SOME PARENTS FEEL GENDER IDENTITY IN CHILDREN IS UNCLEAR
In one of those stories that make you pull your hair out. The story notes “Children as young as 5 who display predispositions to dress like the opposite sex are being supported by a growing number of young parents, educators and mental health professionals.” (NY Times) Dr. Albert Mohler, examining this article (AlbertMohler.com) wrote on the topic in the past, “Transgender children" in kindergarten? We can only wonder what can come next. The logic cannot stop at age five.” (AlbertMohler.com)
View blog reactions
posted by Shaun Pierce @ 12/05/2006
36 comments
links to this post
36 Comments:
Often, these children are actually hermaphroditic, and the parents are simply hiding this information from people who really don't need to know.
True hermaphrodism is rare, consisting of a child formed when a female fertilized egg merges with a male fertilized egg or when early in the division process, a major cell line loses the Y chromosome, possibly doubling the X chromosome (double Y cells are believed to die.)
Other defects, including incomplete or complete androgen insensitivity, etc. can result in ambiguous genital formation in up to 1 in 500 children. Pollution of the environment with estrogen-like compounds is believed to make this situation worse.
In the past, the standard medical treatment was to do what doctors did best. Surgeons were much better at making holes than they were at constructing extensions, and so almost all children with these problems were assigned "female." Unfortunately, about half of these children had brains that were formed "male" and were messed up when they grew up.
Most physicians are coming to the conclusion that gender assignment should wait until there is some indication of which way the brain is oriented. Most states, require that children be either "male" or "female" when they leave the hospital. "Both" is not an acceptable answer.
In some cases, ignorant physicians have gone ahead and done the sex reassignment process without parental permission, which further complicates things.
So what happens is, the parents make a "best guess." When the kid starts exhibiting a preference -- being either male or female, the parents permit the child to behave that way and assume that dress. About 50% of the time, the parents guess wrong.
You seem opposed to allowing this process to happen. Would you prefer the parents decide at birth what the child will be and then attempt to force the child to live that way?
There's a good chance that, in your church, there is someone who has dealt with this problem, either in themselves or in their children.
Do you really think your approach to this problem is helping them?
And, you have to wonder. We know of examples where XX persons are fully functional and fertile males, and were only known to be XX because of genetic testing -- one of their X chromosomes has the gene that triggers maleness. In children with XY/XX chimerism, we find that part of the body is male, part female. In androgen insensitivity, a person appears to be a normal female -- but is XY and infertile (the testes, located where the ovaries should be, generally need to be removed as they tend toward cancer). There's a similar situation with infertile XX males, although much rarer.
You have to wonder: are there other examples where the brain is programmed genetically for one gender identity but the body displays another, and we simply don't understand the underlying genetic mechanism yet?
By the way, the Protection of Marriage acts in many states would permit two people of the same apparent sex to marry, assuming one of them was genetically the other sex. Those same laws would invalidate the marriages of a number of people married in the church, based on their being both genetically the same sex.
It's a lot more complicated than you think, Powerball. All you're doing is making it harder for people to do the best that they can. You're piling up burdens on them and not lifting a finger to help.
Why would you pull your hair out? Your blog seems to indicate that you're a Christian American, yet you don't seem to support free will choice? Does the Constitution or the Bible somehow make this decision by parents and health care professionals any of your business?
Rob, in all fairness, there's a big difference between gender identity disorder and an intersex condition. I'm about as left wing as they come, but lets not muddy the waters between the two conditions.
GID isn't something that's just dreamed up in the heads of the parents. It's a known, mental disorder that is treatable. What this debate centers around is science vs faith. You're talking about a group of people that believe that carbon dating is conspiracy against God, and the Earth is 4000 years old. If you can't agree on carbon dating, then there's no way you're going to come to a concensus on this.
This a battle of reason verses faith. Plain and simple. Well, unless you're trying to carbon date something....
Marti,
A lot of parents with childredn who have intersex conditions hide that from everyone. I could easily see parents saying that it was gender identity instead of intersex. I also happen to think that a large percent of what we call gender identity problems and even homosexuality are actually some form of intersex condition that we simply do not have the technology to identify yet.
There's a rule in medicine: never assume psychological until medical has been ruled out, and then remember that no one yet knows all the possible medical causes. A schizophrenic patient with a brain bleed that caused him to see things (most schizophrenics have auditory, not visual hallucinations) lived because I took him to a trauma center, not the catchment hospital.
I know one couple that came close to aborting their intersex child because they were afraid of what the church would say -- and another couple who did have an abortion for the same reason. This is an incredibly hard situation for most parents to deal with.
The church should be making it better, not worse.
I'm not so much left or right wing as a biochemist. I will admit that bias. And you don't want to get me started on carbon dating. I'll tell you more than you want to know! It's really cool. See, carbon-14 is formed by....
:)
Especially since Carbon dating has proven unreliable for it's previous usage.
Mark,
There are limitations with carbon dating, but it is not "unreliable." That's simply not true. But that's a topic for a different article's comment section.
That's why I wrote very carefully and specifically,
"unreliable for it's previous usage."
The way it was used to date items previously has been discovered to be completely off track. There may still be a use for it in that field, but it still needs to be completely recategorized before it can be relied upon again.
(Don't worry, Powerball likes science stuff! :) )
"The way it was used to date items previously has been discovered to be completely off track. There may still be a use for it in that field, but it still needs to be completely recategorized before it can be relied upon again."
Not true at all. It was reliable when I took radiochemistry (where I actually did carbon dating) back in the late 1970s and it's still reliable.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
and from here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/aa7dcb90-5b20-11db-8f80-0000779e2340.html
"If you want to believe in carbon-14 dating you'll be logical, you'll get a consistent answer. But what will 40 days and 40 nights of rain do to your carbon-14 method? It will ruin your carbon dioxide cycle. And if you can't assume the carbon dioxide cycle is the same, you're stuffed."
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
http://www.shroudstory.com/breaking02.htm
Total nonsense, and why I didn't want to get into this. It has nothing to do with Powerball's attempt to promote the abortion of intersex children (unintentional, but what he's doing none-the-less).
Interestingly, if you check out the web page of the astronomer who used a new method to evaluate the Hubble Constant, you'll find out that she's a Christian. And she comes up with 14-15 billion years for the universe...
I give you all that information and whether you agree with it or not, the best response you can come up with is "Total nonsense".
Haven't you accused us Christians in the past of doing and saying things without being able to back them up? I guess we aren't alone.
