BS: Gravity solved?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 02:06 PM

".......more than a tad insulting......."    Are'nt we a bit sensitive stu!       That expression of an opinion is just that, and no reason to get all upset.   But , just supposing by a long stretch of the imagination , my words could be considered insulting, you certainly don't practise what you preach judging by the flowing accusations following. Step back a bit, surely you are not drawing a comparison between creationists expressing arguments and the violent excesses of Isis and of violence and bloodshed from centuries before. If you want to play that game there is more than enough blood on the hands of atheists and evolution believers , acting consistently with their belief.             Oh, and when was the "dark ages"?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 02:04 PM

What the blazes is encyclopedia.com? I have never heard of it. However a glance at its featured subject today does not engender much confidence"

"socialized medicine publicly administered
system of national health care. The term is used to describe programs
that range from government operation of medical facilities to national
health-insurance plans. In 1948, Great Britain passed the National
Health Service Act that provided free physician and hospital services
for all citizens. The system was later amended, now charging a small fee
for th... "


Anything which does not realise that Great Britain is a geographical rather than a political entity, and yet calls itself an encyclopedia, really does not deserve to be trusted on more complex things.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:50 PM

it's about getting clerics & their minions to leave everyone else alone!
He was a Dominican Friar and an active and prolific theologian.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:45 PM

Isn't it the point that religious believers have ALWAYS been so confident of their basic 'truths' that they felt obligated to defend them against all attempts to suggest reasonable alternatives? Some centuries it's burning at the stake, sometimes it's just preaching on street corners.
   It's not about debating exactly why the clerics of the day decided Bruno was a problem... it's about getting clerics & their minions to leave everyone else alone!

" Freedom OF religion implicitly requires freedom FROM religion for those who wish it!"

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:42 PM

Confirming Wiki,
"The grounds on which Bruno was sentenced are unknown, for the processo, or official document containing the sentence, is irretrievably lost. It formed part of a mass of archives that were transported, by order of Napoleon, from Rome to Paris, where they were pulped. From the reports of the interrogations, it is, however, possible to form an idea of the drift of the case against him. To his major theological heresy, the denial of the divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity, was added suspicion of diabolical magical practices. It was probably mainly as a magician that Bruno was burned, and as the propagator throughout Europe of some mysterious magicoreligious movement. This movement may have been in the nature of a secret Hermetic sect, and may be connected with the origins of Rosicrucianism or of Freemasonry. If any philosophical or cosmological points were included in his condemnation, these would have been inextricably bound up with his "Egyptianism."

The legend that the nineteenth century built around Bruno as the hero who, unlike Galileo, refused to retract his belief that the earth moves is entirely without foundation."

This article is based on my books, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (Chicago, 1964), and The Art of Memory (Chicago, 1966). On Bruno, Gilbert, and Bacon, see my essay "The Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science," in Art, Science, and History in the Renaissance, Charles S. Singleton, ed. (Baltimore, 1968), pp. 255–274.
Frances A. Yates.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Giordano_Bruno.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:24 PM

Bishop,
It is not well documented, or documented at all, that he was convicted for his insight into the nature of stars.
His religious beliefs were more than enough to get him burnt. People burned for much less back then.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Rt Rev Musket
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:01 PM

Good old Keith. Let's all grasp Wikipedia in order to make a good point look suspect!   The case of Bruno is well documented and comparisons are made with that of Al Capone being incarcerated for tax fiddles.

Bad enough those who bring sky pixies into debate without invoking the suspect rambling of Wikipedia into it. I know many entries are factual as there is no reason for spin, but wherever superstition is in the text, I prefer to smile and look for better references.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 11:07 AM

Oh dear. We had better consider Sydney Carter a heretic as well, hadn't we Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 10:47 AM

Actually it appears that he would still be considered a heretic for his theology by just about any Christianity-related body except Unitarians. But the follow up question is, what's wrong with a little heresy?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 10:36 AM

That quote is taken out of context. The wider discussion on the wiki page suggests that Bruno's scientific views as well as his philosophical ones were responsible for his conviction, including:

"claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;"

Bruno has been described as a "walking, talking shitstorm" disliked by Galileo and Kepler, but he was a free thinker who infuriated the church with his recalcitrance and iconoclasm. Saint Carol and his bank of merry men still thinks he was a heretic to this day.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 08:05 AM

On this day in 1600 Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake because he had the insight to recognise that the stars were like our sun and could have planets around them,

He was not executed for his scientific ideas.

