Modern Knowledge in the Bible!

Hi Brad. I am not certain if by natural order you mean a materialistic universe or one that is ordered though God like means but either way it is not clear that humans ,being made of atoms, can be capable of imposing direction to the world through means of any force that atoms themselves are not subject to.We can say that we are special and not subject to laws of nature but to what extent.Can we fall from a height and psychically arrest our descent? Can we will a deadly exposure to a radioactive substance into harmlessness?Perhaps this is not the order of which you speak.In the extent to which we are capable of sin it is my impression that when the situation of life favors our desires and inclinations we are capable of choice. On the other hand when humans are forced by circumstances out of their sphere of influence they are capable of brutish self interest.It is why when times are good and security is present civilization flourishes. Sin then becomes a matter of what the majority will determines to be acceptable behaviour.Consider the follwing to poems that deal with war(World war 1) and the nature of sin.Please be aware that we in North America depend upon our youth everyday to secure the freedoms we take for granted.It is not a trade off I am always comfortable with since I wonder where my sin lies.Apologia pro Poemate MeoI, too, saw God through mud --
The mud that cracked on cheeks when wretches smiled.
War brought more glory to their eyes than blood,
And gave their laughs more glee than shakes a child.Merry it was to laugh there --
Where death becomes absurd and life absurder.
For power was on us as we slashed bones bare
Not to feel sickness or remorse of murder.I, too, have dropped off fear --
Behind the barrage, dead as my platoon,
And sailed my spirit surging, light and clear
Past the entanglement where hopes lay strewn;And witnessed exultation --
Faces that used to curse me, scowl for scowl,
Shine and lift up with passion of oblation,
Seraphic for an hour; though they were foul.I have made fellowships --
Untold of happy lovers in old song.
For love is not the binding of fair lips
With the soft silk of eyes that look and long,By Joy, whose ribbon slips, --
But wound with war's hard wire whose stakes are strong;
Bound with the bandage of the arm that drips;
Knit in the welding of the rifle-thong.I have perceived much beauty
In the hoarse oaths that kept our courage straight;
Heard music in the silentness of duty;
Found peace where shell-storms spouted reddest spate.Nevertheless, except you share
With them in hell the sorrowful dark of hell,
Whose world is but the trembling of a flare,
And heaven but as the highway for a shell,You shall not hear their mirth:
You shall not come to think them well content
By any jest of mine. These men are worth
Your tears: You are not worth their merriment.November 1917.Strange MeetingIt seemed that out of the battle I escaped
Down some profound dull tunnel, long since scooped
Through granites which Titanic wars had groined.
Yet also there encumbered sleepers groaned,
Too fast in thought or death to be bestirred.
Then, as I probed them, one sprang up, and stared
With piteous recognition in fixed eyes,
Lifting distressful hands as if to bless.
And by his smile, I knew that sullen hall;
With a thousand fears that vision's face was grained;
Yet no blood reached there from the upper ground,
And no guns thumped, or down the flues made moan.
"Strange, friend," I said, "Here is no cause to mourn."
"None," said the other, "Save the undone years,
The hopelessness. Whatever hope is yours,
Was my life also; I went hunting wild
After the wildest beauty in the world,
Which lies not calm in eyes, or braided hair,
But mocks the steady running of the hour,
And if it grieves, grieves richlier than here.
For by my glee might many men have laughed,
And of my weeping something has been left,
Which must die now. I mean the truth untold,
The pity of war, the pity war distilled.
Now men will go content with what we spoiled.
Or, discontent, boil bloody, and be spilled.
They will be swift with swiftness of the tigress,
None will break ranks, though nations trek from progress.
Courage was mine, and I had mystery;
Wisdom was mine, and I had mastery;
To miss the march of this retreating world
Into vain citadels that are not walled.
Then, when much blood had clogged their chariot-wheels
I would go up and wash them from sweet wells,
Even with truths that lie too deep for taint.
I would have poured my spirit without stint
But not through wounds; not on the cess of war.
Foreheads of men have bled where no wounds were.
I am the enemy you killed, my friend.
I knew you in this dark; for so you frowned
Yesterday through me as you jabbed and killed.
I parried; but my hands were loath and cold.
Let us sleep now . . ."These lines were penned in world war one. Are we really any wiser nowadays?

{Content deleted - Duplicated part of previous message - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-13-2003]

The issue will depend very much on Einstein's own recognition of different possible senses to use the words "similarity" OR congruence. I doubt we are subject to the "forces" Gould's probalism attempts to materialize but in the 21century of HP nanotech we may loose the differnence of Einstein's project wich notices a difference between a rod and clock by the "other" power (whatever it is that goes uncontrolled or unregulated (such as invasive virutal reality etc) while in deprecating Gould's lack of physicalism FOR CONGRUNECE where in analogy to Newton prerfering chemistry to conspiring motions Eisntein preferred the advances of relativity and similarity and NOT congruence. I am quite postive that whatever the line of physical relation between speices is the theory can benefit from some sybolic work expended on the junction, joint, incidence or "congruence" of the material BODILY involved even if these bodies only make nanobots and not flesh communictors to a hypothetical DNA programmer and beyond. I have not constructed an alternative to relativity nor said how light uncoupled from a rigid rod would permit the exact defintion of a ZERO ATOM UNIT however if Matchette's metaphysical force has any meaning in terms of Croizat's "track" width which is undetermined physical quanity then I suspect even Einstein's citing of sharp spectral lines and volumes of atoms can be dealt with to full physcial chemistry reality before any idea such as Crick's that RNA expts remand lose of cultural support for vitalism. Again- God would do the changing or in the case of unbelief, man will discover the truth. Matchtte was indicating that a metaphysical force PERMITS the increased divergence. I am proposing it possible to suppose indeed that his epistemology (via c/e discussions) can be cashed into a existing ontology of actual forces or whatever the interaction of Einstein and Newton is when Boscovich is thrown into the biometric-mendelic pot for Einstein KNEW the consequence if he was wrong. "This would mean tha the locally measured velocity of light would depend on time, which would contradict even the special theory of relativity...."This would mean that there would exist no metric in the sense of relativity." I dont think I have said the first but I am suggesting that as to adaptation and nonadaptive traits that in FLESH that is also a creature's tissue, corpus or KORPER this metric does not exist. I fell intutively correct that Weyl is incorrect when he applies the "formula" of metric and lattice points (EINSTEIN's SIMILARITY?) to biology. This does not mean the physco-chemical reality is in need of any update. THAT IS WHAT IS MISSING IN the TEACHING @ Research Universites as they have been increasingly geared to research which depends on already existing things than on training the next generation of workers who may have to discover things that dont exist today. Crick misses this point. Sagan did too. Provine is not as proud, I think. Morphometrics however as a praxis does. I also think that the formalisms of planimeters can be drawn down to show how "congruence" rather than "similarity" can be gain said in making nanotechnology less "dangerous" in its aggregate samness on linking incidently with nanoecology but why I am the only guy on EARTH with this idea is beyond. I hope to find that I am not.