Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

A Paradigm is built on a first principle

Expand Messages
  • Victor McAllister
    Thomas Kuhn was a physicist who became a historian of scientific upheavals. *He defined normal science as what scientists do within the domain of their
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 13, 2013
      Thomas Kuhn was a physicist who became a historian of scientific upheavals. He defined normal science as what scientists do within the domain of their paradigm, their accepted way of thinking and behaving. Normal science uses metaphysical concepts, definitions, instruments and methods to extend and refine their paradigm, but not to change it. This is why scientific revolutions come from outsiders, those who are not trained in the accepted paradigm. “No natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism.” The scientific paradigm informs scientists what is a problem, what constitutes evidence, how to gather evidence and how to solve a problem using the techniques and definitions supplied by the paradigm. “The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly.” When practitioners of the paradigm stubble on discordant evidence they either ignore it or adjust it to fit their assumption-dependent methods and definitions.

      Modern science did not start with an accepted paradigm, but with a first principle, what the Greeks called an arche.
      A first principle is an elementary assumption that purports to answer questions about matter and change. A first principle cannot be proven. It is merely an article of faith, yet it forms the basis for subsequent “proofs.” Those trained to think with an elementary assumption almost never question their fundamental faith.

      Although the Babylonians, Greeks and Muslims had complex mathematics and astronomical techniques, these did not result in empirical science. The first principle of modern science developed in medieval Europe. The scholastics were somewhat enlightened by their reading of Greek and Arab philosophers but they went beyond the bounds of classical thinking.

      (1) The Catholic scholastics did not think they were tailoring the Bible to fit the system of the pagan Aristotle.
      They thought of philosophy as the handmaiden to the Bible. They imagined that Aristotle’s system could help bring skeptics to faith.

      (2) Friar Thomas and others did not understand that they were laying the foundation for western science.
      The God whose name is I AM is absolutely changeless in Catholic theology, existing outside of time. The scholatics made the verb “to be” into a Latin noun. The “essence” of God is changeless. Since He is the Creator, they came to regard created matter as also having an unchanging essence.

      (3) Centuries later, when Newton operationally defined time and matter, he built his mathematical structure on the notion that the essence of substance is changeless.
      Einstein also regarded atoms as perpetual motion engines, never intrinsically changing their clock frequencies throughout cosmic history. Scientific operational definitions of time and matter, measuring units, conservation principles, methodologies and mathematical laws were contrived upon the one fundamental assumption. When scientists measure symbolical entities like mass and time, they are depending on the medieval assumption that the essence of substance is changeless.

      Peter prophesied that in the last days mockers will come saying panta houtos diamenei - all things remain the same. 2 Peter 3:3 - 6.
      He used a Greek expression (arche ktiseous) to label this idea. This phrase can mean a first law. Indeed, Peter’s prophesy has been fulfilled in our ears. Scientists are doing the very thing Peter predicted with their first law. They obfuscate (Greek lanthano) the age of the plural heavens and earth’s watery geology with their dogmatic creed, that the properties of matter are fixed. Scientists have filled the universe with magical things like invisible matter and vacuum forces to protect their blind creed. They ignore the visible evidence that the continents only fit together on a tiny planet. It is easier to believe subduction even though the ocean trenches have layered undisturbed sediments. The Bible plainly states that the Earth spreads out in unbroken continuity and this happens above the waters.

      If Christians would accept the literal text, instead of following the traditional renderings, they could see (with telescopes) the overwhelming evidence for the creation. The only history that is visible as it happened is galactic history. What we see exactly fits Moses’ Hebrew verbs. What we observe does not fit either the medieval metaphysics or their traditional exegesis of creation.

      Victor

    • Chuck
      ... While this is true the statement that scientific revolutions come from outsiders, those who are not trained in the accepted paradigm. Some times
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 14, 2013

        > Thomas Kuhn was a physicist who became a historian of

        >
        scientific upheavals. He defined normal science as what
        >
        scientists do within the domain of their paradigm, theircolor=navy>
        >
        accepted way of thinking and behaving.
        Normal sciencecolor=navy>
        >
        uses metaphysical concepts, definitions, instruments andcolor=navy>
        >
        methods to extend and refine their paradigm, but not tocolor=navy>
        >
        change it. This is why scientific revolutions come from color=navy>
        >
        outsiders, those who are not trained in the acceptedcolor=navy>
        >
        paradigm. “No natural history can be interpreted in the
        >
        absence of at least some implicit body of intertwinedcolor=navy>
        >
        theoretical and methodological belief that permitscolor=navy>
        >
        selection, evaluation, and criticism.”
        color=navy>

        While this is true the statement that “scientific revolutions come from outsiders, those who are not trained in the accepted paradigm.” Some times scientific revolutions come from insiders who while “trained in the accepted paradigm” rejected it for some reason or another. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Einstein Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg were all trained in the accepted paradigm of their day bur ultimately rejected it. In each of these cases they did so because the existing paradigm simply did not fit reality. I my self have faced this problem and were forced by reality to abandon earlier assumptions. One big one is that matter actually material stuff. It was the departure from this paradigm that helped lead the Information Universe.

