Science and Perfection

[Patty]

Just a thought I'd like to share with folks,

In my opinion, scientists could learn much, much more if, at the onset of their research, they would NOT simply attempt to dissect something to its base elements, but would instead, marvel at it's perfection. 

By 'marvel at its perfection' I mean this: to acknowledge how something functions in harmony with all the other things with which it exists.

Then, once acknowledging its aspects of perfection, they would be wise to carefully and considerately make an effort to understand what they were looking at before jumping to conclusions about what they could do with the object.

 

Patty

 

[Morat]

  Mind giving an example? It's a nice little vague statement, but I'd like to know what sort of thing you had in mind.

 

 

[Patty]

Originally posted by Morat
  Mind giving an example? It's a nice little vague statement, but I'd like to know what sort of thing you had in mind.

 

Sure, Morat.

There are lots and lots of them.

One might be, without getting into it deep, deals with metals.
I've often wondered why metals are in the earth.  So, I looked up as many references as I possibly could and found not a one that asked the question:
"Why are metals in the earth?"

Please, please, please.  If somebody can direct me to a reference where someone asks that question or attempts an answer, I'd be eternally grateful.

I have found an answer to that question, myself.  But, I'd like to see if you folks can answer it before I give my answer. 

This, to me, is a real doozie.  Any input gratefully accepted.

Thanks, Morat, for the question!

Patty

 

[Morat]

  Sure they ask that question. Only, they start at a slightly more basic level. "Why is there a planet? How did it form? Why is it the way it is?"

  Doesn't that include metals, in your estimation? Planetary formation is part of astronomy. here is a quick overview of the current theory.

  You can find, if you want to learn more, why certain elements clumped in certain places (why the inner planets are rocky and the outer gas giants).

 

 

[Patty]

Originally posted by Morat
  Sure they ask that question. Only, they start at a slightly more basic level. "Why is there a planet? How did it form? Why is it the way it is?"

  Doesn't that include metals, in your estimation? Planetary formation is part of astronomy. here is a quick overview of the current theory.

  You can find, if you want to learn more, why certain elements clumped in certain places (why the inner planets are rocky and the outer gas giants).

 

HoooLaa, Morat!

I checked out that website, and what they say is exactly what I was bemoaning.  It seems that they're citing the 'Order from Chaos' line of thinking.

Well, like I said, that's exactly what I'm bemoaning. To quote something from that first page,

Inner Planets  

This zone was dominated by rock and metal, which was dumped together into ever-larger bodies called planetesimals, eventually forming the rocky inner planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars.

That's what I'm saying.  If only they would look at the object of their research and marvel at its perfection, it would make a difference.  But, they simply made an effort to look at the base elements of the universe, without marvelling at how well it's put together.  It wasn't 'dumped together'.  It IS perfection, and this perfection can be seen if they'd only look.

 

Patty

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Patty

"Why are metals in the earth?"

Look at your periodic table of the elements (everyone has one, right?). What fraction of them are metals? Does that provide at least a clue to the answer to your question?

 

[Morat]

HoooLaa, Morat!

I checked out that website, and what they say is exactly what I was bemoaning.  It seems that they're citing the 'Order from Chaos' line of thinking.

  What? Are they wrong? Does gravity not attract in proportion to mass?

   Bear in mind, you got the laymen's explanation.

That's what I'm saying.  If only they would look at the object of their research and marvel at its perfection, it would make a difference.  But, they simply made an effort to look at the base elements of the universe, without marvelling at how well it's put together.  It wasn't 'dumped together'.  It IS perfection, and this perfection can be seen if they'd only look.

   Ah, so if those crazy scientists stopped trying to understand how things work, they'd see perfection? So you're equating perfection with ignorance?

  Just out of curiosity: Do you know what the difference is between any two elements in the periodic table? Do you know why noble gasses are inert?

   Do you think knowing this "perfection" would help explain voltage?

 

 

 

[RufusAtticus]

Patty,

Are you complaining that scientists who know more about their subject than you do don't see the "perfection" that you do? Maybe there is a reason for that....

 

[Patty]

Hoo Hoo Hoo!

Go for it, guys!!

Keep proving me right!

I'd prefer that you'd at least consider what I'm saying.
To look at the whole and consider that it works in harmony.
Like I said, I found an answer. I'm keeping it close to the vest for now.

Am I complaining? Not about how much scientists know, but how they approach their research.

Patty

 

[Patty]

Read the first post in this thread to see what the question is.


Thanks,

Patty

 

[Morat]

  You have an answer for "Why are metals in the Earth" other than "they were there when the earth formed"?

   Oh, do share. Don't keep this knowledge gleaned from harmonious perfection to yourself.


  Still, at the moment, when it comes to their approach versus your approach: It's worth noting, we're having this conversation on their approach.


 

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Patty
Just a thought I'd like to share with folks,

In my opinion, scientists could learn much, much more if, at the onset of their research, they would NOT simply attempt to dissect something to its base elements, but would instead, marvel at it's perfection. 

By 'marvel at its perfection' I mean this: to acknowledge how something functions in harmony with all the other things with which it exists.

Then, once acknowledging its aspects of perfection, they would be wise to carefully and considerately make an effort to understand what they were looking at before jumping to conclusions about what they could do with the object.

