PDA

View Full Version : Astrophysics and Our Ancient Universe



smugg
12-11-01, 03:56 AM
I'm sorry to have been away so long! Events have conspired to keep me from posting for a while now, the most frustrating being the trouble I'm having upgrading my computer. I'm having to steal time on someone else's until it gets fixed.

Anyway, I started a new thread because the other one (Evolution (http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=413)) is getting so long and convoluted. I know some have announced they are through talking about the age of the universe but I bet I don't go completely unanswered (unchallenged) here. I'll relegate evolutionary posts to the other thread.

I'd like to start by addressing VwV's extremely long and pedantic post in two parts on page one. Obviously it would be wasteful to include the complete text so please point out any topics I miss.

VwV, you go into great detail in your post but most of the points you make start with misinformation. Again I ask: is this intentional?

stellar formation

Your claim that "[w]e see stars blowing up all the time, but we have never seen any form," is not true.

Stellar Formation - Peoria Astronomical Society (http://www.astronomical.org/astbook/starform.htm)

Embryonic Stars Emerge from Interstellar "EGGs" - Space Telescope Science Institute (http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/95/44.html)

Of course, we have yet to record the entire process because we are just now developing the tools to directly observe it. That, and it takes a really long time from the perspective of an animal like me that's only built to survive 70 - 80 years.

measuring the distance to the most distant

Then you go back into the whole parallax trig. thing. As I have said, we do not triangulate to find the distance of objects beyond our local area.

Ask the Experts - Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/astronomy/astronomy11.html) (don't get distracted: Dr. Pasachoff starts out discussing how we measure nearby objects but if you read further he explains the process for the distant ones)

so-called c-decay

I have not at any time made the claim which you are primarily arguing against here: that the speed of light cannot change. It seems to me that it can and in my posts I have referred to this phenomenon. But maybe I haven't been clear enough.

There have been findings which show light slowing in some circumstances. A couple from controlled experiments in labs and one from observed data in a section of space. There are reasons this isn't terribly helpful to Barry Setterfield's (http://www.setterfield.org/) theory of c-decay.

What Mr. Setterfield proposes is a non-linear, universal slowing of the speed of light. He isn't just saying that light can slow, but that all light is constantly slowing as the nature of our universe changes over time. His idea is an attempt to make observable data (the perceived distance of far-flung space objects) fit into his belief system (Biblical Creationism). The data he relies on are attempts to measure the speed of light over the last 400 years or so.

In the past, attempts to measure the speed of light gave different (and faster) numbers than what we arrive at today. The dilemma is, of course, are the numbers accurate and light is slowing universally, or are the measurements of the past simply less accurate than ours today?

Mr. Setterfield takes the former view (I, the latter). The implication here is that all light (even already-old light) is slowing at the same rate. This is difficult for me to wrap my head around, but stick with me for a minute. Since not every object is the same distance from us in space, the light which reaches us is of different ages -- sometimes much older than 400 years. With some exceptions (at least the one instance I know of), this light appears to be going the same speed as the much younger light of closer objects. What we have to assume if we are to remain on-board with c-decay is that the speed of light isn't only a function of time, but also a function of proximity to earth. Almost all light would have to be decaying at a different rate for each star in order to end up at our planet with the same speed.

So Mr. Setterfield's theory doesn't hold up. Luckily for him, validation isn't an important part of what he calls science as long as it can be made to fit 2,800 year-old mythology.

atomic clocks

The claim: Atomic clocks can't show c-decay because they use "light to measure light."

The truth: The most modern atomic clocks fire a hydrogen atom maser at a receptor plate and measure the hydrogen's oscillation. While it is true that a microwave "beam" (the maser) is carrying the information to the plate (at light speed), it's the movement of the atom's particles which give us the time signal -- and they don't oscillate anywhere near light speed, nor is it light. Older atomic clocks were based on the same principle and that is why they are called atomic clocks instead of photonic clocks.

things i remember


Originally posted by VWV:
Things To Remember:
1) - We can't measure accurately anything over or around 100-1000 light years, you just get crazy numbers after that.

If by crazy you mean big, then yes. But I think it's a mistake to pass a value judgement on numbers.


2) - Nobody knows what light is.

Hehe. That's a good one. Man, you really had me going for a while, VwV. I actually thought you were serious until I read this one.


3) - We certainly don't know that light has always traveled the same speed, and more and more evidence supports that light is slowing down.

No, only that light can slow down under certain circumstances.


3) - The entire theory behind the black hole, is that light can be attracted by gravity. Now if light can be attracted by gravity, then we know its not a constant. So, if black holes exist, then light is not a constant.

