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

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence - was biblical creation of stars

Expand Messages
  • grant hallman
    ... No, you re only saying what cockamamie interpretations u have put on what the Bible says, and u are making reality claims for them. Thus you are purveying
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      At 07:20 PM 31-12-04 -0000, Victor wrote:
      >

      ...

      >> >Victor:
      >> >I am simply a person of faith that is trying use the Bible, not
      >> >science plus the Bible, to understand earth-history.
      >>
      >> Yeah - but then u say that matter is "decaying", and that's not just
      >> "Earth-history", that is an assertion about the physical world. You have
      >> crossed into the realm of science, and your assertion is not
      >confirmed by
      >> evidence. In fact your assertion is in direct conflict with evidence.
      >Victor:
      >1. I am only saying what the BIBLE SAYS.

      No, you're only saying what cockamamie interpretations u have put on what
      the Bible says, and u are making reality claims for them. Thus you are
      purveying untruths.

      > These are not my ideas.

      The words are the Bible's. The ideas are yours.

      >The Greek text of Romans 8:20 uses the same Greek word as Plato for
      >the corruption of matter [phthora]

      I don't care what the Greek word is or isn't. If u are claiming that matter
      is _actually_decaying_, then there are certain burdens associated with that
      claim, including:

      a) a clear statement about what exactly that means: the nature of the decay
      process, including the pre-and post-decay components.

      b) some objective evidence that such a process is actually happening.

      U have done neither, and repeatedly refused to do either. Thus you are
      purveying untruths.


      >2. The idea that knowledge can be divided into two camps - science
      >and the Bible - comes from the Catholic theologian / philosopher
      >Thomas Aquinas. He proposed that the ideas of the pagan philosopher
      >Aristotle could be used for logic and science while the Bible would be
      >valid for spiritual issues. The Bible recognizes no such division.

      Neither do i. If u make a reality claim, back it up. "Victor thinks the
      Bible says", is not backup.

      ...

      >3. Evidence is interpreted with a framework of a-priori assumptions.
      > Evidence is forced to fit into the pre-existent way of thinking. I
      >am not proposing some new theory. I am saying we should go back to
      >thinking like the prophets in the Bible before Aristotle invented the
      >assumption that is at the foundation for logic and scientific
      >reasoning. It was the Greek philosophers who were the
      >revolutionaries. Everyone before them believed that everything,
      >including matter and time were decaying. I am saying we should go
      >back to using the principles from the Bible without tailoring it to
      >fit the principles of the pagan Greeks.

      We should follow the truth, wherever it leads. Is matter decaying? No. If u
      want a rational listener to change that to a yes, do (a) and (b) above.

      >> > It is not
      >> >difficult to use the language and culture of the biblical authors to
      >> >interpret what they said about earth-history. The text of the Bible
      >> >has not changed. It is our Western culture, that did not exist when
      >> >the Bible was written, that has influenced us to interpret the Bible
      >> >scientifically. I do not reject evidence - just evidence that is
      >> >interpreted with the dogma of science, the notion that matter is
      >> >unchanging.
      >>
      >> You do indeed reject evidence, all kinds of evidence, and u make
      >bizzaire
      >> assertions without any evidence of your own to support them. You are
      >> purveying untruths.
      >>
      >Victor:
      >I accept evidence without regard to its source. I only reject the
      >interpretation of that evidence that depends on Aristotle's first
      >principle. I regularly study all sorts of evidence from the Hubble,
      >VLBI, geology, etc. I have probably scanned close to a hundred
      >thousand raw images from the Mars Rovers. I always ask myself, how is
      >this evidence affected by the dogma, the first principle, of science.
      > I have no reason to reject evidence.

      The reason u reject evidence is because it does not fit your views.

      > It is the scientists who
      >invent fictitious invisible things that exist only in their symbolic
      >formulas. Using Biblical principles I can interpret the universe
      >without the need for inventing invisible things or requiring that
      >someone be trained in mathematics to interpret evidence. The Biblical
      >system is so simple even children can see it.
      >
      >For example, I have absolutely no problem with the evidence that Mars
      >had a great warm sea. But I do not try to imagine that it was in the
      >same orbit or that it had to be the same size. If, as the Bible in
      >Hebrew so clearly states, that the earth continually increases in
      >size, then Mars should also have done so. Huge rift valleys cut
      >across Mars miles deep like great rends in the surface. Mars, that
      >has no global magnetic field but has magnetic strips locked into the
      >rocks. How do you get tectonics with only a single sea? I have no
      >problem with Mars because I do not try to force fit the evidence to
      >fit science's dogma.
      >
      >I can explain complex things with simple principles. For example, no
      >one has been able to explain quantum non-locality or duality. The
      >simple answer is so obvious once we stop trying to interpret all the
      >evidence with Aristotle's assumption.

      Before u explain it, u must understand the phenomenon. This requires a
      solid background in science. If u just read an article in Discover
      magazine, you'll reach wrong conclusions.

      And /when/ u explain it, u must do so in a way which is quantitative and
      fits all known facts and observations, because your competition - science -
      does exactly that.

      >However, the Biblical
      >principles do not allow me to claim superior knowledge.

      Let's be clear. U claim science is wrong at its first principles. That's a
      claim to "superior knowledge", or would be, if it were true.

      >I can only
      >glorify the God who can reveal things to children that the wise of
      >this world cannot see. He can triumph over those who say He did not
      >create the world and reward those simple people who are simply believe
      >His Word.
      >
      >Have you ever noticed that people in Bible times seemed to have no
      >problem with an ancient universe and short genealogies? Even the
      >pagans had traditions that told of the vast long ages but the few
      >generations. As Josephus wrote, all the historians were in agreement
      >that the records from the ancients showed that their ancestors lived
      >for a thousand years. They used words for long eons regularly and
      >also kept meticulous genealogies.

      I also noticed that most of the pagans did not have decimal numbering
      systems that facilitated thinking about numbers much above 20, and that
      records were kept for political or literary rather than historical reasons.
      In fact objective history approaching today's, is a relatively recent
      invention.

      >In those days every village idiot
      >understood that the earth and life itself were degenerating in the
      >quality of life and its longevity. They had no conflict because they
      >were not trying to make earth-history fit Aristotle's revolutionary
      >assumption.

      Yeah, and life was degenerating and the youth were disrespectful and
      everything was going to hell in a handbasket, as they used to say in
      ancient Rome. Old farts have been saying that in every culture since the
      dawn of time. The systematic "decay" u mention simply is not there in the
      record as objective fact.

      >> >I repeat myself about first principles because it is foreign to this
      >> >age. Our minds are so controlled by Greek assumptions that it
      >> >requires multiple exposures to free onself and start thinking about
      >> >physical things with biblical principles.
      >>
      >> And i repeat myself, because u are deaf to reason. If you are
      >correct about
      >> first principles being wrong, then offer the evidence to back up your
      >> assertions. If there is no evidence, stop making them. You are purveying
      >> untruths.
      >
      >Victor:
      >I am certainly not deaf to reason. I used to reason with your
      >scientific system and reject it because the Bible predicted its
      >falsity and the evidence, once we get rid of this assumption, fits the
      >Bible like a glove. You seem to reject all evidence that is not
      >force-fit into the assumption that matter is unchanging. Remember this
      >is an assumption that historically was extremely difficult to invent.
      > I can look at evidence from both perspectives but I am now free from
      >Aristotle's dogma.

      Victor: cut the verbage and offer the evidence. Either matter is decaying
      or it isn't. Fish or cut bait.

      ...

      >> >You argue that I need proofs and specificity. I argue that scientific
      >> >proofs and causal laws depend on this very assumption. The
      >> >definitions of mass, time and energy depend on this assumption for
      >> >their very existence. I cannot use the structure to argue with the
      >> >foundation that is under the structure. If the foundation is false,
      >> >then the structure that is built upon it is also false.
      >>
      >> If it's false, then show that it's false. It certainly _looks_ true. U
      >> offer not a shred of objective evidence that science is wrong and u are
      >> right. Your position boils down to this:
      >
      >Victor:
      >Your definition of objective seems to be that it must fit the dogma -
      >the very system that is built upon this assumption.

      If matter is decaying, then it is changing in some way. What exactly is
      that way? That's not dogma, that's just rational skepticism.

      >> "All these learned people who have done such an excellent
      >quantitative job
      >> describing the physical universe are wrong, and i am right, but i can't
      >> tell u /how/ they're wrong, i can't show u /evidence/ that they're
      >wrong, u
      >> just have to believe me and my idiosyncratic interpretation of the
      >Bible,
      >> instead of them and their mountains of evidence and successful
      >quantitative
      >> predictions."
      >>
      >> Phooey!
      >Victor:
      >I have tried to explain why the successful quantitative predictions
      >only work in the near-term and close by space.

      Try harder. You haven't made a dent so far.

      >That is what one would
      >expect if this very principle were false.

      Why? You've never answered this question either.

      >You see, we are both
      >dogmatists. Your dogma is Aristotle's first principle.

      My "dogma" is that i want to see the evidence, before i abandon a principle
      that already works extremely well. That's not dogma, that's rational
      skepticism.

      >Mine is the Bible.

      Yours is your _interpretation_ of the Bible.

      >The Bible predicted yours and also predicts that God will
      >triumph over the wisdom of THIS AGE - defeating them with their own
      >skills.
      >
      >>
      >> >Imagine for a moment that we interpret Romans 8:19 - 22 literally and
      >> >accept that everything in creation is decaying in an orderly
      >> >together-way (see the Greek text).
      >>
      >> Nope - can't do that. First, i don't think that passage is talking about
      >> matter decaying. Second, matter _CAN_NOT_ decay, orderly or otherwise,
      >> without leaving detectable evidence. Can. Not. I have told u this many
      >> times in the past, u continue to ignore this simple fact of physics,
      >> because it is directly contrary to your assertions. You are purveying
      >> untruths.
      >>
      >
      >Victor:
      >Look up the word phthora.

      Look up Maxwell's equations, and Bohr's, and Schroedinger's, and Newton's.
      See the intricate web of relationships between space, time, matter and
      energy. Notice that they are linked in ways both linear and non-linear.
      Reach this simple, obvious conclusion: matter _CAN_NOT_ decay, orderly or
      otherwise, without leaving detectable evidence. Reply to this point.

      ...

      >> > If everything in creation is
      >> >decaying, then what He completed on the first day, matter, must also
      >> >be affected. You say how could God make matter change when we use the
      >> >most precise instruments and we do not detect such changes? All He
      >> >had to do is decree that matter decay as a relationship because such
      >> >changes affect everything. Their effects may be seen - but they
      >> >cannot be analyzed with scientific instruments or mathematics that
      >> >depend on the assumption that matter is unchanging.
      >>
      >> Blatant falsehood. Already replied to, multiple times, and ignored by u
      >> because u avoid the truth of it. Matter cannot decay without leaving
      >traces.
      >>
      >Victor:
      >I suggest you read "The Philosophy of Space and Time" by Hans
      >Reichenback (Dover books translated from German) He goes into
      >considerable lengths to explain why what he calls "universal change"
      >cannot be detected with science. By definition he says we must
      >exclude such possibilities because if they exist we could not detect
      >them.

      He's full of it. He should learn some science. If u want to use him as
      support, quote the relevant passage(s).

      >That is what Aristotle's assumption does. It excludes
      >relationship changes by definition. But the simplest way to interpret
      >the evidence, without even using math, shows that something is wrong
      >with this dogma.
      >
      >> >Imagine that everything is indeed in flux: that there is absolutely
      >> >nothing in the physical universe that is unaffected. In such a
      >> >universe the earth and everything on it could continuously stretch out
      >> >like Isaiah states. If atoms decay as a relationship, orbits, the
      >> >rotation of the earth, the size of the earth and planets and the even
      >> >the durations would all be affected.
      >>
      >> Yes, and it would be detectable in many different ways. You appear
      >to have
      >> no idea of the subtle web of laws linking matter and energy. In fact, u
      >> appear to have no interest in learning or hearing about such laws,
      >because
      >> you are purveying untruths, and those laws would be most inconvenient.
      >>
      >Victor:
      >The web of links is all based on the very same first principle.

      Doesn't matter. You cannot just wave "based on the first principle" as a
      magic wand to dismiss all contrary evidence. The web of links has been
      tested and verified over millions of man hours. It works, whatever
      principle it's based on.

      ...

      >> >Victor:
      >> >I have listed simple visible evidences before but you insist that I
      >> >present evidences in a scientific mathematical format.
      >>
      >> Yes, because that's how science works, and you're telling us science
      >is wrong.
      >>
      >> You have listed "simple visible evidence" which does absolutely
      >nothing to
      >> support your claims. You claimed seafloor spreading as "evidence", yet
      >> could not answer my simple, non-mathematical questions about it. You are
      >> purveying untruths.
      >Victor:
      >First principles, as Aristotle said, are the hardest thing to think
      >about. You keep insisting that I use scientific definitions of mass,
      >time and distance etc to explain why the earth increases in size.

      Not "explain why", Victor, but to "show that" the earth increases in size.