        > The scientific paradigm informs scientists what is a

        >
        problem, what constitutes evidence, how to gathercolor=navy>
        >
        evidence and how to solve a problem using thecolor=navy>
        >
        techniques and definitions supplied by thestyle='color:navy'>
        >
        paradigm.
        “The man who is striving to solve acolor=navy>
        >
        problem defined by existing knowledge and techniquecolor=navy>
        >
        is not just looking around. He knows what he wants tocolor=navy>
        >
        achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs hiscolor=navy>
        >
        thoughts accordingly.” When practitioners of the
        >
        paradigm stubble on discordant evidence they eithercolor=navy>
        >
        ignore it or adjust it to fit their assumption-dependentcolor=navy>
        >
        methods and definitions.
        style='color:navy'>

        If a paradigm is flawed no mater what instruments are designed to measure or what assumptions are used reality will eventually get show it to be flawed as long as the process and institutions of science are honest. The real problem comes not from empirical science itself but a scientific from the lack of honesty in the process and institutions of establishment science when it comes to certain areas of research such as origins and the environment. The fact is that establishment science have become dominated by atheists and this scientific establishment protects the ruling paradigm even when reality say it is wrong.

        By the way victor you when you are presented with evidence that goes against your personal paradigm, you to repeatedly ignore it.

        >
        Modern science did not start with an accepted

        >
        paradigm, but with a first principle, what thecolor=navy>
        >
        Greeks called an arche.
        A first principle is ancolor=navy>
        >
        elementary assumption that purports to answercolor=navy>
        >
        questions about matter and change. A firststyle='color:navy'>
        >
        principle cannot be proven. It is merely an articlecolor=navy>
        >
        of faith, yet it forms the basis for subsequentcolor=navy>
        >
        “proofs.” Those trained to think with ancolor=navy>
        >
        elementary assumption almost never questionstyle='color:navy'>
        >
        their fundamental faith.style='color:navy'>

        > Although the Babylonians, Greeks and Muslims

        >
        had complex mathematics and astronomicalstyle='color:navy'>
        >
        techniques, these did not result in empirical science.color=navy>
        >
        The first principle of modern science developed incolor=navy>
        >
        medieval Europe . The scholastics were somewhat
        >
        enlightened by their reading of Greek and Arabcolor=navy>
        >
        philosophers but they went beyond the boundscolor=navy>
        >
        of classical thinking.

        Exactly they moved beyond the erroneous notion of intrinsic change that you want Christians to return to. By the way the vary computers we are using to communicate are based on empirical science so if its stating point is as fundamentally flawed as you claim why are you able you products produced by way of empirical science to attack it as you do. One of the strengths of empirical science is the ability to test ideas against reality by making unique testable predictions about future observation. Both of my peer reviewed published theories make unique testable predictions that have been successfully tested. You can not make the same claim because your changing Earth idea makes NONE.

        I challenge you to give us one just one thing that is not yet know that your changing Earth idea uniquely predicts that will be shown either true or false, such that if it is proven false you will admit that you were wrong.  

        > (1) The Catholic scholastics did not think they were

        >
        tailoring the Bible to fit the system of the pagancolor=navy>
        >
        Aristotle.
        They thought of philosophy as thecolor=navy>
        >
        handmaiden to the Bible. They imagined that Aristotle’s
        >
        system could help bring skeptics to faith.
        >
        > (2) Friar Thomas and others did not understand
        >
        that they were laying the foundation for westerncolor=navy>
        >
        science.
        The God whose name is I AM is absolutelycolor=navy>
        >
        changeless in Catholic theology, existing outside ofcolor=navy>
        >
        time. The scholatics made the verb “to be” into a
        >
        Latin noun. The “essence” of God is changeless.color=navy>
        >
        Since He is the Creator, they came to regard createdcolor=navy>
        >
        matter as also having an unchanging essence.color=navy>

        While this may have helped empirical science get started empirical science has moved beyond this accepting change atoms and the particles that make them up.

