OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 01:45:26 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 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.2%)
both metaphorically and literally - 156 (46.2%)
Total Voters: 338

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 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 333042 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,681


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3600 on: September 10, 2011, 11:07:42 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?
Surely you can cite outside authorities who agree with you. Why is that so hard for you?
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3601 on: September 10, 2011, 11:15:35 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?
Surely you can cite outside authorities who agree with you. Why is that so hard for you?

I will repost this again, since it was apparently not read before. I will use bold text this time to add emphasis.

"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."

Did you review The Universality of Laws or any of the other +2,000 hits I named? If not, why was that so hard for you?

« Last Edit: September 10, 2011, 11:15:48 PM by Sauron » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,681


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3602 on: September 11, 2011, 02:13:09 AM »

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?
Surely you can cite outside authorities who agree with you. Why is that so hard for you?

I will repost this again, since it was apparently not read before. I will use bold text this time to add emphasis.

"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."

Did you review The Universality of Laws or any of the other +2,000 hits I named? If not, why was that so hard for you?
Can you share pertinent quotes of those articles here? It's much better you do that for your audience than merely say, "These are my sources, but because I'm too lazy to quote them myself, I'm going to make you read them." I'm not going to do what you're too lazy to do.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 02:13:49 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3603 on: September 11, 2011, 08:10:46 AM »

Surely you can cite outside authorities who agree with you. Why is that so hard for you?

I will repost this again, since it was apparently not read before. I will use bold text this time to add emphasis.

"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."

Did you review The Universality of Laws or any of the other +2,000 hits I named? If not, why was that so hard for you?
Can you share pertinent quotes of those articles here? It's much better you do that for your audience than merely say, "These are my sources, but because I'm too lazy to quote them myself, I'm going to make you read them." I'm not going to do what you're too lazy to do.

It has nothing to do with laziness. That you say such betrays your lack of familiarity of how science, or academia in general, works.

I gave you over 2,000 citations and even cited one with specificity. I asked you to read the one I cited with specificity. Did you? Now who is lazy? But, since you are dying for a quote, here is one:

The energy density is found using the Noether method[90, 45]. From the
time translation invariance (the laws of physics do not change with time)
we obtain the local energy balance equation

∂E/∂t + ∇ ·  S = 0

[...]

The laws of physics do not change with time so the
system is invariant to time translations t → t + s


Source: Madsen, J. Second order guiding-center Vlasov–Maxwell equations. Phys. Plasmas 17, 082107 (2010). Of course, the article is not for that proposition but is simply mentioning it in passing. Note that he mention time translation invariance in passing without reference because those who are sufficiently literate in science understand this principle is so well-founded that it requires no citation. For some reason, you require a citation where the scientifically literate do not.

Look, this is simple. Fabio is pulling a Velikovsky. If you don't know who Velikovsky was, you probably do not have sufficient literacy in science to take part in this discussion. For the uninitiated, Velikovsky published a book in 1950 called Worlds in Collision. According to Velikovsky, Venus is only about 3,500 year old and it shot out of Jupiter, leaving the Red Spot as a scar from its birth. On its way from being borne from Jupiter to its present orbit, Venus passed very close to Earth, stopping and restarting the Earth's rotation, changing the tilt on its axis, causing the plagues of Egypt and other huge natural disasters. Oh, and oil rained down from Venue to Earth, giving us the world's oil reserves. Velikovsky also said that Mars did the same thing later when it passed very close to Earth, but on a smaller scale.

Velikovsky is a good example to provide to a layman because most laymen understand that what Velikovsky wrote was pure fiction. This is because his claims are so overwhelmingly contradicted by the science that even a grade-schooler knows. Yet, according to you, I can't call Velikovsky's beliefs pure fiction. No, I have to pull a quote from somewhere. This betrays a considerable ignorance of science at a fundamental level and the "literary approach" I have previously criticized in this thread.

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,681


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3604 on: September 11, 2011, 10:58:08 AM »

Surely you can cite outside authorities who agree with you. Why is that so hard for you?

I will repost this again, since it was apparently not read before. I will use bold text this time to add emphasis.

"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."

Did you review The Universality of Laws or any of the other +2,000 hits I named? If not, why was that so hard for you?
Can you share pertinent quotes of those articles here? It's much better you do that for your audience than merely say, "These are my sources, but because I'm too lazy to quote them myself, I'm going to make you read them." I'm not going to do what you're too lazy to do.

It has nothing to do with laziness. That you say such betrays your lack of familiarity of how science, or academia in general, works.

I gave you over 2,000 citations and even cited one with specificity. I asked you to read the one I cited with specificity. Did you? Now who is lazy? But, since you are dying for a quote, here is one:

The energy density is found using the Noether method[90, 45]. From the
time translation invariance (the laws of physics do not change with time)
we obtain the local energy balance equation

∂E/∂t + ∇ ·  S = 0

[...]

The laws of physics do not change with time so the
system is invariant to time translations t → t + s


Source: Madsen, J. Second order guiding-center Vlasov–Maxwell equations. Phys. Plasmas 17, 082107 (2010). Of course, the article is not for that proposition but is simply mentioning it in passing. Note that he mention time translation invariance in passing without reference because those who are sufficiently literate in science understand this principle is so well-founded that it requires no citation. For some reason, you require a citation where the scientifically literate do not.

Look, this is simple. Fabio is pulling a Velikovsky. If you don't know who Velikovsky was, you probably do not have sufficient literacy in science to take part in this discussion. For the uninitiated, Velikovsky published a book in 1950 called Worlds in Collision. According to Velikovsky, Venus is only about 3,500 year old and it shot out of Jupiter, leaving the Red Spot as a scar from its birth. On its way from being borne from Jupiter to its present orbit, Venus passed very close to Earth, stopping and restarting the Earth's rotation, changing the tilt on its axis, causing the plagues of Egypt and other huge natural disasters. Oh, and oil rained down from Venue to Earth, giving us the world's oil reserves. Velikovsky also said that Mars did the same thing later when it passed very close to Earth, but on a smaller scale.

Velikovsky is a good example to provide to a layman because most laymen understand that what Velikovsky wrote was pure fiction. This is because his claims are so overwhelmingly contradicted by the science that even a grade-schooler knows. Yet, according to you, I can't call Velikovsky's beliefs pure fiction. No, I have to pull a quote from somewhere. This betrays a considerable ignorance of science at a fundamental level and the "literary approach" I have previously criticized in this thread.


Do me a favor, since you like to attribute to me things I never said and motives I never expressed: Take your condescending attitude somewhere where it's more welcome. It seems to shape how you interact with everyone on this thread, such that it's very difficult to have a respectful discussion with you on this subject.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3605 on: September 11, 2011, 01:26:42 PM »

Surely you can cite outside authorities who agree with you. Why is that so hard for you?

I will repost this again, since it was apparently not read before. I will use bold text this time to add emphasis.

"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."

Did you review The Universality of Laws or any of the other +2,000 hits I named? If not, why was that so hard for you?
Can you share pertinent quotes of those articles here? It's much better you do that for your audience than merely say, "These are my sources, but because I'm too lazy to quote them myself, I'm going to make you read them." I'm not going to do what you're too lazy to do.

It has nothing to do with laziness. That you say such betrays your lack of familiarity of how science, or academia in general, works.

I gave you over 2,000 citations and even cited one with specificity. I asked you to read the one I cited with specificity. Did you? Now who is lazy? But, since you are dying for a quote, here is one:

The energy density is found using the Noether method[90, 45]. From the
time translation invariance (the laws of physics do not change with time)
we obtain the local energy balance equation

∂E/∂t + ∇ ·  S = 0

[...]

The laws of physics do not change with time so the
system is invariant to time translations t → t + s


Source: Madsen, J. Second order guiding-center Vlasov–Maxwell equations. Phys. Plasmas 17, 082107 (2010). Of course, the article is not for that proposition but is simply mentioning it in passing. Note that he mention time translation invariance in passing without reference because those who are sufficiently literate in science understand this principle is so well-founded that it requires no citation. For some reason, you require a citation where the scientifically literate do not.

Look, this is simple. Fabio is pulling a Velikovsky. If you don't know who Velikovsky was, you probably do not have sufficient literacy in science to take part in this discussion. For the uninitiated, Velikovsky published a book in 1950 called Worlds in Collision. According to Velikovsky, Venus is only about 3,500 year old and it shot out of Jupiter, leaving the Red Spot as a scar from its birth. On its way from being borne from Jupiter to its present orbit, Venus passed very close to Earth, stopping and restarting the Earth's rotation, changing the tilt on its axis, causing the plagues of Egypt and other huge natural disasters. Oh, and oil rained down from Venue to Earth, giving us the world's oil reserves. Velikovsky also said that Mars did the same thing later when it passed very close to Earth, but on a smaller scale.

Velikovsky is a good example to provide to a layman because most laymen understand that what Velikovsky wrote was pure fiction. This is because his claims are so overwhelmingly contradicted by the science that even a grade-schooler knows. Yet, according to you, I can't call Velikovsky's beliefs pure fiction. No, I have to pull a quote from somewhere. This betrays a considerable ignorance of science at a fundamental level and the "literary approach" I have previously criticized in this thread.


Do me a favor, since you like to attribute to me things I never said and motives I never expressed: Take your condescending attitude somewhere where it's more welcome. It seems to shape how you interact with everyone on this thread, such that it's very difficult to have a respectful discussion with you on this subject.

What did I attribute to you that I should not have?

