Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Sauron said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Sauron said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Sauron said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Sauron said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Sauron said:
Opus118 said:
Sauron said:
You know how the Bible says to submit to the lawful authorities? When it comes to describing the physical universe, scientists, not theologians, are the lawful authorities. St. Basil, for example, believed that the earth was immovable and located at the center of the universe. (See, e.g., Nine Homilies on the Hexameron, 10) He was far from alone in this wrong belief. Of course, we know now that the solar system is heliocentric and that the universe has no center, in fact.
Is there a peer reviewed paper that refutes this aspect of Einstein's theory of generally relativity such that one can state St. Basil's belief is wrong? I haven't seen it so I am curious.
General relativity has nothing to do with heliocentrism. Heliocentrism was disproven several centuries before Einstein was born. Neither is general relativity the source of the proposition that the universe has no center. Your question betrays surprising ignorance of the physical universe and general relativity.
I'm glad you understand Opus118's so much more perfectly than I do, since I couldn't figure out what he was asking. ::)
I look forward to his treatise on geocentrism.
I somehow don't think that's what he really wants to talk about. You might actually try asking him before you jump to conclusions like this.
I did so in the post to which you replied with the eye-rolling smiley. The ball is in his court.
There isn't a question in the post that drew my sarcastic reply. In fact, that's what drew out my sarcasm: your apparent certitude that you know perfectly what Opus118 is talking about.
My certitude is based on the fact that I speak English. In any event, Opus118 is the best authority on his own posts and what they mean.1 Wouldn't you agree?
That's why I suggested you speak with a little less certainty that you actually know what he's talking about.
And again, I think that is best left to him. He seems very competent at holding his own.
That's what I'm trying to tell you. Ask him to clarify, then let him clarify.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
Sauron said:
Except geocentrism is not a justifiable model of the solar system (or universe). The reason it is not justifiable is because it is false.
I consider all of my opinions with skepticism, with the exception of my opinion of evolution as a fact in regard to the alternatives espoused in this thread that can only lead one to believe that God is the Great Deceiver who does not wish for our salvation. Outside of the context of this thread I would be more open to discussing the question of evolution in a less biased manner.  If you are a scientist, I recommend a more cautious approach to your own positions.

I still don't understand what you meant by "there a peer reviewed paper that refutes this aspect of Einstein's theory of generally relativity such that one can state St. Basil's belief is wrong?" It implies that general relativity somehow calls for geocentrism, when in fact, it was a heliocentric phenomenon e.g. the precession of Mercury that led Einstein to formulate it in the first place. That does not make sense.
I realize there is a late night typo here but it does rhyme and it appropriately starts with "Is there...." This gets to the core of relativity. Both viewpoints are valid. It is not either/or. As Reichenbach states: "The theory of relativity does not say that the conception of Ptolemy is correct; rather it contests the absolute significance of either theory."

Geocentrism also conflicts with Einstein in another way. E=mc2 demonstrates that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe. If the  earth is stationary at the center of all, then everything in the universe is zooming around the earth once every 24 hours. That means anything more than 2.5x109 miles (about 4 light-hours) away is moving faster than light speed.
It is my understanding that general relativity applies to rotating bodies and that although nothing travels faster than the speed of light, the speed of light is not fixed in general relativity. This was, if I remember correctly,  Reichenbach's answer as to why Neptune travels fast than the speed of light specified by the the special theory of relativity. A peer reviewed refutation of this would, of course, be appreciated.

For the rest of the class, there are actually people alive today that believe in a geocentric universe. See, for example:
http://fixedearth.com/
There are also people who believe that "outside in" is the opposite of "inside out". I am unclear as to why I should pay attention to this statement.


I am sorry that you are irked, but your emotional reaction is not proof of anything. The fact remains that the earth follows an orbit around the sun while rotating on its own axis. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. This is not a matter of opinion upon which reasonable minds can disagree.
It was an emotional response. I thought it was a knee-jerk response like the incorrect answer to what is the opposite of inside out.

Basically, the Ptolemeic viewpoint was as valid as the Copernican viewpoint (albeit with greater conceptual difficulties for the former) when I was an undergraduate. So, whenever this issue comes up I ask if there is something new that I did not know about. Nothing more than that.
Were you an undergraduate in the 15th century?
I was very explicit about my background regarding this opinion. You seem to abhor relativistic thought. Is that the case? I really do not understand why you are so adamant about this issue, otherwise. Do you, like Ativan, want me to evolve a dog into a cat in real time even though going from a dog to a whale is easier?
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
Let us remember that we live in a fallen world, and therefore nature is often deceptive. The universe is full of anomalies, inconsistencies, drastic and radical spontaneous changes; and yet it is simultaneously replete with order and predictability. So, science can tell us a lot, but it cannot tell us everything. And when science views the world as only orderly and predictable without taking into account anomalies, inconsistencies, and drastic spontaneous changes, then it forfeits its objectivity. This is why I say that evolutionary theory is a plausible scientific philosophy, but it is not more than that. Science is at its best when it remains humble, questioning, allowing for viable alternatives to various hypotheses and theories. But when it becomes myopic in focus and recalcitrant in its refusal to acknowledge the possibility of alternative plausible theories, then it ceases to be science and becomes little more than a fundamentalist faith.


Selam  
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Let us remember that we live in a fallen world, and therefore nature is often deceptive. The universe is full of anomalies, inconsistencies, drastic and radical spontaneous changes; and yet it is simultaneously replete with order and predictability. So, science can tell us a lot, but it cannot tell us everything. And when science views the world as only orderly and predictable without taking into account anomalies, inconsistencies, and drastic spontaneous changes, then it forfeits its objectivity.
How so? ISTM that it's in positing unique, unfalsifiable interventions of the supernatural into the natural that we forfeit our objectivity.