Wiki,
"According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When [...] Bruno [...] was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology."[61] Similarly, the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) asserts that

"Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc."

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 07:44 AM

" Perhaps I ought to be more proactive in challenging their imaginary science"

This sort of attitude has been prevalent in the Christian church for centuries, and has been stated in the thread on Zika an organisation run by old white men for a couple of millennia or so is bound to be totally self-serving whilst ensuring above all it's own survival and it's grip on power

The creationists are the direct intellectual descendants of the Inquisition; they speak with an authority they have not earned and from a position of ignorance of the subjects they proclaim their judgement on. They are so vehement because they are scared of their fragile worldview being challenged by people whose knowledge and understanding far exceeds their own struggling intellects; they cannot even conceive of the nature of the work of those they so readily condemn.

On this day in 1600 Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake because he had the insight to recognise that the stars were like our sun and could have planets around them, and these planets might harbour life.

He was killed by the same breed of nasty, small-minded cowards that in this age rail against science and free thought, the same breed that denied the inquisition as a tool to spread their fear and ignorance now blow up ancient archeological sites, throw gay people off buildings, stone people and try to rubbish the work of honest scientists and spread their own insidious views into our schools and wider culture.

They should be rebuffed and challenged at every opportunity; they want us to return to the dark ages.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 06:10 AM

Something a bit more interesting than pro/anti-fundie BS about irrelevant issues:

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/02/even-einstein-had-his-doubts-about-gravitational-waves

It is interesting to see the process whereby Einstein was persuaded to change his mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 05:55 AM

"I suspect that what you call collective endeavour is just as likely to be collective censure."

Total and utter rubbish, and more than a tad insulting to a lot of honest, hard-working people.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 10:35 PM

...and you can take that from an expert!!

GfS

P.S. I was going to 'hold forth' a little on responding on something that is OBVIOUS....but I couldn't resist...

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 06:32 PM

a one-way door to oblivion.

Kinda like ignorance & stupidity........

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 06:08 PM

" ... you would think that I was initiating these debates rather than responding to the atheists here who just can't help themselves from looking for a verbal contest by mocking creation belief."

You do initiate these 'debates', Pete, by parroting the nonsense that you read on creationists' websites at every opportunity.

" ... especially since their atheistic beliefs have been responsible for countless deaths and misery!"

What?! I don't think that we've heard that one before! When you're really desperate, accuse them of causing "countless deaths and misery"!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:59 PM

black hole is a one-way door to oblivion. According to general relativity, once anything crosses its boundary—the event horizon—it cannot return to the outside. For that particle, the black hole is the entire future.

We'll never actually get a chance to see the particle live out that destiny: Any light the particle emits (which would be the only way for us to observe its death plunge) will be stretched to longer and longer wavelengths with correspondingly less energy, until it fades beyond detectability. In fact, the story is even more strange. If we observe the particle falling in, we could never live long enough to see it reach the event horizon. The extreme gravity of the black hole makes time appear, to an outside observer, to go more slowly there; in fact, the particle would seem to us to take infinite time to reach the event horizon. That's true even though from the particle's reference frame, it crosses the event horizon unremarkably, with no unusual effects on time and space.

If a black hole is a one-way door to oblivion, you might wonder if there is any way to go the other way through the door—and it's a good question. General relativity, which has been our standard theory of gravity for nearly 100 years, makes no distinction between past and future, time running forward and time running backward. (See physicist Sean Carroll discuss the time-symmetry of physics in his interview with Nautilus.) Newtonian physics also is time-symmetric in the same way. So the idea of "white holes"—black holes reversed in time—does make theoretical sense.

Like its opposite, a white hole has an event horizon, one which cannot be crossed from the outside. But white holes' event horizons lie in the past: Particles originating there will appear to "fade in," with increasing energy and wavelength of any light they emit. If a particle somehow came into existence inside that event horizon, it would be expelled to the outside.