My attitude has little to do with the merits of the discussion. If I am exasperated, it is because you persist in taunts of "prove it! prove it!" for propositions that are so well established that they are assumptions in every single scientific theory ever devised. Although it was not necessary, I complied with your requests down to the last jot and tittle. On the other hand, when Fabio gives a speculation that is not supported by an adequate basis, you give him a pass and present me as the "mad guy" for calling him on it? The mind boggles.

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,681


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3606 on: September 11, 2011, 04:21:09 PM »

Surely you can cite outside authorities who agree with you. Why is that so hard for you?

I will repost this again, since it was apparently not read before. I will use bold text this time to add emphasis.

"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."

Did you review The Universality of Laws or any of the other +2,000 hits I named? If not, why was that so hard for you?
Can you share pertinent quotes of those articles here? It's much better you do that for your audience than merely say, "These are my sources, but because I'm too lazy to quote them myself, I'm going to make you read them." I'm not going to do what you're too lazy to do.

It has nothing to do with laziness. That you say such betrays your lack of familiarity of how science, or academia in general, works.

I gave you over 2,000 citations and even cited one with specificity. I asked you to read the one I cited with specificity. Did you? Now who is lazy? But, since you are dying for a quote, here is one:

The energy density is found using the Noether method[90, 45]. From the
time translation invariance (the laws of physics do not change with time)
we obtain the local energy balance equation

∂E/∂t + ∇ ·  S = 0

[...]

The laws of physics do not change with time so the
system is invariant to time translations t → t + s


Source: Madsen, J. Second order guiding-center Vlasov–Maxwell equations. Phys. Plasmas 17, 082107 (2010). Of course, the article is not for that proposition but is simply mentioning it in passing. Note that he mention time translation invariance in passing without reference because those who are sufficiently literate in science understand this principle is so well-founded that it requires no citation. For some reason, you require a citation where the scientifically literate do not.

Look, this is simple. Fabio is pulling a Velikovsky. If you don't know who Velikovsky was, you probably do not have sufficient literacy in science to take part in this discussion. For the uninitiated, Velikovsky published a book in 1950 called Worlds in Collision. According to Velikovsky, Venus is only about 3,500 year old and it shot out of Jupiter, leaving the Red Spot as a scar from its birth. On its way from being borne from Jupiter to its present orbit, Venus passed very close to Earth, stopping and restarting the Earth's rotation, changing the tilt on its axis, causing the plagues of Egypt and other huge natural disasters. Oh, and oil rained down from Venue to Earth, giving us the world's oil reserves. Velikovsky also said that Mars did the same thing later when it passed very close to Earth, but on a smaller scale.

Velikovsky is a good example to provide to a layman because most laymen understand that what Velikovsky wrote was pure fiction. This is because his claims are so overwhelmingly contradicted by the science that even a grade-schooler knows. Yet, according to you, I can't call Velikovsky's beliefs pure fiction. No, I have to pull a quote from somewhere. This betrays a considerable ignorance of science at a fundamental level and the "literary approach" I have previously criticized in this thread.


Do me a favor, since you like to attribute to me things I never said and motives I never expressed: Take your condescending attitude somewhere where it's more welcome. It seems to shape how you interact with everyone on this thread, such that it's very difficult to have a respectful discussion with you on this subject.

What did I attribute to you that I should not have?
You assume that I know very little to nothing about how academia works.

My attitude has little to do with the merits of the discussion. If I am exasperated, it is because you persist in taunts of "prove it! prove it!" for propositions that are so well established that they are assumptions in every single scientific theory ever devised.
You do realize that OC.net is neither an academic nor a scientific Web forum? Most of us here are ignorant of science, and many of us aren't even what you would call academics. Why, then, do you expect us to all be able to communicate with you on your level and to do the research you demand of us that we may verify what you're saying? For many of us, the low academic standards of this thread make such research a waste of our time. I'm not saying we're lazy; it's just that we have other priorities that we deem more important than arguing with a know-it-all who would rather talk down to us than descend to our level of discourse and speak with us more plainly. If you wish us to understand your point of view, would you lose any skin off your nose to explain that to us and quote authorities as appropriate to clarify and add perspectives other than your own?

Although it was not necessary, I complied with your requests down to the last jot and tittle.
No, you didn't. You argued with (and continue to argue with) my request and offered one or two token quotes just so you could say you complied.

On the other hand, when Fabio gives a speculation that is not supported by an adequate basis, you give him a pass and present me as the "mad guy" for calling him on it? The mind boggles.
He's not the one speaking down to us with a sneer on his face as you are. Besides, I think just as much as you do that his claim that the laws of physics have changed is a bunch of bunk and that the sources he quoted really don't support his claim, but he at least tried to quote outside authorities to support his argument without being asked to do so. You call him wrong, which is a claim that the opposite, not the negation, is true, yet, since you see the truth of your counterclaim as self-evident, you won't do anything to back it up. When asked to do so, you balk.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3607 on: September 11, 2011, 05:08:53 PM »

What did I attribute to you that I should not have?
You assume that I know very little to nothing about how academia works.

That is because your words to date have failed to betray any such familiarity. Maybe you have some sort of humanities background, but thus far, there is every indication that your science background is not sufficient for the instant discussion.

Quote
My attitude has little to do with the merits of the discussion. If I am exasperated, it is because you persist in taunts of "prove it! prove it!" for propositions that are so well established that they are assumptions in every single scientific theory ever devised.
You do realize that OC.net is neither an academic nor a scientific Web forum? Most of us here are ignorant of science, and many of us aren't even what you would call academics. Why, then, do you expect us to all be able to communicate with you on your level and to do the research you demand of us that we may verify what you're saying? For many of us, the low academic standards of this thread make such research a waste of our time. I'm not saying we're lazy; it's just that we have other priorities that we deem more important than arguing with a know-it-all who would rather talk down to us than descend to our level of discourse and speak with us more plainly. If you wish us to understand your point of view, would you lose any skin off your nose to explain that to us and quote authorities as appropriate to clarify and add perspectives other than your own?

You have made it painfully obviously that it is neither academic nor scientific. So what?

I have highlighted the admission in bold, because it is key to my exasperation. If you are ignorant of science, you have no business stating opinions that are in open defiance of scientific consensus. A person who knows what he is talking about is not a "know-it-all". The word for that person is "correct". A know-it-all is a person who claims knowledge where he has none. Ed Witten is not a "know-it-all" when he speaks on physics, for example.

If you have other priorities that prevent you from learning what you are talking about, that is fine, but if you don't have time to get informed, you don't have time to have an opinion. Christians are supposed to be humble, right? Well, it is not humble to state opinions on matters of which you are ignorant. To the contrary, it is quite arrogant.

And, you have now shifted your ground. First your objection was that I needed to "cite authorities", but since I have done that, now I need to speak plainly. Well, when I say "the laws of physics do not change over time," what part of that statement is not "plain" to you?

Quote
Although it was not necessary, I complied with your requests down to the last jot and tittle.
No, you didn't. You argued with (and continue to argue with) my request and offered one or two token quotes just so you could say you complied.

Ok, so you ask for cites, and I provide them, so know they are "token quotes". This is called "moving the goal posts". Of course, why should I continue to provide authorities to you for propositions that are so established that they require no citation (which I already explained)? After all, you are admittedly "ignorant of science" and "have other priorities", so you likely have no intention of ever reading them and if so, lack the background to comprehend the literature. So, this is really just an exercise to see if I will ask "how high" when you say "jump". No more.

Quote
On the other hand, when Fabio gives a speculation that is not supported by an adequate basis, you give him a pass and present me as the "mad guy" for calling him on it? The mind boggles.
He's not the one speaking down to us with a sneer on his face as you are. Besides, I think just as much as you do that his claim that the laws of physics have changed is a bunch of bunk and that the sources he quoted really don't support his claim, but he at least tried to quote outside authorities to support his argument without being asked to do so. You call him wrong, which is a claim that the opposite, not the negation, is true, yet, since you see the truth of your counterclaim as self-evident, you won't do anything to back it up. When asked to do so, you balk.

This is beyond the pale. You agree with me, so what was the purpose of this exercise?

If you read a sneer on my face, I am sorry that you feel a lack of respect. I think I am giving you more respect than you and some others, as people who are admittedly ignorant of science, are giving to scientists. Let me explain it to you this way: if some person who knew nothing about Christianity came here and starting telling the priests and monks who post here that their theology on the hypostatic union was wrong? You probably wouldn't think very much of that person. You might think they were disrespectful. That is exactly the same thing as what happens when people who are admittedly "ignorant of science" insist on positions that fly in the face of scientific consensus.

And, there is no balk. If you lack the ability or inclination to understand a paltry equation such as ∂E/∂t + ∇ ·  S = 0, that does not mean you have been ignored. You asked for citations and I provided them, but now that I learn you have "other priorities" than to read them, it is obvious that my time was wasted.

Look, if you are interested in learning, that is one thing and I will be happy to continue the discussion in good faith. However, I am not interested in jumping through hoops such as providing citations that you have no intention of ever reading. Again, if you don't have time to get informed, you don't have time to have an opinion. That applies to everything, not just science.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,613



« Reply #3608 on: September 11, 2011, 05:19:30 PM »


This is an example of your literary approach. You want to read commentary, while scientists want to read data.


This appears to be another statement that you did not think through. Scientists do not want to read data, they want to acquire, understand and explain data.  This often involves the need for cross-disciplinary approaches, especially now given the rapid emergence of new fields (research disciplines) and technical advances. A scientists education does not end with her or his degree, it continues by reading general reviews and critical reviews of the field (the literary but essential approach to education) followed by critically evaluating the scientific research papers that are relevant to the scientists proposed research.

