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

Re: Testing a fundamental position - Genesis!

Expand Messages
  • VictorM
    ... GOLIATH OF GRAS IS A VISIBLY FALSE CONSTRUCT. Why? It is based on a false first principle, the first principle upon which science, logic, empiricism and
    Message 1 of 48 , Jul 9, 2010
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
      >
      > Victor's last message, wherein he indicates he's still having trouble thinking straight as it relates to the subject of this thread, is found at:
      >
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/21394
      >
      > Victor begins his message with a misguided question:
      >
      > > Who invented formal logic?
      >
      > Victor, the discussion is not about formal logic and its history, it is about the "Goliath of GRAS", the claims I have made for it, and its historic place in the popular public debate over young-earth creation-science.
      >
      > The first question which you are having trouble answering correctly remains:
      >
      > Is the "Goliath of GRAS" constructed such that if its premises are true that its conclusion will follow as true from the truth of its premises?
      >
      GOLIATH OF GRAS IS A VISIBLY FALSE CONSTRUCT.

      Why? It is based on a false first principle, the first principle upon which science, logic, empiricism and mathematical laws were contrived. How do we know this first principle is false.
      1. It is predicted in the Bible.
      2. We can see with our eyes that every atom in the universe keep ons changing its properties as it ages. We do not see this with operationally defined measuring and mathematics - but with optics. We directly compare the visible properties of matter are many ranges (ages) and nowhere do we SEE any evidence for perpetual motion atoms - the idea upon which your logical structure is based.


      > Victor, if you are unable to agree with me on such fundamentals of sound, biblical reasoning and common sense, you would do well to retire from your efforts to engage the subject of this thread.
      >

      As I pointed out - you are in no way using sound biblical reasoning. No author of the Bible could have even imagined scientific reasoning. They understood the text in the context of their culture - not Western science which did not begin its build up until a few centuries ago.


      > Victor, you add:
      >
      > > Can we test Aristotle's dictum?
      >
      > The test as it relates to this thread is not "Aristotle's dictum". It is the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old" and Victor's ability to demonstrate an acceptance of certain fundamentals that will allow us to "reason together" in a biblical, common-sense way.
      >

      BOTH YEC and OEC attempt to interpret the age of the universe with science. All ancient people understood the concept of a very ancient universe in which few years had passed because they understood that everything is deteriorating. We can see with our eyes that the ancient notion of deteriorating cycles is valid because we observe how orbits keep on accelerating along with the accelerating atomic clocks as billions of galaxies grew and spread out.

      The modern empirical system is based on the assumption that atomic clocks do not change speed. Distance, speeds, laws, constants the whole system is based on the notion of linear clock time. Yet no linear clocks are visible in the vast expanse of the universe.

      > Victor is reluctant to "come and let us reason together" in such a biblical and common sense way, but for starters the question for him remains:
      >
      > Is the "Goliath of GRAS" constructed such that if its premises are true that its conclusion will follow as true from the truth of its premises?
      >
      > Oddly enough, Victor asks?
      >
      > > Why does the Bible make so
      > > many illogical statements
      > > on the subject is earth
      > > history?
      >
      > The Bible is not illogical because Victor fails to comprehend it. To propose the Bible is illogical puts Victor in a place I am not prepared to go. He's welcome to it, and it is, perhaps fitting and fits in with his demonstrated failure to "reason together" with me regarding the fundamentals of sound biblical reasoning and common sense as they find their application to the "Goliath of GRAS".
      >

      Biblical "logic" fits the way of thinking of the author - e.g. Moses. Moses could not imagine linear time or the notion that something could not be eons old because the sun had only cycled a few thousand times. ALL ANCIENT people believed that orbits deteriorate - that the planets used to pass close to earth - to which the Bible cvlearly agrees - using grammatical words.



      > Victor proposes to me:
      >
      > > Your logical constructs are
      > > NOT BIBLICAL because...
      >
      > If so, it might be nice for Victor to actually be able to demonstrate such. Alas, he can't get past the first question with a correct answer:
      >
      > Is the "Goliath of GRAS" constructed such that if its premises are true that its conclusion will follow as true from the truth of its premises?
      >
      > How about it, Victor...anybody?
      >
      > Here's the argument which I proposed is truly based on the principles of sound reasoning as found in the Bible and is common to man and consistent with common sense:
      >

      Common sense is sound judgment by the majority. Common sense in the biblical age (on the subject of Earth history) is how the majority thought about earth-history in that age. Trying to adapt the Bible to Western logic and modern ideas about linear time would not fit Moses' idea of common sense.