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
This is why I say that evolutionary theory is a plausible scientific philosophy, but it is not more than that. Science is at its best when it remains humble, questioning, allowing for viable alternatives to various hypotheses and theories. But when it becomes myopic in focus and recalcitrant in its refusal to acknowledge the possibility of alternative plausible theories, then it ceases to be science and becomes little more than a fundamentalist faith.
You think science is unwilling to recognize plausible alternatives to evolution theory? Science itself is a practice, not a person or group of persons. Practices can therefore never be willing or unwilling to accept anything. Don't confuse science with the scientists who follow her procedures and methods.

I'm sure many scientists can be just as dogmatic as many Christians, but that only makes them less scientific, just as excess dogmatism makes Christians less Christian. Science itself can never be dogmatic. True science, even that which leads many scientists to recognize evolution theory as the best explanation thus far for the origin of the species, is and will remain humble, questioning, and allowing for viable alternatives to various hypotheses and theories. If, in the future, scientific observation discovers some new information that totally turns evolutionary theory on its ear, then those who practice science are obligated to scrap the theory of evolution, but that hasn't happened yet.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Let us remember that we live in a fallen world, and therefore nature is often deceptive. The universe is full of anomalies, inconsistencies, drastic and radical spontaneous changes; and yet it is simultaneously replete with order and predictability. So, science can tell us a lot, but it cannot tell us everything. And when science views the world as only orderly and predictable without taking into account anomalies, inconsistencies, and drastic spontaneous changes, then it forfeits its objectivity.
How so? ISTM that it's in positing unique, unfalsifiable interventions of the supernatural into the natural that we forfeit our objectivity.

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
This is why I say that evolutionary theory is a plausible scientific philosophy, but it is not more than that. Science is at its best when it remains humble, questioning, allowing for viable alternatives to various hypotheses and theories. But when it becomes myopic in focus and recalcitrant in its refusal to acknowledge the possibility of alternative plausible theories, then it ceases to be science and becomes little more than a fundamentalist faith.
You think science is unwilling to recognize plausible alternatives to evolution theory? Science itself is a practice, not a person or group of persons. Practices can therefore never be willing or unwilling to accept anything. Don't confuse science with the scientists who follow her procedures and methods.

I'm sure many scientists can be just as dogmatic as many Christians, but that only makes them less scientific, just as excess dogmatism makes Christians less Christian. Science itself can never be dogmatic. True science, even that which leads many scientists to recognize evolution theory as the best explanation thus far for the origin of the species, is and will remain humble, questioning, and allowing for viable alternatives to various hypotheses and theories. If, in the future, scientific observation discovers some new information that totally turns evolutionary theory on its ear, then those who practice science are obligated to scrap the theory of evolution, but that hasn't happened yet.

We have to honestly recognize that there are various views, opinions, and definitions of what constitutes "science," just as there are various views and opinions of epistemology. Unfortunately the evolutionary science community has done a masterful job of monopolizing the word "science" and defining the terms thereof. They constantly redefine the scientific method and adjust their plausibility structures to protect, preserve, and accommodate their pet theory. Evolution is an intriguing tale desperately patched together with the threads of presuppositions, continual ad hoc hypotheses, and creative interpretations of the fossil record. Whether or not this tale is true, I do not know; but its fabric is gossamer thin.


Selam

 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Opus118 said:
Sauron said:
Except geocentrism is not a justifiable model of the solar system (or universe). The reason it is not justifiable is because it is false.
I consider all of my opinions with skepticism, with the exception of my opinion of evolution as a fact in regard to the alternatives espoused in this thread that can only lead one to believe that God is the Great Deceiver who does not wish for our salvation. Outside of the context of this thread I would be more open to discussing the question of evolution in a less biased manner.  If you are a scientist, I recommend a more cautious approach to your own positions.
I don't think any caution is required when stating a fact, such as that the earth revolves around the sun.

I still don't understand what you meant by "there a peer reviewed paper that refutes this aspect of Einstein's theory of generally relativity such that one can state St. Basil's belief is wrong?" It implies that general relativity somehow calls for geocentrism, when in fact, it was a heliocentric phenomenon e.g. the precession of Mercury that led Einstein to formulate it in the first place. That does not make sense.
I realize there is a late night typo here but it does rhyme and it appropriately starts with "Is there...." This gets to the core of relativity. Both viewpoints are valid. It is not either/or. As Reichenbach states: "The theory of relativity does not say that the conception of Ptolemy is correct; rather it contests the absolute significance of either theory."
That's great philosophic prattle from Reichenbach, but it does not change the fact that heliocentricism is correct. Were he able to communicate by means other than Ouija board, I am confident he would state the same.

Geocentrism also conflicts with Einstein in another way. E=mc2 demonstrates that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe. If the  earth is stationary at the center of all, then everything in the universe is zooming around the earth once every 24 hours. That means anything more than 2.5x109 miles (about 4 light-hours) away is moving faster than light speed.
It is my understanding that general relativity applies to rotating bodies and that although nothing travels faster than the speed of light, the speed of light is not fixed in general relativity. This was, if I remember correctly,  Reichenbach's answer as to why Neptune travels fast than the speed of light specified by the the special theory of relativity. A peer reviewed refutation of this would, of course, be appreciated.
Your understanding is not correct. General relativity describes the operation of gravity and therefore applies to everything (well, everything larger than a subatomic particle). The earth does not have gravity because it is rotating. It has gravity because it has mass. Do you understand why it is hard for me to have a conversation with you about these topics when you have difficulty grasping these most basic concepts?

If Reichenbach said that the "speed of light is not fixed in general relativity", he would be wrong. Please provide a source for that statement. One of the key concepts of special relativity is that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. Now, the speed of light does slow down based on the medium e.g. light does slow down when it passes through my eyeglasses to my eyes, but I do not think that is the claim you are making.

Why is it upon me to provide peer-review refutations for your uncited claims? You have no citation for your claim regarding Reichenbach and the speed of light, and for all I know, that is not what he said. In fact, I would be very surprised to learn that he did.

For the rest of the class, there are actually people alive today that believe in a geocentric universe. See, for example:
http://fixedearth.com/
There are also people who believe that "outside in" is the opposite of "inside out". I am unclear as to why I should pay attention to this statement.
I said it was for the rest of the class.