You are perhaps unaware (but I think you are aware) that the vast majority of research papers begin by citing reviews and commentaries that are "literary" in nature. They play an extremely important role for scientific evaluation by the reader and also for reducing the number of citations required by the writer.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3609 on: September 11, 2011, 05:49:24 PM »


This is an example of your literary approach. You want to read commentary, while scientists want to read data.


This appears to be another statement that you did not think through. Scientists do not want to read data, they want to acquire, understand and explain data.  This often involves the need for cross-disciplinary approaches, especially now given the rapid emergence of new fields (research disciplines) and technical advances. A scientists education does not end with her or his degree, it continues by reading general reviews and critical reviews of the field (the literary but essential approach to education) followed by critically evaluating the scientific research papers that are relevant to the scientists proposed research.

You are perhaps unaware (but I think you are aware) that the vast majority of research papers begin by citing reviews and commentaries that are "literary" in nature. They play an extremely important role for scientific evaluation by the reader and also for reducing the number of citations required by the writer.

You misunderstand my objection. I certainly understand that journal articles are not just tables of data e.g. the articles I cited to Peter that he won't read because of "other priorities". My objection is the "battle of the quotes" that is so common among internet cranks. That is simply not how scientists do it.

How is your study of general relativity coming along?

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

Posts: 1,613



« Reply #3610 on: September 11, 2011, 06:49:09 PM »


This is an example of your literary approach. You want to read commentary, while scientists want to read data.


This appears to be another statement that you did not think through. Scientists do not want to read data, they want to acquire, understand and explain data.  This often involves the need for cross-disciplinary approaches, especially now given the rapid emergence of new fields (research disciplines) and technical advances. A scientists education does not end with her or his degree, it continues by reading general reviews and critical reviews of the field (the literary but essential approach to education) followed by critically evaluating the scientific research papers that are relevant to the scientists proposed research.

You are perhaps unaware (but I think you are aware) that the vast majority of research papers begin by citing reviews and commentaries that are "literary" in nature. They play an extremely important role for scientific evaluation by the reader and also for reducing the number of citations required by the writer.

You misunderstand my objection. I certainly understand that journal articles are not just tables of data e.g. the articles I cited to Peter that he won't read because of "other priorities". My objection is the "battle of the quotes" that is so common among internet cranks. That is simply not how scientists do it.

How is your study of general relativity coming along?



I am waiting in hope that the person that will discuss relativity with you will also provide me with a citation. Right now I am 30 minutes into reading "Why the Quantum Must Yield to Gravity" at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9810/9810078v3.pdf for no particular reason. Priom

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,681


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3611 on: September 11, 2011, 07:07:36 PM »

No, you didn't. You argued with (and continue to argue with) my request and offered one or two token quotes just so you could say you complied.

Ok, so you ask for cites, and I provide them, so know they are "token quotes". This is called "moving the goal posts".
I'm not moving the goalposts, since my standards have really not changed. I just needed to clarify my expectations because your initial response indicated that I failed at first to communicate them with sufficient clarity.

This is beyond the pale. You agree with me, so what was the purpose of this exercise?
Simply to inform you that though the facts you present to us may be correct, your manner of presentation can still be dead wrong (i.e., rude and offensive).

You asked for citations and I provided them, but now that I learn you have "other priorities" than to read them, it is obvious that my time was wasted.
I asked for quotations, not just for citations.

Again, if you don't have time to get informed, you don't have time to have an opinion. That applies to everything, not just science.
That explains why the only opinion I've communicated recently on this thread is that your manner of debate is rather abrasive and could be improved greatly. I may not know much about science, but I have made communication and rhetoric my major fields of study these last few years.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 07:18:02 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3612 on: September 11, 2011, 08:07:36 PM »

No, you didn't. You argued with (and continue to argue with) my request and offered one or two token quotes just so you could say you complied.

Ok, so you ask for cites, and I provide them, so know they are "token quotes". This is called "moving the goal posts".
I'm not moving the goalposts, since my standards have really not changed. I just needed to clarify my expectations because your initial response indicated that I failed at first to communicate them with sufficient clarity.

Then please advise as to how I can make my "token quotes" into "quotes acceptable to Peter".

Quote
This is beyond the pale. You agree with me, so what was the purpose of this exercise?
Simply to inform you that though the facts you present to us may be correct, your manner of presentation can still be dead wrong (i.e., rude and offensive).

I am sorry if you have taken offense, but your emotional reaction is not proof of anything. What did I say to you that was rude? Was it ruder than when you called me lazy?

Quote
You asked for citations and I provided them, but now that I learn you have "other priorities" than to read them, it is obvious that my time was wasted.
I asked for quotations, not just for citations.

Which I provided. Remember when I provided:


The energy density is found using the Noether method[90, 45]. From the
time translation invariance (the laws of physics do not change with time)
we obtain the local energy balance equation

∂E/∂t + ∇ ·  S = 0

[...]

The laws of physics do not change with time so the
system is invariant to time translations t → t + s


Source: Madsen, J. Second order guiding-center Vlasov–Maxwell equations. Phys. Plasmas 17, 082107 (2010).

Did you read those quotes and then the linked article, or did you have "other priorities"? And, the demand for quotes really was silly once citations were provided. When one reads any sort of scholarly article, a citation to the effect of (J. Doe, 2007) with an endnote is sufficient. Certainly, sometimes quotes are used to make a particular rhetorical point, but overall, a citation will do. I even went beyond providing a citation by actually providing hyperlinks so all you had to do was click your mouse. Short of reading it to you as a bedtime story, I could not have made it any easier.

Of course, once I provided quotes, you utterly failed to address them. You just dismissed them as "token quotes," whatever that means.

Quote
Again, if you don't have time to get informed, you don't have time to have an opinion. That applies to everything, not just science.
That explains why the only opinion I've communicated recently on this thread is that your manner of debate is rather abrasive and could be improved greatly. I may not know much about science, but I have made communication and rhetoric my major fields of study these last few years.

I am sorry if you find it abrasive, but sometimes that is what is called for. Surely you have learned about this technique in your studies of communication and rhetoric. This even has precedent in scripture. (e.g. James 2:19) I do hope that I am doing so in an attempt to instruct rather than out of pride. If you will notice, I try my best to only use strong rhetoric after several attempts at talking normally have failed.

Since you have shifted the discussion entirely to a discussion of me rather than of science, I have little reason to believe that you are interested in increasing your knowledge of science. You have, as you put it, "other priorities". However, you could very easily prove me wrong in this regard, which would delight me. I do enjoy talking about these topics with people who wish to learn.

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

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


« Reply #3613 on: September 11, 2011, 08:12:07 PM »


This is an example of your literary approach. You want to read commentary, while scientists want to read data.


This appears to be another statement that you did not think through. Scientists do not want to read data, they want to acquire, understand and explain data.  This often involves the need for cross-disciplinary approaches, especially now given the rapid emergence of new fields (research disciplines) and technical advances. A scientists education does not end with her or his degree, it continues by reading general reviews and critical reviews of the field (the literary but essential approach to education) followed by critically evaluating the scientific research papers that are relevant to the scientists proposed research.

You are perhaps unaware (but I think you are aware) that the vast majority of research papers begin by citing reviews and commentaries that are "literary" in nature. They play an extremely important role for scientific evaluation by the reader and also for reducing the number of citations required by the writer.

You misunderstand my objection. I certainly understand that journal articles are not just tables of data e.g. the articles I cited to Peter that he won't read because of "other priorities". My objection is the "battle of the quotes" that is so common among internet cranks. That is simply not how scientists do it.

How is your study of general relativity coming along?



I am waiting in hope that the person that will discuss relativity with you will also provide me with a citation. Right now I am 30 minutes into reading "Why the Quantum Must Yield to Gravity" at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9810/9810078v3.pdf for no particular reason. Priom

Since you stumbled over relativity in a rather fundamental way during our last discussion (i.e. you thought it had something to do with "rotating bodies"), I don't recommend that you read such an advanced article. Could you explain the following sentence from the link article to the laymen of this thread, please?

"For example, Hawking and Ellis (1973) begin their seminal treatise on the large scale structure of spacetime by simply taking a mathematical model of spacetime to be the entire equivalence class of copies of a 4-manifold, equipped, respectively, with Lorentzian metric fields related by active diffeomorphisms of the manifold, without even mentioning the hole argument."

TIA!

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,681


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3614 on: September 11, 2011, 09:56:43 PM »

No, you didn't. You argued with (and continue to argue with) my request and offered one or two token quotes just so you could say you complied.

Ok, so you ask for cites, and I provide them, so know they are "token quotes". This is called "moving the goal posts".
I'm not moving the goalposts, since my standards have really not changed. I just needed to clarify my expectations because your initial response indicated that I failed at first to communicate them with sufficient clarity.

Then please advise as to how I can make my "token quotes" into "quotes acceptable to Peter".
Post more of them. Wink

This is beyond the pale. You agree with me, so what was the purpose of this exercise?
Simply to inform you that though the facts you present to us may be correct, your manner of presentation can still be dead wrong (i.e., rude and offensive).

I am sorry if you have taken offense, but your emotional reaction is not proof of anything. What did I say to you that was rude? Was it ruder than when you called me lazy?
I'm not the only one who's complained of your arrogant, condescending tone on this thread. If only one person were to complain about me, I might be tempted to conclude merely that the problem is with the plaintiff, but if multiple people complain about me, as they have about you, that's generally a good sign that the problem is with me.