In fact, everything about white holes just looks like black holes in reverse. General relativity has absolutely no problem predicting such a thing and describing it mathematically.

But do white holes exist in nature? And if they don't, what does that say about the symmetry of time?

Seeing nothing vs seeing something


Black holes are common in the cosmos—nearly every large galaxy harbors a supermassive one in its nucleus, not to mention smaller specimens. However, astronomers have yet to identify a single white hole. That doesn't rule out their existence entirely, since it might be hard to see one: If they effectively repel particles, there's a small possibility they could be lurking out there somewhere, invisible. Nevertheless, none of all the diverse objects astronomers have observed seem to resemble what we'd expect from white holes.



Supermassive black holes, which are millions or billions of times heavier than that, form by some currently unknown mechanism. In any case, they still are the result of gravitational collapse, whether from a huge super-star born in the early days of the Universe, a huge cloud of gas at the heart of a primeval galaxy, or some other phenomenon. Forming a white hole, however, would require something akin to a gravitational sewer explosion, and it's not clear how that sort of event could ever occur. One possibility is that white holes might be "glued" to black holes. In this view, a black hole and white hole are two sides of the same thing, connected via a wormhole, a concept familiar from many science-fiction stories. Unfortunately, as with forming white holes from scratch, this doesn't really solve the problem: According to theory, any matter falling into the wormhole will cause it to collapse, closing the passage between the black and white holes. (It's also technically possible to create a stable wormhole if "exotic matter" exists with negative energy—a similar principle proposed for a "warp drive"—but no evidence for such material exists.)


A matter of time

So we're left with the probable conclusion that our Universe contains a multitude of black holes but no white holes. That's not because of a fundamental asymmetry in time—general relativity still works just as well either way time flows—but due to the nature of gravitational collapse: It only works one way.

This parallels the situation with the entire cosmos: There was a Big Bang, an initial expansion of all we observe, apparently from a single point. But the evidence points pretty strongly against the possibility of a Big Crunch, a re-collapse of all we observe into a single point sometime in the distant future. If current trends continue (specifically if dark energy doesn't drastically change its character), the Universe will continue to expand forever at an ever-faster rate. It seems there will be no symmetrical end to the Universe, where everything gets sucked back into a tiny singularity, just as it started.

The Big Bang actually looks like a white hole in many respects, and may be the closest our Universe ever gets to having one. It lies in the past for any observer in the Universe, and all we see expanded outward from it. However, it didn't have an event horizon (meaning it was something called a "naked singularity", which is far less kinky than it sounds). Despite that, it resembles gravitational collapse in reverse. {think of our universe banging then accelerating with dark energy} it is a wierd reverse think

Just because the equations of general relativity allow white holes and big crunches, warp drives and wormholes, doesn't mean these things actually exist in nature. The asymmetry of time in gravity isn't inherent, but seems to arise from the behavior of matter and energy: gravitational collapse at the end of time, initial expansion at time's beginning. The deep meaning of that is something physicists are still trying to comprehend.




Matthew Francis is a physicist, science writer, public speaker, educator, and frequent wearer of jaunty hats. He's currently writing a book on cosmology with the working title Back Roads, Dark Skies: A Cosmological Journey.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete fom seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:54 PM

To look at muskets post you would think that I was initiating these debates rather than responding to the atheists here who just can't help themselves from looking for a verbal contest by mocking creation belief. And then they claim they don't care about it!   Perhaps I ought to be more proactive in challenging their imaginary science , especially since their atheistic beliefs have been responsible for countless deaths and misery!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:21 PM

"There is no such consensus amongst the "religiously inclined"."

OK, nitpicker - amongst CERTAIN FACTIONS of the religiously inclined. Of course the religiously inclined are very prone to splitting into factions. They struggle to agree about the details of their fantasies.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:06 PM

What is pete rattling on about?

How can I despise you? You give me a good laugh, and that can't be all bad? I don't mock your lack of intelligence pete, but by the same token, coming on here proposing sky pixies as relevant to normal intelligent people gets the reaction it deserves.

Sure, idiots like those whose websites you quote from are a potential menace and as we see in your case, they prey on the gullible and potentially vulnerable in order to push their stupid agenda.