        > (3) Centuries later, when Newton operationally

        >
        defined time and matter, he built his mathematicalcolor=navy>
        >
        structure on the notion that the essence of substancecolor=navy>
        >
        is changeless.

        Prove it! Give me one reference were he even uses the term essence of substance or say that it is changeless.

        > Einstein also regarded atoms as perpetual motion engines,

        >
        never intrinsically changing their clock frequenciescolor=navy>
        >
        throughout cosmic history.style='color:navy'>

        No one has ever regarded atoms as perpetual motion engines. That is you own personal twisting of modern atomic theory that only serves to show that you do not know what you are talking about. Not do atoms have any form of clock or clock frequencies that could change over cosmic history. Every time you talk like this you only prove that you do not know what you are taking about.

        > Scientific operational definitions of time and matter,

        >
        measuring units, conservation principles, methodologiescolor=navy>
        >
        and mathematical laws were contrived upon the onecolor=navy>
        >
        fundamental assumption. When scientists measurecolor=navy>
        >
        symbolical entities like mass and time, they arecolor=navy>
        >
        depending on the medieval assumption that thecolor=navy>
        >
        essence of substance is changeless.style='color:navy'>

        You keep using this term “the essence of substance” but you have NEVER defined what it is. What do you mean by “the essence of substance” ?  Further more exactly what about this essence of substance do you consider to be changing that empirical science says is not changing. I bet you don’t know yourself is seems like its just a contently vague phrase sounds good but means nothing.

        >Peter prophesied that in the last days mockers

        >
        will come saying panta houtos diamenei style='color:navy'>– all
        >
        things remain the same. 2 Peter 3:3 - 6.style='color:navy'>

        Here is what a REAL Bible says as opposed to you erroneous personal translation.

        2 Peter 3:3-6 (KJB)
        3  Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last
        days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
        4  And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
        for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as
        they were from the beginning of the creation.
        5  For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the
         word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth
         standing out of the water and in the water:
        6  Whereby the world that then was, being
         overflowed with water, perished:

        The Greek phrase “panta houtos diamenei” is translated here as “all things continue as they were.”  Furthermore a word of word translation of the Greek would be “in this way all things continue” which agrees in meaning with the King James Bible. Both wordings indicate that that the scoffers were saying that the way thing happen has remained unchanged, which is consistent with the real message of the scoffers that is the uniformitarian idea physical processes have always proceeded at about the same rate as they do today and were no interrupted things such as miracles.

        > He used a Greek expression (arche ktiseous) to

        >
        label this idea. This phrase can mean a first law.color="#003366">

        Yes, if the context demanded it the Greek phase “arche ktiseous” could in theory mean fist law, but that context exists no place in the Bible. Further it is not used a label but an induction of how long the uniformity has continued specifically “from the Beginning the beginning of the creation

        > Indeed, Peter’s prophesy has been fulfilled in

        >
        our ears. Scientists are doing the very thingcolor=navy>
        >
        Peter predicted with their first law.style='color:navy'>

        While it is true that old Earth proponents do fulfill Peter’s prophesy, no one would not be doing if your “translation” were correct since NO one is saying “all thing remain the same.” Not accepting you notion of intrinsic change is not the same as saying that all thing remain the same.  

         


         

         

      • Victor McAllister
        ... I agree with you. These people adjusted their scientific paradigm (often because they did not have a high rank within the practitioners of the paradigm).
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 15, 2013
          On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Chuck <chuckpc@...> wrote:
           

          > Thomas Kuhn was a physicist who became a historian of
          >
          scientific upheavals. He defined normal science as what
          >
          scientists do within the domain of their paradigm, their
          >
          accepted way of thinking and behaving.
          Normal science
          >
          uses metaphysical concepts, definitions, instruments and
          >
          methods to extend and refine their paradigm, but not to
          >
          change it. This is why scientific revolutions come from
          >
          outsiders, those who are not trained in the accepted
          >
          paradigm. “No natural history can be interpreted in the
          >
          absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined
          >
          theoretical and methodological belief that permits
          >
          selection, evaluation, and criticism.”

          While this is true the statement that “scientific revolutions come from outsiders, those who are not trained in the accepted paradigm.” Some times scientific revolutions come from insiders who while “trained in the accepted paradigm” rejected it for some reason or another. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Einstein Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg were all trained in the accepted paradigm of their day bur ultimately rejected it. In each of these cases they did so because the existing paradigm simply did not fit reality. I my self have faced this problem and were forced by reality to abandon earlier assumptions. One big one is that matter actually material stuff. It was the departure from this paradigm that helped lead the Information Universe.


