Where did the laws originate?
Some will say everything we observe in the natural world is the result happenstance and survival of the fittest.
This idea, to me, is beyond ridiculous.
Everything that has ever been in existence has laws ingrained with them, including the things man make, are like the concept of god, has no beginning. By that reasoning the law(s) of nature is change and shall forever be without a beginning or ending.
Why do you find the survival of the fittest to be ridiculous? If the fittest had not survived, we might all be hunchbacks with only one arm or something just as inconveniencing. Without the ones with superior intellect, we might still be tribal with no technology. Or we might not be here at all. Just curious.
The fittest are produced by the environment and the destiny of the individuals within it, thus, by what is called by many God.
Their mommies and daddies. They had good genes.
My uneducated guess would be going all the way back to the creation. The question should be "where did the mutations come from that interfered with fitness?"
MizB, your "where did the mutations come from that interfered with fitness?" question was also answered in your answer. Since there are 2 different producings of man, the first with all of the powers Jesus demonstrated and the second without but are required to go through the flaming sword to obtain it, means it was created to require the metamorphosis or New Birth to gain those first man's abilities.
Yes, dear one, you are correct, but the average human doesn't understand that. They look at physical things in their environment like radiation, chemicals, etc. Many still don't know that we are wearing a veil that we are having to overcome. That is their reality. Namaste.
God whispers into the ears of those who will become creators. Musicians, mathematicians, scientists, many claim inspiration, getting information and ideas from out of "nowhere".
"... the Necessitarian Theory, Laws of Nature are the "principles" which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world "obeys" the Laws of Nature."
"But for Necessitarians, the way-the-world-is cannot be the rock bottom. For after all – they will insist – there has to be some reason, some explanation, why the world is as it is and is not some other way. It can't simply be, for example, that all electrons, the trillions upon trillions of them, just happen to all bear the identical electrical charge as one another – that would be a cosmic coincidence of an unimaginable improbability.
No, this is no coincidence. The identity of electrical charge comes about because there is a law of nature to the effect that electrons have this charge. Laws of nature "drive" the world. The laws of physics which, for example, describe the behavior of diffraction gratings were true from time immemorial and it is because of those laws that diffraction gratings, when they came to be engineered in modern times, have the peculiar properties they do."
"At some point explanations must come to an end. Regularists place that stopping point at the way-the-world-is. Necessitarians place it one, inaccessible, step beyond, at the way-the-world-must-be."
(looks like I opened a can of worms ... and I am a Necessitarian.)
everything in the natural world is Proof of Mighty Triple O:
Omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God.
metaphysics is the study of that which is beyond the physical world.
is this a dirty word????
I think "metaphysics" is used only for that which we don't yet understand.
Metaphysics- abstract theory with no basis in reality.
If your living in the fantasy of Young Creationism or Flintstones times. I think the T-Rex would teach you a lesson or two about survival. If he hadn't already bitten off your head.
The pot-head knows about "reality". Funny.
My science of taking medical cannabis twice or maybe three times a week at night for hypertension , plus micro greens I grow, makes me smart.
Rather than the mass dummies dying from prescription pills and super market Melnutritionment are comfortable numb living the fantasy of delusions.
Why is this posted under education and science and not Religion? Because there is no common sense in this thread only religion and blind beliefs other than one poster.
You're not going to attempt to answer the question posted?
No, because there is no law in nature. Also, the original question is stupid and does not merit a response. Survival of the fittest is not a law by definition. So blatantly saying it's ridiculous when the OP definitely has no understanding of it is crazy.
psycheskinner has added the right response to what the question may have been about.
Education is self-exploration and not being told what is. By putting all of the various views together it allows each individual to evaluate the whole and see how they can be integrated rather than keeping them separate. That is educating and what would be done in school if school didn't mean conditioning man-en-mass to follow leaders blindly.
Here's an example of something that happened when I was in 7th grade math. We were told every number added to any negative number of the same value equals zero to which I replied, "then zero is the only whole number?" "No," the teacher replied, "zero isn't a number" but if it isn't a number why does each number above nine (9) put a Zero (0) to represent the entire series of nine and start over with one (1) if zero isn't a number? It is the number that represents the whole.
Look at my Existence Explained Via Numbers and see if it makes sense?
No offense, but I had to give up reading because it was hard to make any sense of it. The language used was not up to the standard of the English language. But, I did understand what you said here which is written a lot better than in your hub. Maybe edit the hub as right now it's a collection of thoughts imo.
But, numbers are defined by man and they are not a physical entity.
To get back to your point: Any number when added to the negative of the same number is zero. Yes. But, why does this make zero the only whole number? A whole number is defined to be any number from 0 and up without any decimal value. This may help: https://www.mathsisfun.com/whole-numbers.html
Your teacher is wrong. Zero is a number by the same definitions. It is a number and a digit. This may help clear the mistakes your teacher made: https://www.mathsisfun.com/whole-numbers.html
Also, you go on to say if zero is not a number why is a zero used in the number ten. It is a number, but a digit and a number is not the same thing. Even if zero was not a number it could be used in the number ten. The letter b is not a word, but it is used in words.