See? You're arguing against a position I don't subscribe to. I will say that this particular argument is a non sequitur, but it has nothing to do with my argument.


4) - God made a mature creation. Stars already showing with their light.

Well, I for one am completely taken in by God's attempt at deception. He did such a good job at making his creation look old I'm convinced. Can you really blame me?

Since you're already giving me the inside skinny about how God goes about His business, could you answer my earlier question about syphilis? How about the fresh-water fish?

isaiah, my favorite prophet


The Bible actually says that God stretched out the heavens. So maybe the Red Shift is actually in the Bible. In Isaiah 40:22, it says that the earth is a sphere,

A circle (Heb. chuwg), actually: "[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." If sphere had been intended, it would have been easy enough for Isaiah to use the word duwr which is usually taken to mean ball. Isaiah does use that word in 22:18 so he must have intentionally used the word for circle. Isaiah's picture is that of a disc-shaped world.

This verse also goes on to say that the people were as grasshoppers. Aren't we to take that literally, too?


and that God "stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain". In Isaiah 43:5, it says, "Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out". In Jeremiah 10:12, it says that "He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion". So it could be that God is stretching out the heavens, and the Red Shift is the result. It could be the doppler effect.

My curtains aren't red-shifted, are yours? Isaiah was describing the heavens as they appeared to him: a tent (or dome) over the flat and unmoving (Isa. 45:18) earth.


I am not saying that the stars going away, I'm just saying we can't know it. And I am also saying that it doesn't conflict with the Biblical interpretation of the Bible, that the creation took six literal days, about 6,000 years ago.

Stabby
12-11-01, 04:50 AM
No, only that light can slow down under certain circumstances.


In regards to black holes. Light is not Slowing. Light is still constant. SPACE, however, has been curved into a hole. Light simply is going down the drain.

If light is "slowing" as the c-decay advocates are contending, how do they compensate for the space distortion which is linked to speed and mass? If such claims were true, we'd never know, because mass and space would adjust as well. Light, speed, time, mass and Space are all dimensionally linked.

Stabby------------

GRANTM
12-11-01, 08:00 PM
Hey Smugg

As you so cordially welcomed me On my first post I too return the favour And look forward to meaningful Discussion. Welcome back

This topic is enjoyable and fascinating to me, But as for proof of age I am doubtful that it can prove age of anything. only distances.

For age of earth or anything else. you must look inward.

Please follow: Amtrak buys two new trains they boyh leave St Louis. at precisely the same time. one goes to New York,
The other goes to Los Angeles. once both trains have stopped
to look from one train to another you can down to the minutest detail to get the distance. But the age of each train is the same
but there is anomaly with the distance calculation.
You know exactly the distance between the two trains
But the distance A (St-Louis to NY) + Distance B( St Louis To La)
will not equal the total distance between the two trains. the reason plate tectonics, LA on the other side of the san andreas fault line is is moving one way new york on the east coast is also moving. in a different direction. Now I agree that in this example
the differations are minute,

The same can be said about astro physics, the earth spins on its axis at approx 1,000 Mph and also the earth orbits the sun at an Average speed, It is not constant, at 67,000, MPH And the sun
is on its 225 million year galactic year orbit around the milky way.
at a speed of if iv'e done the math right 150,000 mph so at any given time we are plus or minus these speeds against an object in another galaxy that has the same + or Minus calculations.
It would surprise me very much if when we measure lightspeed
that it would be constant as we may be moving at 2 X 218,000 mph toward or away from it. Of course this figure is amplified if the Galaxies are rotating around a super black hole.

But this does not prove age. we could be the same age and of course would be, in both the big bang and creation theories. As the creation theory and big bang theories were one time Occurances, they would be, proving newer stars and newer planets well thats galactic evolution, drat there's that word again,



How old is the Earth, one must look inward, As for the God created the Earth Mature theory all evidence that I am aware of lets just say I'm skeptical, very skeptical. I really think their pushing the envelope here. But hey the journey is fun and awesome though isn't it,

smugg
12-12-01, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by GRANTM
...