          I agree with you. These people adjusted their scientific paradigm  (often because they did not have a high rank within the practitioners of the paradigm). However, none of them rejected the first principle of science, the assumption upon which empirical science itself was contrived.

          I agree with you that matter is not primarily material stuff. Whatever God finished creating first about the plural heavens and earth had no form. In unbroken continuity His wind dithered above the primordial place as He continued to command light to continue to be. Matter is primarily a relation with  light, as Paul so claimed - everything that is visible IS LIGHT. He did not say we see because of light - but what we see is light phos estin.

          I think your inability to believe the visible creation of the universe is your adherence to (1) the Catholic traditions which are followed by almost all modern exegesis of the Creation texts.  (2) The first principle of science that came from the medieval Catholics - this notion that matter has some sort of essence and what it IS (its Being) that does not change. If you could just question the first principle of science, the notion that all things remain the same, you could easily become a Changing Earth Creationist.

           

          > The scientific paradigm informs scientists what is a
          >
          problem, what constitutes evidence, how to gather
          >
          evidence and how to solve a problem using the
          >
          techniques and definitions supplied by the
          >
          paradigm.
          “The man who is striving to solve a
          >
          problem defined by existing knowledge and technique
          >
          is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to
          >
          achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his
          >
          thoughts accordingly.” When practitioners of the
          >
          paradigm stubble on discordant evidence they either
          >
          ignore it or adjust it to fit their assumption-dependent
          >
          methods and definitions.

          If a paradigm is flawed no mater what instruments are designed to measure or what assumptions are used reality will eventually get show it to be flawed as long as the process and institutions of science are honest. The real problem comes not from empirical science itself but a scientific from the lack of honesty in the process and institutions of establishment science when it comes to certain areas of research such as origins and the environment. The fact is that establishment science have become dominated by atheists and this scientific establishment protects the ruling paradigm even when reality say it is wrong.


          You are right that there would be evidence if the paradigm is flawed.  The fact that it is flawed has brought about  ad hoc stories about invisible things like vacuum expansions, invisible matter etc.  The visible history of how the stars came out and spread out from formerly formless substances in the heart of every galaxy only fits a literal, rather than a scientific, understanding of creation.
           The more scientists study the cosmos, the more they are forced to invent magical things, things never detected in any lab.

          I disagree with you that the problem does not come from empirical science itself. As a Christian, we should put the scripture first when analyzing the universe around us. The Apostle Peter said in 2 Peter 3:3 - know this first. What is most important, what we must consider first, is that in the last days mockers will come claiming where is the promise of his coming.  The mockers will do two things with an idea of theirs an arche ktiseous (which can mean a first law) that all things remain the same.


          They will obfuscate the age of the plural heavens

          They will ignore the watery geology of earth which was inundated twice, according to Peter.

          The first thing we must consider is this false idea - panta houtos diamenei - that all things remain the same.  This is the very idea upon which western science was built. Scientific definitions, measuring units, mathematical methods and laws were contrived on the medieval assumption that the essence of substance is changeless - that modern atoms are relationally identical to ancient atoms.

          Peter gives two examples of how the mockers will ignore the evidence.

          1. They will disregard the evidence for the age of the plural heavens (ouranos esan ekpalai
          ). Ekpalai is a compound word. Ek means to come out from a point of origin. Palais is related to Greek words for wrestling, vibrating, rotating. Scientists cannot accept the visible history of creation. They have filled the universe with magical things like invisible matter and expanding vacuums. They even imagine that a tiny bit of vacuum exploded and created the universe out of nothing. They adjust every atomic clock in the distant universe with an expnding vacuum of space. YEt the clocks on the Pioneers acclerated, relative to NASA's hydrogen maser clocks of the moment, at the Hubble ratio - just like the clocks in billions of ancient galaxies. They imagine that stars accreted from space dust dust etc. Indeed, we can observe the history of how galaxies formed. The stars came out from formerly formless masses at the heart of countless ancient galaxies. Tiny blue globs accelerated out, rotated out, spread out, growing into huge, local, dusty growth-spirals. Even around the Milky Way, we see a river of neutral hydrogen showing that the Magellanic clouds emerged from the core of our galaxy.

          2. They disregard the watery geological history of Earth. We can see that the continents only fit together on a tiny globe. We can see that the continents are covered with water deposited sediments but the ocean floors are young, covered basically only with marine sediments and new seafloor continues to form - increasing the size of the earth. It is easier for scientists to imagine that the earth swallows its own crust without disturbing the layered sediments in the "subduction zones" than to accept that the Earth continues to spread out in unbroken continuity (above the waters - Psalm 136:6 and two other passages).