That happened in 1956-57 when I was no more than 10 or 11. And yes, what those charts say is true that includes all numbers are digits.
I shall have to check that piece out and see how can I make it more understandable, thanks for the feed back since I din't get any I didn't know. I do want to know if people understand what I say, I don't write for money since it belittles my purpose, I write to discuss views so I'm not hurt by criticism. Thanks for letting me know.
because the author of education and science is found/revealed in nature.
No. Science is nature / nature = science.
Science reveals reality on this plane ...
(and its not as solid as it seems.)
Furthermore, religion exists in the realm of interpretation and usually gets reality wrong, because it's not based on science. In other words, religion is merely an interpretation of reality. It does hint at reality/science, however.
Science's and religion's definitions is the same as educate which is to individually objectively observe, handle for discovering various outcomes and reasoning with them to explain to others but today's scientists and schools may know but reveals their findings in a way get their money and not to benefits man-en-mass.
Laws of nature are just descriptions of what nature does. No one created them.
yes, they were created. they came first. They lay the foundation and enable what nature is observed to do.
Psycheskinner, Those laws are descriptions ["descriptive adjectives"] of the actions manifested by existence. Like "judgmental adjectives" are determined by the person, or persons schooling others to feel the same way, who categorized it as something they prefer or rejects.
water. air. fire. earth.
These elements were not happenstance. They are the foundation of existence on the material plane.
Their idea had to come first, as all ideas come before they manifest. They exist in imagination first.
from the link:
"Bees do not have to be taught how to organize. They are "born" knowing how to organize. Bees are one of the most organized animal societies on Earth. Every bee in a bee hive has specialized duties."
"A recently reported bee fossil, of the genus Melittosphex, is considered "an extinct lineage of pollen-collecting Apoidea, sister-group to the modern bees", and dates from the Lower Cretaceous (~100 mya). Features of its morphology place it clearly within the bees, but it retains two unmodified ancestral traits of the legs which betray its origin. The issue is still under debate, and the phylogenetic relationships among bee families are poorly
"...honey bees are the world's most important single species of pollinator in natural ecosystems and a key contributor to natural ecosystem functions."
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-worldwide … tural.html
Since God created every earthling, every creature and all plants on earth and throughout the entire Universe.
He must have blueprints of everything, or was all this record in the bible for us to understand? Many Christains don't need a stinking bible, just Gods consciousness. Where are the dinosaurs stories that were a much larger part of history of God's Planet?
Were dinosaurs just chop liver in God's all loving and all powerful blueprints?
yes, the blueprints were first ... naturally.
I think the Bible was (is) attempting to help people achieve God consciousness. But people have been misinterpreting the events and messages of The Bible, based on their very strong propensity toward human consciousness ...
I guess the idea of dinosaurs would have freaked out the gentle generations from Adam and Eve's lineage.
But then, there are those "giants" which The Bible mentions ... and where did THEY come from?
No giant human bones for scientists to study. No proof Adam and Eve were riding dinosaurs.
Closest thing of proof that dinosaurs enteractive with humans was in the Flintstones documentaries.
I thought there was proof as far as giant human bones! Maybe they w e r e riding dinosaurs!
https://www.cdapress.com/syd_albright/2 … mithsonian
In Fort Worth, Texas where I was raised there was a photo of an about a six foot boy and his father (I have since been told it was) whose father was almost twice his hight in a department store called Everybody's and his shoe was more than twice the the size of his son's about 12 shoe.
Also, during my 11th grade year I was in Baton Rouge, Louisiana when a news paper reported there was a teenager girl who was 8'2" and wore a size 16 shoe, so there may not be any bond but there are some still being born among us.
The tallest man in medical history for whom there is irrefutable evidence is Robert Pershing Wadlow (USA) (born 6:30 a.m. at Alton, Illinois, USA on 22 February 1918), who when last measured on 27 June 1940, was found to be 2.72 m (8 ft 11.1 in)
Where is your scientific proof for anyone tall as 12 feet. Sadly, the Bible was not peer-reviewed, so Goliath must be disqualified.
W H Y ??? in your humble (?) opinion? maybe it was peer reviewed!
I saw the photo of him standing next to the man who owned Everybody's Department Store I am told who I had seen but didn't know it since he was much older than in the photo. Unless the photo was made before he became an adult he was almost if not six feet. Every time I went near Everybody's I should look with amazement at the two shoes and photo and there was no Photo Shopping of photos in 1953-'60 when I saw it. I don't have the proof but I know what I saw.
Photos can be photo shopped and human bones can be man-made.
When I was growing up, there was a major shoe factory in our town, and one of the three shoe stores sold the brands from this factory. For awhile that store displayed photos and the actual shoes of a man who was over 8 ft. tall standing beside one of the town's citizens. I saw the shoes, but I forgot what gigantic size they were. This man was said to have had normal-sized parents. I don't know if the shoes were made at that factory in town, but I just assumed that they were. So I wonder if he was a genetic "throwback" to the giants.