Please follow: Amtrak buys two new trains they boyh leave St Louis. at precisely the same time. one goes to New York, The other goes to Los Angeles. once both trains have stopped to look from one train to another you can down to the minutest detail to get the distance. But the age of each train is the same but there is anomaly with the distance calculation. You know exactly the distance between the two trains But the distance A (St-Louis to NY) + Distance B( St Louis To La) will not equal the total distance between the two trains. the reason plate tectonics, LA on the other side of the san andreas fault line is is moving one way new york on the east coast is also moving. in a different direction. Now I agree that in this example the differations are minute,

I think I understand what you are saying, but the motion of our landmasses is measurable and so shouldn't be impossible (even if it is difficult) to figure in. You could even be expected to make accurate predictions about what the distances are without making the actual trip. Anyway, let me get back to your post:


The same can be said about astro physics, the earth spins on its axis at approx 1,000 Mph and also the earth orbits the sun at an Average speed, It is not constant, at 67,000, MPH And the sun
is on its 225 million year galactic year orbit around the milky way.
at a speed of if iv'e done the math right 150,000 mph so at any given time we are plus or minus these speeds against an object in another galaxy that has the same + or Minus calculations.
It would surprise me very much if when we measure lightspeed
that it would be constant as we may be moving at 2 X 218,000 mph toward or away from it. Of course this figure is amplified if the Galaxies are rotating around a super black hole.

Actually, this is the amazing thing about the speed of light and why it is used in Einstein's Special Relativity and the Hubble Constant: no matter how fast your relative motion against a light emission, it always appears to be traveling the same speed. Nothing else (that I know of) works this way.

It leads to all kinds of disturbing thought experiments: what happens if your car could travel at the speed of light and you turned on the headlights?

But it is this property which led Einstein to relativity (and gave it its name) and it's the reason light speed is called the speed limit of our universe.


But this does not prove age. we could be the same age and of course would be, in both the big bang and creation theories. As the creation theory and big bang theories were one time Occurances, they would be, proving newer stars and newer planets well thats galactic evolution, drat there's that word again,

Heh, don't worry about it; nobody really denies evolution. Biblical literalists just divide it into micro evolution (evolution we can no longer deny) and macro evolution (evolution which gets in the way of a literal interpretation of Jewish scripture).


How old is the Earth, one must look inward, As for the God created the Earth Mature theory all evidence that I am aware of lets just say I'm skeptical, very skeptical. I really think their pushing the envelope here. But hey the journey is fun and awesome though isn't it,

Big Bang cosmology is not a comfortable subject for me: it's difficult to study as a layman because there are so many interpretations and slippery slopes. What do you mean by looking inward? Are you talking about some kind of revelation or spiritual awakening being necessary? Not my forté, but that kind of epiphany seems conspicuously absent in many important discoveries.

I agree about the journey being amazing.

GRANTM
12-12-01, 10:10 AM
Greetings Smugg:

Quote:

{Actually, this is the amazing thing about the speed of light and why it is used in Einstein's Special Relativity and the Hubble Constant: no matter how fast your relative motion against a light emission, it always appears to be traveling the same speed. Nothing else (that I know of) works this way.}

This is true, right now, to us, the lay peple, But I'm wondering on the effect of the dark matter, that the scientists are working on
as to the effects of speed and composition and light,


Quote:
(It leads to all kinds of disturbing thought experiments: what happens if your car could travel at the speed of light and you turned on the headlights?}

Yes Indeed, because since your base speed is S.O.L and
then shine your lights does that now mean you have light at 2X
or simply that of no effect because it is now travelling at the some speed as you.

But Here's Another for you You have car A and I have car B face to face, at the start where we can both see each other,we both drive in Reverse at 1/2 speed of light + 10 in relation to those watching can follow us , but in relation to each other, other than the instance at the start, we have no way of knowing because, nothing between us will register. Only when we go through a third party can we communicate or confirm. For the differential
now between use is growing at faster than the speed of light.

Ever feel like a cog In something Turning?

Quote:
{But it is this property which led Einstein to relativity (and gave it its name) and it's the reason light speed is called the speed limit of our universe.}

Ah.. but is it, reference to light, Using your first example, if light were a by- product, of an action, turning on the lights, For the first time now we can see your vehicle, but is it the maximum speed of the vehicle, all we could see is the light beams,

I'll leave it up to the scientists to answer that , But reserve my right to always question ,other to say
that compared to length of time man has walked the earth
we are only now starting to discover the joys of the Universe,
God is not against science, he gave mankind the joy of discovery, and gave him/her too the desire for the search, Science is not against God for it has the same objective, To deny one is denying both for it is a closed mind, that denies truth.

Science is objective, God is subjective, It is only when we can combine both that the complete story be told In all its majesty. The true all around story of the journey of mankind. For it is a great Journey.

Stabby
12-18-01, 04:34 AM
I think most of your objections to the age and light problem are solved when you grasp the notion of multiple dimensions.

Speed and mass effect space and time. Perception difficulties become less difficult when you consider all aspects of General relativity. Re-evaluate all you skeptical stances, with the notion that space curves and time is relative. Toy with the notion of 11 dimensions.