This thread is about reality. Bringing your imaginary friend into it is off topic to say the very least. Creationist nutters are just an embarrassment to real Christians.

Life with it. But don't think for one minute I or anyone else on here cares one way or another about your gormless superstition. But I'll point and laugh at it. Before normal people did laugh, superstition was taken seriously and that causes more deaths and misery than any other reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 03:38 PM

"the belief that the Bible is a special book which contains the 'Word of God' and an accurate account of the origin of life on Earth is also based purely on a consensus among the religiously inclined"

No it isn't. There is no such consensus amongst the "religiously inclined".

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 01:39 PM

"Ever heard of groupthink and peer pressure !"

Another 'old chestnut' pulled from your bumper bag of (mouldy) old chestnuts, Pete! What you seem to be implying is that a few (?) some (?) many (?) evolutionary biologists are really closet creationists - but they are too intimidated by "groupthink" to step out of line and 'unshackle' themselves from an "evolutionist agenda". It's all a giant conspiracy!! Evidence, please!
You also like to suggest that conclusions arising out of consensus are invariably wrong. Apart from the fact that that is a gross over-generalisation, you should bear in mind that the belief that the Bible is a special book which contains the 'Word of God' and an accurate account of the origin of life on Earth is also based purely on a consensus among the religiously inclined - there is absolutely no evidence to support such beliefs. On the other hand there are vast mountains of evidence in support of current thinking on evolutionary biology - it's just that you refuse to engage with that evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 01:36 PM

We can keep banging heads I suppose so here goes again. So all opinion "arrived at by thinking atheists are arrived at by....thinking ".   Apart from , well they would say that would,nt they, possible response   , I think that the idea that positions are formed merely intellectually is a bit simplistic. For instance a good case can be made that part of the reason Darwin totally went atheist was emotional , due to family losses.       Obviously I am generalising when I use terms like atheist and scientist .....I am not going to great lengths to indicate every nuance .      As to ...faulty comprehension ..............." That is your perspective , and maybe question begging.          ".......adherence to the scientific method...."   No , I am not equating that to a belief system.   Rather questioning that evolutionism accords with it , as you cannot do observable, repeatable , testable science on the past !

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 12:52 PM

I don't think I am questioning humility or not , stu. Ever heard of groupthink and peer pressure ! But as you think all your colleagues are unbiased , and not shackled to an evolutionist agenda, it may well be that future generations will ask how they were ever taken in by a theory that was contrary to observational and testable science. However, I suspect that what you call collective endeavour is just as likely to be collective censure.   And what about bills link?   If you cannot frame an objection in your own words , I shall not bother addressing it, other than to say I see no reason to equate speculative ideas with in the present science. And the reason I put an ism, on the end is 1, good for the goose..... And 2 , trying to indicate the whole system of belief as opposed to natural selection and such observable occurrence , but which evolutionists like to play bait and switch with.       "......massive, immovable......."   Wot, like evolutionism ,

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 12:33 PM

Dave , appealing to musket not to equate me with mainstream religion does not cut it with him. He despises me ad much as the compromiser with scripture. In fact in the past he has shown more disdain with the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 12:12 PM

Don't go sayin bullshit to Bill without smiling around here pardner.

If you all don't see the Gravity in the sitchuasion I reckon you outta go read what yer Bible or Urantia book has say and go satisfy yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 12:00 PM

Bullshit, Bill....opinions don't necessarily contain understanding, or complete facts...usually limited, cherry picked tidbits which only re-affirm the limited bias of the holder. Because of the reluctance of those who seek the whole truth about anything, which requires actually expanding one's view, which may include actually having to admit that you didn't know it all...and you might have been laboring under false pretenses, and can't bring yourselves to ever admit that your opinion was based on the incomplete...and your pride and stubbornness prevents one from having to admit that you were wrong.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 11:29 AM

"However the atheist position , wants to rule out theist...esp biblical...position a priori , "

That is simply false, Pete. All opinions by thinking atheists are arrived at.. thinking. As 17 people have told you here, most 'atheists' don't bother to deny religious claims- they merely doubt them because they see little or no convincing evidence. And besides, you are implicitly equating 'atheist' with 'scientist', even though there are many scientists who are not atheists and many atheists who are not scientists..... and many more-- like me-- who are neither. I am a skeptic! I look for bad reasoning from all sides!