Basically, the Ptolemeic viewpoint was as valid as the Copernican viewpoint (albeit with greater conceptual difficulties for the former) when I was an undergraduate. So, whenever this issue comes up I ask if there is something new that I did not know about. Nothing more than that.
Were you an undergraduate in the 15th century?
I was very explicit about my background regarding this opinion. You seem to abhor relativistic thought. Is that the case? I really do not understand why you are so adamant about this issue, otherwise. Do you, like Ativan, want me to evolve a dog into a cat in real time even though going from a dog to a whale is easier?
You said you had a year of undergraduate physics and that the Ptolemic model was somehow considered valid. That means you either did these things in the 15th century (or earlier), or that you need to see about getting a refund from my university. Seriously, give NASA a call (and do it quickly, before Congress totally defunds it) and ask about the validity of the geocentric model.

I do not deny relativity. In fact, the GPS system is the world's largest ongoing experiment that proves relativity. However, I think relativity is not what you think it is. When you come out with corkers such as "It is my understanding that general relativity applies to rotating bodies", you show such a misunderstanding of the concepts that it is very hard to have a discussion.

 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
Sauron said:
I don't think any caution is required when stating a fact, such as that the earth revolves around the sun.
This was not the issue that I brought up.

That's great philosophic prattle from Reichenbach, but it does not change the fact that heliocentricism is correct. Were he able to communicate by means other than Ouija board, I am confident he would state the same.
Yes he would and I would as well, but that is not the issue.

If Reichenbach said that the "speed of light is not fixed in general relativity", he would be wrong. Please provide a source for that statement. One of the key concepts of special relativity is that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. Now, the speed of light does slow down based on the medium e.g. light does slow down when it passes through my eyeglasses to my eyes, but I do not think that is the claim you are making.

Why is it upon me to provide peer-review refutations for your uncited claims? You have no citation for your claim regarding Reichenbach and the speed of light, and for all I know, that is not what he said. In fact, I would be very surprised to learn that he did.
I am working today so I cannot look up the passage and type it out, but I think this will suffice (at least for now):

"I briefly mention also Reichenbach’s view on the velocity of light. He asserts that there is no way of measuring the velocity of light and proving it is constant, because the measurement of the velocity of light requires the definition of simultaneity which depends on the speed of light. Einstein – Reichenbach says – does not prove the speed of light is constant, but the special theory of relativity assumes it is constant, ie it is constant by definition."
From the IEP, a peer reviewed academic resource: http://www.iep.utm.edu/reichenb/

So far, I am the only one citing the sources for the statements that are being made. So far, your only statement refers to what you did not hear as an undergraduate, which is not very convincing (a negative observation versus a positive one in my case). I am more than willing to revise my viewpoint, but not by you alone. A scholarly text that refutes Reichenbach's assertion on this particular issue after all this time (since The Philosophy of Space and Time is still in publication) would be useful. I haven't seen it but I really would like to see it so as to put this matter to rest.

 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Opus118 said:
Sauron said:
I don't think any caution is required when stating a fact, such as that the earth revolves around the sun.
This was not the issue that I brought up.
It was the issue I brought up when I was speaking of how St. Basil was wrong about geocentrism. What did you think I was bringing up?

That's great philosophic prattle from Reichenbach, but it does not change the fact that heliocentricism is correct. Were he able to communicate by means other than Ouija board, I am confident he would state the same.
Yes he would and I would as well, but that is not the issue.
See above.

If Reichenbach said that the "speed of light is not fixed in general relativity", he would be wrong. Please provide a source for that statement. One of the key concepts of special relativity is that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. Now, the speed of light does slow down based on the medium e.g. light does slow down when it passes through my eyeglasses to my eyes, but I do not think that is the claim you are making.

Why is it upon me to provide peer-review refutations for your uncited claims? You have no citation for your claim regarding Reichenbach and the speed of light, and for all I know, that is not what he said. In fact, I would be very surprised to learn that he did.
I am working today so I cannot look up the passage and type it out, but I think this will suffice (at least for now):

"I briefly mention also Reichenbach’s view on the velocity of light. He asserts that there is no way of measuring the velocity of light and proving it is constant, because the measurement of the velocity of light requires the definition of simultaneity which depends on the speed of light. Einstein – Reichenbach says – does not prove the speed of light is constant, but the special theory of relativity assumes it is constant, ie it is constant by definition."
From the IEP, a peer reviewed academic resource: http://www.iep.utm.edu/reichenb/

So far, I am the only one citing the sources for the statements that are being made. So far, your only statement refers to what you did not hear as an undergraduate, which is not very convincing (a negative observation versus a positive one in my case). I am more than willing to revise my viewpoint, but not by you alone. A scholarly text that refutes Reichenbach's assertion on this particular issue after all this time (since The Philosophy of Space and Time is still in publication) would be useful. I haven't seen it but I really would like to see it so as to put this matter to rest.
Thank you. Of course, Reichenbach was wrong when he said the speed of light is not a constant. I see that you are taking what I would call the "literary approach" to science i.e. looking for quotes. This is very poorly suited to scientific analysis. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Seriously, call any university physics department and ask if the speed of light in a vacuum is constant or if it can be measured. Let me know how that works out for you.

My statement about what I did not hear as an undergraduate was sarcasm because geocentrism has long been disregarded as empirically false. Did your university really teach geocentrism, that general relativity is only for rotating bodies, and the speed of light in a vacuum is not a constant? I rather doubt that. However, if that is truly the case, you need to ask for a refund.

The fact that the Reichenbach book is still in print tells us nothing. Aristotle's Physics is still in print. Does that mean he was correct about the nature of motion. I hate to spoil the surprise, but the answer is "no".

Why did you say that "general relativity applies to rotating bodies" and that the speed of light is not a constant? I note that you removed those parts of my reply that spoke to those points. I am simply not interested in discussing these concepts with someone who has such unfamiliarity.