To suggest looking inward is bad science.


Science is objective, God is subjective, It is only when we can combine both that the complete story be told In all its majesty

Wouldn't the combination of objective and subjective be a paradox?

Corbin
12-18-01, 04:59 AM
Speed and mass effect space and time. Perception difficulties become less difficult when you consider all aspects of General relativity. Re-evaluate all you skeptical stances, with the notion that space curves and time is relative. Toy with the notion of 11 dimensions.

I cannot find any posts in this thread that say something contrary to this. Am I missing something........?

Stabby
12-18-01, 06:37 AM
Yes Indeed, because since your base speed is S.O.L and
then shine your lights does that now mean you have light at 2X
or simply that of no effect because it is now travelling at the some speed as you.

Citing this as a "problem" is indicative of not grasping all points of special relativity. IF this is a problem, then it is contrary to space curvature and distortion.

In each case the light is still constant. Mass moving at the speed of light would be near infinte. Mass of this scale would curve space to such an extent that light would be able to move at its normal speed relative to the now infintily large observer.

stabby--------

GRANTM
12-18-01, 11:05 AM
Hello again Stabby or is it still,

Qoute:
{I think most of your objections to the age and light problem are solved when you grasp the notion of multiple dimensions.}

I Have often pondered that But some of that that I have read
realy confuses little old me as it delves within SCi-Fi.

could you please indicate some URLS for me to look at?

Sorry for the Confusion what I meant by Inward was the Study of plate tectonics, Geophysics, the study of mid oceanic trench and the differences in the polarizations, the wobble and movement of the earths Magnetic poles, Inward, toward the Earth, the Earth sciences. For our planets age.


Wouldn't the combination of objective and subjective be a paradox? [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, You could not prove nor disprove God by science
Objective- Subjective

AND NO for isn't that what the scientific method is ultimately ,
You go out and objectively observe, test, correlate, re test etc,
but in the end all the objectiveness is brought forward and you
present a Paper based on your findings. ie subjective.

Have A Good one

mickey1
12-18-01, 04:32 PM
Here is just something small to think about. It speaks volumes to me.

Faith : Belief that does not rest on logical proof or
material evidence.

That's all.

Mickey.;)

smugg
12-18-01, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by mickey
Here is just something small to think about. It speaks volumes to me.

Faith : Belief that does not rest on logical proof or
material evidence.

That's all.

Mickey.;)

I'm not sure which side of the equation you're weighing in on, Mickey, but here's a definition which should also be given some consideration:

Reality: That which exists objectively and in fact.

I understand what you're saying, though. It wouldn't be such a problem if people would just stop confusing the two.

GRANTM
12-18-01, 06:02 PM
Greetings Fellow Canuk, welcome to the Forums
Usually a good group here, intense discussion at times but almost never disrespctful, Kermie keeps a good hand here.
Check out the Introduction Page and Introduce yourself.



Originally posted by mickey
Here is just something small to think about. It speaks volumes to me.

Faith : Belief that does not rest on logical proof or
material evidence.

That's all.

Mickey.;)


Faith does have a logical proof ie Rene Descartes and Carl Jung
But it is a Subjective proof.

GRANTM
12-18-01, 06:19 PM
Hi Smugg:
:D :D
Did you really think that you could slip this one by me

Reality: That which exists objectively and in fact.

[/B][/QUOTE]:D :D

By extension then Fact need not be totally Objective.

Great discussion going though.

Best of the season to you.

Stabby
12-18-01, 11:27 PM
Sorry for the Confusion what I meant by Inward was the Study of plate tectonics,

Ha! So sorry about that. And i pride myself on linguistic clarity, Yet i go and jump to a conclusion. I'm such a dork.


AND NO for isn't that what the scientific method is ultimately ,
You go out and objectively observe, test, correlate, re test etc,
but in the end all the objectiveness is brought forward and you
present a Paper based on your findings. ie subjective.

You seem to be mixing up the scientific notion of objectivity with absolute knowldege. In no way is scientific objective conslusions and observations perfect. This sort of inappropriate Idealism causes all sorts of trouble.

When a scientist claims objectivity, they mean the best possible pragmatic conclusion and perception available. Some doubt and uncertainty does not negate the process, moreover, it is a critical component to the process. The "subjective" weakness that you mention is actually a strength. Science is a process, knowledge in flux.

I understand the longing for perfection, to see and understand perfectly, but that is not possible. Despite the fact that subjective "feeling" based methodologies would make it seem so.