... and this throwback was an accidental event? or a soul planned rebirth, based on a past existence/lifetime (as a very tall person/giant) on earth.
Among man today there is a gene that produces giants but it doesn't always make the contact with an egg or sperm that would produce it. I believe it is known more to people born before the 1970s than those born later.
elicit questions of whether the Smithsonian destroys giant skeletons in order to cover up an inconvenient anomaly in the archeological narrative we’ve been told.
The question has been heatedly debated over the past century or more, with researchers finding what appears to be corroborating evidence, while skeptics say the bones were simply those of massive prehistoric animals, reclassified by the Smithsonian and displayed in museums to this day.
Worth repeating here:
Laws of nature were being broken in the experimental living arrangements of hippie communal living. "Free love" was one ideal being lived out in the 60's cultural revolution. However, the law of nature in regards to procreation is this: Barnyard sex (for humans) just doesn't work. Why? Because the sex-center and the-love center in the brain are situated very close together. This physical arrangement produces love, (and consequential jealousy,) and helps couples stay together for the duration of rising their offspring ... and hopefully, beyond.
Moral laws such as no murder, no theft, idolatry of false gods, etc. make for peaceful people and a happy society. If we try to live by our own made up world, based on mere imagination, we can mess up (understatement) our lives. Laws are laws and should not be broken. This applies to physical laws and moral laws.
That families can only be happy when they are separated from one another is an example of a moral law; one man and one woman and their offspring, not multiple wives (Adultery.) Multiplies wives' and all their children would produce a hellish predicament which would include jealousy, confusion and bickering (or worse.)
We cannot escape the consequences of breaking physical laws either. By taking hallucinogenics, such as LSD, forgetting or ignoring that it will affect our brain functioning abilities, (either temporarily or permanently,) we might casually lie down on a highway for a trippy star gazing experience, only to be flattened by a car.
How do you know which moral laws to live by?
Jesus gave us the ideal of loving God, with body, heart, mind and soul and loving your neighbor as yourself. He also advocated following The Ten Commandments, which is a perfectly fine set of morals laws. The eight-fold path of Buddha and the warriorhood of Krishna can also help us, from an inward standpoint, identify what is moral and what isn't.
The Way I See It
... also by experimenting?
- learning from trial and error?
without some sort of guidance, it is a matter of hit and miss, I suppose.
Where did your spiritual guides get their moral values from?
Direct insight from God based on their intuition.
Intuitive is an extreme logic and God insight is and oxymoron.
God gives us guidance through intuition and conscience
Yet the conscience of two people can be in opposition to each other. The Gods are fighting their battles through such people I guess.
Yes, we are all soul puppets, some of us have the free will to cut our strings attached. Now we just wait, to see if we get wings or hell fire for it.
There is one God. We either intuit God or we don't. Most people have bad receivers. There is a lot of static ... what did you say, God...? Speak up! I can't hear you!
Why do you think your receiver works fine?
How do you know when one works fine then? How do you tell if someone's receiver is a lot better or worse than yours?
Conscience is developed in early childhood. Without spiritual training, all bets are off as far as conscience. I believe it is natural, but when (moral) conscience is not stressed by his parents and society, a child can loose it.
We are not soul puppets. We have free will. We give ourselves wings. We free ourselves from the false belief we are puppets. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks they have puppet strings instead of wings.
Don't feel sorry for me as I can make up fairly tales with the best of them, I just don't lay claim they are totally true.
How about the tale of Pinocchio nose grew so long. It turned into a tree of knowledge. Then the smartest man in the cave cut down the tree of knowledge and made it into the book of universal truth and knowledge. Pinocchio lies continues.....and red bull gives you wings.
by Kathryn L Hill 7 years ago
It seems like the idea of survival of the fittest is at odds with the basic ideology of the Left.No?Yes?
by Kathryn L Hill 4 years ago
Liberals do not like the concept of "survival of the fittest."Or do they?Wondering.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
God..........IS or ISN'T existing? Why? Why not? Support your analysis?
by fallenangel666 10 years ago
I do not pigeon hole myself as a Creationist, Agnostic or Atheist, but rather as a person who attempts to retain an open mind. Any talk of proof either way is simply delusional. Kurt Godel, the greatest logician who ever lived, prooved beyond doubt, within the strict boundaries of mechanistic...
by Anichol 10 years ago
If from the beginning of mankind there had been no thought of a God or higher purpose to life would man have ever advanced?Say life was only ever about survival of the fittest with no devine influence would we be here today discussing topics of interest or still living like cavemen.I find it hard...
by Charles James 9 years ago
So often, I read the comments of some who prefer to take the high road in discussions or debates about theology. As one who prefers not to argue for or against the Theos ideology, I do find sometimes a statement that cannot go without critiqued. In this instance, the phrase: "Law Of...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|