      >Look at Mercury. It has great cracks on its surface that run for
      >hundreds of miles. Look at Venus - the entire surface has been
      >covered with vulcanism. How do you RESURFACE an entire planet with
      >lava - unless something down in the center is expanding.

      Easy. Internal heat drives magma to the surface. The planet slumps into the
      void, the net size doesn't change. Io is extremely volcanic, it appears to
      eject its entire mass in a geologically short time, a few 100 years IIRC.
      It's just a giant recycling magma fountain.

      > Mars has
      >expanded leaving magnetic stripes without continents to separate.
      >Isn't that simple evidence that Mars was much smaller in the past?

      No.

      >The Bible states that the spreading of the earth is in the seas - and
      >the continents are separated by a great global crack that conforms to
      >the shape of the adjacent continents. The only way these continents
      >fit back together is on a smaller globe. You don't even need
      >mathematics or logic to figure that one out.

      Sigh - this again? BTDT. This is where i ask u why, if the earth and
      everything on it is expanding, the continents didn't expand right along
      with the insides, no net change. This is also where i point out that u have
      contradicted your own requirement that the change is not locally
      detectable. Then this is where u change the subject, or don't answer.

      > What the Bible says that
      >the earth continues to expand is confirmed with simple evidence. You
      >keep insisting that something about atoms must be unchanging but you
      >used the assumption that it is unchanging to substantiate the system.
      > I call that circular reasoning.
      >
      >>
      >> > I cannot do
      >> >that, because if science's first principle is false, experiments and
      >> >mathematics could not decode the universe.
      >>
      >> Yeah, except they /do/ decode the universe, to 6 decimal places or more.
      >> You have never replied to this major problem with your assertions - that
      >> science already does such a good job, and u offer no improvement.
      >
      >Victor:
      >If it is doing a good job, explain why 99% of the universe must be
      >unscientific - undetectable - except with mathematical formulas that
      >were built with that assumption.

      Hells bells, Victor, 100% of the universe is undetectable, if u want to
      believe matter is made of quarks and strings. Mathematical formulae are
      required to probe scales we cannot deetct directly. Dark matter offers u no
      shelter from the fact that physics already works, without matter shrinking,
      decaying, or even smelling funny at the back of the fridge. U really need
      to explain why it' broke, before u go fixing it.

      ...

      >> Almost made a testable prediction there. Unfortunately at those
      >distances,
      >> individual star formation will be well below the resolution threshold.
      >
      >Victor:
      >But the linkages, the gas trails, the elongations and bow shocks the
      >related redshifts on the opposite stream- should be clearly seen.
      >Isn't it amazing that the ancient people had traditions that mention
      >the very things we see in the distance. Their ancestors must have
      >seen our own galaxy shooting out tiny globular clusters that expanded.
      > That could only have happened if science's first principle is false
      >and the universe is both very old and only a few generations have
      >lived during those long ages.

      I'm sorry, this has crossed over into "totally batty".

      >> > The infrared pictures, like those from the Hubble
      >> >deeps, will detect strings of ejected naked galaxies with radically
      >> >different redshifts.
      >>
      >> Radically different from what?
      >>
      >
      >Victor:
      >from each other. As matter ages it changes redshift.

      Really? Then older stuff, which is farther away, should show less redshift,
      and as we watch, it should be showing more. Oops, don't see that.

      ...

      >> Just show those poor scientists a better way, Victor. It should be
      >easy...
      >
      >Victor:
      >All they have to do is believe the Bible - He is a loving God. He

      Ok, suppose they decided to do that (assuming they don't already). About
      which facts or predictions would they then slap themselves on the forehead
      and say, How could we have missed this?

      ...

      >> It requires no such thing. Assuming u are speaking of dark matter
      >and dark
      >> energy, those speculations are totally unnecessary for doing science
      >on the
      >> scale of the solar system, and getting the right answers.
      >>
      >> >If God only did what the Bible says He did, then He would defeat
      >> >science, the wisdom of this age, with their own skills. (I
      >> >Corinthians 3:18 - 20) He is not a deceiver - He predicts us and our
      >> >way of thinking and even warns us about the elementary ideas of
      >> >philosophy. He intends to get great glory when simple faith in Jesus
      >> >triumphs over the greatest system of knowledge: science itself.
      >>
      >> You have this totally unsupported idea that God opposes our
      >understanding
      >> of God's own creation. You are purveying untruths.
      >>
      >> cheers - grant
      >Victor:
      >He does not prevent people from understanding. He tells us simply and
      >plainly the principles by which His universe operates. It is our
      >insistence that it fit Aristotle's first principle that prevents us
      >from interpreting the Bible in the simplest way. The heavens declare
      >His glory. He just made it so that those who refuse to come to him in
      >faith will use their own wisdom to defeat themselves. That is perfect
      >justice not deception.
      >
      >I am not purveying untruths.

      You are, because u have not learned the science u are so critical of. U
      therefore make gross errors of facts and logic, and do not turn aside even
      when someone with that learning points out those errors. Your untruths prey
      on those ignorant of science, to their detriment and yours.

      >I love the Truth and prepared to become
      >a fool in the eyes of the world in search of it. That is a command of
      >God that I chose the foolishness of His word rather than the wisdom of
      >the world. I search for wisdom like gold - as the Bible recommends.
      >I find that the Bible is the only consistent Truth available to us.

      Try science. It's another, and it does pretty well in its own areas of
      expertise.

      cheers - grant
    • Victor
      ... sorry for late responce - I have cut out most of the past post to reduce the length. ... Victor: The rules of hermeneutics, that are not in dispute for
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, grant hallman <unilogic@p...>
        sorry for late responce - I have cut out most of the past post to
        reduce the length.
        Grant:
        > The words are the Bible's. The ideas are yours.
        >
        Victor:
        The rules of hermeneutics, that are not in dispute for secular or
        biblical interpretations, say we should interpret the words in their
        original language, context and culture, not ours. I confess, that for
        much of my life I struggled trying to interpret the Bible with the
        Western culture. I admit I was wrong. THERE IS NO WAY I COULD
        JUSTIFY INTERPRETING THE BIBLE SCIENTIFICALLY. Our scientific culture
        did not exist when the Bible was written and the Bible makes
        statements about physical things that are NOT SCIENTIFIC. I used to
        tailor the Bible to fit science. I have repented, however, that
        means: turned around. I have determined to stop approaching the Bible
        with a double mind: using hermeneutical principles for spiritual
        truths and the elementary principles of the pagan Greeks to interpret
        what it says about physical things.

        >>The Greek text of Romans 8:20 uses the same Greek word as Plato for
        >>the corruption of matter [phthora]

        >I don't care what the Greek word is or isn't. If u are claiming that
        >matter is _actually_decaying_, then there are certain burdens
        >associated with that claim, including:

        >a) a clear statement about what exactly that means: the nature of the
        >decay process, including the pre-and post-decay components.

        >b) some objective evidence that such a process is actually happening.

        >U have done neither, and repeatedly refused to do either. Thus you
        >are purveying untruths.

        Victor:
        Why should I use proofs that depend on your first principle? Western
        science is recent. All civilizations, before being influenced by the
        Greek philosophers, accepted that everything is in flux. Can you
        demonstrate the nature of mass without using Aristotle's Assumption to
        circle back and beg the question you started with? As Einstein
        pointed out, "The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this,
        that it involves an argument in a circle: a mass moves without
        acceleration if it is sufficiently far from other bodies; we know that
        it is sufficiently far from other bodies only by the fact that it
        moves without acceleration."

        How can you show without using the assumption circularly, that mass
        (either gravitational or inertial) is an independent property of
        matter? After all, science has had to modify its definition of mass
        so that the conservation of mass became the conservation of a nebulous
        invisible thing: mass-energy. It has had to modify its interpretation
        of time and geometry to make an invisible nebulous thing: space-time.
        When an object of mass m becomes an object of mass M and impacts
        another object with increased inertia, we can just conjure up the
        spirits of an invisible space-time and mass-energy to explain why the
        mass changed. Isn't that what one would expect if we tried to force a
        relationship, in which all aspects are related to light, to fit
        Aristotle's Conjecture? What experiment ever found a unit of
        mass-energy? What experiment ever demonstrated the existence of
        space-time? These are mathematical flying buttresses intended to keep
        the structure from collapsing because the foundations are sand.

        I am not purveying untruths. I am using a biblical system, apart from
        the principles of the Greeks, to show the simple consistency of the
        Bible. I have demonstrated simple evidences, but since these
        evidences do not fit the dogma of science, you reject them out of hand.

        1. What is matter? The Bible says it had no shape, although twice it
        says it had a surface, before God created light. Clearly matter is a
        relationship with light and that relationship gave dimension and shape
        to matter.

        A. Is that supported by evidence? Those who study the jiggling
        frequencies of light tell us that "electrons" are constantly
        interacting with internal light (called virtual photons). According
        to Feynman's interpretation, electrons can't even move without
        interacting with this internal light. Charge seems to be associated
        with light. A photon exchange between "electrons" seems to produce
        repulsion; between opposite "charges" produces attraction; with itself
        produces charge and motion. When we split atoms, as in a bomb, a
        blinding light comes out that can burn you to a crisp. We might not
        be able to decode an atom - but the simplest way to see what is going
        on is to examine the light that comes from atoms. It is evident that
        light is intimately involved with matter even from the formulas that
        are constructed upon Aristotle's Conjecture. God Himself says that
        the paths of light in its house are mysterious. Job 38:19 - 20.

        B. Is an atom a relationship, a house of light? IT MUST BE because
        matter is wavelike or particle-like and we cannot find a way to decode
        this duality. If we imagine it is just a particle and the wave is a
        probability wave, then why doesn't it act like ordinary particles? If
        we imagine that it is a wave of some kind, then why does it interfere
        with itself - even when a single "unit of stuff" is involved? The
        simplest answer for quantum duality is that atoms and subatomic
        entities are intimately related to internal light. In our bodies,
        billions of cells, electrical impulses, chemical messengers, oxygen
        carriers, food distribution, defense mechanisms, waste disposal
        systems and an incredibly complex mind all work together so that life,
        mind and motion are a complex relationship. Every part of a
        relationship affects every other part - together. Although you can
        remove a part of the body, you will never function as you did before
        because we are a relationship in which all parts work together.
        According to experiments done with Bell's Inequality, NO LOCAL THEORY
        OF MATTER can fit the evidence. That is what one would expect if an
        atom is a RELATIONSHIP - not made of independent entities such as mass
        and time. If atoms were a relationship, in which no part has
        independence, the strangeness is expected. It is the insistence that
        atoms must fit science's dogma that causes philosophers to invent
        parallel universes and other invisible things.

        C. How can I certify that matter really does decay like the Bible
        states? The simplest kinds of evidences, not based on philosophical
        suppositions, shows that matter changes over the ages.
        1. We cannot fit the continents back together except on a smaller
        globe. Everyone admits that the ocean floors are much "younger
        geologically" than the continents and the Bible even says that after
        the flood, the seas sank for the flood to drain into and the mountains
        rose simultaneously (we call the balance between the height of the
        continents and the depths of the ocean the isostatic equilibrium - it
        is apparent that both the seas and the continents are afloat on a
        plastic layer so that they balance).

        The simplest way to interpret the Bible and the evidence is that the
        continents don't move significantly with respect to earth's center,
        but the earth expands along a great global crack. It is the insistence
        that we must have a causal mechanism, a clear scientific explanation,
        that prevents people from believing the Bible that says the earth
        expands in unbroken continuity. Psalm 136:6 says He spreads out the
        earth upon the waters. It uses the word raqa' stamped out, spread out
        - but the tense is qual active participle meaning unbroken continuity
        again. Look at a map of all the earthquakes and the majority of them
        occur along the GREAT GLOBAL CRACK that runs through all the oceans.

        Some claim subduction zones are involved in continental drift. Only
        the Pacific seems to POTENTIALLY have subduction zones - but then we
        would need the Pacific to swallow thousands of kilometers of sea floor
        while leaving the loose sediments at the supposed subduction "trench"
        undisturbed. What about the Arctic ocean without evidence of
        subduction? What about Antarctica that is apparently MOVING AWAY from
        all other land masses? How about the East coast of the USA that seems
        to have originally been part of the Northern hump of Africa while
        South America was attached to the southern part of the hump. How do
        you do that without increasing the diameter of the earth? It would
        seem that a global 60,000 km rift system must have a global cause, not
        a local one. The evidence that the earth continually expands is
        simple. We insist that what is really happening must be measurable
        and amenable to mathematics so we reject the simple evidence.

        2. When we look at the distant sky we see things that do not have the
        shape or motions of local matter. Yet we recognize the same atoms -
        just that the light is shifted. Three things - shifted light, motions
        unlike local matter, and shape - tiny concentrated naked galaxies that
        have not spread out like local galaxies. These simple evidences argue
        that primordial atoms where shifted AS A RELATIONSHIP.

        You have two options. A. You can take the evidence in simplicity -
        the shape and motions of primordial atoms were not like our present
        local atoms yet they were the same kind of atoms. That means in
        biblical terms - they decay in an orderly together way. Such
        knowledge does not even require philosophical definitions of time or
        matter. You can just accept what your eyes see and that agrees with
        what the Bible says. 2. You can adjust the evidence to support
        mathematical, symbolic reality and consequently invent a universe made
        of 99% invisible (read fictitious) things. There is no other option
        for science since by force of dogma it excludes that matter can
        change. All fundamental changes must be explained away as caused by
        invisible things.