Stabby------

GRANTM
12-19-01, 01:32 PM
Hello again Stabby
Quote:
Ha! So sorry about that. And I pride myself on linguistic clarity, Yet I go and jump to a conclusion. I'm such a dork.

Hey, I was the One that was unclear, and thats one of the general innate problems with forums," I know what I said and meant, What I dont Know is what you heard, and understood, It is more prevalent here, because with the wriiten conversations, we lack the body language, emphatic gestures,eye contact that we use to punctuate personal conversation.
As well we do not have common terms of reference as to surroundings, education, upbringing, etc. the senseable person asks questions and the senseable person replies to those questions, some questions are asked to gain the commonality and clarity of the terms of reference.


QUOTE:

{You seem to be mixing up the scientific notion of objectivity with absolute knowldege.}

I don't think so, all I am saying here is that the Individual Submission of the paper ands its conclusion, the papers conclusion, is subjective, I am not saying that any paper is
absolute knowledge, for Scientific Notion, relies on the FACT that others will be able to recreate and enhance and continnually
expand on original theory in PURSUIT of the absolute Knowledge, Once mankind Proved that the world was round and not flat,
Mankind then was more able to explore. Because at one time Mankind Proved the world was flat.

all that I am saying here is that the the original supposition, would be of a subjective nature, the process would br objective-Scientific Notation - the conclusion would be subjective- and therefore the process will start all over agian. The 5 W's
as it were.

Quote:
{In no way is scientific objective conslusions and observations perfect. This sort of inappropriate Idealism causes all sorts of trouble.}

100% agreement Woe is mankind when he will no longer wants to dream, to search, to discover, to limit his knowledge to that which he concludes it to be all that can be Known. Woe is mankind when he is afraid to think of the unknown and propose new ideas.

Quote:
{When a scientist claims objectivity, they mean the best possible pragmatic conclusion and perception available. Some doubt and uncertainty does not negate the process, moreover, it is a critical component to the process. The "subjective" weakness that you mention is actually a strength. Science is a process, knowledge in flux.

I understand the longing for perfection, to see and understand perfectly, but that is not possible. Despite the fact that subjective "feeling" based methodologies would make it seem so.}

I feel that we have a personal miscommunication here
My references
Subjective and Objective.
Are that for far too long Religion and Science
Have been at odds from the imprisonment of Galileo To current Date Of Creation debates, These disagreements
detract from the knowledgs base of mankind and force people to choose sides when in reality no side needs to be chosen. I dont believe that this is an either/ or proposition.

Both sides have a tendancy to become very defensive with topics
and loose sight of the pursuit of truth, both sides take delight in the stumblings of the other,

Some People " I cannot Prove the Existence of God By Objetive Means" therfore He Cannot Exist

Some People" My Religion says the Universe is 6,000 Years old
science says otherwise, Science is wrong.

This Obstinency is Killing us and distracting us from our true goal,
the PURSUIT of ultimate knowlege

I know that some scientific types because of their experiences and studies react defensively to some of my postings here
because it would be their terms of reference to reflexive.

I know that some of the more religious types sure will jump at the opportunity to prove you wrong.

After all Why did God Give us a Brain?

Stabby
12-20-01, 11:41 PM
I don't think so, all I am saying here is that the Individual Submission of the paper ands its conclusion, the papers conclusion, is subjective,

I must admit, you've confused me.
Is there any form of Objective knowledge then? examples?
Make sure your examples are not a-priori.



This Obstinency is Killing us and distracting us from our true goal,
the PURSUIT of ultimate knowlege

Horray!
I've slugged through many-a forum board, and you are the first individual who has mentioned this obvious problem with the process.

On many occasions i've been berated by thiest and athiest alike when searching for common ground.

The Us/Them mentality is strong and pervasive. Moreover, it is incompatible with communication.

Have you had any success with bringing both camps: thiest and skeptics together?
I'd be *very* interested in seeing a new topic on this subject.


Stabby--------------

GRANTM
12-21-01, 03:39 PM
Hello stabby:

Quote:
{I must admit, you've confused me.
Is there any form of Objective knowledge then? examples?
Make sure your examples are not a-priori.}


What caused the question to come about would be the subjective

eg; Why when some rocks are struck together sparks occur?

Subjective as the person who asked the question has a need to
Know the answer.

The accumulated knowlege as a result of that question would be Objective. not all rocks will do that only rocks that have theses properties when etc etc,

The actual answer though has to be a subjective reply why?
because although were 99.9 % sure of the answer, have we tested all rocks, in all states and composition. from everywhere including the ones of the planet Zenon. Of course we can't but based upon our own- TERMS OF REFERENCE- and for the deemed practicality of response- The answer is correct. But subjective
becuse of the conjecture of the answer.

