Talkback: Nature in a Nutshell

Add your comment

From:	Drexlus	2001-06-23 22:18:58
Subject:	Nature v. Religion!?!
Comment:	Actually the 'old scripture' calls the Earth (and all the planets) spheres. Several times does it refer to them as spheres. Nowhere does it states that the earth is flat...unless you take 'four corners of the earth' to be literal. On the other hand, a fundamental law of nature (the 2nd law of thermodynamics) states that everything progress towards a more chaotic state. If you have a cube composed of loose bricks and throw them onto the ground, they will never land in a more organized state. Therefore, to state that a mass exploded in space and arranged itself in an ordered and timely system like the universe would be a direct violation of this law of physics. Also, to say that a religious man is like a toothless man who believes in tooth fairies is an amazingly narrow cliche. Do penniless men deny the existence of banks simply because they are broke? Do single men deny the existence of women just because they can't get any? To elaborate, I have never been to Oslo and, to my knowedge, nothing that has ever happened in or come from Oslo has had any influence whatsoever in my existence. So, by the logic of the Religion/toothfairy statement, I can rightfully say that Oslo exists not.
From:	Redex	2002-02-20 12:50:51
Subject:	(:-)
Comment:	Do born again christians have two navels.?
From:	Wu Li	2003-02-24 08:56:24
Subject:	Nature & Existence
Comment:	Is existence a blessing and nature a curse? Is the glass half empty or half full? Obviously the glass is both half empty and half full. Existence is a blessing and nature a curse, but only if we see them as distinct and seperate. Nature only makes sense in the context of her mother.
From:	Clayton Carter	2004-01-20 01:33:30
Subject:	God's plan?
Comment:	So I have always felt that 'God' is an unnecessary force in the universe. I also know that for God to act out within the universe he would be adding a change in the natural action/reaction events and energy which could potentially cause the universe to explode (the limits of space-time and mass). But I never seem to get past the question: Everything that is real has substance, and everything that will ever happen in the universe ultimately was put into motion at the big bang. So where did it all come from, was it always there? and by always I am speaking in reference to time, which would have been much different before the universe began (time is such a fickle thing). So here's my theory on spirituality, natural law and God. 'In the beginning' there was a creating force - how concious this force was is unknown to me, much less what, if anything, this force actually was - So this force brings into being all things real. To ensure that God's 'will' is carried out there are physical laws put into play, the most important of which is that matter can be neither created, nor destroyed. From that there is the law of the conservation of mass/energy, and then every action is a reaction. So in God's glorious trancendence of time and everything that I can comprehend as real there is a plan being carried out, and everything that happens happens for one reason or another. These are bold assumptions to make, and I am referring to 'God' in the loosest of religous terms as simply 'a force'. Welcome to my religion... it still needs a name.
From:	jordan	2004-06-05 19:42:31
Subject:	Response of a passerby..
Comment:	I originally stumbled on this site as I was looking for information as to why MSG is bad, and after a few sites of nay-saying, I found some fortitude in the statements on the present site. This information, I should say, was quite vehement in its opinion; so I, subsequently, decided to endevour into the site, thinking that it was probably more about natural diets or 'raw veganism' or something of the sort, but to my surprise and my chagrin, I was privy to much the nay-saying and opinionated comments herein, mostly on the subject of theology, and just the general 'ignorance' of the world. My point isn't really to bash your thoughts, but I would like to make privy to you a website that offers quite a fair amount of information on the subject of creationism, which in my opinion (as that of a former overly zealous nihilist [existentialist, blah] who has recently been privy to reasons and understanding of not only the quite possible active existence of a God-being, but more the necessity of such a being [not only in the social spectrum of necessity, but in the real, and active form. {This new knowledge and understanding not solely from my own attempted panoptic empiricism, but as well from scientific information, and from cumulative study of the literature, and reality.}]) is quite valid and surprisingly unbiased. If you haven't heard of it before, I suggest you check out www.drdino.com. If not only as another outlet for mimicry, they as well offer a $250,000 reward to any person who can validate the standard contemporary view/theory of evolution. Just a thought, as I realize that we can sometimes, as humans become slightly lost in the theories, and the age of the documents, and by the advent of natural law, et cetera.
From:	jordan	2004-06-05 19:43:06
Subject:	one last..
Comment:	Just a thought, though. I should, as well, say for 'Clayton' that your belief is frighteningly similar to the Deist view, so it may actually already have a name. And to Drexlus, right on.
From:	Clayton Carter	2005-04-28 10:35:30
Subject:	Creationism vs... me?
Comment:	I could use the emperical data derived from fossils aeons of years old, and possibly a little *ahem* logic/reason to validate the currently accepted theory of evolution maintained by people who are part of the broadening scientific community,... you know, those 'schmuks' with PhD.s. then maybe I'd be a rich man. Yet, how do I convince one who bases their views on unscrupulous faith. And I could use a lot of superfluous language to describe my thoughts... but my spelling may suffer. Now on the topic of nature, especially the laws there in I've learned a bit recently in my quest towards truth. Basically, we don't really know jack. Our theory's of thermodynamics, hell even quantum theory, are just that! speculative theory based on - mostly - probabilities. Because the universe is, at the small of the small, essentially impossible to watch, and therefor, impossible to infer truth through observation; we rely on (dear god no) philosophy to try and understand the inner workings of the universe. I had found comfort within choas theory, yet it was not with out a pin in the cushin. There is soo much going on we cannot see, yet the end result is obvious and we have developed laws, which infact are approximations and 'averages' of the smaller interactions between particles to describe the larger life. much like how a plane crash to an outsider is sad, tragic and probably the result of poor maintence. what is lost to the outsider is the mechanic, the flu he got from his son, who kissed a girl for the first time, who got the flu from a soda she shared with a friend, and on and on the butterfly in hong kong made rain in NY.
From:	Clayton Carter	2005-05-01 05:43:01
Subject:	acting natural
Comment:	But there are answers, THERE IS TRUTH. That is obvious, perhaps not easy to 'see' but still, there is the cause and there is the reaction. Ignoring Evolution and at the same time ignoring genetics is well... ignorant. Perhaps the bible/Koran/all of it is wrong, perhaps god's intricate plan is lost in the little bits and pieces of the universe we may never really know, they are interpreted by men after all. Equally, they just might be exactly like our 'Laws of nature', broad approximations of 'god's word and plan'. I don't think science and religion are soo seperate. through history we've developed this anonimity because the church, or whatever, has impeded upon science since it didn't agree with what they had said was law. As well no one makes a law now, not without being perfectly sure, and considering reality is close to ripples on a dimensional fabric so miniscule we'll never really know, we're stuck in even a faith in science. There is a truth, and I don't suppose to ever really know it, just to find peace that everything will work out exactly how it's supposed to, and I don't hope for much more than that. So I guess it all comes down to this, there is science, and even science needs a certain amount of faith. It is a religion upon itself... but more latin then hyroglyphic, it grows and never supposes true truth, just closeness to it. To argue is good, but to think your ideas are really all that different from everyone elses, and in turn far from right, you are gravely mistaken, open your mind and close your eyes, find peace and accept all the ideas. Find a common ground and just, act natural.
From:	Tom	2008-05-12 05:11:33
Subject:	nature vs religion
Comment:	'A creationist is like a man who insists that the earth is flat because it says so in some old scripture.' I agree, you can say that now scriptures say they are spheres, but you can change scriptures without anyone ever knowing it. After changing people would think twice. Read the book 1984, the ignorant are too easy to trick.