        3. As I have pointed out repeatedly, what the ancients wrote about
        the earth and heavens - not their causal explanations - but their
        statements about what they saw - could only be valid if everything
        does change as a relationship. What Ptolemy actually measured in
        degrees, minutes and seconds, only makes sense if matter decays as a
        relationship. He MEASURED a smaller solar system, larger angular
        sizes for the moon and planets and a galaxy whose star positions have
        errors that vary with galactic latitude (when compared to our
        measurements). You can take Dr Robert R. Newton's position (physics
        John Hopkins - died 1991). He claimed that Ptolemy was a fraud and
        invented all his measurements ("The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy"). But
        then you are faced with the impossibility of inventing all these
        "false" observations that miraculously cancel their errors so that his
        orbits worked. (See Owen Gingrich - Harvard – astronomy and history
        of science "The Eye of Heaven - Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler").
        (Surely he did not have a computer to analyze millions of possible
        fictitious observations so he could select the ones whose errors
        cancelled so that his orbits worked). The simplest explanation:
        matter decays as a relationship - and orbits and planets all change.

        4. You say define what changes. OK - EVERYTHING. NOTHING STAYS THE
        SAME. Absolutely nothing is permanent or unchanging. That is not
        only what Paul said, but is what is obvious in the distant skies. We
        don't believe our eyes, however, because a first principle forces us
        to interpret the evidence with the assumption that something somewhere
        (light, mass, charge, quantum levels, something) is unchanging.

        Peter is right. The first principle really is the first thing to know
        - the most important in priority and importance. The historical
        importance of this first principle cannot be overemphasized. Why is
        science taught as a complete system, without ever examining its
        elementary assumptions? Perhaps it is because it is not just an
        ordinary assumption. It is THE ELEMENTARY ASSUMPTION upon which hangs
        the whole structure of scientific reasoning. There is no question that
        the Bible clearly contradicts it - unless you want to explain away
        Isaiah's statement that earth and everything on it expands in unbroken
        continuity.
        >Grant:
        > Let's be clear. U claim science is wrong at its first principles.
        >That's a claim to "superior knowledge", or would be, if it were true.
        >
        Victor:
        On the contrary - since I got it from the Bible - it is a claim that
        only God can be wise. If the modern first principle is false, neither
        creationist nor secular scientists could decode beginnings with
        mathematics, logic, experiments or laws. This is consistent with the
        Biblical claim that causal knowledge, under the sun, that is in the
        physical realm, is impossible.

        >Grant:
        > I also noticed that most of the pagans did not have decimal
        >numbering systems that facilitated thinking about numbers much above
        >20, and that records were kept for political or literary rather than
        >historical reasons. In fact objective history approaching today's,
        >is a relatively recent invention.
        >
        Victor:
        I agree that the first histories were about planet battles and their
        effects on earth. Since the Bible also mentions a close encounter and
        the destruction of a powerful sky monster that endangered the earth,
        such events must be historical. After all - everyone in antiquity
        agreed that they happened even Job and Isaiah. If those things really
        happened, you would expect their histories to record great changes and
        that such histories would not seem objective to us.

        How did the Babylonians come up with a sexagesimal system that
        accurately counted into hundreds of thousands and counted in factions
        of 1/3600 of a unit? Their system was based on powers of 60, each
        numeral having a place-value just like the decimal system. In
        sexagesimal: 1,11;1,11 would be 3600 + 60 + 60 + 1/60 + 1/3600 +
        1/3600 or 3720.01722223 in decimal. We still use their sexagesimal
        system for hours minutes and seconds and degrees, minutes and seconds.
        Amazingly they used the same system for scaling geometric space AND
        time. I can still say the earth spins at 15 degrees per hour, 15
        minutes per minute and 15 seconds per second. That's pretty amazing
        isn't it? They also used a moving reference system (the background
        stars in the ecliptic). Their astronomical system was designed to
        compensate for changes, such as precession, since its reference was
        not fixed, but moved with the stars. This is significant since the
        starry heavens change - they were pounded out - spread out. Ovid said
        the stars shot out and expanded to fill the vacant sky which is just
        what we see in the Hubble Deeps.

        >Grant:
        >If matter is decaying, then it is changing in some way. What exactly
        >is that way? That's not dogma, that's just rational skepticism.

        Victor:
        There is no reference system against which you can compare things that
        change as a relationship. You can only look at the light from long
        ago or observe the evidence for past changes locally. Imagine that a
        boy cuts a notch in a tree to mark his height each birthday. He then
        uses the palm of his hand to count how many palms high he is (people
        still use this for the height of a horse). Since he measures the same
        height in palms and each year's notch falls on the previous year's
        notch, he says everything stays the same. If everything changes
        together, the tree could grow at the same rate as the boy and his
        palm. However, simple visible evidence shows that the boy and the
        tree are changing. That is what a universe would be like if
        everything changes as a relationship. The constants of physics would
        be just like the boy who measures what changes and concludes that it
        does not change. Yet if matter changes as a relationship - the
        evidence would be simple and visible - but not scientific.

        >Grant:
        >My "dogma" is that i want to see the evidence, before i abandon a
        >principle that already works extremely well. That's not dogma, that's
        >rational skepticism.

        Victor:
        The modern definition of rational depends on this very idea that
        something must not be changing. It is fundamental to modern logic and
        seasoning. People in biblical times had a different kind of
        rationality that took visible change as fundamentally true.

        You say you want to have evidence before you believe. It is
        interesting that people in Jesus day were not satisfied with the
        evidence that He was the God-man and they demanded more signs. He
        refused them. The evidence He gave them was already sufficient. Why
        doesn't he make the evidence so overwhelming that everyone would have
        to believe. After all He could reveal Himself in shining splendor and
        demand that we believe. Jesus was very much impressed with faith.
        When he found a Gentile woman who had faith - he marveled at it and
        commended her. Over and over he commends the faith of simple people
        who just believed him. Why? He saves those who believe - based on
        His word and that glorifies Him.

        Is there evidence to support His Word? There is sufficient evidence
        that is so simple even a child can see it. Creation shows His great
        power and wisdom so that those who reject this evidence are without
        excuse. Why would he make things this way? To bring glory, fame and
        renown to Himself. You see those who believe his word will triumph
        and praise His great wisdom forever. My faith is in this Jesus, and
        it is based on His Word. I recommend this simple faith. It leans on
        His promises and not our wisdom. He promises that He will defeat the
        wisdom of this age. Can He defeat science, logic and mathematical
        reasoning? All He had to do is do what the Bible says, and his
        triumph is guaranteed and it will be overwhelming.

        Someone could say, that is blind faith. Yet simple evidence supports
        it. What intellectual today examines the first pricniple that they
        accept by faith? If we wanted to have a shouting match about whose
        faith is blind - science would not come out unscathed.

        Grant:
        >Look up Maxwell's equations, and Bohr's, and Schroedinger's, and
        >Newton's. See the intricate web of relationships between space,
        >time, matter and energy. Notice that they are linked in ways both
        >linear and non-linear. Reach this simple, obvious conclusion: matter
        >_CAN_NOT_ decay, orderly or otherwise, without leaving detectable
        >evidence. Reply to this point.

        Victor:
        It does leave detectable evidence - it is just evidence that does not
        fit science's methodologies. Although Newton, Maxwell, Bohr and
        Schroedinger wrote important equations, they did not think of matter
        and the space it occupies as changing together as a relationship.
        There is a common thread in all of their thinking since they all
        relied on Aristotle's assumption that something about matter must be
        unchanging. This is especially true of Newton who even thought
        unchanging time existed independently of matter or motion. Why did
        they all have a common system of thinking? Because there is no other
        way to build a system of science. If matter does change, as all the
        preGreeks thought, philosophers could never understand the cosmos. In
        the words of the early philosophers, if matter changes - "what is"
        becomes "what is not."

        Victor:
        >>I suggest you read "The Philosophy of Space and Time" by Hans
        >>Reichenback (Dover books translated from German) He goes into
        >>considerable lengths to explain why what he calls "universal change"
        >>cannot be detected with science. By definition he says we must
        >>exclude such possibilities because if they exist we could not detect
        >>them.
        Grant:
        >He's full of it. He should learn some science. If u want to use him
        >as support, quote the relevant passage(s).

        Victor:
        He was an eminent philosopher who was largely responsible for the
        epistemology that took Einstein's concept of space-time and provided
        co-ordinate definitions to relate this to "real objects." He took
        non-Euclidian geometries, such as Minkowski's, and provided
        co-ordinate definitions. Of course, as a scientist, he did not doubt
        Aristotle's principle, but at least he admitted that if things change,
        scientific methodologies could not detect it.

        Quotes from "The Philosophy of Space and Time"

        "Definition: Rigid bodies are solid bodies which are not affected by
        differential forces, or concerning which the influence of differential
        forces has been eliminated by corrections; universal forces are
        disregarded." He defines a universal force as A. affecting all
        materials in the same way. B. Having no insulating walls. He seems
        to imagine that universal forces are exterior to matter, which is why
        he introduces the possibility that something could be enclosed in an
        insulating wall to shield it from such an effect. "Only differential
        forces, not universal forces, are directly demonstrable." "Is `really
        equal' a meaningful concept? We have seen that it is impossible to
        settle this question if we admit universal forces. Is it, then,
        permissible to ask this question?" He then goes on to exclude all
        forces that would act universally on rigid bodies - so that "all
        forces occurring in physics are differential" and "universal forces
        are eliminated by definition."
        Although it is possible that some external universal force could
        affect local matter (Mach's view), the Bible says gold is presently
        self-corrupting. Of course if the source of change is matter itself,
        insulating walls are impossible. That such changes could not be
        detected with meters, scales, and clocks is still valid, however. Yet
        we can show that matter does decay by looking at the distant sky.

        Grant:
        >Sigh - this again? BTDT. This is where i ask u why, if the earth and
        >everything on it is expanding, the continents didn't expand right
        >along with the insides, no net change. This is also where i point out
        >that u have contradicted your own requirement that the change is not
        >locally detectable. Then this is where u change the subject, or don't
        >answer.

        Victor:
        Not locally detectable with scientific experiments. If the earth
        increases in size due to fundamental changes in atoms - we could not
        meansure it with instruments but we could see the evidence for it with
        our eyes.

        Your argument is that surface atoms and interior atoms are essentially
        the same with fudge factors for density increases at depth etc. You
        assume that if atoms changed with age, the space they occupy should
        scale up the same and the continents and the oceans should expand at
        the same rate. In that case the global crack in the earth and the
        recent sea floor in the centers of the oceans is not due to earth
        expansion.

        In order for the global crack to be an expansion seam: 1. Matter
        would change with age and 2. The atoms at earth's core would have to
        affect each other - so that they decayed at a different rate or
        changed space in a different way than surface atoms. 3. The "weight"
        of these core atoms would have to also be lower to compensate for
        their reduced space.

        Neither of us can examine atoms at the core of the earth. Even if we
        could bring some of them up to the surface, they could be affected by
        the environment on the surface and act like the other atoms around
        them. Yet we can observe how atoms in the centers of distant objects
        act. The centers of galaxies act differently from the periphery.
        Motions at the periphery do not even fit the laws of gravitation which
        is one reason they have invented dark matter. Most scientists believe
        a black hole is in the center. BHs are supposed to have gravity so
        strong that even light cannot escape - yet matter is often seen
        streaming out of the centers of active galaxies and quasars. At first
        it has no discernable redshift and acts like it has no mass since it
        moves straight without bending even though it is supposed to be in the
        vicinity of the most massive "gravity" possible. As it distances
        itself from the compact center, it shows a redshift and begins to act
        like it has an increasing "mass." Narliker proposed that mass in the
        center is zero and increases with age and distance when it is ejected.
        He eliminates the need for singularities or curved space. In Arp's
        words - a singularity just means that physics breaks down and all our
        equations quit working in this region.

        What is it then that makes the center so different? Is it gravity?
        Gravity should make the universe collapse which is why Einstein added
        his famous cosmological [antigravity] constant. Yet it doesn't
        collapse. The big bang proposes an INVISIBLE expansion where galaxies
        distance themselves from each other without any discernable center.
        Evidence for a big bang is only supported by assumptions and symbolic
        mathematics - no visible evidence exists. The Bible twelve times says
        the heavens are continually being pounded out and that is supported by
        visible evidence.

        Why is the center of galaxies and quasars so strange? If we follow
        the gas trails, bow shocks and radio contours around strings of
        quasars, we see that they are often bipolar - having two jets
        sometimes with a twin object that apparently was ejected at the same
        time on the other stream. At the far end of the stream of ejecta, we
        often see clusters of micro galaxies. Dr Arp has shown that some of
        these streams of quasars span tens of degrees of OUR sky and that the
        redshifts are not only different but are quanticized.

        The question is, why is the matter in the center so compact and yet it
        does not seem to be affected by gravity as it is ejected? I cannot
        answer such questions and no modern theory can account for the
        universe we see without huge fudge factors. The point of all this is
        that visibly something is different about matter in the center. As
        ejected matter distances itself from the center - it clumps and begins
        to act gravitationally.