Hence someone somewhere will take this response. and ask but what happens if we strike those same rocks at different temperatures,

The need to ask that question is subjective.
and so the whole process begins again. leading to more questions. ie the Pursuit.


Quote:
{Horray!
I've slugged through many-a forum board, and you are the first individual who has mentioned this obvious problem with the process.
On many occasions i've been berated by thiest and athiest alike when searching for common ground.}

Same experiences here, I was recomended to these forums because, it was told to me that although the theists are staunch in their beliefs and the athiests theirs, there is resonableness in this forum. and the quality controls of "Kermie"" Fledge" and "Christ- -Alone" allow for a very wide range of topics
they will not allow for the personal insults, derogatory remarks. and is very well controlled.


Quote:
{The Us/Them mentality is strong and pervasive. Moreover, it is incompatible with communication.
Have you had any success with bringing both camps: thiest and skeptics together?}

Hard for me to Judge but all I hope to achieve is for a respect
not an agreement.

Quote:
{I'd be *very* interested in seeing a new topic on this subject.}

Hey thats what this forum is all about, You can start one

I'm Not a moderator Just a regular person like youself.

smugg
12-22-01, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by GRANTM
Hi Smugg:
:D :D
Did you really think that you could slip this one by me

Reality: That which exists objectively and in fact.

:D :D

By extension then Fact need not be totally Objective.

That's quite a pronouncement. I'm not even sure I know what it means. How are you magically "extending" fact in this way? If something is a fact it is so regardless of subjective opinion or perspective -- otherwise, it ceases to be a fact. In other words, a fact is necessarily objective.

I'm afraid you can't change that from any position of privilege or authority.


Great discussion going though.

Best of the season to you.

Have a nice holiday.

smugg
12-22-01, 07:48 PM
Oh, and:


Originally posted by GRANTM
Hello again Stabby

...

After all Why did God Give us a Brain?

What evidence do you have that it was God? If being in an old book is evidence, what makes you think it wasn't Bhrama?

In a similar vein, if God gave us brains to ease His own workload, why do you think He gave us appendices?

GRANTM
12-23-01, 11:08 AM
Hello Stabby:
Quote:
{That's quite a pronouncement. I'm not even sure I know what it means. How are you magically "extending" fact in this way? If something is a fact it is so regardless of subjective opinion or perspective -- otherwise, it ceases to be a fact. In other words, a fact is necessarily objective.

I'm afraid you can't change that from any position of privilege or authority.}

I am not trying to change fact. something that is fact objectively
is fact subjectively a rock is still a rock, wether you call it roche
(french) or colour, subjectivity can't change that, All I am suggesting here is that, subjective items, proven subjectively,
are just as much a fact, Please note:

My whole arguement here is that, that which is objective has been proven objective, is fact, these facts, interpreted, lead to theory.

That which is subjective, has been proven subjectively, is fact
these facts, interpreted, lead to theories.

When we use subjective facts, to that which is objective
eg "Age of the Earth" this is invalid reason

The same is true for subjective facts,eg " Is there a God"
to try and prove this objectively is the use of invalid reason

It is not an either/or Proposition. when treated as that, my opion is that both sides lose.


Quote:
{What evidence do you have that it was God? If being in an old book is evidence, what makes you think it wasn't Bhrama?}

In my philosophy, Bhrama, Jehova, The Qi, Allah, Manitou,
God, Vishnu, are one in the same, Synonyms, nothing more than nomenclature, Because, These personifications of God (I use God for it is a more common term of reference in North Ameica
Europe, and Commonwealth countries ) All state the God is Omnipotent-Omniprescent.(O-O) If that is so, there can be only one, if there are more. Then they Cant be (O-O)
That of course eliminates the negative gods, Satan etc.
Only Flip Wilson has the right to say:D :D "The devil made me do it".:D :D

Quote:
{In a similar vein, if God gave us brains to ease His own workload, why do you think He gave us appendices?}

Well two things here, assuming that you can accept That God exists ( at least subjectivly) then it must be determined that he( the personification of God) exists on a different plane And would need something in this 3d plane to be the caretaker. so it would not be to ease his work load but to better maintain his work.

The second thing is I am not about to admit that the science of anatomy has concluded, and that we know all about the strengths and weaknesses and uses of the human body and its tissues, are you?

:D Either that or like the K'nex toys that my nephew is getting on Tuesday, there may a part left over, he will put it somewhere. no doubt :D :D

Hope You have a great holiday and health, success and prosperity in the New Year.