Where exactly would you like to discuss this since you don't want to do it here?
How am I even supposed to debate this with you? I've had the requisite chemistry and physics courses. I can map out nucleonic synthesis (and do the math, I might add) from the Dark Period after the Big Bang through supernovas to absorption by nitrogen of thermal neutrons in the upper atmosphere -- and then explain the beta decay back to nitrogen.
I can discuss the two "standard" half-lifes of Carbon 14 (one used for historical convenience, the other a modern accurate figure), methods of calibration of atmospheric Carbon 14 amounts, isotope separation in biological organisms, and how to estimate statistical errors in radiochemistry analysis.
The absurd claims put forth by the Creationists about Carbon 14 deserve as much consideration as their claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution: None whatsoever. It betrays at best a total lack of understanding of the science, and at worst, the idea that lying for the God of Truth is something we should do.
It's complete and utter rubbish, without worth. It destroys the faith of Christians brought up on the crap and makes many scientists unwilling to consider the claims of Jesus Christ.
It's evil propagated in the name of God.
And I happen to be a Christian, too. Just not one who sells my soul to Satan in the pretense of promoting the kingdom of God.
Look at the Dover legal result -- the judge caught the Creationists in obvious and repeated lies.
Why should I take any of it seriously, especially when I can do the math to show that it's nonsense?
Creationism is Satanic. For all my problems with the theologically failing Catholic church, at least this is one area where they're getting it right.
Wow. You should really double-check the basis on which you're calling yourself Christian. We were talking about the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of Carbon dating and you've launched into an assault on Creationism. If you don't believe Genesis, you might as well throw out the rest of the Bible because it makes no sense to believe part and distrust the rest. 1 Timothy says all Scripture is God-breathed, so to call part of it false is to call Him a liar.
Bottom line: You've refused to debate it with me and while trumpeting your "knowledge" have STILL not shown any facts. Look back at what you've written and you'll see what I mean.
I had considered asking if you'd like to talk about it over coffee of pizza or something (my treat even), but should I wait until you are less angry?
You didn't answer my question: How am I supposed to debate it with you? I'd have to put you through several undergraduate Chemistry courses, assuming you've had a decent amount of Math. Worst thing, I know I'm terrible at teaching Chemistry and Biology. I lose most people.
Acceptance of Genesis as a description of Who created the universe, not how God created it, does not make it any less true.
Saying that "If you don't believe Genesis, you might as well throw out the rest of the Bible" is a false dichotomy, and you ought to know that.
The Bible lists bats as a form of birds and grasshoppers as having 4 legs. Does saying bats are mammals and grasshoppers have 6 legs call God a liar? Of course not.
You realize that, if evolution and astronomy are wrong, then God must be a liar. So you are calling God a liar. The universe declares the handiwork of God, and it is so much bigger than man. Who is man, that God is mindful of him? The universe is obviously and demonstrably 13-15 billion years old, with numerous independent lines of investigation showing it is. If it were created to appear so old, then God would be lying to us. How can you say that?
I accept that Scripture is God-breathed. I do not accept that it can be mindlessly turned into something it's not. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It wasn't meant to be.
You're promoting a satanic teaching that is full of lies and designed to destroy faith and you wonder that I have strong opinions on it? Creationism is a tool to destroy the Gospel.
I'm not angry, but I am very disturbed that you would support such a lying doctrine.
Tell you what: Let's talk about it. I'll start out with the simple one: The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution. Do you know what the Second Law of Thermo is? Can you state it in both English and a usable mathematical form? Can you explain what the Creationists mean when they say "The Second Law disproves evolution?" Can you show mathematically that it can't? Can you draw a simple diagram that shows the error the Creationists make?
That's trivial in comparison to the Carbon 14 problem. Duane Gish still maintains that evolution cannot occur because of the 2nd Law, even though it has been repeatedly explained to him why he's wrong. He's even been told by other Christian Creationists that his argument is wrong, and yet he keeps using it. Why?
If you can tackle these questions, we have somewhere to go. I don't care if you use the differential form of the equations or an absolute form. Either one will suffice.
Ah, a little checking and it turns out "Answers in Genesis" repeats the same thermodynamics lie that Gish is so fond of.
"I accept that Scripture is God-breathed. I do not accept that it can be mindlessly turned into something it's not. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It wasn't meant to be.
You're promoting a satanic teaching that is full of lies and designed to destroy faith and you wonder that I have strong opinions on it? Creationism is a tool to destroy the Gospel."
~To say that you believe all Scripture to be God-breathed and immediately say that believing that the account of creation is true is satanic is very dangerous Rob, especially without proof, and logically inconsistent. I agree that the Bible isn't a scientific textbook nor was it meant to be, but it is also not something that can be twisted to private interpretation as you accuse me of doing.
If it is God-breathed, then we submit to it, we don't try to force it to submit to what we believe. Some portions are historical record, some imagery, some metaphoric and so on. Once you compare and contrast it with itself in humble respect, you see that it isn't something that allows for shaping, but instead shapes us.
Before I touch on the specific problems of evolution vs. creation, let me ask this: do you believe God capable of, as the Word says, creating us out of the dust of the ground, or you do think that beyond His ability?
Back to Carbon dating, which is where I was to begin with, your challenge shows me that you are indeed incredibly wise and learned, and I have no hope of debating you.
Please, for this foolish man I am, tell me in words that I can understand (surely one who has thoroughly understood a topic can reduce it to a form that a high school graduate can understand), why all the evidence against the effectiveness of Carbon dating is wrong and it still holds the accuracy it was previously believed to hold.
Please do not tell me what you could tell me if you wished to. Please enlighten me from your own vast study. I am not the learned man you are, so please condescend to help me understand why Genesis is a lie.
I will offer no more debate until you have shown me my error.
My wife says that I am terrible at teaching biology and chemistry because I understand it on too deep a level.
Let's skip the chemistry for a second. There are more ways of dating something than by using carbon 14. Seasonal tides leave behind sedimentary deposits. Tree rings also mark seasons. Large-scale events leave similar contaminant tracers in tree rings, sedimentary deposits, etc. Other radioactives get incorporated into tissues or soil or whatever and act as backup clocks.
So, you can't just say that carbon dating is wrong. There are a whole host of dating techniques that would need to be falsified.