 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Let us remember that we live in a fallen world, and therefore nature is often deceptive. The universe is full of anomalies, inconsistencies, drastic and radical spontaneous changes; and yet it is simultaneously replete with order and predictability. So, science can tell us a lot, but it cannot tell us everything. And when science views the world as only orderly and predictable without taking into account anomalies, inconsistencies, and drastic spontaneous changes, then it forfeits its objectivity.
How so? ISTM that it's in positing unique, unfalsifiable interventions of the supernatural into the natural that we forfeit our objectivity.

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
This is why I say that evolutionary theory is a plausible scientific philosophy, but it is not more than that. Science is at its best when it remains humble, questioning, allowing for viable alternatives to various hypotheses and theories. But when it becomes myopic in focus and recalcitrant in its refusal to acknowledge the possibility of alternative plausible theories, then it ceases to be science and becomes little more than a fundamentalist faith.
You think science is unwilling to recognize plausible alternatives to evolution theory? Science itself is a practice, not a person or group of persons. Practices can therefore never be willing or unwilling to accept anything. Don't confuse science with the scientists who follow her procedures and methods.

I'm sure many scientists can be just as dogmatic as many Christians, but that only makes them less scientific, just as excess dogmatism makes Christians less Christian. Science itself can never be dogmatic. True science, even that which leads many scientists to recognize evolution theory as the best explanation thus far for the origin of the species, is and will remain humble, questioning, and allowing for viable alternatives to various hypotheses and theories. If, in the future, scientific observation discovers some new information that totally turns evolutionary theory on its ear, then those who practice science are obligated to scrap the theory of evolution, but that hasn't happened yet.

We have to honestly recognize that there are various views, opinions, and definitions of what constitutes "science," just as there are various views and opinions of epistemology. Unfortunately the evolutionary science community has done a masterful job of monopolizing the word "science" and defining the terms thereof. They constantly redefine the scientific method and adjust their plausibility structures to protect, preserve, and accommodate their pet theory. Evolution is an intriguing tale desperately patched together with the threads of presuppositions, continual ad hoc hypotheses, and creative interpretations of the fossil record. Whether or not this tale is true, I do not know; but its fabric is gossamer thin.


Selam
You got any documents to back up that opinion?
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
Sauron said:
Opus118 said:
Sauron said:
I don't think any caution is required when stating a fact, such as that the earth revolves around the sun.
This was not the issue that I brought up.
It was the issue I brought up when I was speaking of how St. Basil was wrong about geocentrism. What did you think I was bringing up?
I was the one that started this particular side bar out of curiosity about this particular question and nothing more:

Opus118 said:
Is there a peer reviewed paper that refutes this aspect of Einstein's theory of generally relativity such that one can state St. Basil's belief is wrong? I haven't seen it so I am curious.

That's great philosophic prattle from Reichenbach, but it does not change the fact that heliocentricism is correct. Were he able to communicate by means other than Ouija board, I am confident he would state the same.
Yes he would and I would as well, but that is not the issue.
See above.
See above

If Reichenbach said that the "speed of light is not fixed in general relativity", he would be wrong. Please provide a source for that statement. One of the key concepts of special relativity is that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. Now, the speed of light does slow down based on the medium e.g. light does slow down when it passes through my eyeglasses to my eyes, but I do not think that is the claim you are making.

Why is it upon me to provide peer-review refutations for your uncited claims? You have no citation for your claim regarding Reichenbach and the speed of light, and for all I know, that is not what he said. In fact, I would be very surprised to learn that he did.
I am working today so I cannot look up the passage and type it out, but I think this will suffice (at least for now):

"I briefly mention also Reichenbach’s view on the velocity of light. He asserts that there is no way of measuring the velocity of light and proving it is constant, because the measurement of the velocity of light requires the definition of simultaneity which depends on the speed of light. Einstein – Reichenbach says – does not prove the speed of light is constant, but the special theory of relativity assumes it is constant, ie it is constant by definition."
From the IEP, a peer reviewed academic resource: http://www.iep.utm.edu/reichenb/

So far, I am the only one citing the sources for the statements that are being made. So far, your only statement refers to what you did not hear as an undergraduate, which is not very convincing (a negative observation versus a positive one in my case). I am more than willing to revise my viewpoint, but not by you alone. A scholarly text that refutes Reichenbach's assertion on this particular issue after all this time (since The Philosophy of Space and Time is still in publication) would be useful. I haven't seen it but I really would like to see it so as to put this matter to rest.
Thank you. Of course, Reichenbach was wrong when he said the speed of light is not a constant. I see that you are taking what I would call the "literary approach" to science i.e. looking for quotes. This is very poorly suited to scientific analysis. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant.
I removed the irrelevant prattle. What do you mean by "literary approach"? I do read and I have only cited a book that I have read.

My statement about what I did not hear as an undergraduate was sarcasm because geocentrism has long been disregarded as empirically false. Did your university really teach geocentrism, that general relativity is only for rotating bodies, and the speed of light in a vacuum is not a constant? I rather doubt that. However, if that is truly the case, you need to ask for a refund.
Most of what you write is sacarsm and I am not particularly interested in how your mind works.

The fact that the Reichenbach book is still in print tells us nothing. Aristotle's Physics is still in print. Does that mean he was correct about the nature of motion. I hate to spoil the surprise, but the answer is "no".
This is precisely my point. It is easy to find commentary on Aristotle. I would like to read a scholarly commentary on Einstein's defender,  Reichenbach.

Why did you say that "general relativity applies to rotating bodies" and that the speed of light is not a constant? I note that you removed those parts of my reply that spoke to those points. I am simply not interested in discussing these concepts with someone who has such unfamiliarity.
If you paid attention, I have read one book and my understanding  about these issues come from reading that book.

And I am not interested in discussing these issues with you. Besides not having the time, you tend to write without thinking. What I want is a citation that I can read when I do have the time. Nothing more.

