electron shells, isotopes)
	:::- laws of chemical combination		:::- laws of chemical combination

			::- geography
			:::- stratigraphy
			:::- paleontology

	::- biology		::- biology

Mxmsj: /* Science vs. Creationism */

2014-12-31T17:55:00Z

Science vs. Creationism

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:55, 31 December 2014
Line 337:		Line 337:
	==== Science vs. Creationism ====		==== Science vs. Creationism ====

	:; What is necessary to ~~understand~~ the scientific view of the cosmos		:; What is necessary to get started in understanding the scientific view of the cosmos<nowiki>:</nowiki>

	::- physics		::- physics
Line 369:		Line 369:
	:::- ecology		:::- ecology

	:; What is necessary to understand the creationist view of the universe.		:; What is necessary to understand the creationist view of the universe<nowiki>:</nowiki>

	::- God wrote it. I read it. That settles it.		::- God wrote it. I read it. That settles it.

Mxmsj: /* Science vs. Creationism */

2014-12-31T17:54:24Z

Science vs. Creationism

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:54, 31 December 2014
Line 341:		Line 341:
	::- physics		::- physics
	:::- quantum mechanics		:::- quantum mechanics
	:::- nuclear physics		:::- nuclear physics: fission, fusion, decay
	:::- electromagnetism		:::- electromagnetism
	:::- gravity		:::- gravity
	:::- interferometry		:::- interferometry
			:::- laws of conservation
			:::- laws of thermodynamics

	::- astronomy		::- astronomy

Mxmsj: /* Some concluding remarks */

2014-12-31T17:53:03Z

Some concluding remarks

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:53, 31 December 2014
Line 334:		Line 334:

	Deciding whether there is or is not a God is a metaphysical activity.		Deciding whether there is or is not a God is a metaphysical activity.

			==== Science vs. Creationism ====

			:; What is necessary to understand the scientific view of the cosmos

			::- physics
			:::- quantum mechanics
			:::- nuclear physics
			:::- electromagnetism
			:::- gravity
			:::- interferometry

			::- astronomy
			:::- retrograde motion of the planets
			:::- Copernican trigonometry
			:::- Kepler's laws of planetary motion
			:::- Newton's laws of motion (based on Galileo)
			:::- Newton's law of gravity
			:::- stellar parallax

			::- chemistry
			:::- the periodic table (atomic mass, electron shells, isotopes)
			:::- laws of chemical combination

			::- biology
			:::- biochemistry
			:::- cellular structures
			:::- cellular processes
			:::- organs
			:::- biological systems
			:::- organisms
			:::- ecology

			:; What is necessary to understand the creationist view of the universe.

			::- God wrote it. I read it. That settles it.

	== References ==		== References ==

Creationism - Revision history

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "--" to " — "

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€œ" to "“"

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€" to "”"

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€™" to "'"

Mxmsj: /* Standards of proof are not self-evident */

Mxmsj: /* Science vs. Creationism */

Mxmsj: /* Science vs. Creationism */

Mxmsj: /* Science vs. Creationism */

Mxmsj: /* Science vs. Creationism */

Mxmsj: /* Some concluding remarks */

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€" to "”"