        What is the point? I believe what is happening in the center of the
        earth must follow the same ordinances as what happens in the centers
        of distant objects. Why? Because God himself says that the same
        ordinances govern the earth and the heavens. I cannot explain why -
        only that the centers of distant, long-ago objects expand and change.
        How can I tell. They move unlike local objects, they have shifted
        light that changes radically as they distance themselves from the
        source and they expand into larger and larger objects. This is
        visible - not scientific - but visible. It does fit what the Bible
        says that the heavens continuously are beaten out. The Bible has the
        only cosmology that fits the visible - non symbolic - evidence.

        Matter in the center of the earth could very well have less "weight"
        and take up less space than surface matter. Why? Because that is
        what distant matter appears to do. Other than that, I cannot give you
        quantitative evidence - only simple visible evidence - that is usually
        the most reliable kind because it does not depend on assumptions.

        Think about it.
      • grant hallman
        ... No need to YELL, Victor, a shouted red herring is still a red herring. ... Whereas now, u tailor it to fit your personal views. I have looked at some of
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 6, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          At 12:11 AM 06-01-05 -0000, you wrote:
          >
          >
          >--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, grant hallman <unilogic@p...>
          >sorry for late responce - I have cut out most of the past post to
          >reduce the length.
          >Grant:
          >> The words are the Bible's. The ideas are yours.
          >>
          >Victor:
          >The rules of hermeneutics, that are not in dispute for secular or
          >biblical interpretations, say we should interpret the words in their
          >original language, context and culture, not ours. I confess, that for
          >much of my life I struggled trying to interpret the Bible with the
          >Western culture. I admit I was wrong. THERE IS NO WAY I COULD
          >JUSTIFY INTERPRETING THE BIBLE SCIENTIFICALLY. Our scientific culture
          >did not exist when the Bible was written and the Bible makes
          >statements about physical things that are NOT SCIENTIFIC.

          No need to YELL, Victor, a shouted red herring is still a red herring.

          >I used to
          >tailor the Bible to fit science.

          Whereas now, u tailor it to fit your personal views. I have looked at some
          of your proof texts, Victor. Many are not even close to the conclusions u
          demand from them.

          >I have repented, however, that
          >means: turned around. I have determined to stop approaching the Bible
          >with a double mind: using hermeneutical principles for spiritual
          >truths and the elementary principles of the pagan Greeks to interpret
          >what it says about physical things.
          >
          >>>The Greek text of Romans 8:20 uses the same Greek word as Plato for
          >>>the corruption of matter [phthora]
          >
          >>I don't care what the Greek word is or isn't. If u are claiming that
          >>matter is _actually_decaying_, then there are certain burdens
          >>associated with that claim, including:
          >
          >>a) a clear statement about what exactly that means: the nature of the
          >>decay process, including the pre-and post-decay components.
          >
          >>b) some objective evidence that such a process is actually happening.
          >
          >>U have done neither, and repeatedly refused to do either. Thus you
          >>are purveying untruths.
          >
          >Victor:
          >Why should I use proofs that depend on your first principle?

          Because no one with three simultaneously active brain cells would give any
          credence whatsoever to what u claim, since u fail to define what it means,
          or to give any evidence for it. "Science" is a useful way of looking at the
          world. Think of it as a combination of objectivity and rational skepticism.
          Think of your views as subjective and irrationally credulous. See the problem?

          >Western
          >science is recent. All civilizations, before being influenced by the
          >Greek philosophers, accepted that everything is in flux. Can you
          >demonstrate the nature of mass without using Aristotle's Assumption to
          >circle back and beg the question you started with? As Einstein
          >pointed out, "The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this,
          >that it involves an argument in a circle: a mass moves without
          >acceleration if it is sufficiently far from other bodies; we know that
          >it is sufficiently far from other bodies only by the fact that it
          >moves without acceleration."
          >
          >How can you show without using the assumption circularly, that mass
          >(either gravitational or inertial) is an independent property of
          >matter? After all, science has had to modify its definition of mass
          >so that the conservation of mass became the conservation of a nebulous
          >invisible thing: mass-energy.

          Mass-energy is not "nebulous", it is perfectly quantifiable. You can only
          say energy is "nebulous" if you never passed Grade 11 physics.

          First u deny science has any merit, then u try to use its own evidence
          against it. Really, Victor, pick a side!

          > It has had to modify its interpretation
          >of time and geometry to make an invisible nebulous thing: space-time.
          > When an object of mass m becomes an object of mass M and impacts
          >another object with increased inertia, we can just conjure up the
          >spirits of an invisible space-time and mass-energy to explain why the
          >mass changed.

          Or, we can study physics, and see how that effect is a simple consequence
          of the fact that the observed speed of light is the same no matter how fast
          the observer is travelling relative to the light source. Learn some physics.

          > Isn't that what one would expect if we tried to force a
          >relationship, in which all aspects are related to light, to fit
          >Aristotle's Conjecture?

          Nope. It's what we'd expect if we believed the evidence of the
          Michaelson-Morley experiment (and later, much more accurate followups), and
          worked out its consequences.

          >What experiment ever found a unit of
          >mass-energy?

          Just about any experiment done in a particle-physics lab, Victor.

          >What experiment ever demonstrated the existence of
          >space-time?

          Many, many experiments, beginning with Eddington's observation of solar
          gravity lensing, have demonstrated that the universe operates exactly as
          Einstein said it did, at large distances and masses and speeds. He called
          it "spacetime", the label is only a label. It's how things work.

          >These are mathematical flying buttresses intended to keep
          >the structure from collapsing because the foundations are sand.

          This is exactly what i'm talking about, Victor. U are speaking from what
          appears to be a deep well of ignorance about actual physics, u are making
          demonstrbaly false statements based on that ignorance, and u are peddling
          them as truth even when told otherwise by people who have studied the science.

          >I am not purveying untruths.

          That's _exactly_ what you're doing. In fact, now that you've been informed
          (repeatedly) of the falsehood of your claims, you are simply telling lies,
          defining "lie" as a known untruth told deliberately as truth. No one but u
          can make u stop doing it, but i feel sorry for anyone you manage to
          deceive, and sorry for u, considering the moral accountability u are
          accumulating.

          >I am using a biblical system, apart from
          >the principles of the Greeks, to show the simple consistency of the
          >Bible.

          You are making false statements about the way the cosmos operates.

          >I have demonstrated simple evidences, but since these
          >evidences do not fit the dogma of science, you reject them out of hand.

          Horsepucky. "The Earth has wrinkles, it must be expanding". I don't "reject
          them out of hand", Victor, i ask questions about them. When u fail to reply
          substantively to my questions, _that's_ when i reject your "explanations" -
          because they don't hold up under even casual scrutiny.

          >1. What is matter? The Bible says it had no shape, although twice it
          >says it had a surface, before God created light. Clearly matter is a
          >relationship with light and that relationship gave dimension and shape
          >to matter.
          >
          >A. Is that supported by evidence? Those who study the jiggling
          >frequencies of light tell us that "electrons" are constantly
          >interacting with internal light (called virtual photons). According
          >to Feynman's interpretation, electrons can't even move without
          >interacting with this internal light.

          No, Victor, electrons cannot /accelerate/ without radiating photons.
          Maxwell told us that, 2 centuries back.

          > Charge seems to be associated
          >with light. A photon exchange between "electrons" seems to produce
          >repulsion; between opposite "charges" produces attraction; with itself
          >produces charge and motion. When we split atoms, as in a bomb, a
          >blinding light comes out that can burn you to a crisp. We might not
          >be able to decode an atom - but the simplest way to see what is going
          >on is to examine the light that comes from atoms. It is evident that
          >light is intimately involved with matter even from the formulas that
          >are constructed upon Aristotle's Conjecture. God Himself says that
          >the paths of light in its house are mysterious. Job 38:19 - 20.

          If you don't believe in physics, they why are u making a physics argument?
          It's wrong, but it's still a physics argument.

          >B. Is an atom a relationship, a house of light? IT MUST BE because
          >matter is wavelike or particle-like and we cannot find a way to decode
          >this duality. If we imagine it is just a particle and the wave is a
          >probability wave, then why doesn't it act like ordinary particles? If
          >we imagine that it is a wave of some kind, then why does it interfere
          >with itself - even when a single "unit of stuff" is involved?

          Wrong question. The right question might be, "what is matter, that it looks
          like a particle on a large scale?" The universe does not have to act
          according to our common-sense ideas.

          >The
          >simplest answer for quantum duality is that atoms and subatomic
          >entities are intimately related to internal light. In our bodies,
          >billions of cells, electrical impulses, chemical messengers, oxygen
          >carriers, food distribution, defense mechanisms, waste disposal
          >systems and an incredibly complex mind all work together so that life,
          >mind and motion are a complex relationship. Every part of a
          >relationship affects every other part - together. Although you can
          >remove a part of the body, you will never function as you did before
          >because we are a relationship in which all parts work together.
          >According to experiments done with Bell's Inequality, NO LOCAL THEORY
          >OF MATTER can fit the evidence.

          Victor, do u see how outrageous this is? First u say u reject Aristotle's
          first assumptions, then u use physics based on that assumption to try to
          prove you're right. Illogical as well as false.

          >That is what one would expect if an

          I think i see the problem. You have confused "What one (aka Victor) would
          expect", with reality. They simply aren't the same.

          >atom is a RELATIONSHIP - not made of independent entities such as mass
          >and time. If atoms were a relationship, in which no part has
          >independence, the strangeness is expected.

          You are tyring to reinvent fire, and doing it badly. Atoms are in
          "relationships" with all 4 fundamental forces. These relationships have
          already been worked out and written down and verified. It's called
          "physics", and you're late to the party, with answers already discredited.

          > It is the insistence that
          >atoms must fit science's dogma that causes philosophers to invent
          >parallel universes and other invisible things.
          >
          >C. How can I certify that matter really does decay like the Bible
          >states? The simplest kinds of evidences, not based on philosophical
          >suppositions, shows that matter changes over the ages.
          >1. We cannot fit the continents back together except on a smaller
          >globe.

          Wrong. Geologists have this well mapped out, there are web sites that show
          the evolution from Pangea to modern geography.

          > Everyone admits that the ocean floors are much "younger
          >geologically" than the continents and the Bible even says that after
          >the flood, the seas sank for the flood to drain into and the mountains
          >rose simultaneously (we call the balance between the height of the
          >continents and the depths of the ocean the isostatic equilibrium - it
          >is apparent that both the seas and the continents are afloat on a
          >plastic layer so that they balance).

          Wrong again. Mountains cannot float on water, or be uplifted by water, or
          make space under themselves for water.

          >The simplest way to interpret the Bible and the evidence is that the
          >continents don't move significantly with respect to earth's center,
          >but the earth expands along a great global crack. It is the insistence
          >that we must have a causal mechanism, a clear scientific explanation,
          >that prevents people from believing the Bible that says the earth
          >expands in unbroken continuity. Psalm 136:6 says He spreads out the
          >earth upon the waters. It uses the word raqa' stamped out, spread out
          >- but the tense is qual active participle meaning unbroken continuity
          >again. Look at a map of all the earthquakes and the majority of them
          >occur along the GREAT GLOBAL CRACK that runs through all the oceans.

          Wrong again. U really need to study some geology science, ot at least
          listen to a geologist.

          >Some claim subduction zones are involved in continental drift. Only
          >the Pacific seems to POTENTIALLY have subduction zones - but then we
          >would need the Pacific to swallow thousands of kilometers of sea floor
          >while leaving the loose sediments at the supposed subduction "trench"
          >undisturbed. What about the Arctic ocean without evidence of
          >subduction? What about Antarctica that is apparently MOVING AWAY from
          >all other land masses? How about the East coast of the USA that seems
          >to have originally been part of the Northern hump of Africa while
          >South America was attached to the southern part of the hump. How do
          >you do that without increasing the diameter of the earth?

          Easy. Look up "Pangea" and find yourself a nice movie clip of the
          continents drifting.

          > It would
          >seem that a global 60,000 km rift system must have a global cause, not
          >a local one. The evidence that the earth continually expands is
          >simple. We insist that what is really happening must be measurable
          >and amenable to mathematics so we reject the simple evidence.

          No, instead i insist that u tell us why only the inside of the earth is
          expanding, because if it all expanded "in relationship", there'd be no
          change except in size. I also insist that u stop contradicting yourself,
          because u said there would be no locally observable effect.

          A purveyor of lies would ignore this objection again. Someone interested in
          the truth would reply responsively to these 2 objections, or if he
          couldn't, he'd stop making the claims. Hmm, what do u think will happen?