 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Opus118 said:
Sauron said:
Opus118 said:
Sauron said:
I don't think any caution is required when stating a fact, such as that the earth revolves around the sun.
This was not the issue that I brought up.
It was the issue I brought up when I was speaking of how St. Basil was wrong about geocentrism. What did you think I was bringing up?
I was the one that started this particular side bar out of curiosity about this particular question and nothing more:

Opus118 said:
Is there a peer reviewed paper that refutes this aspect of Einstein's theory of generally relativity such that one can state St. Basil's belief is wrong? I haven't seen it so I am curious.
See the end of this post.

The fact that the Reichenbach book is still in print tells us nothing. Aristotle's Physics is still in print. Does that mean he was correct about the nature of motion. I hate to spoil the surprise, but the answer is "no".
This is precisely my point. It is easy to find commentary on Aristotle. I would like to read a scholarly commentary on Einstein's defender,  Reichenbach.
This is an example of your literary approach. You want to read commentary, while scientists want to read data.

Why did you say that "general relativity applies to rotating bodies" and that the speed of light is not a constant? I note that you removed those parts of my reply that spoke to those points. I am simply not interested in discussing these concepts with someone who has such unfamiliarity.
If you paid attention, I have read one book and my understanding  about these issues come from reading that book.

And I am not interested in discussing these issues with you. Besides not having the time, you tend to write without thinking. What I want is a citation that I can read when I do have the time. Nothing more.
And I want a discussion with someone who is literate in the subject matter.

If that single book is the sole source of your understanding, then you do not understand enough to participate in the discussion. When you state things like "general relativity applies to rotating bodies" and that the speed of light in a vacuum is not a constant, you display your lack of qualifications to have an opinion.

 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Free book (Kindle-version) of The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution.

From the Preface:

"I make the case that variously constrained randomness is at the very heart of the entire history of life."

"I am inclined to reword the famous dictum of the great evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”) (Dobzhansky, 1973) in an even more straightforward manner: Biology is evolution."
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
Free book (Kindle-version) of The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution.

From the Preface:

"I make the case that variously constrained randomness is at the very heart of the entire history of life."

"I am inclined to reword the famous dictum of the great evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”) (Dobzhansky, 1973) in an even more straightforward manner: Biology is evolution."
What a find! Thanks!

For anyone interested in human evolution in historical times, I recommend The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution. However, it is not free but still reasonably priced at $9.99.

 

celticfan1888

Archon
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Louisiana
I love the guys who are still fighting the good fight. But I'm giving up on trying to present scientific evidence on this forum, some people just blatantly ignore facts.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Sauron said:
Jetavan said:
Free book (Kindle-version) of The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution.

From the Preface:

"I make the case that variously constrained randomness is at the very heart of the entire history of life."

"I am inclined to reword the famous dictum of the great evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”) (Dobzhansky, 1973) in an even more straightforward manner: Biology is evolution."
What a find! Thanks!

For anyone interested in human evolution in historical times, I recommend The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution. However, it is not free but still reasonably priced at $9.99.
Oh, my goodness. I wish I hadn't peeked at the link. That looks so interesting!
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Riddikulus said:
Sauron said:
Jetavan said:
Free book (Kindle-version) of The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution.

From the Preface:

"I make the case that variously constrained randomness is at the very heart of the entire history of life."

"I am inclined to reword the famous dictum of the great evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”) (Dobzhansky, 1973) in an even more straightforward manner: Biology is evolution."
What a find! Thanks!

For anyone interested in human evolution in historical times, I recommend The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution. However, it is not free but still reasonably priced at $9.99.
Oh, my goodness. I wish I hadn't peeked at the link. That looks so interesting!
It is a good book and very accessible to laymen. One of my Kindle impulse downloads for sure.

ObEO: I got the Kindle version of the Orthodox Study Bible last week and love it.

 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Sauron said:
Riddikulus said:
Sauron said:
Jetavan said:
Free book (Kindle-version) of The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution.

From the Preface:

"I make the case that variously constrained randomness is at the very heart of the entire history of life."

"I am inclined to reword the famous dictum of the great evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”) (Dobzhansky, 1973) in an even more straightforward manner: Biology is evolution."
What a find! Thanks!

For anyone interested in human evolution in historical times, I recommend The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution. However, it is not free but still reasonably priced at $9.99.
Oh, my goodness. I wish I hadn't peeked at the link. That looks so interesting!
It is a good book and very accessible to laymen. One of my Kindle impulse downloads for sure.

ObEO: I got the Kindle version of the Orthodox Study Bible last week and love it.
As an aside, are those things easy to read off? A couple of my friends have them and it doesn't look as *comforting* to me as turning pages into the wee, small hours. :)
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Riddikulus said:
Sauron said:
Riddikulus said:
Sauron said:
Jetavan said:
Free book (Kindle-version) of The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution.

From the Preface:

"I make the case that variously constrained randomness is at the very heart of the entire history of life."

"I am inclined to reword the famous dictum of the great evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”) (Dobzhansky, 1973) in an even more straightforward manner: Biology is evolution."
What a find! Thanks!

For anyone interested in human evolution in historical times, I recommend The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution. However, it is not free but still reasonably priced at $9.99.
Oh, my goodness. I wish I hadn't peeked at the link. That looks so interesting!
It is a good book and very accessible to laymen. One of my Kindle impulse downloads for sure.

ObEO: I got the Kindle version of the Orthodox Study Bible last week and love it.
As an aside, are those things easy to read off? A couple of my friends have them and it doesn't look as *comforting* to me as turning pages into the wee, small hours. :)
I use the Kindle app on my iPad, so it may be a bit of a different experience. I do have color, at least!

 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Sauron said:
Riddikulus said:
Sauron said:
Riddikulus said:
Sauron said:
Jetavan said:
Free book (Kindle-version) of The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution.

From the Preface:

"I make the case that variously constrained randomness is at the very heart of the entire history of life."

"I am inclined to reword the famous dictum of the great evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”) (Dobzhansky, 1973) in an even more straightforward manner: Biology is evolution."
What a find! Thanks!

For anyone interested in human evolution in historical times, I recommend The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution. However, it is not free but still reasonably priced at $9.99.
Oh, my goodness. I wish I hadn't peeked at the link. That looks so interesting!
It is a good book and very accessible to laymen. One of my Kindle impulse downloads for sure.