Again, if you don't have time to get informed, you don't have time to have an opinion. That applies to everything, not just science.
That explains why the only opinion I've communicated recently on this thread is that your manner of debate is rather abrasive and could be improved greatly. I may not know much about science, but I have made communication and rhetoric my major fields of study these last few years.

I am sorry if you find it abrasive, but sometimes that is what is called for. Surely you have learned about this technique in your studies of communication and rhetoric.
It's actually not something I learned in my studies; it's just a part of my personality that I'm trying to figure out how to use when appropriate and shut it off when it's not.

This even has precedent in scripture. (e.g. James 2:19) I do hope that I am doing so in an attempt to instruct rather than out of pride. If you will notice, I try my best to only use strong rhetoric after several attempts at talking normally have failed.
I haven't noticed.

Since you have shifted the discussion entirely to a discussion of me rather than of science, I have little reason to believe that you are interested in increasing your knowledge of science. You have, as you put it, "other priorities". However, you could very easily prove me wrong in this regard, which would delight me. I do enjoy talking about these topics with people who wish to learn.
I'm not here to prove you wrong since, again, I agree with the substance of your point of view, though just not with the manner in which you have presented it.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 10:04:08 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,613



« Reply #3615 on: September 12, 2011, 02:36:18 AM »


This is an example of your literary approach. You want to read commentary, while scientists want to read data.


This appears to be another statement that you did not think through. Scientists do not want to read data, they want to acquire, understand and explain data.  This often involves the need for cross-disciplinary approaches, especially now given the rapid emergence of new fields (research disciplines) and technical advances. A scientists education does not end with her or his degree, it continues by reading general reviews and critical reviews of the field (the literary but essential approach to education) followed by critically evaluating the scientific research papers that are relevant to the scientists proposed research.

You are perhaps unaware (but I think you are aware) that the vast majority of research papers begin by citing reviews and commentaries that are "literary" in nature. They play an extremely important role for scientific evaluation by the reader and also for reducing the number of citations required by the writer.

You misunderstand my objection. I certainly understand that journal articles are not just tables of data e.g. the articles I cited to Peter that he won't read because of "other priorities". My objection is the "battle of the quotes" that is so common among internet cranks. That is simply not how scientists do it.

How is your study of general relativity coming along?



I am waiting in hope that the person that will discuss relativity with you will also provide me with a citation. Right now I am 30 minutes into reading "Why the Quantum Must Yield to Gravity" at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9810/9810078v3.pdf for no particular reason. Priom

Since you stumbled over relativity in a rather fundamental way during our last discussion (i.e. you thought it had something to do with "rotating bodies"), I don't recommend that you read such an advanced article. Could you explain the following sentence from the link article to the laymen of this thread, please?

I was not reading the article in regard to relativity I reading it in regard to time as in "time translation invariance". I was just in the process of posting this text in regard to time that I thought you might appreciate:

"Existence draws the very lines of debate in philosophy of time: “eternalists” believe past, present and future events all ‘equally’ exist, “growing-block theorists” or “possibilists” believe that past and present events exist, and “presentists” believe that only present events enjoy this lofty status"......

"Popular culture is flooded with “step programs” that promise to help one achieve a goal. By following a prescribed recipe of steps, one is instructed on how to get through a bewildering variety of conditions: addiction, anxiety, nosex marriages, heavy thighs, and the inability to draw manga. Inner peace, health, and brand new talents are all promised. The sales of these books suggest that maybe there is something to this. In this spirit, I offer the following simple Three Step Program that provides the therapy philosophy of time needs. Following these three steps is a sure-fire cure for existence-obsession. Once completed, the philosopher of time, in addition to enjoying an enhanced sense of well-being, will be free to pursue exciting new topics. As with many illnesses, the zero-th step toward recovery is admitting that there is a problem. Given the lack of progress, I take it as obvious that there is a problem. Those deeply affected by existence mania, however, may need to read the paper before fully coming to this realization. Once ready, the three steps are each questions about the nature of the debate among presentists, possibilists and eternalists. While the answers to these questions are important, the therapy is so successful that it sometimes works even when one answers questions incorrectly; just going through the process is itself healing. Each step is a question:

(Step 1) Are the three models of time metaphysically distinct?
(Step 2) Are the three models of time observationally distinct?
(Step 3) Are the three models of time explanatorily distinct?

The ultimate goal of the therapy is to get the patient to answer no to the question asked in Step 3. The main claim of this paper is that, as regards the data philosophers typically want to explain (see below), the three metaphysical positions are explanatorily on a par. To see that this is right, one must also answer Step 2 in the negative. Regarding Step 2, I argue that our rival theories of time are at least observationally equivalent. This claim may not seem surprising, given that we are discussing metaphysical theses. However, those deep in the grips of existence mania tend to read too much theory into the data. They argue, or smuggle into the rhetoric, the idea that experience itself directly favors one theory of time. 3 My ‘generalized epistemic argument’ in Step 2 puts them on the road to recovery. Having dispensed with the idea that what we experience directly supports one view of time, Step 3 asks whether one metaphysical position can be used as part of an inference to the best explanation of the data. I argue that the differences among these positions are explanatorily impotent – at least as regards the explananda of interest. When this point is recognized, the malady is past and the future bright. Although the argumentative burden falls on Steps 2 and 3, Step 1 is important to consider. The reason it is significant is that there is a very real threat that the answer to it is also no; if so, the answers to the second and third questions are automatically correct. Readers answering no to the first question are instantly restored to health and have no need for Steps 2 and 3. (Readers such as this can skip immediately to the conclusion.) For Step 1, the answer itself is not as important as the process of trying to answer it."

From "Time's Ontic Voltage" by Craig Callender (http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/ccallender/)

It is a fun read, but this is now irrelevant at this point. I stated a fact as to what I was reading, you apparently viewed it as a threat that concerned you when it did not.

Why do I respond to you?  Because you are an embarrassment. You are not only counterproductive, you are destructive in regard to this thread topic. If you were a real scientist you would know that your funding is dependent on the goodwill of the public and that it is your responsibility to inform the public to the best of your abilities why your research is worthwhile and relevant to their lives. The fact that your responses here appear to be oblivious of this reality in regard to the funding of research, is indicative of your not being really involved in obtaining your own funding for research and also of your not being involved with your scientific society (eg., FASEB).

I am not particularly good at this task of informing the public, Minasoliman and Heorij best me hands down in this regard, but I try. In their responses to the intransigent anti-evolutionists they go the extra mile to explain their views and cite sources backing their views and sacrifice considerable time and effort, not because they are going to change the views of the intransigents, but because other people read this thread. So what I see is an intellectually insecure mole whose easily ruffled ego is willing to undermine the more important task of this thread and the prior efforts of posters for his/her own personal emotional needs. If you do not think the topic of this thread is important then state it. In regard to the intransigent, Jonathan Gress is not one of them. I have become more circumspect because of his demeanor, which means that although I do not agree with his opinions, his attitude in regard to productive conversation is correct.

Quote
"For example, Hawking and Ellis (1973) begin their seminal treatise on the large scale structure of spacetime by simply taking a mathematical model of spacetime to be the entire equivalence class of copies of a 4-manifold, equipped, respectively, with Lorentzian metric fields related by active diffeomorphisms of the manifold, without even mentioning the hole argument."

When you refute Reichenbach's prattle I will consider reading this on my own time.

Priom


Quote
TIA!

As a point of information "Priom" is functionally equivalent to "Over" in Russian simplex radio communication jargon. I am clueless but curious about TIA.

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

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


« Reply #3616 on: September 12, 2011, 07:16:55 AM »

No, you didn't. You argued with (and continue to argue with) my request and offered one or two token quotes just so you could say you complied.

Ok, so you ask for cites, and I provide them, so know they are "token quotes". This is called "moving the goal posts".
I'm not moving the goalposts, since my standards have really not changed. I just needed to clarify my expectations because your initial response indicated that I failed at first to communicate them with sufficient clarity.

Then please advise as to how I can make my "token quotes" into "quotes acceptable to Peter".
Post more of them. Wink

Why should I? You have not read or understood what I have provided thus far, apparently because you have "other priorities".

Quote
This is beyond the pale. You agree with me, so what was the purpose of this exercise?
Simply to inform you that though the facts you present to us may be correct, your manner of presentation can still be dead wrong (i.e., rude and offensive).

I am sorry if you have taken offense, but your emotional reaction is not proof of anything. What did I say to you that was rude? Was it ruder than when you called me lazy?
I'm not the only one who's complained of your arrogant, condescending tone on this thread. If only one person were to complain about me, I might be tempted to conclude merely that the problem is with the plaintiff, but if multiple people complain about me, as they have about you, that's generally a good sign that the problem is with me.

I asked you questions that you have not answered. I have highlighted them above in bold so that you will address them.

And, as I have said before, it is not arrogant for me to say what I know to be true. What is arrogant is for people who are admittedly "ignorant of science" to insist on opinions that are in open defiance of scientific consensus. What is arrogant is for people to speak upon matters of which they admit they are ignorant.

Quote
Again, if you don't have time to get informed, you don't have time to have an opinion. That applies to everything, not just science.
That explains why the only opinion I've communicated recently on this thread is that your manner of debate is rather abrasive and could be improved greatly. I may not know much about science, but I have made communication and rhetoric my major fields of study these last few years.