          >2. When we look at the distant sky we see things that do not have the
          >shape or motions of local matter. Yet we recognize the same atoms -
          >just that the light is shifted. Three things - shifted light, motions
          >unlike local matter, and shape - tiny concentrated naked galaxies that
          >have not spread out like local galaxies. These simple evidences argue
          >that primordial atoms where shifted AS A RELATIONSHIP.
          >
          >You have two options. A. You can take the evidence in simplicity -
          >the shape and motions of primordial atoms were not like our present
          >local atoms yet they were the same kind of atoms. That means in
          >biblical terms - they decay in an orderly together way. Such
          >knowledge does not even require philosophical definitions of time or
          >matter. You can just accept what your eyes see and that agrees with
          >what the Bible says. 2. You can adjust the evidence to support
          >mathematical, symbolic reality and consequently invent a universe made
          >of 99% invisible (read fictitious) things. There is no other option
          >for science since by force of dogma it excludes that matter can
          >change. All fundamental changes must be explained away as caused by
          >invisible things.
          >
          >3. As I have pointed out repeatedly, what the ancients wrote about
          >the earth and heavens - not their causal explanations - but their
          >statements about what they saw - could only be valid if everything
          >does change as a relationship. What Ptolemy actually measured in
          >degrees, minutes and seconds, only makes sense if matter decays as a
          >relationship. He MEASURED a smaller solar system, larger angular
          >sizes for the moon and planets and a galaxy whose star positions have
          >errors that vary with galactic latitude (when compared to our
          >measurements). You can take Dr Robert R. Newton's position (physics
          >John Hopkins - died 1991). He claimed that Ptolemy was a fraud and
          >invented all his measurements ("The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy"). But
          >then you are faced with the impossibility of inventing all these
          >"false" observations that miraculously cancel their errors so that his
          >orbits worked. (See Owen Gingrich - Harvard – astronomy and history
          >of science "The Eye of Heaven - Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler").
          >(Surely he did not have a computer to analyze millions of possible
          >fictitious observations so he could select the ones whose errors
          >cancelled so that his orbits worked). The simplest explanation:
          >matter decays as a relationship - and orbits and planets all change.
          >
          >4. You say define what changes. OK - EVERYTHING. NOTHING STAYS THE
          >SAME.

          No, i said "define the changes". Here's an atom in 1972, here's one from
          2005. Precisely how do they differ?

          > Absolutely nothing is permanent or unchanging. That is not
          >only what Paul said, but is what is obvious in the distant skies. We
          >don't believe our eyes, however, because a first principle forces us
          >to interpret the evidence with the assumption that something somewhere
          >(light, mass, charge, quantum levels, something) is unchanging.
          >
          >Peter is right. The first principle really is the first thing to know
          >- the most important in priority and importance. The historical
          >importance of this first principle cannot be overemphasized. Why is
          >science taught as a complete system, without ever examining its
          >elementary assumptions? Perhaps it is because it is not just an
          >ordinary assumption. It is THE ELEMENTARY ASSUMPTION upon which hangs
          >the whole structure of scientific reasoning. There is no question that
          >the Bible clearly contradicts it - unless you want to explain away
          >Isaiah's statement that earth and everything on it expands in unbroken
          >continuity.
          >>Grant:
          >> Let's be clear. U claim science is wrong at its first principles.
          >>That's a claim to "superior knowledge", or would be, if it were true.
          >>
          >Victor:
          >On the contrary - since I got it from the Bible - it is a claim that
          >only God can be wise.

          Let's be even clearer, Victor. U made it up, based on what u think the
          Bible says. U have no credible evidence for it. Your alleged explanations
          unravel in tatters after a single round of questions, then u repeat in a
          week. Lies.

          > If the modern first principle is false, neither
          >creationist nor secular scientists could decode beginnings with
          >mathematics, logic, experiments or laws. This is consistent with the
          >Biblical claim that causal knowledge, under the sun, that is in the
          >physical realm, is impossible.
          >
          >>Grant:
          >> I also noticed that most of the pagans did not have decimal
          >>numbering systems that facilitated thinking about numbers much above
          >>20, and that records were kept for political or literary rather than
          >>historical reasons. In fact objective history approaching today's,
          >>is a relatively recent invention.
          >>
          >Victor:
          >I agree that the first histories were about planet battles and their
          >effects on earth. Since the Bible also mentions a close encounter and
          >the destruction of a powerful sky monster that endangered the earth,
          >such events must be historical. After all - everyone in antiquity
          >agreed that they happened even Job and Isaiah. If those things really
          >happened, you would expect their histories to record great changes and
          >that such histories would not seem objective to us.
          >
          >How did the Babylonians come up with a sexagesimal system that
          >accurately counted into hundreds of thousands and counted in factions
          >of 1/3600 of a unit? Their system was based on powers of 60, each
          >numeral having a place-value just like the decimal system. In
          >sexagesimal: 1,11;1,11 would be 3600 + 60 + 60 + 1/60 + 1/3600 +
          >1/3600 or 3720.01722223 in decimal. We still use their sexagesimal
          >system for hours minutes and seconds and degrees, minutes and seconds.
          > Amazingly they used the same system for scaling geometric space AND
          >time. I can still say the earth spins at 15 degrees per hour, 15
          >minutes per minute and 15 seconds per second. That's pretty amazing
          >isn't it? They also used a moving reference system (the background
          >stars in the ecliptic). Their astronomical system was designed to
          >compensate for changes, such as precession, since its reference was
          >not fixed, but moved with the stars. This is significant since the
          >starry heavens change - they were pounded out - spread out. Ovid said
          >the stars shot out and expanded to fill the vacant sky which is just
          >what we see in the Hubble Deeps.
          >
          >>Grant:
          >>If matter is decaying, then it is changing in some way. What exactly
          >>is that way? That's not dogma, that's just rational skepticism.
          >
          >Victor:
          >There is no reference system against which you can compare things that
          >change as a relationship.

          Yes there is. For one teeny tiny example, consider a hydrogen atom. Its
          electrons occupy energy levels, which depend linearly on Planks's constant,
          and the charge of the proton and electron. I.e. change one by 1%, and the
          levels change by 1%.

          We can also measure the mass/charge ratio, so if charge or mass changes,
          they must change in the same ratio, or we'd notice.

          But we can also convert the proton to energy (let it meet an antiproton),
          and that results in a gamma pulse whose energy depends on the /square/ of
          the mass of the proton. So if everything scaled up say 1%, then we might
          not detect a change in the the Lymann emission lines, but we'd certainly
          detect a change in the p+/p- spectrum, because one scales in the ratio of
          mass (via charge), and the other scales in the ratoi of mass squared.

          No change can keep both the ratio and the square of a number the same. We'd
          notice.

          I have told u this a dozen times, u keep ignoring it, because it
          contradicts the untruths u want to purvey. Lies, Victor.

          > You can only look at the light from long
          >ago or observe the evidence for past changes locally. Imagine that a
          >boy cuts a notch in a tree to mark his height each birthday. He then
          >uses the palm of his hand to count how many palms high he is (people
          >still use this for the height of a horse). Since he measures the same
          >height in palms and each year's notch falls on the previous year's
          >notch, he says everything stays the same. If everything changes
          >together, the tree could grow at the same rate as the boy and his
          >palm. However, simple visible evidence shows that the boy and the
          >tree are changing. That is what a universe would be like if
          >everything changes as a relationship. The constants of physics would
          >be just like the boy who measures what changes and concludes that it
          >does not change. Yet if matter changes as a relationship - the
          >evidence would be simple and visible - but not scientific.

          How simplistic. How wrong. Imagine that the boy also weighs himself vs a
          rock, and sits on a swing suspended by a tree limb. Then everything doubles
          in size. He's 2x taller, and so is the tree, so he can't tell that way. He
          weighs 8x as much (2 cubed), and so does the rock, so he can't tell that
          way. But the tree limb is 4x stronger, because strength increases as the
          square. He sits his 8x mass on the swing and the 4x stronger limb breaks.
          Presto, he's detected the change.

          Like i keep telling u, Victor, there is a web of relationship between mass,
          charge, energy, length, time etc which is just too complex for any possible
          "change as a relationship" to fit everything at once. Simply can't be done.

          >>Grant:
          >>My "dogma" is that i want to see the evidence, before i abandon a
          >>principle that already works extremely well. That's not dogma, that's
          >>rational skepticism.
          >
          >Victor:
          >The modern definition of rational depends on this very idea that
          >something must not be changing.

          You're making this up as u go along, right?

          > It is fundamental to modern logic and
          >seasoning. People in biblical times had a different kind of
          >rationality that took visible change as fundamentally true.
          >
          >You say you want to have evidence before you believe. It is
          >interesting that people in Jesus day were not satisfied with the
          >evidence that He was the God-man and they demanded more signs. He
          >refused them.

          Uh, Victor, you know you're not Jesus, right?

          >The evidence He gave them was already sufficient. Why
          >doesn't he make the evidence so overwhelming that everyone would have
          >to believe.

          Stop trying to change the subject. The subject is, why don't _u_ give
          evidence that there's anything at all to your assertions? The default
          answer is, you can't.

          ...

          >Grant:
          >>Look up Maxwell's equations, and Bohr's, and Schroedinger's, and
          >>Newton's. See the intricate web of relationships between space,
          >>time, matter and energy. Notice that they are linked in ways both
          >>linear and non-linear. Reach this simple, obvious conclusion: matter
          >>_CAN_NOT_ decay, orderly or otherwise, without leaving detectable
          >>evidence. Reply to this point.
          >
          >Victor:
          >It does leave detectable evidence - it is just evidence that does not
          >fit science's methodologies. Although Newton, Maxwell, Bohr and
          >Schroedinger wrote important equations, they did not think of matter
          >and the space it occupies as changing together as a relationship.

          No, Victor, you can't just say "first principles" as the answer to every
          question. At some point u must actually reply to reasonable objections.
          Science already works too well for me to be taken in by these lies.

          >There is a common thread in all of their thinking since they all
          >relied on Aristotle's assumption that something about matter must be
          >unchanging. This is especially true of Newton who even thought
          >unchanging time existed independently of matter or motion. Why did
          >they all have a common system of thinking? Because there is no other
          >way to build a system of science. If matter does change, as all the
          >preGreeks thought, philosophers could never understand the cosmos. In
          >the words of the early philosophers, if matter changes - "what is"
          >becomes "what is not."
          >
          >Victor:
          >>>I suggest you read "The Philosophy of Space and Time" by Hans
          >>>Reichenback (Dover books translated from German) He goes into
          >>>considerable lengths to explain why what he calls "universal change"
          >>>cannot be detected with science. By definition he says we must
          >>>exclude such possibilities because if they exist we could not detect
          >>>them.
          >Grant:
          >>He's full of it. He should learn some science. If u want to use him
          >>as support, quote the relevant passage(s).
          >
          >Victor:
          >He was an eminent philosopher who was largely responsible for the
          >epistemology that took Einstein's concept of space-time and provided
          >co-ordinate definitions to relate this to "real objects." He took
          >non-Euclidian geometries, such as Minkowski's, and provided
          >co-ordinate definitions. Of course, as a scientist, he did not doubt
          >Aristotle's principle, but at least he admitted that if things change,
          >scientific methodologies could not detect it.
          >
          >Quotes from "The Philosophy of Space and Time"
          >
          >"Definition: Rigid bodies are solid bodies which are not affected by
          >differential forces, or concerning which the influence of differential
          >forces has been eliminated by corrections; universal forces are
          >disregarded." He defines a universal force as A. affecting all
          >materials in the same way. B. Having no insulating walls. He seems
          >to imagine that universal forces are exterior to matter, which is why
          >he introduces the possibility that something could be enclosed in an
          >insulating wall to shield it from such an effect. "Only differential
          >forces, not universal forces, are directly demonstrable." "Is `really
          >equal' a meaningful concept? We have seen that it is impossible to
          >settle this question if we admit universal forces. Is it, then,
          >permissible to ask this question?" He then goes on to exclude all
          >forces that would act universally on rigid bodies - so that "all
          >forces occurring in physics are differential" and "universal forces
          >are eliminated by definition."
          >Although it is possible that some external universal force could
          >affect local matter (Mach's view), the Bible says gold is presently
          >self-corrupting. Of course if the source of change is matter itself,
          >insulating walls are impossible. That such changes could not be
          >detected with meters, scales, and clocks is still valid, however. Yet
          >we can show that matter does decay by looking at the distant sky.
          >
          >Grant:
          >>Sigh - this again? BTDT. This is where i ask u why, if the earth and
          >>everything on it is expanding, the continents didn't expand right
          >>along with the insides, no net change. This is also where i point out
          >>that u have contradicted your own requirement that the change is not
          >>locally detectable. Then this is where u change the subject, or don't
          >>answer.
          >
          >Victor:
          >Not locally detectable with scientific experiments. If the earth
          >increases in size due to fundamental changes in atoms - we could not
          >meansure it with instruments but we could see the evidence for it with
          >our eyes.

          That last sentence is so absurd it readily invalidates your whole schtick.
          A tape measure would either show the earth was expanding, or that it
          wasn't. Does a tape measure expand with the earth, yes or no? If yes, it
          shows no difference in the distance from paris to New York, if no, it shows
          no difference between two rocks in the ocean bottom on opposie sides of the
          mid-Atlantic trench. Which contradiction will u choose, Victor? Tsch, what
          a tangled web you weave...