You quoted about the carbon dioxide cycle and 40 days and nights causing disruptions. First, it's the carbon cycle, not the carbon dioxide cycle -- the guy can't even use the correct name. Carbon doesn't necessarily pass through carbon dioxide. But because C14 is incorporated into tissues, any floods would not affect their dating. An organism from 20,000 years ago still shows as having lived 20,000 years ago!
There's too many independent paths of analysis that show C-14 works. The most exciting one recently is the mutation rate of DNA. How far apart organisms are evolutionarily can be studied based on DNA sequencing and changes in that DNA. This too matches with the C-14 records, although it's not as accurate a clock as isotope decay.
I've had to skim over an amazing body of evidence. The biologists and chemists and physicists who work daily with these techniques might argue over something 2 or 3 sig figs out, but there's no doubt for them that C-14 is a useful technique that falsifies the Creationist silliness.
The folks opposing it are mostly people working outside their fields. They cherry pick the quotes they use -- I've seen Creationists quote things so out of context that it actually reverses the original intent of the author!
There are a few scientists actually in their field who also are Creationists, but they're arguing points that were solved decades ago but that they have jumped on in an attempt to prop up their delusions.
C.S. Lewis disagreed with evolution, not because it contradicted Christianity. He said it didn't! He objected on scientific grounds -- Lewis died -- I forget if "self-organizing systems" had even been discovered in his lifetime, but they only came to prominence in mine.
Going back to the early Church fathers, even Thomas Aquinas did not see the need for a literal interpretation of the Creation account. Granted, the science he was arguing about at the time now seems silly, but his analysis stands, as it points out there is no need for a literal item-by-item reading of the two separate (and different) creation accounts in Genesis.
This is the frustrating part. I look at my discussion here, and there are entire books that are missing from what I've written. In summarizing and simplifying for you, I've left out entire segments of science that plug holes that appear to exist in my skimpy argument.
To adequately rebut the Creationists, I could spend years of research to write a hundred-thousand page tome. And then, as you can see in the "Answers to Genesis," the Creationist conflates an instantaneous jump with the Second Law of Thermo, pulls a few slight of hand tricks, and claims his argument still stands -- when in fact it simply demonstrates his complete paucity of knowledge on the subject.
I had an oddball education. I am probably one of a select group with the education in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Archaeology, Astronomy, and Christianity that could tackle the wide territory the Creationists have corrupted and misrepresented. Perhaps, if I had more ambition, I would in fact take them on and get a book written out of the deal.
But I know the people who actually do that, and the Creationists don't listen. As a child, I used to slam my head into the wall. Eventually I learned it accomplished nothing and simply hurt. I don't like beating my head against walls any more.
In college, I was both a Christian and a Biology and Chemistry double major. The English, Architecture, and Arts folks insisted (as do you) that one could not be both a Christian and accept evolution as true. I almost stopped being a Christian, as I went through class after class where I could do the lab work to see for myself who was right.
It was only in studying the Bible, with prayer and determination, that I realized the real problem. The Creationists were wrong in insisting that Evolution and the saving work of Jesus Christ are diametrically opposed. They're not.
Jesus Christ died for our sins that we might be acceptable to God, and He rose again on the third day, that we might rise as well. That is my faith. That is the thing by which I am saved. I am not saved by Creationism, and to say that Jesus Christ and Creationism are both needed for salvation is a "different Gospel."
We all know what the Bible says about "different Gospels."
And you have not attempted to answer any of my questions. How about the "Why were Creationists caught lying for God in the Dover Trial?"
I have asked, nearly BEGGED you to stick with what I asked. Here, I'll cut and paste myself:
"Especially since Carbon dating has proven unreliable for it's previous usage."
I greatly appreciate that you hvae come much closer in this last response to actually addressing that than before, thank you. I'm not averse to discussing science at all, but you took it to name calling and a discussion of creation. I merely linked articles where in some, creation was discussed.
Here's the thing: the value or non-value of Carbon dating will not affect my belief in a literal creation any more than any other tool of men because my belief in it was never grounded in the accuracy of Carbon dating.
If my faith was grounded in human discoveries alone, it would be subject to falling apart with the bi-annual disputation/recategorization of almost every known discovery.
"And you have not attempted to answer any of my questions. How about the "Why were Creationists caught lying for God in the Dover Trial?"
~Perhaps BECAUSE they were lying, if they were? I say "if" because I haven't re-read the story. Their lying doesn't hurt me any more than the crimes of some Black people in this country. It only serves to influence the views of others, not me.
As far as answering questions goes, you haven't said if you believe God to be powerful enough to have skipped evolution. Do you?
In addition (as much as I hate to give you opportunity to skip a question) when compared to each other, the preponderance of evidence still favors a sudden creation of humans.
I believe that God could have skipped evolution; I believe the overwhelming and clear evidence from every branch of science indicates He did not.
The theory of evolution is on a par with the theory of atoms, quantum theory (demonstrated out to an absurd number of decimal places) and the theory of relativity (also demonstrated to be accurate to a ridiculous degree). The question is not did humans evolve, but exactly how they evolved.
The preponderance of evidence favors evolution, not a sudden creation of humans. Your statement is not supported by any generally recognized facts.
I did, in fact, answer your question. I explained why carbon 14 dating is exceedingly reliable and to be believed when it shows dates for modern humans over 50,000 years! That is exactly what I answered. If you can't see that, then as I said, I'm not a great teacher of this stuff, or I simply had to leave out too much for you to understand what I was saying.
The Dover Creationists were caught lying because they'd gotten used to lying. Lying is a chronic habit with the Creationists. They can't support Creationism without lying, and so they've gotten used to "lying for God."
Their fruit was lies, born of lies. Who is their father? The Lord of Truth? Or someone who's known as the Father of Lies?
BTW: Another Christian blogger posted this. You might want to check it out.
"I believe that God could have skipped evolution; I believe the overwhelming and clear evidence from every branch of science indicates He did not."
~Are you honestly saying that there is more evidence for a single-cell to human evolution than the sudden appearance of humanity? If you are, then you are intentionally ignoring the evidence that disagrees with you.
"The theory of evolution is on a par with the theory of atoms, quantum theory (demonstrated out to an absurd number of decimal places) and the theory of relativity (also demonstrated to be accurate to a ridiculous degree). The question is not did humans evolve, but exactly how they evolved.
The preponderance of evidence favors evolution, not a sudden creation of humans. Your statement is not supported by any generally recognized facts."
~Except for the complete lack of transitional forms among other facts. Every skull or skeleton purported to be "something between" has been thoroughly debunked, leaving us with nothing but "Suddenly human".