      I recommend that you stop trying to twist the Bible to fit either OEC or YEC ideas. Such ideas would not have fit the common way people thought in the biblical age. Yet what they wrote about the nature of the universe - specifically orbits and durations - is visibly true. We can see that no atomic clocks are linear - when we compare the atomic clocks in billions of galaxies at many ranges. We can follow visually how orbits naturally spiral out, accelerate continually, just as one would expect from the literal, grammatical statements in the Bible.

      What is visible only fits the Bible - not Western common sense that was founded on an idea from a pagan Greek.

      Victor

      >
      > Major premise:
      >
      > > If (A) God's word (the text) says
      > > everything began over a period
      > > of six days, and
      >
      > > if (B) God's word is interpreted by
      > > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > > days occurring a few thousand
      > > years ago, and
      >
      > > if (C) there is empirical
      > > evidence that some thing is
      > > actually much older than a
      > > few thousand years,
      >
      > > then (D) the interpretation of
      > > the text by some is wrong.
      >
      > Minor premise:
      >
      > > (A) God's word (the text) says
      > > everything began over a period
      > > of six days, and
      >
      > > (B) God's word is interpreted by
      > > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > > days occurring a few thousand
      > > years ago, and
      >
      > > (C) there is empirical
      > > evidence that some thing is
      > > actually much older than a few
      > > thousand years.
      >
      > Conclusion:
      >
      > > (D) The interpretation of the
      > > text by some is wrong.
      >
      > The reasonable, first order of business, as to the testing of my "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it has to do with whether it is constructed in such a way that it actually, reasonably sets up a proper test of the fundamental claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".
      >
      > Who will answer:
      >
      > Is the "Goliath of GRAS" constructed such that if its premises are true that its conclusion will follow as true from the truth of its premises?
      >
      > Victor can't, or won't!
      >
      > I think I know why?
      >
      > Anyone else care to engage the discussion, beginning with the fundamental question:
      >
      > Is the "Goliath of GRAS" constructed such that if its premises are true that its conclusion will follow as true from the truth of its premises?
      >
      > "Come and let us reason together"...or not!
      >
      > Sincerely,
      > Robert Baty
      > Friday, July 9, 2010 9:09 AM MT
      >
    • VictorM
      ... Constants are ratios among things that are changing. Pi is a ratio. because everything in a sphere changes relationally, size, volume, diameter, area etc.
      Message 48 of 48 , Jul 13, 2010
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Joe Hyde <josephhyde@...> wrote:
        >
        > Victor
        >
        > With enough repetition of clear explanation I am beginning to get the 'Logic' of it...it's a whole new concept, instead of everything being in 'stasis'. Self-similarity, Fractals, Plants grow and develop like people... This may sound funny or not applicable but I think it is and I wonder about the application "...and of the increase of his Government and of Peace there shall be no end..." Isaiah 9:7 and 1 Cor 2:9 "...It has not entered into the heart of man...that love him".
        >
        > I also suppose that if all constants are constant that they would be constant...and i suppose that the ones that would seem to be constant are those that are made up of a ratio of two others...I suppose the 'gravitational constant' is the one with the most change or that has varied the most over time...and may vary here on earth due to celestial positions of the planets and stars...I think i came across that somewhere...maybe on the www.21stcenturysciencetech.com website and maybe over at www.blazelabs.com too?
        >
        > I'll leave everybody alone now...
        >
        > Joe
        >
        Constants are ratios among things that are changing. Pi is a ratio. because everything in a sphere changes relationally, size, volume, diameter, area etc. Pi is a ratio because everything about circles changes together. An equilibrium constant is not a description of changelessness, but of orderly change. Imagine a saturated brine solution. Trillions of reactions in one direction are balanced by an equal number in the other direction. When water dilutes the solution, fewer reactions go in one direction - salt dissolves - but the constant stays the same. When water evaporates, salt precipitates - same constant. How do we know that things are changing? Not by the constant but by the visible evidence for change. The circles grow bigger and the salt precipitates.

        How do we know atoms change relationally? Certainly not by the mathematical constants that are merely ratios between operationally defined symbols. We know they change because the evidence is visible. We directly compare the past to the present - and atoms are visibly changing their properties throughout cosmic history.

        Considering the validity of the western first principle is the first thing one needs to examine when attempting to understand earth-history.

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