          >Your argument is that surface atoms and interior atoms are essentially
          >the same with fudge factors for density increases at depth etc. You
          >assume that if atoms changed with age, the space they occupy should
          >scale up the same and the continents and the oceans should expand at
          >the same rate. In that case the global crack in the earth and the
          >recent sea floor in the centers of the oceans is not due to earth
          >expansion.
          >
          >In order for the global crack to be an expansion seam: 1. Matter
          >would change with age and 2. The atoms at earth's core would have to
          >affect each other - so that they decayed at a different rate or
          >changed space in a different way than surface atoms.

          Right then. It's a differential change, and we can detect it,
          scientifically. With a tape measure.

          > 3. The "weight"
          >of these core atoms would have to also be lower to compensate for
          >their reduced space.

          So now you're claiming, with no evidence at all, that an atom of iron at
          the earth's core has less mass than one on the surface. Riiiight.

          >Neither of us can examine atoms at the core of the earth. Even if we
          >could bring some of them up to the surface, they could be affected by
          >the environment on the surface and act like the other atoms around
          >them. Yet we can observe how atoms in the centers of distant objects
          >act. The centers of galaxies act differently from the periphery.
          >Motions at the periphery do not even fit the laws of gravitation which
          >is one reason they have invented dark matter. Most scientists believe
          >a black hole is in the center. BHs are supposed to have gravity so
          >strong that even light cannot escape - yet matter is often seen
          >streaming out of the centers of active galaxies and quasars.

          It's called "accretion disk", look it up.

          > At first
          >it has no discernable redshift and acts like it has no mass since it
          >moves straight without bending even though it is supposed to be in the
          >vicinity of the most massive "gravity" possible. As it distances
          >itself from the compact center, it shows a redshift and begins to act
          >like it has an increasing "mass." Narliker proposed that mass in the
          >center is zero and increases with age and distance when it is ejected.
          >He eliminates the need for singularities or curved space. In Arp's
          >words - a singularity just means that physics breaks down and all our
          >equations quit working in this region.
          >
          >What is it then that makes the center so different? Is it gravity?
          >Gravity should make the universe collapse which is why Einstein added
          >his famous cosmological [antigravity] constant. Yet it doesn't
          >collapse. The big bang proposes an INVISIBLE expansion where galaxies
          >distance themselves from each other without any discernable center.
          >Evidence for a big bang is only supported by assumptions and symbolic
          >mathematics - no visible evidence exists. The Bible twelve times says
          >the heavens are continually being pounded out and that is supported by
          >visible evidence.
          >
          >Why is the center of galaxies and quasars so strange? If we follow
          >the gas trails, bow shocks and radio contours around strings of
          >quasars, we see that they are often bipolar - having two jets
          >sometimes with a twin object that apparently was ejected at the same
          >time on the other stream. At the far end of the stream of ejecta, we
          >often see clusters of micro galaxies. Dr Arp has shown that some of
          >these streams of quasars span tens of degrees of OUR sky and that the
          >redshifts are not only different but are quanticized.
          >
          >The question is, why is the matter in the center so compact and yet it
          >does not seem to be affected by gravity as it is ejected? I cannot
          >answer such questions and no modern theory can account for the
          >universe we see without huge fudge factors. The point of all this is
          >that visibly something is different about matter in the center. As
          >ejected matter distances itself from the center - it clumps and begins
          >to act gravitationally.
          >
          >What is the point? I believe what is happening in the center of the
          >earth must follow the same ordinances as what happens in the centers
          >of distant objects. Why? Because God himself says that the same
          >ordinances govern the earth and the heavens. I cannot explain why -
          >only that the centers of distant, long-ago objects expand and change.
          > How can I tell. They move unlike local objects, they have shifted
          >light that changes radically as they distance themselves from the
          >source and they expand into larger and larger objects. This is
          >visible - not scientific - but visible. It does fit what the Bible
          >says that the heavens continuously are beaten out. The Bible has the
          >only cosmology that fits the visible - non symbolic - evidence.
          >
          >Matter in the center of the earth could very well have less "weight"
          >and take up less space than surface matter. Why? Because that is
          >what distant matter appears to do. Other than that, I cannot give you
          >quantitative evidence - only simple visible evidence - that is usually
          >the most reliable kind because it does not depend on assumptions.
          >
          >Think about it.

          Victor, i cannot give u a scientific education by email. I am not following
          u down yet more bizzarre, loopy assertions, because it's a total waste of
          time, because u still haven't answered the questins i asked about your
          earlier bizzarre, loopy assertions. Try answering some of those - notably
          the impossible scaling problem and the tape measure problem.

          cheerio - grant
        • Victor
          ... Red herring arguments try to deflect someone from the real issue. (The term came from a method of distracting hunting dogs from the scent by scattering
          Message 4 of 10 , Jan 14, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            >Grant:
            > No need to YELL, Victor, a shouted red herring is still a red >herring.
            >
            Red herring arguments try to deflect someone from the real issue.
            (The term came from a method of distracting hunting dogs from the
            scent by scattering ripe fish around). I am doing the opposite. I am
            focusing on the first principle, the most important assumption.
            > >I used to
            > >tailor the Bible to fit science.
            >
            > Whereas now, u tailor it to fit your personal views. I have looked
            at some
            > of your proof texts, Victor. Many are not even close to the
            >conclusions u
            > demand from them.
            >
            I did not get this from a fertile imagination, but by studying
            biblical passages about earth-history with hermeneutical principles
            alone. I often refer to the grammar and word meanings in the original
            language. Show that my exegesis is incorrect using the context and
            grammar of the original language and I will admit personal bias.

            I admit that no English translation renders II Peter 3:4 the way I do.
            Yet the arguments I make, are contextual, grammatical and historical.
            In Peter's day, students were expected to debate first principles
            because the investigation of truth was done through dialectics
            (enquiry into metaphysical contradictions through oral debates).
            (a.) In the standard exegesis of this text, those who don't believe in
            the flood or the coming of Jesus, say that all things continue the
            same since the beginning of "creation" - yet these people are unlikely
            to believe in creation. The translators are using the terms in a
            theological sense but the context shows non believers speaking about
            physical things.
            (b.) The quoted text ends in "arches ktiseos." Arche, as used by the
            intellectuals of that day, meant the starting point, the first
            principle, the underlying substance, the ultimate undemonstrable
            principle that is the basis of a system of science. Although ktisis
            can refer to anything created, it can also mean a rule or ordinance.
            Since the context predicts that they will reject the clear evidence of
            the flood, they are giving their reasons in the common language of
            schools (philosophy). They seem to be talking about their first
            principle, the primary rule or ordinance of the last days.
            (c.) If this exegesis is valid, and we live in the last days, the idea
            that all things continue the same in "being or relation"should be in
            first place. (The Greek philosophers used the word diamenei: to
            remain permanently the same in being or relation). Ancient people
            thought that matter changed in being or relation. Today everyone
            seems to think the opposite. [If an atom changed as a relation, all of
            its parts would be like an army that marches in step - as a unit.
            Twice in Romans 8:20 Paul uses the Greek word hupotasso, a military
            term meaning to arrange troops in a military fashion in obedience to
            their officers. In the next verse he twice uses together-words to
            illustrate how matter decays. He even used the same Greek word
            (phthora) that Plato used for the decay of matter. Things that act as
            a relationship - act together.]
            (d.) If it really is a first principle, it should be the modern
            primary assumption, because a first principle is the starting point
            for a system of reasoning. I have attempted to demonstrate this.
            (e.) If Peter's prophesy has come true and my exegesis is correct,
            than we should be able to trace through history where this idea came
            from and how it became the first principle. I have shown that it
            originated with Aristotle and he called it an assumption. Prior to
            the work of Roger Bacon, Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas in the
            13th century, Christian intellectuals used the Bible plus the pagan
            Plato for their world-view. Thomas discredited Plato and got
            Christians to embrace the metaphysics of the pagan Aristotle as the
            basis for science while relegating the Bible to the area of spiritual
            knowledge. After Thomas, universities teaching logic, mathematics and
            metaphysics spread all over Europe. No prophesy is of one's own
            interpretation, but this one evidently has come true. Show me that I
            am wrong in history or grammar. Show me that this idea is not the
            first principle of the Western system and I will admit I am wrong.

            Can anyone show me IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE a single passage in the
            Bible that supports a law of science. I used to accept Romans 8:19 -
            22 as supporting the Second Law, until I notice that the Greek
            contradicts several aspects of this law.

            Grant, you argue that the premise is true because it would be
            impossible for the scientific system to be invalid since it works. In
            other words you justify the assumption with the system that is
            historically built upon that assumption. Positive proofs are
            inherently difficult because they depend on assumptions. This is
            because using the system built upon the assumption to authenticate the
            assumption is circular and such reasoning often proves faulty. You
            are actually proving my argument that the idea that matter does not
            change is the first principle, since it is the basis of all your
            arguments. A first principle does that - because it is so elementary
            that it is the starting point for a system of reasoning. It is so
            elementary that its disciples don't even know how to think with
            contrary assumptions.

            I am trying to show that if the premise is false, the system built
            upon it can only be adjusted to work in the near-term. It is
            impossible to invent scientific definitions of time, mass, energy etc.
            without holding Aristotle's Conjecture as dogma. Science was built
            upon this assumption. Yet, if I do not hold the assumption, I can
            accept what we see in the distant universe simply. I do not have to
            invent invisible things, and my earth history would not disagree with
            what the Bible and what ancient peoples said about the earth a few
            thousand years ago. In that case the premise is at least suspect.

            You site the Michaelson-Morley experiment. (Michaelson received the
            seventh Nobel physics prize in 1907 for this experiment). The
            experiment demonstrated that the speed of light is not a relative
            measurement. However you cannot compare past measurements with
            present ones without relying on Aristotle's Conjecture. By the way,
            if matter is a relationship with light, as the first verses in the
            Bible suggest, light should have properties unlike anything else.
            That is because, the geometry, shape, space, or structure of matter
            came into existence when God created light. Those verses alone,
            without any other reference, should suggest to believers that matter
            is intimately involved with light. The evidence sure seems to support
            this simple exegesis.

            I will respond to your challenges in a separate post to limit the
            length of each.
          • Victor
            ... Newton s theory also predicted that light should bend near the sun from gravity. Eddington calculated that it should bend twice as much if Einstein were
            Message 5 of 10 , Jan 14, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              > >What experiment ever demonstrated the existence of
              > >space-time?
              >
              > Many, many experiments, beginning with Eddington's observation of >solar
              > gravity lensing, have demonstrated that the universe operates exactly as
              > Einstein said it did, at large distances and masses and speeds. He
              >called
              > it "spacetime", the label is only a label. It's how things work.
              >

              Newton's theory also predicted that light should bend near the sun
              from gravity. Eddington calculated that it should bend twice as much
              if Einstein were right. The two Eddington teams came up with quite
              different results, so much so that the Royal Society said the results
              were inconclusive. However, Eddington got the press to buy his story
              and Einstein became an instant celebrity.
              http://www.wbabin.net/physics/baranow2.htm
              Although radio signals grazing the sun are delayed, we cannot prove
              that the cause is space-time. Einstein also predicted the precession
              of Mercury's orbit. It is interesting that Ptolemy had an
              unnecessarily complex mechanism to predict Mercuries orbit (at least
              it seems such to us). He certainly measured it as closer to the sun
              and as having a larger diameter than we do which implies a smaller
              solar system. Gravity / space-time is a real puzzle. For example,
              the two Pioneer spacecraft launched in the early `70s, have
              experienced a strange slow down that over 30 years accumulated an
              error from their expected position, after all possible factors were
              supposedly accounted for, of several hundred thousand kilometers.
              Gravity measurements in ice bores, mine shafts and radio towers have
              also shown anomalies that must be discounted by those who think they
              understand gravity.

              Arp shows that gravity lenses and the Einstein cross are just pairs of
              ejected quasars. The intervening "lensing galaxy" is rarely visible
              and gas linkages and radio contours often link the objects to the
              source - an active galactic nuclei (AGN). He uses x-ray plots to show
              that arcs are real ejected jets. For biblical reasons, I do not agree
              with his theory that matter is being created in AGNs but his data on
              ejections is very powerful. Of course he was not allowed to speak at
              symposiums and his papers were rejected as unorthodox. Yet he may be
              the most important observational astronomer in the last 50 years.

              His web site http://www.haltonarp.com/
              is not available at the moment because its forums and articles are
              being reorganized. He is not a creationist, just an astronomer who
              spent years observing strange active galaxies and kept finding
              evidence of violent ejections.

              > >These are mathematical flying buttresses intended to keep
              > >the structure from collapsing because the foundations are sand.
              >
              > This is exactly what i'm talking about, Victor. U are speaking from what
              > appears to be a deep well of ignorance about actual physics, u are
              making
              > demonstrbaly false statements based on that ignorance, and u are
              peddling
              > them as truth even when told otherwise by people who have studied
              the science.
              >
              I have studied physics for years but I do not claim to be be a master
              of it. What I am peddling is a simple exegesis that does not
              interpret the Bible with science, but with grammar. The truth can
              stand to be tested with evidence. My evidence is simple and does not
              even require a structured way of thinking. We don't even need
              definitions of time, mass or energy. We can simply take what our eyes
              see at face value. When we see that the light from distant atoms is
              shifted - we can simply say - those atoms are shifted - different in a
              together way. That is the an utterly simplistic approach. I do not
              have to invent the stretching of empty space or other invisible things
              to protect my assumption that must never be questioned. The simplest
              interpretation, with the minimum of assumptions, has been known for
              centuries to be least likely to be false.