"I did, in fact, answer your question. I explained why carbon 14 dating is exceedingly reliable and to be believed when it shows dates for modern humans over 50,000 years! That is exactly what I answered. If you can't see that, then as I said, I'm not a great teacher of this stuff, or I simply had to leave out too much for you to understand what I was saying."
~First, you did not clearly present ANY evidence until your recent comment. Only your opinion. If someone asks me whether an undergravel filter in their aquarium is really detrimental to the growth of plants I answer them with known facts, examples, and personal experience. Simple.
2nd, I'm asking God constantly to help me with my attitude because I am truly beginning to resent your continued assumption of my ignorance. I was reminded tonight that Darwin's evolutionary theories are quite racist,and I'm trying to avoid thinking that you've fallen for the "inadequate negroid" teachings but we have wrestled with that issue before. It's an inherency of evolution that something must develop better traits than something else. Therefore one type of human must be better than others, and that is antithetical to Scriptural teaching.
"The Dover Creationists were caught lying because they'd gotten used to lying. Lying is a chronic habit with the Creationists. They can't support Creationism without lying, and so they've gotten used to "lying for God."
~It's stunning that you would say that as someone who claims to be a Christian and should be filled with the Holy Spirit and His gifts.
"Their fruit was lies, born of lies. Who is their father? The Lord of Truth? Or someone who's known as the Father of Lies?"
~You are taking wuite a risk for someone who wasn't there when the world was formed. It's clear that you won't stick to discussing Carbon dating, so here's a Creation discussion with which you can argue.
http://www.sfpulpit.com/category/creationism/
-Yes, I am saying there is more evidence for single-cell to human evolution than the sudden appearance of humanity. There is no reliable evidence for the latter, and I've worked through much of the former myself. One of the areas I can discuss at length would be the DNA evidence -- you can create trees to follow the progression, based on Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms. I also happen to have an interesting collection of fossils, although they're trilobites, etc. The important ones demonstrating human evolution are in museums. A wonderful class in vertebrate structure and development demonstrated that.
-Yes, I have seen the attempts by Creationists to deny this and present their own "evidence," but it's nonsense and misinterpretation.
-There are plenty of transitional forms. It has not been thoroughly debunked -- DNA evidence has even proven the suspected link in a number of cases, although it's also forced a re-evaluation and a re-drawing of the links in others.
-There is no "suddenly human" needed.
-You asked me to simplify the argument. I did. I didn't go into the math, but I pointed out that there are numerous ways of cross-checking the carbon dating, and that these alternative methods, which do not rely on the same methods, mechanisms, or environmental conditions all produce the same answer.
I answered you with known facts -- there are sedimentary layers which produce similar results to the carbon 14. There are other radioactive decay paths. There are tree rings. There's the steady decay of DNA in old samples that acts as a rough clock. There's SNP inheritance patterns in DNA that act as a clock. There's chemical markers from known events and parallel events either region-wide or world-wide that also help to establish dates. They all work together. They all fit. They don't contradict each other.
--The "inadequate negroid?" I'm negroid, partially. Perhaps Darwin was racist. I've not studied his biography. What turned out to be wrong about his theory gets dumped. Science changes and grows as more is learned, and what we now know is that human beings came from a very small population, the "mitochondrial Eve." We are all closer related than most species on the planet, and as such, saying that one race is inferior makes no sense.
Not only is there little variation in DNA between humans, but there's an interesting property to that variation. Take two indigenous people from Africa and someone from anywhere else in the world. Statistically, the DNA between the "rest of the world" person is likely to be more similar to each of the individuals from Africa than the two individuals from Africa are likely to be from each other. How can one race be superior when the DNA is so close?
It's only in looking at tiny inconsequential (well, not in the case of Tay Sachs, Lesch Nyhans, variations on sickle cell anemia, etc. -- those are SNP-caused autosomal recessives that proved useful to the heterozygous population, but that's another discussion) that we're able to trace genetic ancestry at all. And we all trace back to Africa.
That's YOUR problem with race and evolution, not mine, and it's based on misinformation. Strange, you pull the race card. It never occurred to me because I know enough to realize it's not true.
I do believe that you have been taught a load of rubbish, a load of rubbish that is inaccurate and does not make sense. Unfortunately, I do think that you have not studied the areas I have, and as a result, I can't dive into the mathematics to demonstrate.
I gave you the opportunity to discuss one topic on the necessary level, and YOU were the one who said he couldn't
You could have simply Googled the answer. I found it in one try and four clicks, using two key words: Thermodynamics Evolution. In one variation of the equation, the math involved only requires grade school algebra. Well, for me it was grade-school...
You're getting angry? That's your problem, not mine. Be angry but sin not.
-I'm taking quite a risk because I read the court transcript. The Dover Creationists were caught in lies after testifying under oath. Obvious lies. The judge called them on it and it made the national news. Rick Santorum disassociated himself from the Creationist group that was pushing for Creationism to be taught in the schools, it was such an embarrassment. Santorum got caught lying about his residence, and I honestly believe between the two, it's why he was defeated.
I stuck mostly to carbon dating. You've responded to none of it. Like I said, I am not a good teacher for things technical unless I can get into the math and the equations. You asked me to simplify, and I did. That does not make what I know any less true.
I also took comments on your reply, such as the Dover incident, where you commented on my reply.
I am taking no risk. I simply pointed out the behavior of the Dover Creationists and evaluated them using basic Biblical principles. They lie to support their view of how God created the universe. That says something major about them.
The Heavens and Earth declare the Glory of God. I worship a God so powerful he created infinite multiple universes, each at least 160 billion light-years in diameter (and probably a couple orders of magnitude bigger than that) 14 or so billion years ago, yet knew the result would include Earth, humanity, and the need for His Son Jesus Christ to die on the Cross. He could have created a bubble 10,000 lightyears or so in diameter 10,000 years ago, but that would have been a jury-rigged universe. The universe I see works, and to me it's the difference between someone who builds a plastic model of the space shuttle by themselves and someone who builds a space shuttle by themselves. The first is tiny and doesn't really work, the latter is the real thing.
I don't think you give God enough credit.
I am willing to face the data honestly and change my mind as needed. Not everything that I believed when I took biochemistry back in 1979 is accepted today. Back then, junk DNA was thought to be useless. We now know it performs vital functions in the human genome, and that 8% of it is the remains of ancient retroviruses that have been brought under control through evolutionary progress. Scientists learn.
What I have not found, despite the best efforts of the Creationists, is anything that contradicts the existence of God or of Christ's saving work.
