by Norm 103 Replies latest jw friends
Hi there JAVA!
Regarding the theoretical underpinings of Jung's theory of the collective unconscious, it should be noted that the term lacks an operational definition and therefore it can not be put to an emrirical test. In other words, it's a crock.
Larc (of the crock detecter class)
Hey aChristian:
Nice content for your upcoming book. Should make for some interesting reading.
You mentioned that others have said that our planet's coincidences are unmatched in our solar system.
What do you think about the other solar systems we have found in our galaxy with the help of the hubble space telescope, as well as additional galaxies even further away? How does this fit into your line of thinking?
Also, how does Mars fit into your line of thinking, now that NASA is finally coming clean and admitting what they found 20+ years ago regarding Mars past evidently being warm, and wet? (Let's not go into martian meteorites or probable plantlife on the southern pole).
Brother larc,
Hey, it's nice hearing from you; I was beginning to believe you became an elder and was shunning me! Yeah, the founders of your discipline had a boatload of screwy non-empirical theories. You should have studied the hard-science of sociology.
What about the monkeys in one isolated area washing some type of food they couldn't eat until they learned to wash it, and monkeys in other parts of the world picking up on the washing idea? I remember talking about this some years ago in class, and relating it somehow to the collective unconscious theory. Yeah, yeah, I know that's not empirical, and you'll just say it's monkey business, but would appreciate your crock detecter comments anyway.
Ianao,
You asked: What do you think about the other solar systems we have found in our galaxy with the help of the hubble space telescope?
As I mentioned, I find it interesting that Carl Sagan estimated, based on his extrapolation of the counted number of stars in a photograph of a small portion of the sky taken with the help of the Hubble telescope, that the stars (solar systems) in our galaxy number about 400 billion.
:Also, as well as additional galaxies even further away? How does this fit into your line of thinking?
As I also mentioned, astronomers estimate that the total number of galaxies in our universe might actually be equal to the number of stars (solar systems) in our galaxy. This, however, is something that cannot now, or probably ever, be said with any certainty. For the number of stars in our galaxy and the number of galaxies in our universe are both so great, and their distances so daunting, that anything approaching an accurate count of either will probably never be possible. On top of this is the fact that new stars and entire galaxies are continually being born and continually dying. And, of course, we must consider the fact that many of the stars and galaxies that we now observe in the night sky no longer exist. We now see only light which stars and galaxies once emitted, in many instances several billions of years ago. Since the time they emitted this light many of them have died. In their place many others have been born. In many cases the light these new stars and galaxies have since emitted has not yet even reached us. So how could we ever count them? You might think estimating the number of stars in our galaxy and universe might be able to be done by taking the mass of an average star and dividing that mass into the estimated mass of the universe, which has been calculated by various means. However, the universe contains more than stars. It also contains a large but unknown amount of dark matter which would also have to be figured into any such calculations. So, the fact is, that when I refer to the number of stars in our galaxy, and especially when I refer to the number of galaxies in our universe, I am on very shaky ground. Maybe when I meet my Maker I'll ask Him just how many stars and galaxies do exist. I'll be interested to find out how close Sagan's estimate was.
You wrote: Also, how does Mars fit into your line of thinking?
Our word "planet" comes from a Greek word meaning "wanderer" because the ancients referred to the planets as "wandering stars." Thus, I believe that when Jesus said "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars," he may have also been referring to the planets. At this point I am inclined to believe that he was. But that is a long, long story and much too speculative to fully go into here. I think I've already given people plenty rope to string me up with. : )
I will say, however, that since you asked about Mars, I find it interesting that astronomers tell us that the approximate average distance across our sun's entire planetary system, the distance from the sun to Pluto, is 40 astronomical units. An astronomical unit (AU) is the distance from the earth to the sun. While Mercury, the closest planet to the sun is .4 AU and Mars, the 4th planet from the sun, has an average distance from the sun of 4 X .4 AU (1.6 AU). The fact is, all of our solar system's planets orbit the sun at distances which seem to be "arranged" following a pattern based on the number 4. In fact some of our solar system's planets were actually discovered by astronomers searching for planets that a # 4 based arrangement theory predicted that planets would be found. You might find it interesting to read about "Bode's Law" of planetary positioning. A Net search should turn up some articles for you. Though Bode's Law has now been discredited, since our solar system's most distant planets were found to occupy positions in conflict with Bode's law, I am convinced Bode was on to something, though he didn't have things worked out quite right.