              > >I am not purveying untruths.
              >
              > That's _exactly_ what you're doing. In fact, now that you've been
              informed
              > (repeatedly) of the falsehood of your claims, you are simply telling
              lies,
              > defining "lie" as a known untruth told deliberately as truth. No one
              but u
              > can make u stop doing it, but i feel sorry for anyone you manage to
              > deceive, and sorry for u, considering the moral accountability u are
              > accumulating.

              I agree that I am morally accountable. I stand or fall based on the
              veracity of a grammatical, non scientific exegesis of the scriptures.

              > No, Victor, electrons cannot /accelerate/ without radiating photons.
              > Maxwell told us that, 2 centuries back.
              >
              That is precisely what I mean. If an electron moved inside an atom -
              the atom would have to radiate. Yet when atoms are externally excited,
              the radiated light has a smeared spectrum that is usually interpreted
              as collisions with internal virtual photons. The only way "electrons"
              could move inside an atom without radiating is if they are
              continually interacting with internal light. In that case, an
              electron in an atom would not be an independent entity but part of a
              relationship.

              > If you don't believe in physics, they why are u making a physics
              argument?
              > It's wrong, but it's still a physics argument.
              >
              I can use the evidence gathered by your system to show that the system
              is faulty. I am not claiming to know how atoms work. Even the
              formulas that are based on Aristotle's Conjecture demonstrate that
              light is fundamental to matter. That does not mean I accept the
              formulas but I accept that light is fundamental to matter because the
              Bible strongly implies this and simple evidence supports it. You say,
              you are picking and choosing what you want to believe. Everyone
              accepts some evidence and rejects contradictory evidence to fit their
              world-view. I reject the first principle, so I must carefully try to
              distinguish what is a consequence of the principle and what is raw
              data. I am fallible but I believe the Bible is infallible.
              > >The
              > >simplest answer for quantum duality is that atoms and subatomic
              > >entities are intimately related to internal light. In our bodies,
              > >billions of cells, electrical impulses, chemical messengers, oxygen
              > >carriers, food distribution, defense mechanisms, waste disposal
              > >systems and an incredibly complex mind all work together so that life,
              > >mind and motion are a complex relationship. Every part of a
              > >relationship affects every other part - together. Although you can
              > >remove a part of the body, you will never function as you did before
              > >because we are a relationship in which all parts work together.
              > >According to experiments done with Bell's Inequality, NO LOCAL THEORY
              > >OF MATTER can fit the evidence.
              >
              > Victor, do u see how outrageous this is? First u say u reject
              Aristotle's
              > first assumptions, then u use physics based on that assumption to try to
              > prove you're right. Illogical as well as false.
              >
              I do not reject data, but I do try to determine how the first
              principle affects the definitions, instruments used and the
              interpretation of experiments. An event that produces correlated
              actions eleven kilometers apart is real even if we are not able to
              precisely define what a photon is or how atoms work.

              >
              > Wrong again. Mountains cannot float on water, or be uplifted by
              water, or
              > make space under themselves for water.
              I didn't say they floated on water. The continental and ocean floors
              are completely different in thickness and density. They apparently
              float on a molten or plastic layer and seem to isostatically balance
              so that changes in the ocean affect the height of the continents and
              visa versa.

              >
              > >The simplest way to interpret the Bible and the evidence is that the
              > >continents don't move significantly with respect to earth's center,
              > >but the earth expands along a great global crack. It is the insistence
              > >that we must have a causal mechanism, a clear scientific explanation,
              > >that prevents people from believing the Bible that says the earth
              > >expands in unbroken continuity. Psalm 136:6 says He spreads out the
              > >earth upon the waters. It uses the word raqa' stamped out, spread out
              > >- but the tense is qual active participle meaning unbroken continuity
              > >again. Look at a map of all the earthquakes and the majority of them
              > >occur along the GREAT GLOBAL CRACK that runs through all the oceans.
              >
              > Wrong again. U really need to study some geology science, ot at least
              > listen to a geologist.
              Professor Sam Carey noticed that if we fit South America to Africa,
              then on his side of the world (Australia) things that obviously once
              fit together (rocks, fossils and the shape of the land) were 50
              degrees apart. The only way he could fit it all back together was on
              a globe about 2/3 the present size. Here is a short article on earth
              expansion.

              http://microlnx.com/expansion/ever_since_wegener.htm

              A short clipping from the above article. "the most troublesome aspect
              of the sea-floor spreading hypothesis was the absence of direct
              evidence of convergence. There was no problem if the Earth was
              expanding, but if it was not, enormous areas of old oceanic crust had
              to be plunging into the mantle along the line of oceanic trenches. It
              was generally expected that the sediment in trenches would show signs
              of this violent phenomena, but none could be found. In trench after
              trench, the sediments turned out to be completely undisturbed; and
              there were no outcrops from the subducted plates."

              I recommend Carey's book, "Theories of the Earth and Universe." He
              has evidence from many areas such as paleo-magnetism, topography,
              orogenesis etc. His theory is that gravity was much lower in the past.
              Forget his theories. Just look at the data. (He died in 2002).


              > No, instead i insist that u tell us why only the inside of the earth is
              > expanding, because if it all expanded "in relationship", there'd be no
              > change except in size. I also insist that u stop contradicting yourself,
              > because u said there would be no locally observable effect.
              >
              The Bible says the earth and everything on it stretches out
              continually not just the inside, but the inside does appear to expand
              more than the crust. Isaiah 44:24 and Isaiah 45:5.
              I have shown simple evidences that the earth has expanded. If matter
              is a complex relationship, it is absurd to demand a causative
              mechanism as though I could decode matter. Can anyone decode the
              complex processes that makes a cell replicate? A recent article
              claims that electrical signals from outside the cell turn certain
              genes on and off. Although we might be able to list its genetic
              sequence, DNA is only a tiny part of the complexity of even the
              "simplest" life because all the complexity must work-together in order
              for life to exist. The simplest way to interpret the evidence is that
              matter also is an intertwined complex relationship.

              > >4. You say define what changes. OK - EVERYTHING. NOTHING STAYS THE
              > >SAME.
              >
              > No, i said "define the changes". Here's an atom in 1972, here's one from
              > 2005. Precisely how do they differ?
              >
              They shift as a relationship which increase their dimensions. Why
              then do we compare the spectrum of a photograph of a 1972 atom with a
              2005 atom and find them identical? If matter decays in a connected
              way all clocks, instruments and measuring units in our local area are
              also affected in a together way. It is only when we compare
              primordial atoms with local atoms that we see that things are not the
              same. Perhaps one reason for that is the stars are ancient, according
              to the Bible. (Yet only a few hundred generations have lived here
              starting two days after the stars began to spread out).
              There is no way I can use the word precise on such a dynamic
              relationship. By taking what is foolishness to the world, but what
              the Bible says grammatically, I have to give up the word precise when
              to comes to understanding how things worked in the past. Yet by
              giving up the first principle, I can take what I see in simplicity. I
              can see in the distance, that primordial atoms are shifted, ancient
              galaxies are not extended and they do not move like local matter. I
              cannot decode this, I simply take it as valid, and I find that the
              Bible speaks about the very things we see - an expanding earth and a
              starry system that is beaten out like hammer blows.

              >
              > Let's be even clearer, Victor. U made it up, based on what u think the
              > Bible says. U have no credible evidence for it. Your alleged
              explanations
              > unravel in tatters after a single round of questions, then u repeat in a
              > week. Lies.
              What you call credible evidence is what fits the scientific first
              principle. I have given simple visible evidences that primordial
              atoms are shifted as a relationship. What is wrong with accepting
              evidence in simplicity, without even the need for philosophical
              assumptions? Of course what I write is foolishness to the world. It
              has to be. God commands me to reject the wisdom of this age [touto
              aion] and rather become a fool [moros] because He takes them with
              their own wisdom. Can He do what He says? Can he make the reasonings
              of the wise useless? (1 Cor 3:20) You see, I admit I am being
              foolish, but I am doing it in a Biblical way. I am not trying to
              honor myself, but trying to show how wise He is that He can make the
              universe work in such a way that the simplest evidence supports His
              word, but complex mathematical systems are self deceptive. That will
              bring great honor and renown to him from the simple people who just
              believed His word.

              > >Victor:
              > >There is no reference system against which you can compare things that
              > >change as a relationship.
              >
              > Yes there is. For one teeny tiny example, consider a hydrogen atom. Its
              > electrons occupy energy levels, which depend linearly on Planks's
              constant,
              > and the charge of the proton and electron. I.e. change one by 1%,
              and the
              > levels change by 1%.
              >
              > We can also measure the mass/charge ratio, so if charge or mass changes,
              > they must change in the same ratio, or we'd notice.
              >
              > But we can also convert the proton to energy (let it meet an
              antiproton),
              > and that results in a gamma pulse whose energy depends on the
              /square/ of
              > the mass of the proton. So if everything scaled up say 1%, then we might
              > not detect a change in the the Lymann emission lines, but we'd certainly
              > detect a change in the p+/p- spectrum, because one scales in the
              ratio of
              > mass (via charge), and the other scales in the ratoi of mass squared.
              >
              > No change can keep both the ratio and the square of a number the
              same. We'd
              > notice.
              >
              > I have told u this a dozen times, u keep ignoring it, because it
              > contradicts the untruths u want to purvey. Lies, Victor.
              >
              If the first principle upon which the definitions of time, mass and
              energy are based were true, your arguments would be very powerful.
              You cannot legitimately test a first principle using the structure
              that is historically based on it. You have to go back to the most
              elementary level and use the simplest kinds of evidence. Again all
              these definitions and calculated constants are based on the same first
              principle.

              Humans invented Plank's constant. It has no real existence. It
              remains constant because it is defined in terms of properties that we
              invented. It also depends on the units used. If we used a different
              duration than a second, we would come up with a different constant.
              If matter really does decay, as Paul says, we have no fixture except
              the symbolic ones we invented. I have ujsed the example of
              equilibrium constants that remain constant because the chemical
              reaction is dynamic and continuously changing. (Billions of reactions
              in one direction are balanced by billions in the other on the tiniest
              scale). The constants are a defined in terms of the essential nature
              of a dynamic relationship and so they remain constant even while
              everything is shifting.

              How do I know that time is the enigma that thwarts all our structured
              knowledge systems? The Bible says Solomon was the wisest man who ever
              would live, and he says it is this time in our mind that prevents us
              from understanding how wonderfully things worked in the past. No
              matter how you look at it, if atoms change in such a way that motions
              and geometry (gravity and space if you like those terms) change
              together we would have a horrible problem with time. Why? There is
              nothing we can compare durations with except the things that change
              and move and they would also be affected.

              Is there simple evidence that can test this first principle without
              the structured system that is built upon it? Yes! Ptolemy, made
              precision measurements, and left detailed descriptions of how to
              manipulate these measurements mathematically and even described how to
              construct the instruments. He measured durations with the Egyptian
              calendar that easily gives the exact number of days between dates.
              (With the Babylonian calendar, you would have to know which months had
              29 and which 30 days and when they put intercalary months in etc. In
              other words you had to go through all the diaries to count the days).
              He measured essentially the same synodic periods as we, but his
              planets are too large, distances too small and his inner planets are
              too close to the sun at maximum elongation. It is as though he
              measured a solar system that has continuously spiraled out since then.
              If matter is a decaying relationship everything should change, but if
              durations also change, we would still measure the same periods. Why?
              Because there is nothing to compare durations to except the things
              that change or move. This kind of evidence is not dependent on our
              modern assumptions, and it would suggests that the first principle is
              indeed false as the Bible also suggests.

              What the Bible says about time is the most glaring contradiction to
              the scientific system. Just like the pagans who lived back then, the
              Bible agrees that ancient time was long.

              Scientists have constructed an artificial tree with mathematics and
              logic. They keep working on the tree, adjusting and adapting it and
              praising its intricate structure. I am merely pointing out that an
              artificial tree cannot model a real tree in the long term because the
              real one grows and changes. The symbolic tree, the mathematical one,
              is constructed upon the assumption that matter is not continuously
              changing.

              > No, Victor, you can't just say "first principles" as the answer to every
              > question. At some point u must actually reply to reasonable objections.
              > Science already works too well for me to be taken in by these lies.
              >
              I use first principles because 1. It is biblical 2. It is historically
              of primary importance. 3. It affects the whole system of knowledge
              all at once. 4. It permits the complete triumph of God's word over
              human wisdom which is what the Bible predicts. My dogma is that God
              has spoken through His Word, and I should interpret it with grammar.
              If I do, I glorify Him as the only one that can be wise and the
              perfect Judge who defeats those who do not believe His word with their
              own system of reasoning.
              > >Victor:
              > >Not locally detectable with scientific experiments. If the earth
              > >increases in size due to fundamental changes in atoms - we could not
              > >meansure it with instruments but we could see the evidence for it with
              > >our eyes.
              >
              > That last sentence is so absurd it readily invalidates your whole
              schtick.
              > A tape measure would either show the earth was expanding, or that it
              > wasn't. Does a tape measure expand with the earth, yes or no? If yes, it
              > shows no difference in the distance from paris to New York, if no,
              it shows
              > no difference between two rocks in the ocean bottom on opposie sides
              of the
              > mid-Atlantic trench. Which contradiction will u choose, Victor?
              Tsch, what
              > a tangled web you weave...
              Tape measures cannot be used on the bottom at the fissure because it
              is complex and wide (many parallel cracks) and it changes in three
              dimensions (great mountains are being built).