As for the link you gave -- I disagree with them. Scripture and science cannot be in conflict. If there is a conflict, either the science is wrong or the interpretation of scripture is wrong. With so many separate chains of evidence leading to the concept that the universe is billions of years old...I was forced to reconsider my interpretation of Genesis. The fault was not with God nor the Bible but with my understanding of it.
BTW: You seem to question whether someone is a Christian if they accept evolution as how God created the universe.
Does that mean you question whether the Roman Catholic Church is Christian? Their leaders (including the current Pope and the one before him) have said that they see no conflict between evolution and Genesis.
I'm wondering how Powerball would take that...
“-Yes, I am saying there is more evidence for single-cell to human evolution than the sudden appearance of humanity. There is no reliable evidence for the latter, and I've worked through much of the former myself.”
~Then you are smarter than most people who get paid to do this type of study. Congratulations.
“-Yes, I have seen the attempts by Creationists to deny this and present their own "evidence," but it's nonsense and misinterpretation.”
~Another accusation without proof.
“-There are plenty of transitional forms. It has not been thoroughly debunked -- DNA evidence has even proven the suspected link in a number of cases, although it's also forced a re-evaluation and a re-drawing of the links in others.”
~Now you’re just making things up.
“-There is no "suddenly human" needed.”
~”Suddenly human” is what the situation stands as, not what’s “needed.”
“-You asked me to simplify the argument. I did. I didn't go into the math, but I pointed out that there are numerous ways of cross-checking the carbon dating, and that these alternative methods, which do not rely on the same methods, mechanisms, or environmental conditions all produce the same answer.”
~Ok, so you said “there are ways”. I could say “there are ways” about lots of things. Perhaps we should settle that you are just not capable of teaching the things you believe, as you yourself have said, and accept the consequences of that truth.
“I answered you with known facts -- there are sedimentary layers which produce similar results to the carbon 14. There are other radioactive decay paths. There are tree rings. There's the steady decay of DNA in old samples that acts as a rough clock. There's SNP inheritance patterns in DNA that act as a clock. There's chemical markers from known events and parallel events either region-wide or world-wide that also help to establish dates. They all work together. They all fit. They don't contradict each other.”
~You offered some contradictory evidence, which I noted. Yet you offered very little. Am I to change my opinion because of a few possible contradictions or would I be wiser to wait until the strength of the evidence is overwhelming? A scientist would wait.
“--The "inadequate negroid?" I'm negroid, partially. Perhaps Darwin was racist. I've not studied his biography. What turned out to be wrong about his theory gets dumped. Science changes and grows as more is learned, and what we now know is that human beings came from a very small population, the "mitochondrial Eve." We are all closer related than most species on the planet, and as such, saying that one race is inferior makes no sense.”
~You’re right, it doesn’t, yet you follow the beliefs championed and largely formed by a man who thought that way, and used evolution theory to back it up. I strongly suggest you read his biography and outside critiques of Charles Darwin’s work.
“Not only is there little variation in DNA between humans, but there's an interesting property to that variation. Take two indigenous people from Africa and someone from anywhere else in the world. Statistically, the DNA between the "rest of the world" person is likely to be more similar to each of the individuals from Africa than the two individuals from Africa are likely to be from each other. How can one race be superior when the DNA is so close?”
~Again, it’s a component of the evolutionary belief you champion. You should have a more thorough grasp of what you try to push onto others.
“That's YOUR problem with race and evolution, not mine, and it's based on misinformation. Strange, you pull the race card. It never occurred to me because I know enough to realize it's not true.”
~You clearly don’t know enough about what you believe.
“I do believe that you have been taught a load of rubbish, a load of rubbish that is inaccurate and does not make sense. Unfortunately, I do think that you have not studied the areas I have, and as a result, I can't dive into the mathematics to demonstrate.”
~Right. Because you are a bad teacher. What good does that do anyone?
“I gave you the opportunity to discuss one topic on the necessary level, and YOU were the one who said he couldn't.”
~Yup. Yet your vast knowledge has proven incapable of clarifying it, so I still have no reason to believe it in the face of known evidence.
“You could have simply Googled the answer. I found it in one try and four clicks, using two key words: Thermodynamics Evolution. In one variation of the equation, the math involved only requires grade school algebra. Well, for me it was grade-school…”
~Or, you who believe it so strongly and so quickly castigate those who disagree, could climb down off your mountain and make it plain to us non-illuminated folk.
“You're getting angry? That's your problem, not mine. Be angry but sin not.”
~Spoken with such grace and understanding. Thank you.
“-I'm taking quite a risk because I read the court transcript. The Dover Creationists were caught in lies after testifying under oath. Obvious lies. The judge called them on it and it made the national news. Rick Santorum disassociated himself from the Creationist group that was pushing for Creationism to be taught in the schools, it was such an embarrassment. Santorum got caught lying about his residence, and I honestly believe between the two, it's why he was defeated.”
~Ok. People, even Christians, lie and do stupid things. Not an argument.
“I stuck mostly to carbon dating. You've responded to none of it.”
~Not at all true. Perhaps if you stop just looking for points to disagree with and actually read what I’ve written, you’d see that.
“Like I said, I am not a good teacher for things technical unless I can get into the math and the equations. You asked me to simplify, and I did. That does not make what I know any less true.”
~Ok.
“I also took comments on your reply, such as the Dover incident, where you commented on my reply.
I am taking no risk. I simply pointed out the behavior of the Dover Creationists and evaluated them using basic Biblical principles. They lie to support their view of how God created the universe. That says something major about them.”
~Ok.
“The Heavens and Earth declare the Glory of God. I worship a God so powerful he created infinite multiple universes, each at least 160 billion light-years in diameter (and probably a couple orders of magnitude bigger than that) 14 or so billion years ago, yet knew the result would include Earth, humanity, and the need for His Son Jesus Christ to die on the Cross. He could have created a bubble 10,000 lightyears or so in diameter 10,000 years ago, but that would have been a jury-rigged universe. The universe I see works, and to me it's the difference between someone who builds a plastic model of the space shuttle by themselves and someone who builds a space shuttle by themselves. The first is tiny and doesn't really work, the latter is the real thing.”
~According to evolution, the first didn’t really work and developed into the real thing.
“I don't think you give God enough credit.”
~Riiight. You’re the one saying He didn’t get it right the first time, not me.
