OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 30, 2014, 10:36:45 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.4%)
No - 133 (38.7%)
both metaphorically and literally - 158 (45.9%)
Total Voters: 344

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 335054 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,579


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #3555 on: September 04, 2011, 04:54:44 PM »

i thought the orthodox believe in hellocentrism, not heliocentrism.
surely greece is the centre of the universe?
 Wink
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,717


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3556 on: September 04, 2011, 05:42:31 PM »


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. Roll Eyes

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.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 05:48:00 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,622



« Reply #3557 on: September 04, 2011, 07:32:30 PM »


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. Roll Eyes

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?

1 While I only have an undergraduate understanding of physics, I think I would have remembered learning that general relativity had something to do with geocentrism.


Hi Sauron,

I just got home last night from a 6 hr plane flight and I probably should have waited to post the next day but your "wrong belief" statement irked me and I figured you would understand what I was writing about. I also had a year of undergraduate physics and it did not come up. I did take an astronomy course and it did come up. My apartment roommate at the time was a graduate student in astrophysics and we had a rather long and mind-boggling conversation about how geo-centrism can actually be a justifiable point of view.

I only have one book that covers this topic: Hans Reichenbach, The Philosophy of Space and Time (1928), and here is a quote to contemplate:

"According to the general relativity of rotation, we can consider not only the earth but also any given rotating system, e.g., a merry-go-round, as the rest system. This conception, however, has absurd consequences. The horse, which in the usual interpretation pulls the merry-go-round, must in the second interpretation be able to put the earth, even the universe, in motion by means of treading, since now the merry-go-round remains at rest. How can the horse have the strength to do so?  This objection overlooks the fact that, in the relativistic conception, the rotation of the stars is due to a gravitational rotational field, and not to the horse. The latter has an entirely different task; it prevents the merry-go-round from following the rotational field and taking part in the general rotation. We see that even according to the relativistic interpretation, the horse has to perform a task determined by the mass of the merry-go-round and not by the mass of the stars. If an elevator glides down slowly and a fly inside crawls upward so that it remains at the same level relative to the building, it has to transport only its own mass – it does not have to “push down” the elevator."

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.

In regard to species, the definition is somewhat in flux so it is best to define what you mean by it.

Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3558 on: September 04, 2011, 08:23:48 PM »


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. Roll Eyes

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.

Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3559 on: September 04, 2011, 08:42:58 PM »


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. Roll Eyes

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?

1 While I only have an undergraduate understanding of physics, I think I would have remembered learning that general relativity had something to do with geocentrism.


Hi Sauron,

I just got home last night from a 6 hr plane flight and I probably should have waited to post the next day but your "wrong belief" statement irked me and I figured you would understand what I was writing about. I also had a year of undergraduate physics and it did not come up. I did take an astronomy course and it did come up. My apartment roommate at the time was a graduate student in astrophysics and we had a rather long and mind-boggling conversation about how geo-centrism can actually be a justifiable point of view.

I only have one book that covers this topic: Hans Reichenbach, The Philosophy of Space and Time (1928), and here is a quote to contemplate:

"According to the general relativity of rotation, we can consider not only the earth but also any given rotating system, e.g., a merry-go-round, as the rest system. This conception, however, has absurd consequences. The horse, which in the usual interpretation pulls the merry-go-round, must in the second interpretation be able to put the earth, even the universe, in motion by means of treading, since now the merry-go-round remains at rest. How can the horse have the strength to do so?  This objection overlooks the fact that, in the relativistic conception, the rotation of the stars is due to a gravitational rotational field, and not to the horse. The latter has an entirely different task; it prevents the merry-go-round from following the rotational field and taking part in the general rotation. We see that even according to the relativistic interpretation, the horse has to perform a task determined by the mass of the merry-go-round and not by the mass of the stars. If an elevator glides down slowly and a fly inside crawls upward so that it remains at the same level relative to the building, it has to transport only its own mass – it does not have to “push down” the elevator."

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 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.

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.

For the rest of the class, there are actually people alive today that believe in a geocentric universe. See, for example:
http://fixedearth.com/

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.

Quote
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?

« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 08:45:07 PM by Sauron » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,498


« Reply #3560 on: September 04, 2011, 11:06:19 PM »

Sauron, I think you need to loosen a few bolts.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,717


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3561 on: September 05, 2011, 12:09:40 AM »


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. Roll Eyes

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.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,717


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3562 on: September 05, 2011, 12:19:16 AM »

Sauron, I think you need to loosen a few bolts.
QFT!
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,622



« Reply #3563 on: September 05, 2011, 01:51:41 AM »

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.

Quote
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."

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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?
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #3564 on: September 05, 2011, 02:28:15 AM »

If you are a scientist, I recommend a more cautious approach to your own positions.

I appreciate this very much as a general observation.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,360

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #3565 on: September 05, 2011, 04:33:53 AM »

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  
« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 04:37:24 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,717


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3566 on: September 05, 2011, 04:54:35 AM »

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.

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.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,360

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #3567 on: September 05, 2011, 05:17:02 AM »

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.

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

« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 05:20:19 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3568 on: September 05, 2011, 09:46:07 AM »

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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
Quote
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.

« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 09:47:31 AM by Sauron » Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,622



« Reply #3569 on: September 05, 2011, 12:09:06 PM »

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3570 on: September 05, 2011, 12:21:48 PM »

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?

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,717


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3571 on: September 05, 2011, 01:29:01 PM »

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.

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?
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,622



« Reply #3572 on: September 06, 2011, 12:07:26 PM »

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:

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.


Quote
Quote
Quote
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

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3573 on: September 06, 2011, 12:42:48 PM »

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:

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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 12:43:36 PM by Sauron » Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3574 on: September 06, 2011, 01:03:30 PM »

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."
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 01:14:07 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3575 on: September 06, 2011, 01:17:12 PM »

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.

Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #3576 on: September 06, 2011, 02:53:36 PM »

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.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #3577 on: September 06, 2011, 05:35:49 PM »

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!
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3578 on: September 06, 2011, 05:38:24 PM »

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.

Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #3579 on: September 06, 2011, 05:41:30 PM »

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. Smiley
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3580 on: September 06, 2011, 05:56:27 PM »

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. Smiley

I use the Kindle app on my iPad, so it may be a bit of a different experience. I do have color, at least!

Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #3581 on: September 06, 2011, 06:02:09 PM »

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. Smiley

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!
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,579


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #3582 on: September 08, 2011, 10:43:09 AM »

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...
 Wink
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,717


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3583 on: September 08, 2011, 11:37:09 AM »

can i derail the topic a little bit...
Please don't.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,507


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3584 on: September 08, 2011, 11:50:43 AM »

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
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3585 on: September 08, 2011, 12:53:55 PM »

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.
Logged
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,579


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #3586 on: September 08, 2011, 05:38:18 PM »

guys, we are all naughty.
stop derailing the topic!
sorry, peterthealeut. i won't do it again.
 Embarrassed

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.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,204



WWW
« Reply #3587 on: September 09, 2011, 03:31:48 PM »

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".

« Last Edit: September 09, 2011, 03:42:09 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3588 on: September 09, 2011, 05:13:38 PM »

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.

Quote

I am sorry, but that is not reasonable evidence.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3589 on: September 09, 2011, 05:14:59 PM »

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.

Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,717


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3590 on: September 10, 2011, 01:30:40 AM »

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.

Quote

I am sorry, but that is not reasonable evidence.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2011, 01:32:58 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #3591 on: September 10, 2011, 01:35:45 AM »

This thread is over six and a half years old.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,717


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3592 on: September 10, 2011, 01:51:35 AM »

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.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #3593 on: September 10, 2011, 02:25:25 AM »

How unfortunate, because no one ever seems to say anything even remotely new.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3594 on: September 10, 2011, 12:13:44 PM »

How unfortunate, because no one ever seems to say anything even remotely new.

welcome to Orthodoxy!
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3595 on: September 10, 2011, 12:46:39 PM »

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.



Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,717


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3596 on: September 10, 2011, 02:35:53 PM »

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.

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.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3597 on: September 10, 2011, 07:26:15 PM »

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.

Quote
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.

Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,717


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3598 on: September 10, 2011, 10:55:26 PM »

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.

Quote
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.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3599 on: September 10, 2011, 11:03:23 PM »

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.

Quote
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?

Logged
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.245 seconds with 74 queries.