ObEO: I got the Kindle version of the Orthodox Study Bible last week and love it.
As an aside, are those things easy to read off? A couple of my friends have them and it doesn't look as *comforting* to me as turning pages into the wee, small hours. :)
I use the Kindle app on my iPad, so it may be a bit of a different experience. I do have color, at least!
My friend took it to Europe with us. He had several books in that one lightweight contraption, while I was lugging real paper weight around the place. I did envy him the convenience of the technology!
 

mabsoota

Archon
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
2,859
Reaction score
0
Points
0
can i derail the topic a little bit to say the orthodox study Bible is awesome and everyone should have it (paper or kindle version)? i don't think i've said it enough times yet...
;)
 

primuspilus

Taxiarches
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Location
A displaced Southerner in the Godless North
Website
www.saintgregorythetheologian.org
PeterTheAleut said:
mabsoota said:
can i derail the topic a little bit...
Please don't.
In order to grab this train and put it back on the rails a bit but still bow to the above posts....was the Kindle created or did the silicon just form together by accident?  :laugh:

PP
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
primuspilus said:
PeterTheAleut said:
mabsoota said:
can i derail the topic a little bit...
Please don't.
In order to grab this train and put it back on the rails a bit but still bow to the above posts....was the Kindle created or did the silicon just form together by accident?  :laugh:

PP
Silicon is often proposed as an alternative base for life because of its many chemical similarities to carbon.
 

mabsoota

Archon
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
2,859
Reaction score
0
Points
0
guys, we are all naughty.
stop derailing the topic!
sorry, peterthealeut. i won't do it again.
:-[

back to the topic (sign of true repentance..)
i used to argue with my biology teacher about evolution at school.
in the end we agreed that both evolution and the idea that adam and eve were literally the 1st humans were theories, and we both needed to keep reading.
i think that it is true there was a garden of eden, and the first humans sinned and were cast out, but we can't be sure exactly how long ago this was. as far as i can tell, most people from my church who grew up in egypt are happy to believe a fairly literal interpretation of genesis.
they were too busy trying to make ends meet and not get beaten up by their neighbours to study evolution to a great extent.
 

Fabio Leite

Protokentarchos
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
4,790
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Brazil
Website
vidaortodoxa.blogspot.com.br
My opinion is very idiosyncratic.

It is based on some premises:

1) Two fields of knowledge can state contradictory theories and yet be, at least, functional in their own areas. Quantum Theory and the General Theory of Relativity are still to be unified; Therefore, it is possible that theology and science state different things and they are different angles of a larger picture.

2) There is reasonable evidence that the laws of physics may change:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1991223.stm

3) That makes sense to me because the laws are created as well. Some Roman philosophers would disagree for they state that the laws of nature are a reflex or even manifestation of the inner order of God. I disagree, for it seems to me this is metaphysical pantheism. If the laws of the universe are created, they are subject to change and even to end;

4) The memory of a "golden age" exists in most of the ancient societies. Details may vary, but we do see it was a world that worked according to different "laws of physics": no disease, no decay, no death. This "era" was followed by another where humans were mortal but lived much longer, a "silver age", and, finally, our own age. The strict division may change, but there is this general thread from imortality to a very short lifespan.

Considering these 4 premises I believe that there were literal Adam and Even, a Garden, a serpent and a world where death did not exist. This world was possible because the laws of physics were different. Something changed though, and how that relates to the actions of the only sentient beings, I don't know, but that's the general witness of human collective memory. The Bible does seem to advocate key events where the laws of creation changed, the greatest of them, the abolition of spiritual death, which is to be followed by another change where physical life will be restored.

If this is correct, the creationist/designist dilema may be solved thus: the 6 something millenia of theology and the billion years of science for the universe maybe the exact same amount of time, only that the first is time as per the first laws of the universe and the second the same time as per the laws as they are now. Note that space and time themselves would change under this scenario I'm painting. It's like time itselfe could be denser, more compact, or thiner and more "enlogated".

 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Fabio Leite said:
My opinion is very idiosyncratic.

It is based on some premises:

1) Two fields of knowledge can state contradictory theories and yet be, at least, functional in their own areas. Quantum Theory and the General Theory of Relativity are still to be unified; Therefore, it is possible that theology and science state different things and they are different angles of a larger picture.

I am sorry, but that is not reasonable evidence.

3) That makes sense to me because the laws are created as well. Some Roman philosophers would disagree for they state that the laws of nature are a reflex or even manifestation of the inner order of God. I disagree, for it seems to me this is metaphysical pantheism. If the laws of the universe are created, they are subject to change and even to end;
I do not see the proposition of "if something exists, it is subject to change". Why is that? Where does that idea come from?

What people often fail to realize is that the laws of physics are very interconnected. For example, when creationists say that radioactive decay used to be faster in the past, which would have required a cooling of the sun (assuming either electromagnetism was stronger in the past or the nuclear strong force was weaker) No one ever thinks things through.

4) The memory of a "golden age" exists in most of the ancient societies. Details may vary, but we do see it was a world that worked according to different "laws of physics": no disease, no decay, no death. This "era" was followed by another where humans were mortal but lived much longer, a "silver age", and, finally, our own age. The strict division may change, but there is this general thread from imortality to a very short lifespan.
This is fiction.

Considering these 4 premises I believe that there were literal Adam and Even, a Garden, a serpent and a world where death did not exist. This world was possible because the laws of physics were different. Something changed though, and how that relates to the actions of the only sentient beings, I don't know, but that's the general witness of human collective memory. The Bible does seem to advocate key events where the laws of creation changed, the greatest of them, the abolition of spiritual death, which is to be followed by another change where physical life will be restored.
Which laws were different and how? Creationists often talk about the second law of thermodynamics not existing at that time, but that doesn't make sense.