And here we have a prime example of bad reasoning... or faulty comprehension.... or just plain stubborness...

"and as you know, in my opinion the atheists is just as much a religious position as the theist ."

Whenever we ...once again.... explain the flaws in several of your claims, you resort again to that one. "Your opinion" is just a classic way of hurling an insult... "Ha... you just believe your position in the same way I believe mine! Mine is just as good as yours!"

That is false... it is out of line with basic definitions and with all understanding of what is meant by the language. You are essentially just clenching your fists, closing your eyes, stomping your foot and insisting, " Yes it is, Yes it is, Yes it is, Yes it is!!"... as if enough repetition of a fallacious idea will make it so.

Even though you actually say it politely and quietly, you are holding to a false definition because it 'seems' to weaken the other side. Perhaps there ARE a few 'atheists' who just blindly and emotionally reject religious thought because they have had bad experiences... *shrug*... but that does NOT serve to define the category itself as "just as religious as true believers"..... and attempting to slip in adherence to the scientific method as 'some sort of belief system similar to unthinking atheism' is a rhetorical device that just won't fly!

As I have said before... believe what you wish and pray & read the Bible and be a good guy...... just don't throw out faulty science and careless definitions to try to discredit those who do NOT take the Bible literally.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 09:31 AM

Do they not believe or do they not have belief?

Not much use praying to a concept you reject eh?

Don't get me wrong. I have a relative who is a vicar. He likes the metaphor as a basis for judging his actions and inactions. Although even he says that the job description may not include literal belief but certainly requires him to let others assume it.

The Vatican has an observatory? Our local Tescos has a Costa. Doesn't make Tesco shareholders pseudo baristers.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 07:23 AM

"claiming that they are the lofty , unprejudiced seekers after truth."

Although the likes of Dawkins give that impression, it totally unrepresentative and virtually every scientist I know possesses far more humility and understands tang of their own failings as unbiased interpreters of their data. This is why we have methodology in place to eliminate any bias as much as we can. It's worth pointing out that science is a collective endeavour and scientists are very robust in their insistence on making sure any flaws in method, results or conclusions are addressed.


" it's description of life producing"after it's kind" is in accord with observational science, and evolutionism is not."

You've forgotten Bill's link earlier Pete? The 'observational science' argument is a falsehood, plain and simple. Also, it's 'evolution' we can observe, not 'evolutionism', which if it were an acceptable name, is a different thing.


"It is just as credible to begin with the bible as to exclude it"

But it's not. A creationist starts with the massive, immovable and uncontestable assumption that God exists, and any evidence that is reviewed is only considered viable of it confirms the existence of God. This isn't science, plain and simple so there's no point in creationists feeling scientists they're doing it wrong; we know what we are doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 06:21 AM

Musket, religion in the present includes the search. The Vatican has its own professional astronomical observatory for instance. Please don't think that Pete is representative of present day religion. No mainstream church believes in creationism any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 04:51 AM

Presupposition and worldview are aspects of humanity. The trick of exploring science is to leave them at the door. The nearest thing to presupposition would be seeing where the evidence leads you, using that stance as a hypothesis and testing it. If it still holds, use it to test other claims till it is either adequately explained or blown out in the light of new information. The subject of this thread will both rewrite text books and confirm others, bolstering the quest for answers.

The answers pete seems to like were discarded in 1583 onwards. You see, religion has in the past included the search but got lost in the fog of forgetting to include a waste paper bin.

All this tosh about creationist scientists. It reminds me of Hollywood bimbos advertising body lotions where they look at the camera and say "here comes the science!" Or that 73% of 39 cats prefer it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 04:39 AM

The 'GUEST' above was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 04:38 AM

"Yes, the creationists base line is the bible ,"

Why choose the Bible as a baseline? Why not the 'Complete Works of Shakespeare' or the 'I Ching' or 'Alice in Wonderland' or 'The Bumper Book of Fun Things To Do On A Wet Sunday Afternoon'?

"It is just as credible to begin with the bible as to exclude it ..."

No it's not!