“I am willing to face the data honestly and change my mind as needed. Not everything that I believed when I took biochemistry back in 1979 is accepted today. Back then, junk DNA was thought to be useless. We now know it performs vital functions in the human genome, and that 8% of it is the remains of ancient retroviruses that have been brought under control through evolutionary progress. Scientists learn.”
~I’m willing too, but I have not been shown enough evidence (and believe it or not, I love natural sciences) to believe otherwise.
“What I have not found, despite the best efforts of the Creationists, is anything that contradicts the existence of God or of Christ's saving work.”
~Why would it? I don’t understand what you’re trying to accomplish by that statement.
“As for the link you gave -- I disagree with them. Scripture and science cannot be in conflict. If there is a conflict, either the science is wrong or the interpretation of scripture is wrong. With so many separate chains of evidence leading to the concept that the universe is billions of years old...I was forced to reconsider my interpretation of Genesis. The fault was not with God nor the Bible but with my understanding of it.”
~As for all men, your disagreement doesn’t make you right. As you clearly state yourself, science is not infallible, and we are regularly learning new things that contradict the old. Scripture IS infallible. The two MUST disagree at many places by all logical viewpoints, however, science if honestly practiced, will come more and more into agreement with Scripture all the time. Perfect agreement will not be sen until His return because flesh is flesh.
5:56 AM
Rob said...
“BTW: You seem to question whether someone is a Christian if they accept evolution as how God created the universe.”
~I absolutely did not. It’s your attitude and actions. that makes me question the presence of The Holy Spirit within you. I can’t and won’t even try to say “Rob is/Rob isn’t saved” because that is far beyond my place and ability. Only God makes that call. At the same time, He tells us that salvation reveals itself through the saved person. A belief in evolution is merely an evidence of need for further Scriptural education and doesn’t mean a person isn’t a Christian.
“Does that mean you question whether the Roman Catholic Church is Christian? Their leaders (including the current Pope and the one before him) have said that they see no conflict between evolution and Genesis.
I'm wondering how Powerball would take that... “
~ANY person who is a leader of other Christians who has not studied enough of the Word to know that Genesis (not only Genesis but also the rest of Scripture-note the places in the New Testament where the early chapters of Genesis are treated as history, not allegory) is the truth is in need of re-education in the Word of God.
See how you attempt to stir unnecessary trouble? That is why I wonder about not some group of people who believe a thing, but you.
Stir up unnecessary trouble?
I'm trying to draw Powerball into this because I don't feel like doing all the typing. The Roman Catholic Church does not think Creationism is accurate, and I'm hoping he'll jump into this conversation.
If getting other people involved in this discussion is your idea of trouble...you've got a strange idea of discussion.
I'm sorry. I had no idea this discussion was going on. I've been so busy and I still have not read every comment.
I will say that I'm in no way calling for abortion. I'm not sure where you got that Rob.
I also let you in on a secret. I don't have all the answers. I believe that life was created by God. I also believe that life evolves. We are born in one form and die in a very different form. I see no conflict in accepting evolution in a Christian way.
As for debating carbon dating you are on your own.
Rob, for all your intelligence I'm sure you knew that "Hey Powerball,what do you think?" would have been inviting someone into the conversation. You're not fooling meguy, I've spent too much time around doublespeak.
MICROevolution, sure. MACROevolution to create people from slime? Never.
"Then you are smarter than most people who get paid to do this type of study. Congratulations."
Hardly -- this is the conclusion reached by those people.
~Now you’re just making things up.
No, I am not. Transitional forms, as defined by biologists, exist. Transitional forms as defined by creationists don't exist, but I'm not using the creationist definition -- which is wrong. According to the creationist definition, a transitional form would have to have some non-functional aspect that would develop into a functional aspect. Biologists state that all transitional forms are functional. A good example is the fish skeleton recently discovered that had exceptionally strong pectoral fins (I think it was pectoral...maybe it was the other end...honestly, at the time I just skimmed the article. I read 600 wpm, but long-term retention isn't perfect 6 months later -- this didn't seem worth the effort at the time) that were capable of being used for walking on land for brief distances and showed intermediate characteristics between normal fish bones and that of land animals. And when I say "bones," I'm being incorrect. Yes, I realize that fish bones aren't true bones but tend to be far more cartilaginous than true bones.
And I'm not making things up about the DNA, either. SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms)act as a clock and can be used to trace ancestry, especially when used in highly-conserved regions of important enzymes. It's the same technique being used to trace ancestries of humans and that demonstrated the existence of a "mitochondrial Eve."
Very few modern biologists believe that humans appear "suddenly" in the record. The ones that do are not within the biology sub-specialty involving human evolution. Usually their specialty is plants or something.
~Ok, so you said “there are ways”. I could say “there are ways” about lots of things. Perhaps we should settle that you are just not capable of teaching the things you believe, as you yourself have said, and accept the consequences of that truth.
I shouldn't attempt to teach complex things to people without the background in math and chemistry and biology and physics. I agree. I warned you early on. It doesn't mean I'm not right, it just means I shouldn't try writing books for the masses. I can even confuse my wife when talking about quantum mechanics, information theory, and black holes. She just gets this glazed look in her eyes and asks if I can point out a book. She's a Mechanical Engineer who actually gets the joke "Bessel Functions of the Third Kind." She had to explain that one to me.
~You’re right, it doesn’t, yet you follow the beliefs championed and largely formed by a man who thought that way
Even a blind pig finds things occasionally. Darwin was wrong about race -- as was Abraham Lincoln, who championed what I suspect are even worse ideas, and the Founding Fathers of the United States. Have you read any of THEIR biographies? Does that mean you're against the United States, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution? I hope not. Think it through.
~Again, it’s a component of the evolutionary belief you champion. You should have a more thorough grasp of what you try to push onto others.
No, it is not. That's merely your interpretation, or more likely what someone else told you it meant (but doesn't).
~Right. Because you are a bad teacher. What good does that do anyone?
You've done no better at defending creationism. I don't teach complex biochemistry or quantum physics to people. I did teach Advanced Cardiac Life Support to physicians and did quite well. I did teach pretty much the entire paramedic curriculum to EMTs, but there I had a study guide so that I could see how to present the topics in a way they understand. I received awards for teaching those subjects.
I don't try to teach evolution to those not familiar with calculating the half-life of a radioisotope based on experimental data.
I said that from the beginning. This is why I didn't want to get into this discussion, but you insisted, and now you're criticizing me for it. Nice.
~Riiight. You’re the one saying He didn’t get it right the first time, not me.