          The visible history of the cosmos, the only history that is visible exactly as it occurred, supports the literal Hebrew words of Genesis, rather than the traditional exegesis. He continued to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continued to place them in the spreading place (Hebrew raqiya) half way through the creation week.

          What should we know first, rather than the false idea Peter predicted? We should know that the creation is enslaved to change, as the Apostle Paul described in Romans 8:19 - 22. He used two "orderly submission verbs" to describe how the creation deteriorates itself, submitting to the command to do so. He used two "together verbs"  to show how the entire creation is changing. Every atom in billions of galaxies has continued to change relationally as we verify with the light from long ago. Relational change is parallel (together) change.  We observe how the space matter takes up, its atomic clock frequencies and its inertial properties keep on changing as orbits continue to accelerate outwards. Not a single physical constant is visible in the whole universe.

          Where did scientists get their constants? They contrived them from their first law, their notion that all things remain the same. Peter's prophesy has come true. We need to back away form this false idea that the properties of matter are fixed, not continually emerging.


          By the way victor you when you are presented with evidence that goes against your personal paradigm, you to repeatedly ignore it.

          I do have a paradigm. It is very simple, I got my paradigm from the Bible - rather than western science. I was trained to think scientifically. I did mathematical physics for many years. I abandoned the first law of the last days and the result is that I see the visible evidence that fits the biblical record of creation. I was not able to see things simply before, since I adjusted all evidence to fit the scientific paradigm. I cannot go back and forth between two mind sets so I reject the scientific paradigm  Why? The visible record of cosmic history does not fit the scientific first principle and the paradigms that were built upon that presumption.
           

          > Modern science did not start with an accepted


          >
          paradigm, but with a first principle, what the
          >
          Greeks called an arche.
          A first principle is an

          >
          elementary assumption that purports to answer
          >
          questions about matter and change. A first
          >
          principle cannot be proven. It is merely an article
          >
          of faith, yet it forms the basis for subsequent
          >
          “proofs.” Those trained to think with an
          >
          elementary assumption almost never question
          >
          their fundamental faith.

          > Although the Babylonians, Greeks and Muslims
          >
          had complex mathematics and astronomical
          >
          techniques, these did not result in empirical science.
          >
          The first principle of modern science developed in
          >
          medieval Europe. The scholastics were somewhat
          >
          enlightened by their reading of Greek and Arab
          >
          philosophers but they went beyond the bounds
          >
          of classical thinking.

          Exactly they moved beyond the erroneous notion of intrinsic change that you want Christians to return to. By the way the vary computers we are using to communicate are based on empirical science so if its stating point is as fundamentally flawed as you claim why are you able you products produced by way of empirical science to attack it as you do. One of the strengths of empirical science is the ability to test ideas against reality by making unique testable predictions about future observation. Both of my peer reviewed published theories make unique testable predictions that have been successfully tested. You can not make the same claim because your changing Earth idea makes NONE.

          I challenge you to give us one just one thing that is not yet know that your changing Earth idea uniquely predicts that will be shown either true or false, such that if it is proven false you will admit that you were wrong.  


          The visible history of the cosmos only fits a literal creation account, not the traditional Catholic exegesis.  By the way, I picked up a book yesterday by a philosopher / theologian of the last century Francis Schaeffer - a Presbyterian. I have bookshelves of books on time and relativity but I had never run across his little book: Genesis in and Space Time.  A quick perusal reveals that he follows the Catholic traditions to the letter - following Augustine's notion that God created time etc. He certainly understood the nature of salvation and the person of Christ and was a great Christian. Unfortunately, when he took medieval ideas and melded them with the Bible, he rejects the literal text such as in Hebrews 11:3 that God once for all formed (not created) the plural eons out of things not seen etc. He did not create time nor did He create the worlds ex nihilo. Only the formless things were created ex nihilo and all other creation processes were adjustments to what was created on the first part of the first day. The visible history of how the stars continued to form from formerly naked galaxies is the most powerful evidence for a literal creation. 

          (1) The Catholic scholastics did not think they were

          > tailoring the Bible to fit the system of the pagan
          >
          Aristotle.
          They thought of philosophy as the
          >
          handmaiden to the Bible. They imagined that Aristotle’s
          >
          system could help bring skeptics to faith.
          >
          > (2) Friar Thomas and others did not understand
          >
          that they were laying the foundation for western
          >
          science.
          The God whose name is I AM is absolutely
          >
          changeless in Catholic theology, existing outside of
          >
          time. The scholatics made the verb “to be” into a
          >
          Latin noun. The “essence” of God is changeless.
          >
          Since He is the Creator, they came to regard created
          >
          matter as also having an unchanging essence.