Much of this is obviously highly speculative and thus highly suspect. That being the case, I'm not sure how much of it I will end up discussing in my book. I believe God has given us one exact 400 ratio. According to most reference books the sun's diameter is exactly 400 times the size of the moon's diameter. That is enough exactness to get my attention. ( And I believe the attention of anyone with a mind and heart open to the possibility of God's existence. ) I believe God has also given us many other approximate 400s. The sun is always about 400 times as far away from us as the moon (exactly so twice a month). This produces total eclipses, on average, about every 400 years over any one spot on earth. The sun is also about 400 thousand times as bright as the full moon. Our galaxy also has about 400 billion stars. I believe these 400s to be the "signs in the sun, moon and stars" of which Christ spoke. I also believe they may now serve as "the sign of the Son of Man" which Christ said would "appear in the sky." Time will tell if I am right.
Of course, God could have designed every one of these 400s to be an exact number. But then we would all be forced to acknowledge God's existence right now. And that would defeat God's own stated purpose. For the Bible tells us God has chosen to save that time for Judgment Day.
Brother JAVA,
I don't know why these people go into trivial matters like the complexity of the universe, when we have more important matters to discuss, like monkey learning behavior.
My answer to the monkey question is this: animals in different places facing the same problem, come up with the same or similiar solutions. I know that's the correct answer and I have ten scriptures to prove it.
LOLOL sorry gettin a kick out of Java and larc,,,,I luv it!! regards,tina
Opps,
I forgot to add. There is an alternate hypothesis. Monkeys have a universal life force that transends the known laws of physics and travels faster than the speed of light, primarily due to the combined result of the doppler effect, quantum mechanics, relative humidity, and Ken Griffey Junior's batting average.
I hope that clears this up for you. By the way, all of this is clearly explained in the book of Danielle and Rebelations.
Hey aChristian (Mike):
Thank you SO MUCH for being honest and at least admitting that some of your more interesting observations are as speculative as those of many of what you would call "evolutionists".
In reference to Mars, you stated much about distances from the sun and the importance of the number 4 biblically (what happened to 7?) but I fail to see how finding life on another planet is a sign from Jesus. Since Mars, or Akarak, as it's ancient name goes was not mentioned in the Bible, I simply don't understand it's relevance to Earth. Since Earth was made to be populated by US, one would either have to speculate that God had a different purpose in mind for Mars (a planet within this solar system), or speculate that life exists where the conditions are "fruitful".
It's interesting to see how creationists will continue on dispite new scientific discoveries. Folks like you will keep the faith going on into the 22nd and 23rd century. Although this sounds like a haughty retort, I truly mean it. Imagine how much harder life would be if people had no hope for the future or a reason to exist (besides living until you die).
With sensible people like you around, maybe everyone WON'T panic and think they are seeing satan's angels on the day that we finally do meet up with another terrestrial civilization, despite what the brooking's report recommended to nasa. (They did recommend hiding the fact from us if we ever did find evidence of past life on other planets, as surely society would collapse.)
Oh, one more thing:
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
(1 Cor. 1:18)
Are you trying to convince me or reassure yourself?
Mike,
Your theory is interesting, and I don't mean to poke fun, but it sounds a lot like the pyramidology that Russell and friends were into in the early 20th century. A lot of pattern seeking in numbers. I, of course, think your findings are a bit of coincidence with a healthy dose of subconscious selection, but it is interesting what patterns the brain can find when we look for them.
One thing to consider is that our Decimal (base 10) system is not the only one, and patterns that show up in that numbering system quickly disappear when we convert them into another, such as Binary, Octal, or Hex.
rem
Rem,
You wrote: One thing to consider is that our Decimal (base 10) system is not the only one, and patterns that show up in that numbering system quickly disappear when we convert them into another, such as Binary, Octal, or Hex.
However, because we have ten fingers, our Decimal (base 10) system is now and always has been our most popular numerical system. So, it only makes sense that if God was going to communicate with us numerically, He would do so using our most popular numerical system. Why? For the same reason his only begotten Son "became flesh and lived for a while among us." (John 1:14) God has kindly chosen to speak to us on our level and in our own language, to make sure we are able to understand Him.
Mike