I'm saying no such thing. That's your interpretation. I'm saying He created a universe that works, not a Hollywood Western stage like in that one episode of "Star Trek."
~Spoken with such grace and understanding. Thank you.
You're welcome. I don't think you're a bad person. I think you've been sucked in by bad people.
~Or, you who believe it so strongly and so quickly castigate those who disagree, could climb down off your mountain and make it plain to us non-illuminated folk.
I posted it to point out the problem I would be faced with discussing something far more complicated.
Creationists claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution.
A simple form of the law mathematically would be:
ΔS(universe)≥ 0
The change in entropy of the universe (I don't think the blogger comment form accepts subscript HTML, so I put it in parentheses -- that's not a multiplication) is always greater than or equal to zero.
The Creationists claim that this means nothing can ever get more organized. This is incorrect, as the equation for Gibbs Free energy demonstrates:
ΔG= ΔH-TΔS
where H is work and T is the temperature. Dividing everything by Temperature gives
ΔG/T= ΔH/T-ΔS
In other words, all three terms are entropy-like. Notice the signs are opposite. If you work with an equilibrium situation, ΔG=0, so you get
ΔH/T=ΔS
If you do work from outside the closed system, you can reverse entropy. A good example is the crystallization of salt.
H=E-PV
H is still work, E equals energy, P is pressure, V is volume. In other words, you can do work or change pressure or volume with energy. Duh. We all knew that.
So, if there is an energy source available, entropy can be reversed on a limited scale. See, doing work also causes entropy, so while locally the entropy might decrease, the universal entropy increases.
In the case of evolution on Earth, evolution can occur because there is energy from the sun. The energy from the sun is what makes life possible on Earth (mostly...radioactive decay also contributes to life living around smoker vents in the ocean. Radioactive decay is an entropic process, so the energy from radioctive decay that goes toward reversing entropy of the organisms living on the Earth's floor results in far more entropy than the life gets rid of. What does radioactive decay have to do with smoker vents? The heat of radioactive decay is what keeps the lava molten and causes the lava to form and release sulfur compounds, which are energetic and on which the smoker vet life exists).
Anyway, where was I? Oh, yeah. Energy from the sun warms the Earth and causes chemical reactions that produce compounds that are energetic and are used by life to fuel evolution.
On the page "Answers in Genesis," (I linked earlier, I think), the person responding says that such "raw" energy can't possibly do any good, and that the Second Law is preserved. Here, he's conflating mechanisms with the Second Law. The Second Law says nothing about mechanisms, other than to say that the mechanisms must result in an overall increase in universal entropy, although in the process, local entropy can be decreased. You can decrease entropy in one place, but to do so, you have to increase entropy somewhere else.
He claims that such raw energy is useless to evolution. But it is the solar energy that provides warmth to maintain an hospitable environment on Earth (along with the radioactive decay -- if there were no radioactive decay in the Earth's interior, the Earth actually would have frozen a long time ago -- equilibrium temeprature for a body in Earth's orbit is below zero Celsius) and it is picked up by plants with chlorophyll and converted into energy usable by themselves and other organisms -- still following the Second Law. The plants in turn are eaten by animals, and so plants, animals, and the other three classifications -- Archaea, Protista, and darned if I can remember the 5th right now, and some biologists argue there's 6 or 3, either splitting or merging certain kingdoms -- I can't believe I'm doing this without coffee -- -- evolve.
The guy from "Answers in Genesis" correctly brings up the question of the evolution of the first life, but in doing so, he's granting the evolution of all life once the first life was formed. He doesn't tell you that, though.
How life first evolved is, indeed an important question, and one that is difficult. But a) the conversion of sunlight into energy rich compounds (put salt in a jar -- put in more salt than the jar can hold. Let the sun shine on it during the day. The temperature of the solution increases, more salt dissolves, at night, the temperature cools, and salt crystals form. Because of the cube-square law, the next day, salt from tiny crystals will be more likely to dissolve than from large crystals. Repeat several times, and what you wind up with is the growth of large face-centered cubic salt crystals. Large salt crystals contain more energy and are less entropic (and contain more information, according to information theory) than salt from a salt shaker. We've just seen a simple example of solar energy driving a reaction that results in the self-organization of a system. Local information content goes up (Please tell me you don't want me to go through the statistical mechanics to prove that a large salt crystal is less entropic and contains more information than a small salt crystal. Honestly, I could do that calculation at one time, but I'd have to dig out some textbooks to replicate it). So, we've shown in principle (and in actuality) that self-organizing systems can take energy
from the sun and turn it into an entropy-decreasing process. The formation of living organisms would occur by the same basic concept, although the mechanism would be far more complex and, is not fully understood.
Yes, we don't know how that mechanism occurred. But what I have shown is that the Second Law and basic Chemistry (I don't want to merge the two -- the mistake made by the Answers in Genesis guy) do not prohibit the formation of life from non-life and that once started, there is NO reason the Second Law of Thermodynamics would prevent evolution.
Now, that's a simple argument. To actually follow the arguments about Carbon dating is far more difficult, involves a number of scientific disciplines, and frankly, I don't have the time to type it up. If you were a chemist with at least some PDQ under your belt, I could simply reference basic concepts and cut through a lot of this. You're not. That doesn't mean you're bad. It just means I have no hope of adequately teaching it to you. But because I cannot teach it does not make it any less true.
And, as you can see, I've demonstrated that a basic argument used by the Creationists is totally and undeniably false. I'm not the first. Duane Gish, in the very first issue of Science 80, had a debate with Isaac Asimov. Gish tried the same 2nd Law argument and Asimov called him on it. Yet Gish and the following Creationists continue to use an argument that they must know is wrong. Gish should have had enough thermo in chemistry class to know that, as must many others, and yet they keep repeating the same false arguments.
That's why I say the chronic lying of the Creationist leaders is a demonstration of a basic flaw both in their arguments and their approach to God. They are willfully ignorant or willfully decieving, and that scares me.
By the way, if the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibited evolution, then even microevolution would be impossible. Microevolution is the decrease in a local area of entropy! So how can they say that microevolution occurs but that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
By accepting that microevolution occurs, you yourself are saying their argument about evolution and the 2nd Law is flawed! So which is it? Is there no such thing as microevolution, are the Creationists wrong about evolution and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or are you going to try to claim that decreasing entropy by microevolution is not prohibited by the 2nd Law but that decreasing entropy by macroevolution is? I'd love so see someone try to justify that last one. The resulting torrent of illogic would be hysterical.