If this is correct, the creationist/designist dilema may be solved thus: the 6 something millenia of theology and the billion years of science for the universe maybe the exact same amount of time, only that the first is time as per the first laws of the universe and the second the same time as per the laws as they are now. Note that space and time themselves would change under this scenario I'm painting. It's like time itselfe could be denser, more compact, or thiner and more "enlogated".
Unfortunately, it is not correct.

 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
mabsoota said:
as far as i can tell, most people from my church who grew up in egypt are happy to believe a fairly literal interpretation of genesis. they were too busy trying to make ends meet and not get beaten up by their neighbours to study evolution to a great extent.
That's fine, but if that was the case, they probably had the good sense not to comment on such matters where they had no expertise.

 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Sauron said:
Fabio Leite said:
My opinion is very idiosyncratic.

It is based on some premises:

1) Two fields of knowledge can state contradictory theories and yet be, at least, functional in their own areas. Quantum Theory and the General Theory of Relativity are still to be unified; Therefore, it is possible that theology and science state different things and they are different angles of a larger picture.

I am sorry, but that is not reasonable evidence.

3) That makes sense to me because the laws are created as well. Some Roman philosophers would disagree for they state that the laws of nature are a reflex or even manifestation of the inner order of God. I disagree, for it seems to me this is metaphysical pantheism. If the laws of the universe are created, they are subject to change and even to end;
I do not see the proposition of "if something exists, it is subject to change". Why is that? Where does that idea come from?

What people often fail to realize is that the laws of physics are very interconnected. For example, when creationists say that radioactive decay used to be faster in the past, which would have required a cooling of the sun (assuming either electromagnetism was stronger in the past or the nuclear strong force was weaker) No one ever thinks things through.

4) The memory of a "golden age" exists in most of the ancient societies. Details may vary, but we do see it was a world that worked according to different "laws of physics": no disease, no decay, no death. This "era" was followed by another where humans were mortal but lived much longer, a "silver age", and, finally, our own age. The strict division may change, but there is this general thread from imortality to a very short lifespan.
This is fiction.

Considering these 4 premises I believe that there were literal Adam and Even, a Garden, a serpent and a world where death did not exist. This world was possible because the laws of physics were different. Something changed though, and how that relates to the actions of the only sentient beings, I don't know, but that's the general witness of human collective memory. The Bible does seem to advocate key events where the laws of creation changed, the greatest of them, the abolition of spiritual death, which is to be followed by another change where physical life will be restored.
Which laws were different and how? Creationists often talk about the second law of thermodynamics not existing at that time, but that doesn't make sense.

If this is correct, the creationist/designist dilema may be solved thus: the 6 something millenia of theology and the billion years of science for the universe maybe the exact same amount of time, only that the first is time as per the first laws of the universe and the second the same time as per the laws as they are now. Note that space and time themselves would change under this scenario I'm painting. It's like time itselfe could be denser, more compact, or thiner and more "enlogated".
Unfortunately, it is not correct.
Could you cite some outside authorities who back up your point of view? Whether or not you find Fabio convincing, he has at least attempted to cite outside authorities, yet the only responses I've seen from you indicate that he's wrong merely because you say he's wrong. I don't find that approach very convincing, either.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
JamesRottnek said:
This thread is over six and a half years old.
1. The thread started as a conglomeration of multiple disparate threads on the subject.
2. It's a good catch-all for all the discussion on evolution that inevitably pop up from time to time around the forum.

IOW, it ain't going away any time soon.
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
Could you cite some outside authorities who back up your point of view? Whether or not you find Fabio convincing, he has at least attempted to cite outside authorities, yet the only responses I've seen from you indicate that he's wrong merely because you say he's wrong. I don't find that approach very convincing, either.
Two news websites are not "authorities".

Could you please specify which particular viewpoint you wish to have substantiation on? Although, you have the burden of proof exactly backwards. It is not up to me to prove that there was no "silver age", but to Fabio to establish that there was one. (it would certainly be news to the world's scientists and historians)

The one point I really called Fabio on, for which he provided two news websites, was the idea that the laws of physics change. Despite his claim, there is no evidence of this proposition. In fact, it is quite the contrary. If any physical laws were changing, we would immediately know. If you notice, I gave the example of how faster decay rates would have called for the sun to be cooler, whether the increase in decay rates was caused by an increase in the strength of electromagnetism or a weakening of the strong nuclear force. If a scientist were to discover and establish that the laws of physics had changed or would changing, he would shake the very foundations of science, win the Nobel Prize for Physics, and become known as one of the greatest scientists of all time. This has not happened.

Scientists publish their research in journals, not on the BBC web site. Thus far, I am aware of no body of peer-reviewed literature regarding the claimed changes in the world's physical constants.



 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Sauron said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Could you cite some outside authorities who back up your point of view? Whether or not you find Fabio convincing, he has at least attempted to cite outside authorities, yet the only responses I've seen from you indicate that he's wrong merely because you say he's wrong. I don't find that approach very convincing, either.
Two news websites are not "authorities".
Notice that I said Fabio attempted to cite authorities outside himself, which is more than you did in reply.

Sauron said:
Could you please specify which particular viewpoint you wish to have substantiation on? Although, you have the burden of proof exactly backwards.
Regarding burden of proof, if all you want to do is insist that Fabio prove his assertions, then you bear no burden to prove anything. But saying he's wrong is itself a positive assertion that demands its own proof. Therefore, if you're going to claim that what Fabio says is a fiction and incorrect, you bear the burden of proof to prove yourself correct by proving his claims wrong. So I ask you for outside sources that positively refute what Fabio claims.
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
Sauron said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Could you cite some outside authorities who back up your point of view? Whether or not you find Fabio convincing, he has at least attempted to cite outside authorities, yet the only responses I've seen from you indicate that he's wrong merely because you say he's wrong. I don't find that approach very convincing, either.
Two news websites are not "authorities".
Notice that I said Fabio attempted to cite authorities outside himself, which is more than you did in reply.
He tried and failed. Some propositions, such as "the earth orbits the sun" are so well-known and well-founded that to ask for citations to authority is silliness and betrays one's ignorance of the subject matter. This is the case for the proposition, "the laws of physics do not change in time or place". If this were not the case, science would not be possible. I don't mean it would be really hard; it would be impossible.