I am sorry if you find it abrasive, but sometimes that is what is called for. Surely you have learned about this technique in your studies of communication and rhetoric.
It's actually not something I learned in my studies; it's just a part of my personality that I'm trying to figure out how to use when appropriate and shut it off when it's not.

Perhaps you need to find a better teacher, then.

Quote
This even has precedent in scripture. (e.g. James 2:19) I do hope that I am doing so in an attempt to instruct rather than out of pride. If you will notice, I try my best to only use strong rhetoric after several attempts at talking normally have failed.
I haven't noticed.

This would not be the first time that you have been less than astute in this thread.

Quote
Since you have shifted the discussion entirely to a discussion of me rather than of science, I have little reason to believe that you are interested in increasing your knowledge of science. You have, as you put it, "other priorities". However, you could very easily prove me wrong in this regard, which would delight me. I do enjoy talking about these topics with people who wish to learn.
I'm not here to prove you wrong since, again, I agree with the substance of your point of view, though just not with the manner in which you have presented it.

I didn't ask if you were here to prove me wrong. (there's that "lack of astuteness" I just mentioned) I invited you to express if you were interested in learning. You obviously are not. You do seem very happy, on the other hand, to derail this thread with the current discussion. (good thing you shut down that tangent on the Orthodox Study Bible a few pages ago!)

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

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


« Reply #3617 on: September 12, 2011, 07:22:29 AM »

[prattle snipped]

Quote
Quote
"For example, Hawking and Ellis (1973) begin their seminal treatise on the large scale structure of spacetime by simply taking a mathematical model of spacetime to be the entire equivalence class of copies of a 4-manifold, equipped, respectively, with Lorentzian metric fields related by active diffeomorphisms of the manifold, without even mentioning the hole argument."

When you refute Reichenbach's prattle I will consider reading this on my own time.

You will "read it in your own time"? That quote is on page 5 of the article you claim to be reading. Just how slowly do you read?

The point is that if you can't understand the fundamentals of general relativity (such as that it has nothing to do with "rotating bodies"), you can't comprehend your linked article in the slightest.

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,193



WWW
« Reply #3618 on: September 12, 2011, 08:54:24 AM »

Sauron and PetertheAleut,

one of the "news" websites is from a reknown and accepted scientific news magazine. Both that and the BBC one give reference and the whys. I will not quote them mentioning which laws of physics changed and which scientists defend that and why they do, because the simple request to present it suggest that Sauron did not read the articles. He assumed the standard defensive posture and started from there. Besides the typical request of pseudo-scientific minds to present first hand research instead of second-hand articles is a very silly retorical device, since it assumes that unless you are an astronomer you can't talk about Mars. And unless the people who make these claims have degrees and work in all the following fields: medicine, telecommucations, electronics, linguistics, economics, administration, sociology, and theology to keep in the subject of the forum or kenotically refrain in their daily lives from quoting second-hand sources on these subjects, their request is just a sham.

Hoping to help undestand where my opinion stands - and notice I was careful enough to say it's an opinion, not even a theory - I will repeat it in simpler terms:

1 - There is evidence that suggests topical differences in the laws of physics (references were given, read the articles); From this I extrapolated that if they can be different in spacial position, they might be different in time as well;

2 - There is a philosophical principle that everything created is subject to death or destruction (long explanation. if defensive mode goes off, I may think it's worth explaining it.)

3 - The eras thing was not presented as a fact. It's a witness of collective human memory. We have a Troy case here - Troy was considered a myth for it existed just in human memory, but then archeologists found evidences of the city. If there is no evidence to it, we can consider it a myth. But if we have evidence that some laws may change then what we thought was a myth may be the blurred memory of something that really happened;

4 - To all these I added the theological evidence that theological explanations of the world seem to assume changes in how the physical world works.

Now, if researches further proof the topical change in physical laws, we may start thinking about how we could search for evidence of changes along time.

Plus, if the laws are immutable, it means they pre-existed the Big Bang and exist "above" the universe statically. That is plausible, but, scientifically, which evidence do we have for it? A couple of millenia of observations in a universe that is assumed to be billions years old. That's like postulating there are no black swams because we did not see any after observing the lake for 5 seconds.

I am not all saying it is more plausible that laws change than it is that they are static. What I am saying is that it is as plausible as - and my opinion is that the former is more likely, mainly because of the philosophical principle, and secondly because of the theological descriptions.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 09:24:17 AM 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 #3619 on: September 12, 2011, 09:46:47 AM »

Sauron and PetertheAleut,

one of the "news" websites is from a reknown and accepted scientific news magazine. Both that and the BBC one give reference and the whys. I will not quote them mentioning which laws of physics changed and which scientists defend that and why they do, because the simple request to present it suggest that Sauron did not read the articles. He assumed the standard defensive posture and started from there. Besides the typical request of pseudo-scientific minds to present first hand research instead of second-hand articles is a very silly retorical device, since it assumes that unless you are an astronomer you can't talk about Mars. And unless the people who make these claims have degrees and work in all the following fields: medicine, telecommucations, electronics, linguistics, economics, administration, sociology, and theology to keep in the subject of the forum or kenotically refrain in their daily lives from quoting second-hand sources on these subjects, their request is just a sham.

I did read the articles. Did you? If you did, then you surely noticed the mention that the paper's claims are extraordinary and, at the time of the linked articles, the paper had not been accepted for publication. A Google Scholar search reveals that the paper has not yet been accepted for publication. Moreover, Google Scholar shows that Webb has been shopping this idea around for 10 years but can't find a publisher. You should infer something from this fact.

Quote
1 - There is evidence that suggests topical differencs in the laws of physics (references were given, read the articles); From this I extrapolated that if they can be different in spacial position, they might be different in time as well;

One man's letter is not "evidence". And, that is a gross oversimplification of his paper. His paper suggests spatial variation for the fine structure constant α. It does not stand for the proposition "the laws of physics vary spatially".

You said in your last post that you thought certain laws of physics were different in the past. Which laws, and how were they different? For example, was gravity twice as heavy a few thousand years ago? Was its equation something other than g=Gm1m2/r2?

Quote
2 - There is a philosophical principle that everything created is subject to death or destruction (long explanation. if defensive mode goes off, I may think it's worth explaining it.)

What does a philosophical principle have to do with physical reality? Yes, I agree that to the extent that proton decay may occur, we'll have a universe full of evaporated black holes with electrons and photos zipping around in about 10100 years, but I do not think that is what you are discussing here.

Quote
3 - The eras thing was not presented as a fact. It's a witness of collective human memory. We have a Troy case here - Troy was considered a myth for it existed just in human memory, but then archeologists found evidences of the city. If there is no evidence to it, we can consider it a myth. But if we have evidence that some laws may change then what we thought was a myth may be the blurred memory of something that really happened;

That is an "if, then" conditional statement, not an argument. If you accept Greek stories about a "golden age", do you also accept Greek stories about the Titans and Olympian gods?

Also, please describe the logical chain that takes you from "spatial variance in the fine structure constant α" to "the classical Golden Age was a real historical time." Say, you could do this: write Webb an email and ask him if he thinks his findings mean that people used to be immortal. Let us know what he has to say.

Quote
Plus, if the laws are immutable, it means they pre-existed the Big Bang and exist "above" the universe statically. That is plausible, but, scientifically, which evidence do we have for it? A couple of millenia of observations in a universe that is assumed to be billions years old. That's like postulating there are no black swams because we did not see any after observing the lake for 5 seconds.

No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding. Space and time did not exist before the Big Bang, so the laws of physics did not exist before the Big Bang.

Quote
I am not all saying it is more plausible that laws change than it is that they are static. What I am saying is that it is as plausible as - and my opinion is that the former is more likely, mainly because of the philosophical principle, and secondly because of the theological descriptions.

So long as you think that your "philosophical principle" and "theological descriptions" have anything to do with science, you will continue to argue ineffectively.

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,193



WWW
« Reply #3620 on: September 12, 2011, 10:18:31 AM »

I did read the articles.

Now that you have contradicted what you have said before - namely that there was no reference or evidence - it seems you have, at least part of it.

Quote
Moreover, Google Scholar shows that Webb has been shopping this idea around for 10 years but can't find a publisher. You should infer something from this fact.

I infer that you both believe arguments of authority more than observations and also that you're completely unfamiliar with the history of new scientific ideas, attached to a bunch of cliches and catch phrases of the bogus "science vs religion" debate. Also, I infer that your reading abilities are sort of lacking, because you are still treating what was clearly and honestly presented as an opinion as it were a theory. I wonder if you know the difference between the two.

Quote
His paper suggests spatial variation for the fine structure constant α. It does not stand for the proposition "the laws of physics vary spatially".

You said in your last post that you thought certain laws of physics were different in the past. Which laws, and how were they different? For example, was gravity twice as heavy a few thousand years ago? Was its equation something other than g=Gm1m2/r2?

This question is the evidence of the "lack of reading abilities" theory and also for the possibility of not being able to differentiate opinions from theories. Precise data from an opinion based on an extrapolation? Really?

Quote
What does a philosophical principle have to do with physical reality?

A lot. There is no science without philosophy. All you suppose you know is based on certain non-scientific philosophical assumptions. If these philosophical assumptions are wrong - then the current description of reality is very jaded. My question to you, in all honesty, is this: are you willing to actually analyze and question the implicit philosophical assumptions of modern scientific tradition? If you are, I will recommend a book you should read. I do this because the issue *is* complex and no post in a forum will do.


Quote
That is an "if, then" conditional statement, not an argument.