Were you able to follow all that?
We're getting nowhere, which is what I suspected. You're making unsupported statements, I suck at explaining mine.
I forgot. Do you know what Gibbs free energy is, and what it would mean if ΔG=0 in a system where, from the outside, you perform work?
Short course: If the Gibbs Free energy is not zero, you can have all sorts of reactions occur. Can, doesn't mean they will. The sugar on your table and the oxygen in your air have a ΔG that's fun to play with, but they don't start burning because the activation energy is too high. Sugar itself won't burn well, unless you add ash, which acts as a catalyst. The reaction will go, the ΔG is favorable, but the mechanism prevents it without the activation energy and a helper catalyst.
I made ΔG = 0 to make the situation easier to work with. I can do the same analysis with greater than zero and less and reach the same conclusion. I don't feel like it.
It took me thermo in high school chemistry, thermo in Statistical and Quantum Mechanics, that graduate level thermodynamics for chemical engineers and there was one more undergrad thermo course that, for the life of me, I can't remember right now. They hit on thermo a couple times in physics as well. They used differential equations and PDQ to analyze it mathematically. And you know what? I hate thermo. I understand the concepts fine. I understand the math fine, although not as throughly as I really need. But there's just something about being presented with a problem where you have to go from the situation through a set of equations that has more to do with puzzle solving than it does with science, to finally get an answer that I absolutely positively hate.
Strangely, statistical mechanics isn't as bad, and it's basically the process of deriving thermodynamics. That's fun.
But to discuss carbon radioisotope dating, we'd have to get into everything from quantum mechanics, solar radiation, the Earth's magnetosphere, other radioisotopes, geology archaeology (why do I spell that with the British version?), biology of trees, biology of cells, the basics of diffusion, and a bunch of other stuff.
So you asked me to simplify, I simplified, and then you yell at me because I overgeneralized.
Yeesh.
Crud. I made an error. Not really an error. I'm used to some other forms of the equations that are more useful, since you can use one to essentially mean the other as a simplifying assumption, like when working with thermally isolated systems. It doesn't change anything, just requires about 10 more paragraphs to repair. I wonder if anyone will even notice besides me.
H is enthalpy, not Work. H=E+PV E=Q+W. Q=O, PV=0, (we're not mucking with the system by changing pressure, volume, or adding or subtracting heat) and so you wind up with H=Q+W+PV. H=0+W+0. H=W, at least under the specified conditions.
Sorry, that was sloppy. I really shouldn't try doing thermo when I first wake up.
And yeah, E=U in the absence of an external field. I was still proofreading this in my head while I was taking a shower.
Also, note that if any of the simplifying assumptions, like PV=0, Q=0, or there's no external field are not true, you can simply define W' as W+ whatever term is no longer being simplified and carry through the same calculations using W' instead of W.
And that's why I'm used to making those assumptions. It's easier and you get the same answer.
I just noticed this one:
"Rob, for all your intelligence I'm sure you knew that "Hey Powerball,what do you think?" would have been inviting someone into the conversation. You're not fooling meguy, I've spent too much time around doublespeak."
Actually, I really was hoping he'd jump in here. If you want to think it's doublespeak, that's your problem. I know why I did it, and it wasn't for some nefarious purpose.
Honestly, I think that says more about you than me.
I haven't the time or the inclination to read this whole exchange. Suffice to say that Rob and I may disagree on a lot of theological issues, but the absurdity of Creationism is not one of them.
Creationism is bunkum. Genesis doesn’t present how the universe came to be except to say that God made it. It’s primarily about why the universe exists at all. That’s explained through the use of pagan myths of the time, retold to make clear that the universe wasn’t created from petty squabbles among gods or by accident, but by the deliberate choice of a single god who created from nothing.
Belief in Creationism requires a tortured reading of Genesis and complete failing to recognize the literary style in which it is written. NOTA BENE: I will not debate this issue here. If you wish to debate the meaning of Genesis, feel free to write a blog post putting forth your interpretation and let me know about it. I or one of my guest bloggers would be happy to respond to it.
BTW, as a Christian scientist with degrees in engineering and nearly a degree in intelligent systems, I have no problem whatsoever believing that God creating evolution. Nor do I have a problem with it being a random process. Actually, I believe that it's a pseudo-random process; God shaved the dice, so to speak. ;)
P.S. In case you'd be tempted to think so. not debating here is not meant as a cop out. I'm a grad student swamped with work as I wrap up my masters project and lack the time to check this thread and respond. Besides, this conversation is WAY off topic from the post.
FD,
God didn't need to shave the dice, either. What is "random" from God's viewpoint?
Would you want to play poker with God? Well, ok, yeah, I would, too. But I'd do so knowing full well I was going to lose, and lose bad, assuming God didn't throw the game.
God could shuffle the deck of cards and, without altering any of the cards, bending space/time, etc. deal out A, 2, 3, 4, etc.
Being outside of time has some distinct advantages. You know how to shuffle and what the results are and when to stop!
For quantum mechanical principles, I'll admit I'm making certain assumptions, but card shuffling is classic physics. And even if my assumptions are wrong about QM (Can God create something so random He can't predict it?), it's trivial to see how God could have dealt with such randomness.
a brain teaser:
Are the digits of pi a random sequence?
It depends on which definition of "random" you use. Statistically, the numbers appear with equal frequency, as predicted. On the other hand, if you start reading off pi starting at the 100th digit, I know what you're going to say for 120. Well, I could find it out. I don't have that memorized and I'm way too lazy to look it up.
At some point, the numbers 1 to 100 must appear in order in pi. The first 1,000 digits must appear in pi, in order, somewhere else, in pi.
Along the same line -- if God created an infinite and unbounded universe, then it must repeat eventually, and also contain every possible variation.
Think of it as an infinite number of chessboards, with each chess board having pieces in a different position. Eventually, the chess boards have to repeat. Now change 2 dimensions into 3 (or 4 or 10 or whatever the QM Brane theorists are saying this week), think of the chessboards as being 10^156 light years on a side, the "squares" are cubes or hyper cubes or hyper-umpteen cubes with each side a Plank distance, and the pieces are particles.
Any possible sub-universe (all those inside their own event horizons -- do I need to explain an event horizon in a universe expanding faster than light? Areas of the greater universe become causally disconnected and can never affect each other after a certain time -- and they should give off Hawking radiation, too) would exist.
And in that circumstance, what is "random" or even "human free will" to God?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home