The fancy scientific name for this principle, by the way, is "time translation invariance". It gets over 2,000 hits with a Google Scholar search, so there are your authorities. However, I think J. Erman, The Universality of Laws. Philosophy of Science. Vol. 45, No. 2, Jun. 1978 should give you a decent overview. Please review it and then let me know if you have any questions.

Fabio says that he thinks some laws of physics were different in the past. Really? Which ones? Was the force of gravity three times stronger in the past than it is now? Was Ohm's Law somehow different? Did F=2ma? Please consult with your client and advise.

Sauron said:
Could you please specify which particular viewpoint you wish to have substantiation on? Although, you have the burden of proof exactly backwards.
Regarding burden of proof, if all you want to do is insist that Fabio prove his assertions, then you bear no burden to prove anything. But saying he's wrong is itself a positive assertion that demands its own proof. Therefore, if you're going to claim that what Fabio says is a fiction and incorrect, you bear the burden of proof to prove yourself correct by proving his claims wrong. So I ask you for outside sources that positively refute what Fabio claims.
Please see my unanswered question in bold.

And no, saying he is wrong is not a positive assertion that demands its own proof. You are requesting the proof of a negative proposition, which is logically impossible. For example, you can never prove that I do not have a dragon in my garage.

 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Sauron said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Sauron said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Could you cite some outside authorities who back up your point of view? Whether or not you find Fabio convincing, he has at least attempted to cite outside authorities, yet the only responses I've seen from you indicate that he's wrong merely because you say he's wrong. I don't find that approach very convincing, either.
Two news websites are not "authorities".
Notice that I said Fabio attempted to cite authorities outside himself, which is more than you did in reply.
He tried and failed. Some propositions, such as "the earth orbits the sun" are so well-known and well-founded that to ask for citations to authority is silliness and betrays one's ignorance of the subject matter. This is the case for the proposition, "the laws of physics do not change in time or place". If this were not the case, science would not be possible. I don't mean it would be really hard; it would be impossible.

The fancy scientific name for this principle, by the way, is "time translation invariance". It gets over 2,000 hits with a Google Scholar search, so there are your authorities. However, I think J. Erman, The Universality of Laws. Philosophy of Science. Vol. 45, No. 2, Jun. 1978 should give you a decent overview. Please review it and then let me know if you have any questions.

Fabio says that he thinks some laws of physics were different in the past. Really? Which ones? Was the force of gravity three times stronger in the past than it is now? Was Ohm's Law somehow different? Did F=2ma? Please consult with your client and advise.

Sauron said:
Could you please specify which particular viewpoint you wish to have substantiation on? Although, you have the burden of proof exactly backwards.
Regarding burden of proof, if all you want to do is insist that Fabio prove his assertions, then you bear no burden to prove anything. But saying he's wrong is itself a positive assertion that demands its own proof. Therefore, if you're going to claim that what Fabio says is a fiction and incorrect, you bear the burden of proof to prove yourself correct by proving his claims wrong. So I ask you for outside sources that positively refute what Fabio claims.
Please see my unanswered question in bold.

And no, saying he is wrong is not a positive assertion that demands its own proof. You are requesting the proof of a negative proposition, which is logically impossible. For example, you can never prove that I do not have a dragon in my garage.
But you can prove someone wrong by offering positive evidence that contradicts his claim. Saying someone is wrong is not the same as proposing the non-existence of a thing.
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
Sauron said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Sauron said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Could you cite some outside authorities who back up your point of view? Whether or not you find Fabio convincing, he has at least attempted to cite outside authorities, yet the only responses I've seen from you indicate that he's wrong merely because you say he's wrong. I don't find that approach very convincing, either.
Two news websites are not "authorities".
Notice that I said Fabio attempted to cite authorities outside himself, which is more than you did in reply.
He tried and failed. Some propositions, such as "the earth orbits the sun" are so well-known and well-founded that to ask for citations to authority is silliness and betrays one's ignorance of the subject matter. This is the case for the proposition, "the laws of physics do not change in time or place". If this were not the case, science would not be possible. I don't mean it would be really hard; it would be impossible.

The fancy scientific name for this principle, by the way, is "time translation invariance". It gets over 2,000 hits with a Google Scholar search, so there are your authorities. However, I think J. Erman, The Universality of Laws. Philosophy of Science. Vol. 45, No. 2, Jun. 1978 should give you a decent overview. Please review it and then let me know if you have any questions.

Fabio says that he thinks some laws of physics were different in the past. Really? Which ones? Was the force of gravity three times stronger in the past than it is now? Was Ohm's Law somehow different? Did F=2ma? Please consult with your client and advise.

Sauron said:
Could you please specify which particular viewpoint you wish to have substantiation on? Although, you have the burden of proof exactly backwards.
Regarding burden of proof, if all you want to do is insist that Fabio prove his assertions, then you bear no burden to prove anything. But saying he's wrong is itself a positive assertion that demands its own proof. Therefore, if you're going to claim that what Fabio says is a fiction and incorrect, you bear the burden of proof to prove yourself correct by proving his claims wrong. So I ask you for outside sources that positively refute what Fabio claims.
Please see my unanswered question in bold.

And no, saying he is wrong is not a positive assertion that demands its own proof. You are requesting the proof of a negative proposition, which is logically impossible. For example, you can never prove that I do not have a dragon in my garage.
But you can prove someone wrong by offering positive evidence that contradicts his claim. Saying someone is wrong is not the same as proposing the non-existence of a thing.
I have proposed the non-existance of a thing. Fabio said, "we do see it was a world that worked according to different "laws of physics": no disease, no decay, no death. This "era" was followed by another where humans were mortal but lived much longer, a "silver age", and, finally, our own age."

In fact, we see nothing of the kind. I have proposed the non-existence of the "golden age" and the "silver age". I have proposed the non-existence of a time when the laws of physics were different from when they are now.

I can't wait for Fabio to join the discussion. How about you?

 
Top