Exactly. That's what I said. What's the issue? You continue to treat an opinion based on a extrapolation as a theory.



Quote
Also, please describe the logical chain that takes you from "spatial variance in the fine structure constant α" to "the classical Golden Age was a real historical time." Say, you could do this: write Webb an email and ask him if he thinks his findings mean that people used to be immortal. Let us know what he has to say.

Here is how ideas come to be: first you have the "possibles", the reign of "imagination", not in the Disney sense, but in the philosophical sense, where we think everything that may be - basically anything that is not self-contradictory.
Then you move to the reign of "plausibles", which is the reigh of rethoric. It's not necessarily true, but it sure sounds as it can be.
Then you move to the reign of "dialetics", where by comparison of the multiple plausibles regarding a same subject you find out which ones are true.
Then, you move to "logic" where you examine the structure of the true entities, you 'logicize' about them.

What I presented was declared very explicitily to be just "possible". If the universe was once different so that human beings could be imortal or live longer the "logic" chain of that can only be described after we "see" that through the evidence. Your request to *start* with the logic of an unobserved event is most unscientific.


Off to Spanish class now.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #3621 on: September 12, 2011, 10:24:56 AM »


I do love meself some prattle! It has a little-understood dignity all it's own...
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3622 on: September 12, 2011, 11:09:00 AM »

I did read the articles.

Now that you have contradicted what you have said before - namely that there was no reference or evidence - it seems you have, at least part of it.

Perhaps because of either my science or legal training, I appear to have a different definition of what constitutes "evidence". Your two cited links are not evidence of anything. Similarly, the TV show "MonsterQuest" is not evidence of Bigfoot, Nessie, or the New Jersey Devil. (no Snookie jokes, please)

Quote
Quote
Moreover, Google Scholar shows that Webb has been shopping this idea around for 10 years but can't find a publisher. You should infer something from this fact.

I infer that you both believe arguments of authority more than observations and also that you're completely unfamiliar with the history of new scientific ideas, attached to a bunch of cliches and catch phrases of the bogus "science vs religion" debate. Also, I infer that your reading abilities are sort of lacking, because you are still treating what was clearly and honestly presented as an opinion as it were a theory. I wonder if you know the difference between the two.

It appears that I burned your butter here.

Quote
Quote
His paper suggests spatial variation for the fine structure constant α. It does not stand for the proposition "the laws of physics vary spatially".

You said in your last post that you thought certain laws of physics were different in the past. Which laws, and how were they different? For example, was gravity twice as heavy a few thousand years ago? Was its equation something other than g=Gm1m2/r2?

This question is the evidence of the "lack of reading abilities" theory and also for the possibility of not being able to differentiate opinions from theories. Precise data from an opinion based on an extrapolation? Really?

I asked you a question. You appear to have missed it, so I have put it in bold text to capture your attention. Please be so kind as to answer.

Quote
Quote
What does a philosophical principle have to do with physical reality?

A lot. There is no science without philosophy. All you suppose you know is based on certain non-scientific philosophical assumptions. If these philosophical assumptions are wrong - then the current description of reality is very jaded. My question to you, in all honesty, is this: are you willing to actually analyze and question the implicit philosophical assumptions of modern scientific tradition? If you are, I will recommend a book you should read. I do this because the issue *is* complex and no post in a forum will do.

Yes, empiricism is based on the assumption that experience conveys information about reality. This assumption is the basis for everything ever done in science, ever. This assumption is also the basis for why you are going to Spanish class today.

Quote
Quote
That is an "if, then" conditional statement, not an argument.

Exactly. That's what I said. What's the issue? You continue to treat an opinion based on a extrapolation as a theory.

I have asked you to establish the extrapolation.

Quote
Quote
Also, please describe the logical chain that takes you from "spatial variance in the fine structure constant α" to "the classical Golden Age was a real historical time." Say, you could do this: write Webb an email and ask him if he thinks his findings mean that people used to be immortal. Let us know what he has to say.

Here is how ideas come to be: first you have the "possibles", the reign of "imagination", not in the Disney sense, but in the philosophical sense, where we think everything that may be - basically anything that is not self-contradictory.
Then you move to the reign of "plausibles", which is the reigh of rethoric. It's not necessarily true, but it sure sounds as it can be.
Then you move to the reign of "dialetics", where by comparison of the multiple plausibles regarding a same subject you find out which ones are true.
Then, you move to "logic" where you examine the structure of the true entities, you 'logicize' about them.

Are you going to email Webb or not?

Quote
What I presented was declared very explicitily to be just "possible". If the universe was once different so that human beings could be imortal or live longer the "logic" chain of that can only be described after we "see" that through the evidence. Your request to *start* with the logic of an unobserved event is most unscientific.

Your extrapolation was what was most unscientific. Provide the logical chain. The links can certainly be composed of things that have not yet been established.

Quote
Off to Spanish class now.

Liberal arts major?

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,681


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3623 on: September 12, 2011, 12:55:07 PM »

Quote
Since you have shifted the discussion entirely to a discussion of me rather than of science, I have little reason to believe that you are interested in increasing your knowledge of science. You have, as you put it, "other priorities". However, you could very easily prove me wrong in this regard, which would delight me. I do enjoy talking about these topics with people who wish to learn.
I'm not here to prove you wrong since, again, I agree with the substance of your point of view, though just not with the manner in which you have presented it.

I didn't ask if you were here to prove me wrong. (there's that "lack of astuteness" I just mentioned) I invited you to express if you were interested in learning. You obviously are not.
I am interested in learning, just not from you.

You do seem very happy, on the other hand, to derail this thread with the current discussion. (good thing you shut down that tangent on the Orthodox Study Bible a few pages ago!)
Actually, I see this as on topic for the subject of this discussion on evolution vs. creationism, since you're only confirming the opinion of Gebre Menfes Kidus (another poster on this thread) on how evolutionists relate to creationists.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 12:56:01 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3624 on: September 12, 2011, 01:14:55 PM »

Quote
Since you have shifted the discussion entirely to a discussion of me rather than of science, I have little reason to believe that you are interested in increasing your knowledge of science. You have, as you put it, "other priorities". However, you could very easily prove me wrong in this regard, which would delight me. I do enjoy talking about these topics with people who wish to learn.
I'm not here to prove you wrong since, again, I agree with the substance of your point of view, though just not with the manner in which you have presented it.

I didn't ask if you were here to prove me wrong. (there's that "lack of astuteness" I just mentioned) I invited you to express if you were interested in learning. You obviously are not.
I am interested in learning, just not from you.

That sounds like a personal problem.

Quote
You do seem very happy, on the other hand, to derail this thread with the current discussion. (good thing you shut down that tangent on the Orthodox Study Bible a few pages ago!)
Actually, I see this as on topic for the subject of this discussion on evolution vs. creationism, since you're only confirming the opinion of Gebre Menfes Kidus (another poster on this thread) on how evolutionists relate to creationists.

I haven't the slightest idea what his or her opinion is, but his/her opinion is that evolutionists argue with command of the facts, he/she would be correct. That is the flip-side of people who are "ignorant of science" discussing science.

"Be ye therefore wise as serpents." When you shoot off your mouth about subjects of which you are ignorant, you are not being wise.

Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #3625 on: September 12, 2011, 02:09:11 PM »

His Eminence Arch bishop Demetrios makes mention in this interview that the universe is billions of years old at the 3min24sec moment of the interview. http://www.goarch.org/special/september11/videos/interview
Even though I started off as a die hard creationist. Over the course of this thread I realized that both views are correct simultaneously. I found that it's an issue rapped up in perception.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3626 on: September 12, 2011, 03:20:10 PM »

Sauron, I am wondering what you do for a living. Are you a scientist? I'm not being facetious or anything, I'm sincerely curious. You make references that lead me to believe you have a career in science. Is this accurate?

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
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,193



WWW
« Reply #3627 on: September 12, 2011, 04:36:54 PM »

Perhaps because of either my science or legal training, I appear to have a different definition of what constitutes "evidence". Your two cited links are not evidence of anything. Similarly, the TV show "MonsterQuest" is not evidence of Bigfoot, Nessie, or the New Jersey Devil. (no Snookie jokes, please)


Ah, you have studied an actual scientific area as Biotechnology like me? Although I have never worked professionaly in this area, I have four years of lab experience. And despite I not having any Legal courses I suppose that working in an accounting office, and also in a financial research firm getting and organizing data from the capital markets of Latin-America, Portugal, Spain, Canada and the U.S. to sell as trustable information for international consultancy firms in the area, being a Business Analyst at HSBC responsible for bringing up relevant information from several bank areas to produce secure and effective systems I am able to distinguish what is evidence or not. But despite that, I also have training in Linguistics (the science, not the ability to have multiple languages, although I *am* able to communicate in two others besides my own and I can understand at least four, besides, with some effort, being able to translate from Greek and Latin), took one of my "minors" in Neurology of Linguistics and I have a post-graduation in the Psychology of Pedagogy. That of course, is just the formal side of my training. For at least 15 years I have been studying philosophy and theology informally, epistemology of science being one of the subjects of my main interest.

Now that you have proved that you value arguments of authority, I hope that you don't contradict yourself too much  with the one I gave you.

Quote
It appears that I burned your butter here.

The unskilled usually burn things. You still miss what I said entirely.

Quote
I asked you a question. You appear to have missed it, so I have put it in bold text to capture your attention. Please be so kind as to answer.


You still don't see your question is meaningless despite the explanation. Stop being defensive and clinging to cliches.