          While this may have helped empirical science get started empirical science has moved beyond this accepting change atoms and the particles that make them up.


          Empirical science become more grounded in this principle every day. They measure things that only exist in their minds - things like mass and time - yet we can see the visible evidence that the inertial properties of matter, its atomic light frequencies and the space it takes up keep on changing as billions of galaxies grew into huge, local growth spirals

          > (3) Centuries later, when Newton operationally
          >
          defined time and matter, he built his mathematical
          >
          structure on the notion that the essence of substance
          >
          is changeless.

          Prove it! Give me one reference were he even uses the term essence of substance or say that it is changeless.

          Read the first part of His book Principia where he rejects building his system on first principles, and claims to do so by operational defintions. Yet he built his operational definitions on a simple assumption, that matter is not changing itself relationally as it ages.

          Newton's teacher Isaac Barrow taught that time flows with an even tenor. Newton extended this to "Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything
          external and by another name is called duration. "  "Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external remains always similar and immovable." Using absolute space and time, he invented the mathematics of clock time (calculus). He claimed that motions, once established, would never change without an external force acting on the object. He simply presumed that the objects themselves are not changing. He used his concept of unchanging time to measure velocities, accelerations and clock-like orbits. Yet we can see with sight that all clocks are accelerating, both the atomic ones and the inertial ones as billions of galaxies grew into huge growth sprials - exactly as one should expect form the literal text of the Bible

          >
          Einstein also regarded atoms as perpetual motion engines,
          >
          never intrinsically changing their clock frequencies
          >
          throughout cosmic history.


          No one has ever regarded atoms as perpetual motion engines. That is you own personal twisting of modern atomic theory that only serves to show that you do not know what you are talking about. Not do atoms have any form of clock or clock frequencies that could change over cosmic history. Every time you talk like this you only prove that you do not know what you are taking about.

          On the contrary, it impossible to invent an empirical system without presuming that some kind of motions are perpetual and some kind of matter is unchanging. If matter is changing itself, as we can see with sight, then scientists are measuring symbolical things that (for the most part) only exist in their minds.

          Victor
           

          > Scientific operational definitions of time and matter,
          >
          measuring units, conservation principles, methodologies
          >
          and mathematical laws were contrived upon the one
          >
          fundamental assumption. When scientists measure
          >
          symbolical entities like mass and time, they are
          >
          depending on the medieval assumption that the
          >
          essence of substance is changeless.

          You keep using this term “the essence of substance” but you have NEVER defined what it is. What do you mean by “the essence of substance” ?  Further more exactly what about this essence of substance do you consider to be changing that empirical science says is not changing. I bet you don’t know yourself is seems like its just a contently vague phrase sounds good but means nothing.

          >Peter prophesied that in the last days mockers
          >
          will come saying panta houtos diamenei all
          >
          things remain the same. 2 Peter 3:3 - 6.

          Here is what a REAL Bible says as opposed to you erroneous personal translation.

          2 Peter 3:3-6 (KJB)
          3  Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last
          days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
          4  And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
          for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as
          they were from the beginning of the creation.
          5  For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the
           word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth
           standing out of the water and in the water:
          6  Whereby the world that then was, being
           overflowed with water, perished:

          The Greek phrase “panta houtos diamenei” is translated here as “all things continue as they were.”  Furthermore a word of word translation of the Greek would be “in this way all things continue” which agrees in meaning with the King James Bible. Both wordings indicate that that the scoffers were saying that the way thing happen has remained unchanged, which is consistent with the real message of the scoffers that is the uniformitarian idea physical processes have always proceeded at about the same rate as they do today and were no interrupted things such as miracles.

          > He used a Greek expression (arche ktiseous) to
          >
          label this idea. This phrase can mean a first law.

          Yes, if the context demanded it the Greek phase “arche ktiseous” could in theory mean fist law, but that context exists no place in the Bible. Further it is not used a label but an induction of how long the uniformity has continued specifically “from the Beginning the beginning of the creation

          > Indeed, Peter’s prophesy has been fulfilled in
          >
          our ears. Scientists are doing the very thing
          >
          Peter predicted with their first law.


          While it is true that old Earth proponents do fulfill Peter’s prophesy, no one would not be doing if your “translation” were correct since NO one is saying “all thing remain the same.” Not accepting you notion of intrinsic change is not the same as saying that all thing remain the same.  

