Blanket of Fire
Nature is so cool sometimes. Click on the picture to link to an article explaining this glorious phenomenon. How does the Big Bang and/or Charles Darwin explain this? Yeah, good luck with that one.
See also, Underwater Volcano.
posted by lakhawk @
Permalink
7 Comments:
Well it has nothing to do with evolution, so Darwin is out of it, But as for the Big Bang, our understanding of the behavior of light, which is part of the how we understand how the Universe developed, is rock solid. refraction is a simple process that tells volumes about the dual partcile and wave nature of light.
Posts like these depress me. The Big Bang should not scare you as a Christian. It hardly explains a thing about our origins or the source of the energy in the Big Bang.
Don't put on blinders to truth to fit your dated worldview informed by ignorance and history alone.
By
Anonymous, at 2:19 PM, July 05, 2006
The Big Bang does not scare me. Many intelligent people are able to reconcile their faith with scientific observations. My statement was merely meant to convey that none of this (our scientific understanding of the behavior of light in this case, genetics in others, etc.) answers the BIG question, "Where did it all come from to begin with?" More to the point, sometimes nature is just so incredible and beautiful you just have to step back and appreciate it, regardless of your beliefs.
P.S. Anonymous invectives "like [this] depress me."
By
lakhawk, at 7:55 PM, July 05, 2006
You are backing off your post. You were implicitly questioning the veracity of the Big Bang and of Darwinian evolution and implying that they are false. Now you claim to be saying that you meant only to pose questions about basic origins of matter and energy. Sorry, but that is not how your post reads.
By
Anonymous, at 1:17 PM, July 06, 2006
Wow, I'm so impressed that you know better than I do what I do or don't think and what I was or wasn't trying to say. This is a blog written for my own amusement and that of my friends, not a term paper or journal article.
It must be tough for you going through life constantly being smacked in the face by the ignorance and stupidity of others. I'm sorry.
The next time someone complains about the proselytizing of the evangelical Christian right-wing, I'm just going to refer them here and to my friend, LawFairy. See, http://lawfairy.blogspot.com/2006/06/hm-and-wide-hm-and-wide.html
By
lakhawk, at 8:39 PM, July 07, 2006
Anon, don't be so dense. It does not take a regression analysis to note the very blatant and obvious correlation between atheism/agnosticism and unquestioning belief in science's most popular theories of the day about the origins of life. It also doesn't take a genius to understand that LAK was pointing out that the anti-religious scoffers have a tough time explaining beauty. She happens to be correct, even from a purely godless philosophical standpoint.
And posting anonymously is so retarded. Like we don't know who you are anyway.
By
Law Fairy, at 2:08 AM, July 08, 2006
I'm not meaning to post anonymously, this blog doesn't automatically bring up my handle for some reason and I'm too lazy to log in.
"How does the Big Bang and/or Charles Darwin explain this? Yeah, good luck with that one."
Lakhawk, I can read, I'm hardly claiming I know better than you what you think or say. If you weren't directly calling into question the veracity of the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution, then please do tell what it was you meant when you were writing that.
Lawfairy:
an "unquestioning belief in science's most popular theories of the day about the origins of life"?
You seem to suggest there have been multiple explanations by science of the origins of life?
Did you never make it over to the genetics department at U of C? They map whole genomes now, they can date major evolutionary divergences, they can track the evolution of single proteins through hundreds of thousands of years. And unquestioning? that is the whole point. Science and teh scientific method is about questioning and theories and testing theories. It doesn not try to answer questions it cannot. It doesn't explain everything, it doesn't preculde some kind of grand design either. It does preclude believing that God made man 6000 years ago, though. Organized religion is what requires unquestioning acceptance of falisties. You don't have to be godless to trust in the scientific method. Really you don't, and you shouldn't.
No antirelgious scoffer has any harder time explaining beauty than does a religious person - actually they tend to have an easier time if they understand the science behind localized order and symmetries, which tend to produce beauty in the eyes of humans. No scientist can explain the elegance and order of the Universe, or why it is so. Again, there is plenty of room for God in science, just not a God that violates established scientific truths.
By
Anonymous, at 7:01 PM, July 10, 2006
Lakhawk, just to get my bearings here, do you dispute the modern genetic understanding of the cell and base sequences, the whole double-helix DNA thing? Do you believe God made the heavans and earth 6000 years or so ago? Do you doubt the process of carbon dating?
By
Anonymous, at 8:01 PM, July 10, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home