Quote
Yes, empiricism is based on the assumption that experience conveys information about reality. This assumption is the basis for everything ever done in science, ever. This assumption is also the basis for why you are going to Spanish class today.

It's more than that and there are various non-scientific - and questionable - assumptions about empiricism. Stop trusting arguments of authority - including about yourself and go learn why you believe what you believe.

Quote
I have asked you to establish the extrapolation.

That I have answered, but while you keep the defensive mode on, your bias will prevent you from reading anything that contradicts your comfort zone.

Quote
Quote
Here is how ideas come to be: first you have the "possibles", the reign of "imagination", not in the Disney sense, but in the philosophical sense, where we think everything that may be - basically anything that is not self-contradictory.
Then you move to the reign of "plausibles", which is the reigh of rethoric. It's not necessarily true, but it sure sounds as it can be.
Then you move to the reign of "dialetics", where by comparison of the multiple plausibles regarding a same subject you find out which ones are true.
Then, you move to "logic" where you examine the structure of the true entities, you 'logicize' about them.

Are you going to email Webb or not?

Skipping rethorical questions that are not related to what is being discussed - have you at least noticed what it is? - have you read what I wrote or just pretended to ignore it?

Quote
Your extrapolation was what was most unscientific. Provide the logical chain. The links can certainly be composed of things that have not yet been established.

Do you even know what an extrapolation is? I'll save you time and quote the dictionary bolding the relevant entry:

Quote
Definition of EXTRAPOLATE

transitive verb
1
: to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from values within an already observed interval
2
a : to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area <extrapolates present trends to construct an image of the future>
b : to predict by projecting past experience or known data <extrapolate public sentiment on one issue from known public reaction on others>

It's just a conjecture. (I do hope you know the difference between a conjecture and cause-and-effect relation). If a mathematical constant can change, maybe the very equations can. If they can change through space, maybe they can through time. If they change through time maybe reports of changes in the laws of nature can be more important than previously thought.

Now, please, do not shame yourself saying conjectures are not scientific.

Quote
Off to Spanish class now.
Liberal arts major?

Languages "Major" (Portuguese-English) with "Minor" in Linguistics and Neurology of Linguistics and Discourse Analysis in one of the top universities in Brazil, Post-Grad in Psychology of Pedagogy, Translator (Portuguese, English and Spanish), Capital Markets Researcher, Mainframe and Midranger Programmer and Business Analyst. MBA student in Project Management. Have coached master and doctorate students to write their thesis in English besides numerous CEOs, board directors and other corporate clients to prove their points in business cases in a language foreign to them.

Drop the argument of authority.



Blasphemous misuse of our Lord's name removed from the above...  -PtA
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 06:21:18 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,193



WWW
« Reply #3628 on: September 12, 2011, 04:58:36 PM »

Since Sauron is such a empiricist, here are two questions for him?

What is the empirical evidence for the immutability of the laws of physics?

What is the relevance of this evidence in the face of set of the phenomena in existence and that would be affected by it?

And now some questions of philosophy not related to the physical world:

What is the cause of the first movement of the Big-Bang? If it is self-caused, why nothing else in this same universe is? Why there is something instead of nothing?

If mathematical laws exist *in* the universe and not out of it, how come they are not physical themselves (and therefore subject to enthropy etc etc)? Or, before that question, does mathematics exist on its own or is it somehow physical? If it is not physical, how come in a physical universe there is something not physical and how can this non-physical aspect relate to the physical one?
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 #3629 on: September 12, 2011, 04:59:07 PM »

Perhaps because of either my science or legal training, I appear to have a different definition of what constitutes "evidence". Your two cited links are not evidence of anything. Similarly, the TV show "MonsterQuest" is not evidence of Bigfoot, Nessie, or the New Jersey Devil. (no Snookie jokes, please)


Ah, you have studied an actual scientific area as Biotechnology like me? Although I have never worked professionaly in this area, I have four years of lab experience. And despite I not having any Legal courses I suppose that working in an accounting office, and also in a financial research firm getting and organizing data from the capital markets of Latin-America, Portugal, Spain, Canada and the U.S. to sell as trustable information for international consultancy firms in the area, being a Business Analyst at HSBC responsible for bringing up relevant information from several bank areas to produce secure and effective systems I am able to distinguish what is evidence or not. But despite that, I also have training in Linguistics (the science, not the ability to have multiple languages, although I *am* able to communicate in two others besides my own and I can understand at least four, besides, with some effort, being able to translate from Greek and Latin), took one of my "minors" in Neurology of Linguistics and I have a post-graduation in the Psychology of Pedagogy. That of course, is just the formal side of my training. For at least 15 years I have been studying philosophy and theology informally, epistemology of science being one of the subjects of my main interest.

You seem like a very important person.

Quote
Now that you have proved that you value arguments of authority, I hope that you don't contradict yourself too much  with the one I gave you.

I have yet to make one argument from authority. If you disagree, cite to it.

Quote
Quote
I asked you a question. You appear to have missed it, so I have put it in bold text to capture your attention. Please be so kind as to answer.


You still don't see your question is meaningless despite the explanation. Stop being defensive and clinging to cliches.

I don't think posing a simple question is defensive. You said that you thought the laws of physics were different in the past. I am simply asking which ones, and why. Why do you think it is defensive for me to ask you to explain your belief?

Quote
Quote
Yes, empiricism is based on the assumption that experience conveys information about reality. This assumption is the basis for everything ever done in science, ever. This assumption is also the basis for why you are going to Spanish class today.

It's more than that and there are various non-scientific - and questionable - assumptions about empiricism. Stop trusting arguments of authority - including about yourself and go learn why you believe what you believe.

I haven't made any arguments from authority. I think "argument from authority" does not mean what you think it means.

Quote
Quote
I have asked you to establish the extrapolation.

That I have answered, but while you keep the defensive mode on, your bias will prevent you from reading anything that contradicts your comfort zone.

But you haven't done anything of the sort. Please describe the logical chain that takes you from "spatial variance in the fine structure constant α" to "the classical Golden Age was a real historical time." Surely, it exists in your brain. I simply ask that you render it in text.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Here is how ideas come to be: first you have the "possibles", the reign of "imagination", not in the Disney sense, but in the philosophical sense, where we think everything that may be - basically anything that is not self-contradictory.
Then you move to the reign of "plausibles", which is the reigh of rethoric. It's not necessarily true, but it sure sounds as it can be.
Then you move to the reign of "dialetics", where by comparison of the multiple plausibles regarding a same subject you find out which ones are true.
Then, you move to "logic" where you examine the structure of the true entities, you 'logicize' about them.

Are you going to email Webb or not?

Skipping rethorical questions that are not related to what is being discussed - have you at least noticed what it is? - have you read what I wrote or just pretended to ignore it?

Why don't you email Webb and asks if he thinks his paper is evidence for a "golden age" of immortal people?

Quote
Quote
Your extrapolation was what was most unscientific. Provide the logical chain. The links can certainly be composed of things that have not yet been established.

Do you even know what an extrapolation is? I'll save you time and quote the dictionary bolding the relevant entry:

Quote
Definition of EXTRAPOLATE

transitive verb
1
: to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from values within an already observed interval
2
a : to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area <extrapolates present trends to construct an image of the future>
b : to predict by projecting past experience or known data <extrapolate public sentiment on one issue from known public reaction on others>

I see that you own a dictionary.

Quote
It's just a conjecture. (Jesus, I do hope you know the difference between a conjecture and cause-and-effect relation). If a mathematical constant can change, maybe the very equations can. If they can change through space, maybe they can through time. If they change through time maybe reports of changes in the laws of nature can be more important than previously thought.

So do you concede that your conjecture is baseless? If not, then please explain the basis for your conjecture.

Quote
Quote
Off to Spanish class now.
Liberal arts major?

Languages "Major" (Portuguese-English) with "Minor" in Linguistics and Neurology of Linguistics and Discourse Analysis in one of the top universities in Brazil, Post-Grad in Psychology of Pedagogy, Translator (Portuguese, English and Spanish), Capital Markets Researcher, Mainframe and Midranger Programmer and Business Analyst. MBA student in Project Management. Have coached master and doctorate students to write their thesis in English besides numerous CEOs, board directors and other corporate clients to prove their points in business cases in a language foreign to them.

You are a very important person.

Quote
Drop the argument of authority.

But I haven't made any. If I have, point to it.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3630 on: September 12, 2011, 05:05:11 PM »

Since Sauron is such a empiricist, here are two questions for him?

What is the empirical evidence for the immutability of the laws of physics?

Every empirical observation, ever.

Quote
What is the relevance of this evidence in the face of set of the phenomena in existence and that would be affected by it?

I do not understand what this question is attempting to ask. I do not know if this is a typo.

Quote
And now some questions of philosophy not related to the physical world:

What is the cause of the first movement of the Big-Bang? If it is self-caused, why nothing else in this same universe is? Why there is something instead of nothing?

If mathematical laws exist *in* the universe and not out of it, how come they are not physical themselves (and therefore subject to enthropy etc etc)? Or, before that question, does mathematics exist on its own or is it somehow physical? If it is not physical, how come in a physical universe there is something not physical and how can this non-physical aspect relate to the physical one?

I am not qualified to answer these questions (although their purposes is beyond me). Although, to your second paragraph, most educated people understand that numbers do not have a tangible existence.

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

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


« Reply #3631 on: September 12, 2011, 06:09:23 PM »

Sauron, I am wondering what you do for a living. Are you a scientist? I'm not being facetious or anything, I'm sincerely curious. You make references that lead me to believe you have a career in science. Is this accurate?