Stabby
12-28-01, 02:04 AM
Grant-

To be honest, you've lost me a bit. Please use the following definitions to describe your stance for me again.

sub·jec·tive [s b jéktiv ] adjective

1. not impartial: based on somebody's opinions or feelings rather than on facts or evidence Of course, that's only my subjective impression.
2. PHILOSOPHY existing by perception: existing only in the mind and not independently of it

ob·jec·tive [ob jéktiv ] adjective

1. free of bias: free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings
2. based on facts: based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions
3. MEDICINE observable: used to describe disease symptoms that can be observed by somebody other than the person who is ill
4. PHILOSOPHY existing independently of mind: existing independently of the individual mind or perception

Are you suggesting a "perfection" of these qualities? Or that science is somehow "theory laden?"

If you consider Pragmatic objectivity, does that change your notions any?


Stabby--------------

GRANTM
12-28-01, 11:22 AM
Hi Stabby:

I'll try to clarify eith these quotes readings of Spinoza, And Kucklick about James.


The truth of an hypothesis (or speculation) is in proportion to
its usefulness in increasing °P.(Degree of perfection) Pragmatically, it matters not that religious hypotheses violate Logic; what matters is that the hypotheses evoke °PcM(Degree of peace of Mind) and obedience—justice and charity;
piety in work-clothes.

"The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good
{abets °P} in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite
assignable reasons."

Kucklick on James:

A belief was true, he said,if in the long run it worked for all of us, and guided us expeditiously through our semihospitable world. James was anxious to uncover what true beliefs amounted to in human life, what their "Cash Value"was, what consequences they led to. A belief was not a mental
entity which somehow mysteriously corresponded to an external reality if the belief were true. Beliefs were ways of acting with reference to a precarious environment, and to say they were true was to say they guided us satisfactorily in this environment. In this sense the pragmatic theory of truth applied Darwinian ideas in philosophy; it made survival { °P } the test of intellectual { LOVE } as well as.

Hope That Clears it up a bit:

PS can you give me any references as to the 11 dimensions.

Stabby
12-29-01, 01:16 AM
Not sure if that clears it up, but it sure gives me something to think about.

Pragmatic truth, then, has no reliance on objectivy or subjectivity. It merely is functional?

When you say: what causes the question is subjective, what do you mean?

I happened across a book titled: hyperspace
I can't remember the author, he had a unique name.
He explains that multi-dimensional equations solve with simpicity what has previously been a mathematically labor intensive effort. A very good read, although, i'm not too convinced of its accuracy. The author would often delve into fantasy and supposition.

Still, an easy read considering the topic.

Stabby--------------------

GRANTM
12-29-01, 10:18 AM
Hi Stabby: Hope the New Year Brings Lots of Joy, Peace, and prosperity.

Quote:
{[B]Not sure if that clears it up, but it sure gives me something to think about.}

Hey Isn't That what its all about.

Quote:
Pragmatic truth, then, has no reliance on objectivy or subjectivity. It merely is functional?

Take"functional" and change to "societal"

What is good for one may not be good for society, This then covers the Ethics issue, Society would influence personal ethics.

Quote:
{When you say: what causes the question is subjective, what do you mean?}

The need to know an answer, the Why More importantly.

Quote:
{I happened across a book titled: hyperspace
I can't remember the author, he had a unique name.
He explains that multi-dimensional equations solve with simpicity what has previously been a mathematically labor intensive effort. A very good read, although, i'm not too convinced of its accuracy. The author would often delve into fantasy and supposition.

Still, an easy read considering the topic.}

Thanks
will look it Up.

gsr
01-07-02, 08:23 PM
I will edit this post with the link reference later.

Recently, Astrophysicists have calculated that our universe can only support life for about 60,000 years due to universal density and universal expansion effects. This finding makes it difficult for atheistic prebiotic developement to happen by chance and atheistic evolution from single cell to present life forms impossible by its own time constraints. Any thoughts?

smugg
01-07-02, 10:14 PM
Why the qualifier of atheistic evolution? Is there a Christian evolution?

Anyway, I'm not entirely familiar with the objections to which you refer. I'll have to wait until you post the link.

GRANTM
01-08-02, 12:51 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gsr
[B]I will edit this post with the link reference later.
Quote:
Recently, Astrophysicists have calculated that our universe can only support life for about 60,000

Is that all Life-Forms, or just Man, for some earth scientists,
have calculated some fossils of plant life at 75-100, K ?
However there is discussion of a 120,000 cycle, for the Earth,
based on the galactic rotation year.