 

Patty

To the contrary, scientists rejoice when advances are made for the benifit of all mankind. Sure, the research is in-depth and detailed, but each new discovery is something to marvel. The more I learn about God's creation, the more I am in awe of Him.

John

 

[Patty]

Originally posted by TheBear


To the contrary, scientists rejoice when advances are made for the benifit of all mankind. Sure, the research is in-depth and detailed, but each new discovery is something to marvel. The more I learn about God's creation, the more I am in awe of Him.

John

 

Hey John,

I surely agree with you.  The more I learn about God's creation, the more I am in awe of Him.  Praise Him for His Glorious Creations!!  Yeayah!

However, that's exactly what I'm saying.  Scientists research as though, instead of admiring the beauty of a puppy, they search scrupulously for fleas, whether the fleas exist or not.  In other words, they see a puppy, then form the premise that where there is canine, there exist fleas.  So, they tear through that baby's hide, scouring him until they either find evidence that they were right, or they say they must've overlooked something.

Better to enjoy the puppy and leave his hide alone, then let the fleas show their presence to you!!  Enjoy the puppy's company, don't rake him over without learning about his beautiful demeanor and personality.

 

Patty

 

[Shai-Hulud]

Better to enjoy the puppy and leave his hide alone, then let the fleas show their presence to you!! Enjoy the puppy's company, don't rake him over without learning about his beautiful demeanor and personality.

And go back to living in the trees?

Shai-Hulud

 

[euphoric]

Patty-

I think I see what you're trying to say here, but I think that you are making a fundamental error in your thinking.  You seem to be mistaking the professional work of scientists with their ability to enjoy the world they live in.  For example, the fact that a cosmologist studies the details of how the universe formed, doesn't mean that he lacks the ability to look up at the stars and enjoy the beauty of the night sky.  Scientists are precise and detail oriented in their work becuase that is what the field demands.  Science is in the details so to speak. 

The second thing you may not be considering is that many scientists find great enjoyment and beauty in the details.  You seem to be suggesting that the fact that scientists don't see "perfection" in something means that they can't appreciate the beauty of it.  Though I'm not a professional scientist, I am still more fascinated and awed by the details of how the world works than i am by any notion of perceived perfection.  The world, the universe and the things in it are not perfect, merely successful at what they do.  Frankly I find the quirks, imperfections and idiosyncracies fascinating and beautiful.

-brett

 

[TheBear]

I am sorry you see the scientific community that way, Patty.

When we look around, we see people living longer, being cured of things that were generally fatal a mere 100 years ago, communicating instantaneously and globaly via this device we are using right now, this is the stuff science is made of ----- results.

I am sure you are not endorsing Stone Age standards.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Patty

However, that's exactly what I'm saying.  Scientists research as though, instead of admiring the beauty of a puppy, they search scrupulously for fleas, whether the fleas exist or not.  In other words, they see a puppy, then form the premise that where there is canine, there exist fleas.  So, they tear through that baby's hide, scouring him until they either find evidence that they were right, or they say they must've overlooked something.

I thought that was because the scientists are trying to figure out why the poor puppy keeps scratching himself.

Instead of trying to understand what is wrong with the puppy, so we can help it, I guess you are suggesting that scientists should just sit back and "admire it's beauty" instead?

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by Patty
 Better to enjoy the puppy and leave his hide alone, then let the fleas show their presence to you!!  Enjoy the puppy's company, don't rake him over without learning about his beautiful demeanor and personality.

So you leave the poor puppy infested with fleas in an attempt to maintain you perfect image of him?  Your analogy breaks down pretty severely here.

It does illustrate a point though, deliberate ignorance and refusal to continue understanding the world doesn't help anyone other than perhaps a placebo effect.  It has been science's never-ending curiosity that has given us the ability to spend our time contemplating these types of questions, as opposed to finding food or dying at thirty-five from an infectious disease.

-brett

 

[Patty]

Hey Euphoric, LivefreeorDie, Shai-Hulud, TheBear,

Hey guys!!  Silly, silly, silly!

Youz guys are off what I'm makin' an effort ta say!!

The puppy didn't have fleas!!  He was too little!!
And, he was a cutie-baby puppy!    Just ask Mrs. Noah.  She probably knew his great......great grandma.  Aw, come on.

Seriously though, I am making a point that youz guys are missing.

Please slow down a bit and read the first post on this thread.  I found something neat.  And, unless the air is amenable, I'm not going to post it.  Nu-huh.

Let's get back to the gist, okay?  And, then, maybe I'll be able to get on with my point.  No need to throw the book of periodic tables at me yet. 

Patty

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Patty I still need a little better idea of what your problem with how science works is... I have reread the thread a few times now and still I cannot seem to find a big problem...

And what is the matter with order forming from chaos, even a literal reading of genesis states that order from chaos is what happened in the formtaion of the earth.

Gen 1
The Creation
(1) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[1] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Without form... sounds prety chaotic to me...

hen God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." 7Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Now here God neatly divides and orders things...

Order from Chaos is what Creation is founded upon, if you have such a big problem with the idea of order from chaos you might want to have a talk with the big G...