PP

No, I am a lawyer, although I was pre-med many moons ago and still maintain an active interest and study of science. My main areas of interest are mechanical physics and astronomy. I do at times regret not double-majoring and getting that physics degree as well. It would have enabled me to sit for the patent bar.

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 #3632 on: September 12, 2011, 06:10:58 PM »

And now some questions of philosophy not related to the physical world:

What is the cause of the first movement of the Big-Bang? If it is self-caused, why nothing else in this same universe is? Why there is something instead of nothing?

If mathematical laws exist *in* the universe and not out of it, how come they are not physical themselves (and therefore subject to enthropy etc etc)? Or, before that question, does mathematics exist on its own or is it somehow physical? If it is not physical, how come in a physical universe there is something not physical and how can this non-physical aspect relate to the physical one?

I am not qualified to answer these questions (although their purposes is beyond me). Although, to your second paragraph, most educated people understand that numbers do not have a tangible existence.

I must commend you for this. Philosophy, like the law, is one of those things people do not believe they need to be trained in before having strongly-held opinions on the subject matter.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 06:11:36 PM by akimori makoto » Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,570


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #3633 on: September 13, 2011, 05:43:05 PM »

ok, i finally found an outstanding reference for this thread.
it gives lots of evidence for the view that the earth is very old, but humans are not.
before reading this, i believed the earth was not so old (like older than 10,000 years but younger than many millions) but now i tend to agree with the author that the earth is ancient and natural selection occurs but that no species evolves from any other.
God certainly created man and woman and the genesis account of the fall is true, but the time frames involved are not literal days.
father athanasius iskander is an orthodox hegomen (arch-priest) in the coptic church and writes as if he understands science well.
i have a background in science (science 1st degree and diploma) and it makes sense to me.

it's a few hours of reading, but well worth it!
 Smiley
http://stmaryscopticorthodox.ca/publications/articles/sci/sci.html
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3634 on: September 13, 2011, 05:48:06 PM »

ok, i finally found an outstanding reference for this thread.
it gives lots of evidence for the view that the earth is very old, but humans are not.
before reading this, i believed the earth was not so old (like older than 10,000 years but younger than many millions) but now i tend to agree with the author that the earth is ancient and natural selection occurs but that no species evolves from any other.
God certainly created man and woman and the genesis account of the fall is true, but the time frames involved are not literal days.
father athanasius iskander is an orthodox hegomen (arch-priest) in the coptic church and writes as if he understands science well.
i have a background in science (science 1st degree and diploma) and it makes sense to me.

it's a few hours of reading, but well worth it!
 Smiley
http://stmaryscopticorthodox.ca/publications/articles/sci/sci.html

Please review this site. It will take more than a few hours to read and understand.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I hasten to add that it is a fact that species evolve from each other, so Fr. Iskander is wrong to the extent he denies it.

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,570


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #3635 on: September 13, 2011, 06:04:36 PM »

hi, sauron, i have saved it to look at in more detail, but i have extensively studied evolution at school and university.
father athanasius was a practicing doctor before he became a priest, so will have studied it too.
i found out that about him here:
http://www.stgeorgeandstrueisscopticchurch.org/StGeorgeAndStRueiss/CopticChurchInCanada.do
i always like to read about authors, i like to see what angle they are coming from.

i still didn't see any convincing fossil evidence of a 'missing link'.
God made us uniquely, it makes sense for an almighty God to do this.
if He can make the universe (with a big bang as father athanasius suggests or otherwise), he can certainly intervene and make us.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3636 on: September 13, 2011, 07:58:10 PM »

hi, sauron, i have saved it to look at in more detail, but i have extensively studied evolution at school and university.
father athanasius was a practicing doctor before he became a priest, so will have studied it too.
i found out that about him here:
http://www.stgeorgeandstrueisscopticchurch.org/StGeorgeAndStRueiss/CopticChurchInCanada.do
i always like to read about authors, i like to see what angle they are coming from.

i still didn't see any convincing fossil evidence of a 'missing link'.
God made us uniquely, it makes sense for an almighty God to do this.
if He can make the universe (with a big bang as father athanasius suggests or otherwise), he can certainly intervene and make us.
And if God can create the universe, he can also create one in which evolution occurs. Who are you to say what God can do and how?

What sort of fossil evidence would convince you of "missing links"? Note that I am assuming the burden of proof here. All you need to do is provide me with the criteria.

First, you will have to define "missing link". I assume you mean "transitional form", but I want to confirm.

Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,150


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #3637 on: September 16, 2011, 02:19:41 PM »

hi, sauron, i have saved it to look at in more detail, but i have extensively studied evolution at school and university.
father athanasius was a practicing doctor before he became a priest, so will have studied it too.
i found out that about him here:
http://www.stgeorgeandstrueisscopticchurch.org/StGeorgeAndStRueiss/CopticChurchInCanada.do
i always like to read about authors, i like to see what angle they are coming from.

i still didn't see any convincing fossil evidence of a 'missing link'.
God made us uniquely, it makes sense for an almighty God to do this.
if He can make the universe (with a big bang as father athanasius suggests or otherwise), he can certainly intervene and make us.

Hi Mabsoota

With all due respect to Fr. Athanasius, he clearly continues to give misconceived notions and arguments against the science of evolution.  Yes he was a physician...a couple of decades ago.  Let's not forget that he may have not updated himself on new scientific advancements ever since he became a priest.

With that said, there is a Coptic article that allows the understanding of evolution without compromising the Orthodox faith:

http://www.coptichymns.net/module-library-viewpub-tid-1-pid-83.html
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3638 on: September 16, 2011, 02:24:41 PM »

the new, expanded edition of Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, including articles on updated science by 2 Orthodox scientists and a section on modern Saints and Elders on Evolution, among other goodies is now available at www.stherman.com, in case anyone is interested.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3639 on: September 16, 2011, 02:29:43 PM »

the new, expanded edition of Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, including articles on updated science by 2 Orthodox scientists and a section on modern Saints and Elders on Evolution, among other goodies is now available at www.stherman.com, in case anyone is interested.

Maybe some biologists could publish a book on Christian theology!

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 #3640 on: September 16, 2011, 02:44:45 PM »

the new, expanded edition of Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, including articles on updated science by 2 Orthodox scientists and a section on modern Saints and Elders on Evolution, among other goodies is now available at www.stherman.com, in case anyone is interested.

Maybe some biologists could publish a book on Christian theology!
Done.
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 #3641 on: September 16, 2011, 02:48:58 PM »

the new, expanded edition of Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, including articles on updated science by 2 Orthodox scientists and a section on modern Saints and Elders on Evolution, among other goodies is now available at www.stherman.com, in case anyone is interested.

Maybe some biologists could publish a book on Christian theology!
Done.

Biochemists are not biologists. (See, e.g. Michael Behe)

Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,150


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #3642 on: September 16, 2011, 02:58:20 PM »

the new, expanded edition of Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, including articles on updated science by 2 Orthodox scientists and a section on modern Saints and Elders on Evolution, among other goodies is now available at www.stherman.com, in case anyone is interested.

Maybe some biologists could publish a book on Christian theology!
Done.

Biochemists are not biologists. (See, e.g. Michael Behe)



From what I understand, Allister McGrath is pro-evolution.  I never knew he was a biochemist.  I thought he was an Anglican pastor.

And I wouldn't shut down biochemistry as a field to ignore.  They are just as highly qualified to talk about evolution as biologists.  Dr. Behe is an anomaly who doesn't even deny the theory of common descent anyway.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2011, 03:01:30 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3643 on: September 16, 2011, 03:09:02 PM »

the new, expanded edition of Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, including articles on updated science by 2 Orthodox scientists and a section on modern Saints and Elders on Evolution, among other goodies is now available at www.stherman.com, in case anyone is interested.

Maybe some biologists could publish a book on Christian theology!
Done.

Biochemists are not biologists. (See, e.g. Michael Behe)



From what I understand, Allister McGrath is pro-evolution.  I never knew he was a biochemist.  I thought he was an Anglican pastor.

And I wouldn't shut down biochemistry as a field to ignore.  They are just as highly qualified to talk about evolution as biologists.  Dr. Behe is an anomaly who doesn't even deny the theory of common descent anyway.

To be specific, he has a Ph.D. in biophysics, but as far as I can tell, he has never worked in that capacity. (although I have a history degree, I do not call myself a historian)

I disagree that biochemists are equally qualified to discuss evolution as biologists because their field of study is the chemical reactions within organisms. They can talk about the role that formaldehyde plays in human metabolism, for example, but not very much about the evolution of feathers, for example. And of course, not all biologists are equally qualified. I would give more credence to an evolutionary biologist than a cellular biologist if I had a question about evolution. I experience this issue in my life as well - when people hear I am a lawyer, they do not hesitate to ask me questions about child support or automobile accidents when I have no idea about any of that stuff. I do business law.

But, I digress. I am still waiting for a theology text by biologists.

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 #3644 on: September 16, 2011, 03:34:05 PM »

the new, expanded edition of Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, including articles on updated science by 2 Orthodox scientists and a section on modern Saints and Elders on Evolution, among other goodies is now available at www.stherman.com, in case anyone is interested.

Maybe some biologists could publish a book on Christian theology!
Done.

Biochemists are not biologists. (See, e.g. Michael Behe)
It's a branch of biology -- unless you reject the branch theory of biology.
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.
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 »   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 0.316 seconds with 75 queries.