              For the sake of argument, lets image that we find a spot where the
              fissure is only opening laterally in a narrow single crack on a plain.
              Now we construct two concrete pillars 100 meters apart across the
              fissure. We come back next year and we photograph new pillow lavas at
              the fissure. We compare the tape measure and it is 5 cm more than the
              previous measurement. If atoms increase their geometric space, the
              atoms in the tape are also affected. The measurement we make is a
              differential measurement. The component that is due to fundamental
              change is not measurable but the differential part is. The component
              due to fundamental change is probably minuscule in this age. In the
              past it could have been quite large because the abyssal depths have
              plains on both sides of the longest mountain range known anywhere in
              the solar system. The sea floor between the mountains and the
              continental shelves shows evidence that it spread rapidly. It also
              shows evidence of having drained off enormous amounts of sediments
              from the land that overflowed all along the continental shelves. The
              Bible agrees that the oceans opened up at the end of the flood to
              receive the water and the mountains uplifted at the same time.

              When we try to measure the whole earth, we cannot use a tape. We must
              use instruments that use our symbolic time to make the measurements -
              such as GPS, lasers ranging to the GEOS, and the time delay of signals
              from distant quasars using VLBI from different continents. We know
              that matter is affected by its local environments (e,g, clocks slow
              down in the vicinity of large objects.) If every aspect of reality is
              changing as a relationship, orbits, clocks, meter sticks would all
              change in a way that differential measurements would not detect.

              I can believe the Bible and the simple visible evidence that the
              ancient earth was considerably smaller. However, if fundamental
              change is ongoing, I cannot make precise mathematical causal
              statements about this increase. 1. All atoms expand - lets call this
              fundamental change. 2. All atoms interact in differential ways with
              their environment. On the macro level we can measure and model such
              differential changes. 3. Only the component of change that is
              differential can be modeled with mathematics or measured with
              experiments locally, although the simple evidence that fundamental
              change is ongoing is visible in the resulting geography, even to those
              untrained in science.
            • grant hallman
              ... Looks to me like u are trying to change the focus from your ideas do not fit observations and your conclusions are unjustified , to your own personal
              Message 6 of 10 , Jan 14, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                At 09:41 AM 14-01-05 -0000, Victor wrote:
                >
                >
                >>Grant:
                >> No need to YELL, Victor, a shouted red herring is still a red >herring.
                >>
                >Red herring arguments try to deflect someone from the real issue.
                >(The term came from a method of distracting hunting dogs from the
                >scent by scattering ripe fish around). I am doing the opposite. I am
                >focusing on the first principle, the most important assumption.

                Looks to me like u are trying to change the focus from "your ideas do not
                fit observations and your conclusions are unjustified", to your own
                personal Biblical interpretations. I call that a red herring.

                >> >I used to
                >> >tailor the Bible to fit science.
                >>
                >> Whereas now, u tailor it to fit your personal views. I have looked
                >at some
                >> of your proof texts, Victor. Many are not even close to the
                >>conclusions u
                >> demand from them.
                >>
                >I did not get this from a fertile imagination, but by studying
                >biblical passages about earth-history with hermeneutical principles
                >alone. I often refer to the grammar and word meanings in the original
                >language. Show that my exegesis is incorrect using the context and
                >grammar of the original language and I will admit personal bias.

                I don't speak ancient Greek or Aramaic, but i trust the translations
                provided by Nestle and other scholars. You repeatedly make not only silk
                purses but entire wardrobes out of a few bristles from a sow's ear. Your
                entire thesis about "first principles" is utterly ungrounded, and your
                Biblical prooftexts are not capable of carrying the burden you place on
                them. Simply put, you're making this stuff up.

                >I admit that no English translation renders II Peter 3:4 the way I do.
                > Yet the arguments I make, are contextual, grammatical and historical.

                They push the text far, far out of shape into your mould. Whether they are
                contextual, grammatical and historical is rather beside the point of
                whether they're right. For reference, here's the text, KJV:

                2 Pet 3:
                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.

                > In Peter's day, students were expected to debate first principles
                >because the investigation of truth was done through dialectics
                >(enquiry into metaphysical contradictions through oral debates).
                >(a.) In the standard exegesis of this text, those who don't believe in
                >the flood or the coming of Jesus, say that all things continue the
                >same since the beginning of "creation" - yet these people are unlikely
                >to believe in creation. The translators are using the terms in a
                >theological sense but the context shows non believers speaking about
                >physical things.

                Only to you, Victor.

                >(b.) The quoted text ends in "arches ktiseos." Arche, as used by the
                >intellectuals of that day, meant the starting point, the first
                >principle, the underlying substance, the ultimate undemonstrable
                >principle that is the basis of a system of science. Although ktisis
                >can refer to anything created, it can also mean a rule or ordinance.
                >Since the context predicts that they will reject the clear evidence of
                >the flood, they are giving their reasons in the common language of
                >schools (philosophy). They seem to be talking about their first
                >principle, the primary rule or ordinance of the last days.
                >(c.) If this exegesis is valid, and we live in the last days, the idea
                >that all things continue the same in "being or relation"should be in
                >first place. (The Greek philosophers used the word diamenei: to
                >remain permanently the same in being or relation). Ancient people
                >thought that matter changed in being or relation. Today everyone
                >seems to think the opposite. [If an atom changed as a relation, all of
                >its parts would be like an army that marches in step - as a unit.
                >Twice in Romans 8:20 Paul uses the Greek word hupotasso, a military
                >term meaning to arrange troops in a military fashion in obedience to
                >their officers. In the next verse he twice uses together-words to
                >illustrate how matter decays. He even used the same Greek word
                >(phthora) that Plato used for the decay of matter. Things that act as
                >a relationship - act together.]
                >(d.) If it really is a first principle, it should be the modern
                >primary assumption, because a first principle is the starting point
                >for a system of reasoning. I have attempted to demonstrate this.
                >(e.) If Peter's prophesy has come true and my exegesis is correct,
                >than we should be able to trace through history where this idea came
                >from and how it became the first principle. I have shown that it
                >originated with Aristotle and he called it an assumption. Prior to
                >the work of Roger Bacon, Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas in the
                >13th century, Christian intellectuals used the Bible plus the pagan
                >Plato for their world-view. Thomas discredited Plato and got
                >Christians to embrace the metaphysics of the pagan Aristotle as the
                >basis for science while relegating the Bible to the area of spiritual
                >knowledge. After Thomas, universities teaching logic, mathematics and
                >metaphysics spread all over Europe. No prophesy is of one's own
                >interpretation, but this one evidently has come true. Show me that I
                >am wrong in history or grammar. Show me that this idea is not the
                >first principle of the Western system and I will admit I am wrong.
                >
                >Can anyone show me IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE a single passage in the
                >Bible that supports a law of science.

                Of course not. Science had not been invented when that stuff was written,
                not one of its laws discovered. The world's inability to answer your
                requirement, is not a point for your argument.

                >I used to accept Romans 8:19 -
                >22 as supporting the Second Law, until I notice that the Greek
                >contradicts several aspects of this law.

                Stop trying to do science with the Bible, Victor. It's not meant for that,
                you're confusing yourself and anyone who doesn't know enough science to see
                the problems.

                >Grant, you argue that the premise is true because it would be
                >impossible for the scientific system to be invalid since it works. In

                Not quite. I argue that you argue that science is based on a false premise,
                yet works better than any other explanation for the physical world. Your
                position is illogical. If science is based on a false premise, it shouldn't
                work.

                >other words you justify the assumption with the system that is
                >historically built upon that assumption.

                Nah. I justify science because it gets the right answers, quantitatively,
                down to 3 or 6 or even 9 decimal places, for a staggeringly broad range of
                phenomena including everything we see in ordinary experience. Any belief
                system that works that well, has got its pants on the right way forward.

                > Positive proofs are
                >inherently difficult because they depend on assumptions. This is
                >because using the system built upon the assumption to authenticate the
                >assumption is circular and such reasoning often proves faulty. You

                Victor, this argument is crap. Science works. It gets the right answers.
                There's nothing "circular" about it. You ask, what is the precise series of
                thrusts which will get the Saturn probe thru the Cassini division, a
                50-mile target a billion miles from Earth? Science gives the right answer.
                You ask, what is the conductivity of a germanium-doped silicon
                semiconductor when charged to -3 volts? Science gives the right answer. You
                ask 10,000 different questions about the physical world, science gives the
                right answers. That's not "circular", that's "being right". You don't have
                to believe or disbelieve any first principles, u just have to look at the
                data from the Cassini probe, or put a voltmeter on the transistor, or
                whatever it takes to quantitatively verify science's prediction.
                "Circular", phooie!

                >are actually proving my argument that the idea that matter does not
                >change is the first principle, since it is the basis of all your
                >arguments. A first principle does that - because it is so elementary
                >that it is the starting point for a system of reasoning. It is so
                >elementary that its disciples don't even know how to think with
                >contrary assumptions.

                I am perfectly willing to look at contrary assumptions. You said the earth
                is expanding, and the seafloor spreading proves it. I asked myself, what if
                that's true? What is the logical conclusion? Immediately there's a problem.
                If the earth is expanding, then so is the seafloor, and there's no ridges
                caused by the expansion.

                Therefore, your premise is not validated by observations. This is not my
                failure to think with other assumptions, it's the failure of those other
                assumptions to correlate with the evidence. Your seafloor-spreading idea
                even contradicts your own assertion that the effect is not locally
                measurable.

                You continue to ignore these massive difficulties with your assertions,
                which is why i believe u are deliberately promoting untruth. If u were
                interested in truth, you would change your mind when contrary evidence is
                presented. I don't think you're evil, i think you are so deeply invested in
                your own private worldview that u cannot handle contrary evidence.

                >I am trying to show that if the premise is false, the system built
                >upon it can only be adjusted to work in the near-term. It is

                Define "work". Define "Near term". Science already works, Victor.

                >impossible to invent scientific definitions of time, mass, energy etc.
                >without holding Aristotle's Conjecture as dogma.

                This statement is simply not true. Science defines its terms quite precisely.

                > Science was built
                >upon this assumption. Yet, if I do not hold the assumption, I can
                >accept what we see in the distant universe simply.

                You're not doing science. Science has to do more than "accept simply".
                Science has to explain quantitatively, and it does so very well.

                > I do not have to
                >invent invisible things,

                You would, if u were trying to explain the physical world quantitatively,
                i.e. doing science. Science invented electricity. There's a bare wire - is
                it grounded, or does it carry a painful jolt of voltage? The truth is
                invisible, but it's perfectly real.

                > and my earth history would not disagree with
                >what the Bible and what ancient peoples said about the earth a few
                >thousand years ago. In that case the premise is at least suspect.

                Your earth history would disagree sharply with a literal interpretation of
                the Bible, if u were trying to explain the physical world quantitatively.
                You're not, so u don't see the problem, because u haven't gotten to it yet.

                >You site the Michaelson-Morley experiment. (Michaelson received the
                >seventh Nobel physics prize in 1907 for this experiment). The
                >experiment demonstrated that the speed of light is not a relative
                >measurement. However you cannot compare past measurements with
                >present ones without relying on Aristotle's Conjecture.

                So that board i cut last night, won't fit the place i need it to make my
                cabinet today. That was a "past measurement". Sorry, Victor, u can dance
                but u can't escape fatal paradox with this argument.

                >By the way,
                >if matter is a relationship with light, as the first verses in the
                >Bible suggest, light should have properties unlike anything else.

                Why?

                >That is because, the geometry, shape, space, or structure of matter
                >came into existence when God created light.

                Absurd claim. The author of Genesis had no idea that matter had
                "structure", thus could not have meant this.

                >Those verses alone,
                >without any other reference, should suggest to believers that matter
                >is intimately involved with light. The evidence sure seems to support
                >this simple exegesis.

                You're handwaving. Make a testable prediction different from science, about
                this intimate involvement.

                >I will respond to your challenges in a separate post to limit the
                >length of each.

                Cheerio -

                grant
              • peaceharris
                ... Harris: The author of this website has the following equation at his website: 0 = C_x * A_x + C_y^2 (C_x should be read as C subscript x) The above
                Message 7 of 10 , Jan 16, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Victor" <ptolemy1022@y...> wrote:

                  > http://www.wbabin.net/physics/baranow2.htm

                  Harris:

                  The author of this website has the following equation at his website:

                  0 = C_x * A_x + C_y^2

                  (C_x should be read as C subscript x)

                  The above equation is not dimensionally correct. He has 1 term of
                  dimensions velocity * accelaration, and another term of velocity *
                  velocity, and he adds those 2 terms.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.