The more Bio-diversity there is in the universe, the more evidence of God, as there is a lack of sameness,

Corbin
01-09-02, 02:30 AM
60 000 years seems awful soon. Our planet has supported life for millions of years, and all of a sudden we can only support life for 60 000 years? Is this perhaps an attack on atheism, since you challenged something called, "atheistic evolution". Are you talking about The theory of evolution vs creationism? I've done some research and I havn't found a single document or piece of literature that says anything about life only being able to exist for another 60 000 years...I'm sorry, I guess I will just have to wait until you have posted the link...

gsr
01-30-02, 07:07 PM
Evidence used to support argument for a young earth and some arguments to the contrary:
http://genesis.amen.net/earth.html
http://www.creationseminar.net/it's_a_young_earth.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/174/evolvex.asp
http://www.rae.org/oldyoung.html
http://www.icr.org/starlightandtime/starlightandtime.html
http://godandscience.org/youngearth/
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tisco/yeclaimsbeta.htmhttp://www.mbowden.surf3.net/creatp1.htm

there are more...but this will do for now.

l
http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/creatp1.htm

Corbin
01-31-02, 03:23 AM
I would like to adress the first link.

I am skeptical about the authenticity of this link for a number of reasons. The author says something that is without a doubt a falsity,

"Reasonable figures show man's antiquity to be in terms of thousands of years; the same figures spread over a conservative estimate of evolutionary history (one million years) would infer a contemporary population on earth 104900 times greater than could fit in the entire universe--talk about crowded!"

104900 times greater than could fit in the entire universe?
highly doubtful.

also:

In 1899, John Jolly attempted to measure the age of the earth based on the amount of sodium chloride (common table salt) in the oceans by assuming that the ocean began as pure water, and the present rate of addition of salt has always been the same. Measuring the amount of salt entering the oceans at all the world's major rivers, by simple calculations he determined that the earth could be no older than 100 million years old. This date, much younger than needed for evolution, was reluctantly accepted by Darwin's followers, because the method was too good and accurate. Any assumption called into question would only result in a much younger earth than that. Fortunately for evolutionists, radiometric methods were developed just in the nick of time and superseded all other dating methods (merely because they gave the desired dates).

They did not switch to radiometric methods simply because they gave more desired results. The current radiometric testing methods have proven way more accurate than Jolly's attempt to measure the age of the earth based on the amount of sodium chloride in the oceans.

This link provides details on how radiometric testing works:

A Radiometric Dating Resource List (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8851/radiometric.html)



He claims Otto Snyder invented the Theory of Continental Drift.

He did not:

Alfred Wegener: a Man Ahead of his Time (http://www.dkonline.com/science/private/earthquest/contents/hall.html)

Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) (http://pangaea.org/wegener.htm)

Alfred Wegener did.

His last comments seem somewhat ignorant and over-simplified:

Belief in billions or millions of years is unscientific, unbiblical, and unnecessary. Evolution is a figment of man's rebellious imagination.

Perhaps he was stating oppinion as fact to strengthen his arguement, but I do not think it has done much, in fact I think it has done the opposite.

I am unable to comment on many of his claims, because I have not yet done the neccasary research. I am merely identifying obvious and blatant lies that the author has intentionally included for whatever reasons. If he is willing to lie about some things, what makes me think that he will not lie about others?

Corbin
02-05-02, 03:15 AM
Does anybody else here have some doubts about some of these websites? David's Creation Page (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html) seemed to have the most well-developed creationism theories. I have read 2/3 of his entire site, (which took several hours), and am currently doing more research on the subject of radiometric dating. Is there anyone who would like to share some comments on the subject, or perhaps shed some light on things?

countrymouse
02-05-02, 07:40 AM
Good morning, Corbin!

This won't be exactly a direct answer to your question about creationism, and I may catch some flack over my point of view, but here goes.

A careful reading of Genesis 1 reveals that, if you take it absolutely literally, it describes a geo-centric universe. That's what all the uproar was about between the Roman Catholic church and Galileo. The church (in all its denominations) is very slow to change its position regarding any point of doctrine, and for good reason.

In my opinion, the material details of the Genesis 1 creation account are arranged as they are in order to teach spiritual truths, not scientific ones. It is poetry, a string of word-pictures, if you will. God would not have given us a science lesson that would be discredited within a few thousand years.

Do I believe that God did create the material universe? Yes!

Do I believe Genesis 1 was written to tell us that? No. It's supposed to be patently obvious to the most casual observer, according to Paul! (That's in Romans 1).

To summarize: I think that ALL the dogs are probably barking up the wrong tree!

Consider it yourself, and let me know what you think!

Happy truth hunting,
cm