"Of course, that does not mean an evolutionist cannot do some good science ,"

As you plainly do not understand science, you're not qualified to pass such a judgement, Pete. You wouldn't recognise "good science" if you tripped over it!

Finally, for the umpteenth time, there's no such animal as an "evolutionist".

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 04:12 AM

Bill, every one , every scientist has presuppositions and worldview ,and as you know, in my opinion the atheists is just as much a religious position as the theist . However the atheist position , wants to rule out theist...esp biblical...position a priori , claiming that they are the lofty , unprejudiced seekers after truth.   It is true that they will not be absolutist, but when it come to origins ideas ,they have to be ,because the data just keeps inconveniently necessitating adjustments of the story. But , though in details they are not , and cannot be absolutist , at the base line they are. Evolutionism is heralded as the fact, whatever the evidence.   They are just as fundamentalist as the bible believer. Yes, the creationists base line is the bible , and openly admits as much , and in this are more honest than the committed evolutionist.   It is just as credible to begin with the bible as to exclude it , in fact, IMO, more so since it's description of life producing"after it's kind" is in accord with observational science, and evolutionism is not.   Of course, that does not mean an evolutionist cannot do some good science , maybe even equal to the theists and creationists of the scientific revolution of yesteryear !

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 03:52 AM

Oh ear shimrod. You are the one who apparently is a scientist , but I cannot recall a positive...ie non ad honomim. Post on this subject from you.   Bill does use logical arguments , even though I think them skewed ,as I will try to explain next post , but you seem to be just snide.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 02:16 PM

Let me know when he comes back to lecture. I'll be in the pub. There are times when it is easier to remain ignorant...

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 01:40 PM

"evolutionism clashes with observational ,testable repeatable science ,"

Oh dear - that old chestnut again! Pete, you have demonstrated time and time again, on this forum, that you do not understand science, what it encompasses or how it is done. You don't even understand the difference between 'belief' and 'evidence'. Get yourself an education and then come back and lecture us about science!!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 01:37 PM

Pete.... as I have said before in our discussions, having 'qualifications'... that is, a degree and job... IN science is relevant only when they are using scientific principles as their base.

When a 'scientist' analyzes, organizes, studies and forms conclusions based on religious beliefs, he has just switched hats and is acting AS a theologian and using his scientific background as a tool to dispute the majority opinion in his own field!

He may be excellent in lab work, field research, statistical analysis...etc.... but if he finds data that 'seem' to contradict what he thinks he reads in the Bible, and proposes theories to re-assess his own or others' data to reconcile it with his religious beliefs, he is NOT, I repeat, acting as a scientist any longer.

   Many scientists consider themselves to be religious, in that they accept basic principles of conduct and values outlined in religious texts, but they view science as a way of studying HOW god set the universe going and what has happened SINCE 'creation'! Trying to reconcile a literal reading of the bible with science, when the very status OF the bible as History is itself in question, leads to very awkward positions.

It is irrelevant " whether .. those writing historical narrative intended it to be understood as exactly that.". We have no way of knowing what they thought.... we can only look at various versions of old manuscripts, compare translations of partial texts in archaic languages, do **scientific** dating of parchment and ink, do archaeological research to look for relevant materials..... and make **scientific** assessments of what is found.
There are perfectly good explanations for those who wrote 1000-5000 years ago doing what they did..... but being "inspired by God" is only one of several possible explanations..... and 'believing' that they were inspired is just that- a belief. That is why the word belief is used in religious matters. It is a theory in the sense that YOU use 'theory' when trying to cast doubt on certain scientific areas. The difference is, it is a theory that is very difficult to test in any meaningful way. (Finding 'evidence' that MAY point to the actual sites of Sodom & Gomorrah is irrelevant in determining whether some angry 'god' destroyed them. All sorts of other evidence may suggest how 'natural phenomena' caused those cities to be lost.)
------------------------------------------
You said:
" Some of the other points raised might have merit in defending Darwinism inasmuch as why it might not be false , but none of it gave any reason why it should be regarded as fact. I have no intention of a detailed response unless you actually raise them yourself rather than just give links."