           


           

           


        • Chuck
          ... Agreed, but that is not what you said. Those that are in the high ranks of any human endeavor, be it religion, business, politics, or science naturally
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 16, 2013

            >> While this is true the statement that “scientific

            >> revolutions come from outsiders, those who are
            >> not trained in the accepted paradigm.” Some
            >> times scientific revolutions come from insiders
            >> who while “trained in the accepted paradigm”
            >> rejected it for some reason or another. Copernicus,
            >> Galileo, Kepler, Einstein Max Planck, Werner
            >> Heisenberg were all trained in the accepted
            >> paradigm of their day bur ultimately rejected it.
            >> In each of these cases they did so because the
            >> existing paradigm simply did not fit reality I my
            >> self have faced this problem and were forced by
            >> reality to abandon earlier assumptions. One big one
            >> is that matter actually material stuff. It was the
            >> departure from this paradigm that helped lead the
            >> Information Universe.

            > I agree with you. These people adjusted their scientific

            >
            paradigm (often because they did not have a high rank
            >
            within the practitioners of the paradigm).

            Agreed, but that is not what you said. Those that are in the high ranks of any human endeavor, be it religion, business, politics, or science naturally tend to protect that status not only by not rocking the proverbial boat but often by ridiculing any one that would challenge that status. That is why the Catholics not only went after the Protestant Reformers but Galileo as well. It is interesting that you seldom hear fact that Galileo was born into the world of the Protestant Reformation.

            >
            However, none of them rejected the first principle of
            >
            science, the assumption upon which empirical science
            >
            itself was contrived.

             

            You missed the point. All of these men show the ability to dump long held paradigms when the evidence showed them wrong so assuming your “first principle” to be correct this suggests that they simply saw no evidence that it was wrong. However Einstein rejected the idea that space and time were absolutes which is similar you are saying. Planck, Heisenberg and other founders of Quantum mechanics pretty much eliminated matter as being fundamentally unchanging so in may ways they did abandon your so called “first principle” just not the way you did.

            > I think your inability to believe the visible creation of

            >
            the universe is your adherence to (1) the Catholic
            >
            traditions which are followed by almost all modern
            >
            exegesis of the Creation texts.

            Actually I simply do not interpret what we see, the way you do. My rejection of your description you call “the visible creation” is not a result of any personal paradigm of mine but the fact that what you present is nonsense even assuming things are changing as you claim. By the way since do to time dilation most of we see in the distant universe would have happened on day four of the creation week, I would agree that we do see God’s creative acts in progress however because I look at more than superficial appearances I see a some what different interpretation than you do.    


            >
              (2) The first principle of science that came from the
            >
            medieval Catholics - this notion that matter has some
            >
            sort of essence and what it IS (its Being) that does
            >
            not change. If you could just question the first principle
            >
            of science, the notion that all things remain the same,
            >
            you could easily become a Changing Earth Creationist.
             

            If what you are saying is that matter has no unchanging essence than I have already abandoned your so called “first principle of science” as has mainstream scientists. Quantum mechanics destroyed the idea that matter has an unchanging essence nearly 100 years ago. As for me personally according to the Information Universe the essence of matter is information and that information can and does changes according to the programming of the information system that is the universe. So I do not accept you so called “first principle of science”, and yet I can still do empirical science. Your notion that the first principle of science is “the notion that all things remain the same” is totally bogus because change is found all over the place in science, just not the exact form of change you are claiming.


            > You are right that there would be
            evidence if the
            > paradigm is flawed.  The fact that it is flawed has
            > brought about  ad hoc stories about invisible things
            > like vacuum expansions, invisible matter etc. 
            color=navy>

            Fist of all your refusal to use the actual terms even in parenthesis shows even though you clearly know them hits at an attempt to hid from your readers what you are actually talking about. Furthermore you are confusing the conclusions resulting from specific that you disagree with for flaw in what you see as a fundamental paradigm.

             Ad hoc means formed for a particular purpose only. The expansion of space, what you call “vacuum expansions” is not ad hoc but it is a natural result of General Relativity which predates the discovery of galactic redshift which is what expansion of space was then applied to as an explanation. On the other hand dark mater is ad hoc but it is also a reasonable hypothesis based on gravity. By the air is invisible but quite real.  

            > The visible history of how the stars came out and

            > spread out from formerly formless substances in
            > the heart of every galaxy only fits a literal, rather
            > than a scientific, understanding of creation.
            color=navy>

            No what you have done is mistranslated Greek and Hebrew and there by developed an erroneous idea of what it said and you them made superficial interrelations of galactic images based that idea while ignoring facts that contradict it such as the fact that the stars orbit the center of their galaxy in the opposite direction of the spirals.  

            > The more scientists study the cosmos, the more they

            > are forced to invent magical things, things never
            > detected in any lab.

            First of all there is nothing magical about the expansion of space, it only requires that space be some form of structure rather than a true vacuum. The stretching of space cause by the mass of the Earth and the Sun has actually be detected by experiments so yes “vacuum expansion” has actually been observed. There is also nothing magical about dark matter as it would simply be particles of matter that do not interact with light it. Dark energy on the other hand can be considered magical but it was invented only to save the Big Bang from reality.

            > I disagree with you that the problem does not come

            > from empirical science itself. As a Christian, we
            > should put the scripture first when analyzing the
            > universe around us.


            While it is as a Christian, we should put the scripture first when analyzing the universe around us; which it what I and other Young Earth Creationists do; but that does not mean thronging out empirical science because real empirical science does fit with a literal interpretation of the Bible.



            > The Apostle Peter said in 2 Peter 3:3 - know this first.
            > What is most important, what we must consider first,
            > is that in the last days mockers will come claiming
            > where is the promise of his coming.  The mockers will
            > do two things with an idea of theirs an arche ktiseous
            > (which can mean a first law) that all things remain the same.

            2 Peter 3:3-6 (KJB)
            3  Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last
            days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
            4  And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
            for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as
            they were from the beginning of the creation.
            5  For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the
             word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth
             standing out of the water and in the water:
            6  Whereby the world that then was, being
             overflowed with water, perished:

            Once again Peter in not saying that the scoffer will saying “all things remain the same” but that “all things continue as they were” in other word they will the scoffer will be saying that the way thing happen now is the way they have always happened which is the essence of uniformitarianism.

            Look we both agree the 2 Peter 3:3-6 has been fulfilled we just disagree with the meaning. Since the rest of what you said assumes the accuracy of your erroneous translation of the Greek I will not waist time on it.   

            >>> (2) Friar Thomas and others did not understand that

            >>> they were laying the foundation for western science.
            >>> The God whose name is I AM is absolutely changeless
            >>> in Catholic theology, existing outside of time. The
            >>> scholatics made the verb “to be” into a Latin noun.
            >>> The “essence” of God is changeless. Since He is the
            >>> Creator, they came to regard created matter as also
            >>> having an unchanging essence.
            >>
            >>While this may have helped empirical science get started
            >> empirical science has moved beyond this accepting
            >> change atoms and the particles that make them up.

            >
            > Empirical science become more grounded in this principle
            > every day. They measure things that only exist in their
            > minds - things like mass and time - yet we can see the
            > visible evidence that the inertial properties of matter, its
            > atomic light frequencies and the space it takes up keep
            > on changing as billions of galaxies grew into huge, local
            > growth spirals.
             

            I get it now I really do. In YOUR MIND adhering to your so called first law is actually defined as disagreeing with YOU and what you think and nothing else. That is what it all boils down to either we bow our intellect to YOU and agree with EVERY notion you are pushing or we are adhering to your so called first law.  

            >>> (3) Centuries later, when Newton operationally

            >>> defined time and matter, he built his mathematical
            >>> structure on the notion that the essence of substance
            >>> is changeless.
            >
            >>Prove it! Give me one
            reference were he even uses the
            >> term essence of substance or say that it is changeless.
            >
            >
            Read the first part
            of His book Principia where he rejects
            > building his system on first principles, and claims to do so
            > by operational defintions. Yet he built his operational
            > definitions on a simple assumption, that matter is not
            > changing itself relationally as it ages.

            Here in lies a fundamental flaw in your thinking that is that you are equating the following phrases:

            all things remain the same”

            “The essence of substance or say that it is changeless”  

             “matter is not changing itself relationally as it ages”

            These three phrases do NOT say the same thing but yet you act as though they are. In fact you use them interchangeably as referring to your so called first law. The reason why you do this is clear and that is because it is the only way you can connect the abandonment of intrinsic change to both Catholic Doctrine and 2 Peter 3:3-6. All though you have to twist 2 Peter 3:3-6 to make it say all things remain the same.” The reason for it that with out this fundamental error in logic your entire Changing Earth Creation notion falls to pieces because it the only way you can attack all of empirical science and ignore what does not fit your own personal interpretation of things. With out this fundamental error in logic it comes down to a simple battle of empirical science verses intrinsic change and when placed on an equal footing empirical science will win every time.


             

             

             

             

             

             

             

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.