In this, you again miss the point of what science & 'Darwinism' are about. Science, properly done, doesn't bother to label stuff as 'fact'. Science is officially open-ended and willing to change IF better data is found. It is true that some things are so obvious & not questioned that they are as close to absolute 'fact' as to make no difference, but stuff like the age of the universe and its composition are hotly debated... as are investigations into anthropology. The difference is, science simply cannot proceed using Adam & Eve as their basic 'truth'... and I cannot rewrite all the data in order to give YOU line & verse from my link, when you will just use a non-scientific quote from Creation.com to refute me.
We operate under different rules... you have 'beliefs' that you MUST defend, no matter what % of the evidence is against you. YOU (meaning those with strong fundamentalist religious beliefs) are making certain serious claims... and the burden of proof is always on those who assert. A circular argument does not answer that burden of proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 01:36 PM

So, stu, why do you think I should take responsibility for arguments I don't make myself?   And when I say I am not going to go through the whole lot , why should you expect me to. I could do the same as bill , and post a link from a scientist refuting his article ( if I knew how to do it ! ) but that would not make much of a discussion.      I don't understand what you are getting at in the first line , i,m afraid . But , there was nothing in the article that could be described as verifying evolutionism as true. Best I can see , was some reasons why it might not be false.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 01:15 PM

Dave, I may not have the lofty academics that many of you have but even I can recognise a fallacy, I think. And I think your is called begging the question. Unless you think I was claiming you can get a PhDs in creationism ! It is whether evolutionism or creationism stands up under scrutiny is the question, and though it may be a denial of the evolutionary gloss of their training, it is not as regards the actual data. Your presupposing creation lacks credibility does not make it so. And it seems to me that though evolutionary academics can wax eloquent on technical details , when presented with even understandable to the layman evidence ,that evolutionism clashes with observational ,testable repeatable science , there has been no good answer , but a claimed expectation that science will provide an answer to the problem

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 09:35 AM

"It takes work and effort to do science, including getting up to speed on whatever you're discussing on forums."

But, surely, Stu, all you need to be an expert on evolution is to read the stuff posted on 'Creation.com' (or whatever). There's a danger, if you make an effort to "get up to speed" with contemporary, mainstream thinking on the subject, that you might learn something that clashes with your (religious) beliefs - and we can't have that, can we?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 09:21 AM

It's what they ascribed movement to that was suspect....

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 09:05 AM

Should have been "recognise that people watching the night and seasons go round, under clear skies, would have recognised the patterns of movement"

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 07:03 AM

"but none of it gave any reason why it should be regarded as fact"

That matter is fully addressed in the first point.


"I have no intention of a detailed response unless you actually raise them yourself rather than just give links."

Boom-tish! There it is. You've absolved of taking any responsibility for the statements creationists make; it's the point of the article. It takes work and effort to do science, including getting up to speed on whatever you're discussing on forums.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 06:52 AM

They built the Antikythera mechanism (maybe that involved Archimedes) to predict these patterns very precisely.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 06:01 AM

I reckon ancient goat herders were a lot less ignorant about what goes on in the night sky than your average modern human.

It's typical modern arrogance (and disinterest in the sky) to focus on myths associated with the constellations, and astrology, rather than recognise that people watching the night and seasons go round, under clear skies, wouldn't have recognised the patterns of movement.

Sure they, didn't (so far as we know) realise than the earh went round the sun - but you can pass an exam in astro-navigation using an earth-centric model of the sky.

They were probably quite good at selective goat breeding as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 04:50 AM

And I most definitely did not describe goat herders, the writers of the Bible, or indeed any ancient people as "ignoramuses". I was reserving that description for present day creationists who took their writings literally. The concept of a "scientifically qualified creationist" is a strange one. Its true that someone can get a scientific PhD, then go and do something else. Even be a priest, John Polkinghorne is far from the only example. One of my closest colleagues in astrophysics, now sadly no longer with us, had a parallel career as a Jesuit priest. But to get involved in creationism, that is a denial of the training that obtaining their qualification involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 04:45 AM

"GOAT herders" is what I actually wrote. They probably weren't ignorant ... I bet they knew a lot about GOATS!
.,,.
Ah; but how much did they know about "German poet and philosopher, Johann Gottfried Herder."?