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

Re: Comparing Santa and science

Expand Messages
  • alphaori2002
    ... Biblical physics is a useless idea that serves no purpose other than for yo to stroke your own ego. A way for you to think you are better than everyone
    Message 1 of 18 , May 1, 2009
      --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Victor" <godsriddle@...> wrote:
      >
      > Unlike science that ends up contriving invisible things, biblical physics is the basis for accepting what is visible, the visible history of the universe from the creation to the present.
      >


      Biblical physics is a useless idea that serves no purpose other than for yo to stroke your own ego. A way for you to think you are better than everyone else.






      > Why can't scientists see what is visible? They do not see just with optics.


      Straw man. Scientists do accept what is visible, but we also know that there is more to the universe than can be seen by the naked eye.


      > They see with mathematical theories and symbolical versions of reality - things like mass, energy and time which are invisible.


      These are refered to as abstract concepts. You seem to have difficulting understanding the abstract.




      > Their entire structured system was built on the very idea that the bible predicted for the last day false teachers - that all things diamenei - all things remain the same in being. Biblical physics is simple because it accepts what is visible as fact, that matter is always changing its properties throughout cosmic history. This is why biblical physics posits no invisible things.


      So God is visible to you? Do you see God? Do you see thought and emotion? Do you see love and hate? Do you see gravity, electric fields, magnetics fields, and electrons? Not just the effects but you actual see these things directly or are these abstract concepts? So do not delude yourself Victor or try and fool us with clearly nonsense talk.




      > It simply accept how the all matter keeps on changing relationally and all galaxies grew from tiny objects packed with stars to great growth spirals.
      >



      We reject your nonsense about matter expanding like a balloon because no one can "see" it.

      paul
    • alphaori2002
      ... That is just the point. The measurements DO NOT show any hint of decrease. Only by cherry picking and misunderstanding the data do you think you see a
      Message 2 of 18 , May 1, 2009
        --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Victor" <godsriddle@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Ok, lets assume that all the expert astronomers who measured an expanding solar system since antiquity had serious problems with their measurements. Why then, do the optical parallax measurement continue to decrease (an expanding solar system) during the last century.



        That is just the point. The measurements DO NOT show any hint of decrease. Only by cherry picking and misunderstanding the data do you think you see a decrease. It isn't real. There is no decrease. It is a figment of your imagination. You are wrong.





        > The parallax calculated during the last century included Eros as oppostition and the radar time delays. YEt the optical parallax keeps on getting smaller using Mars and Venus even during the 21st century.



        No they do not. You cannot look at one number and derive such a conclusion, especially a very poorly determined number by amateurs. You do not understand the data and the process of data taking and analysis.



        > We observe that galactic orbits always acclerate outward even as the atomic clocks also concurrently acclerate. This observation is not a minor one. Hundreds of billions of galaxies show accelerating atomic clocks and expanding orbits as the galaxies grew into huge growth spirals.
        >


        No one see galactic orbits accelerating. It is not an observation that exists. You again are deluding yourself with things that do not exist. You see these things just because you want to see them.







        > We can see the simple, visible evidence that the primoridal earth was minuscule. We see the great stretch marks on the bootom of the ocean, the transform fualts, the global expansion seam. We readily see that the continents are much older than the sea floor, and that 2.3rds of the earth's crust has formed since the contentents were formed. Not a shred of evidence exists for subduction that was not contrived with the assumption that the earth must reamain the same diameter because atoms are perpetual motion machines. Scientists measure perpetual motion atoms because they contrived their operation definitions with the assumption that the properties of matter are not emergent.
        >

        We see no such thing. Arguments with straw men are fallacious and ignorable.




        > You only see dark matter with an assumption, that all matter is not continually changing relationally. Relational change is parallel change. If matter changes relationally, then the space matter takes up, its quatum frequencies, its inertial and other proerties would all change in parallel as atoms aged. Relational changes cannot be measured because it affects the definitions, the measuring units, the matehemtics - the entire emirical system in parallael. Hoiwever, it does not affect sight. We can see in all parts of the spectrum that the properties of all matter are always changing throughout cosmic history.
        >



        NO. It is not an assumption. It is what we visibly see in the data. You are rejecting the data simply because you do not like it. that is nonsensical. No one sees the properties of matter changing. It is no a valid observation.








        >
        > I have quoted Aristotle's words to you. He laid out in a logical manner how previous philosophers had tried to solve the problem of change. He argued against their ideas - even those from his teacher Plato. Then he insisted that we must just ASSUME that all attributes belong already to all matter. HE commanded his disciples to build all knowledge on changelessness, even though none is visible.
        >


        Then you better read it again. He never makes the claims you try to make him say. You clearly do no understand Aristotle and his relevance, or lack of relevance, to current science.




        >
        > The concept of work depends on Aristotle's first principle. It is interrelated with the concept of time, energy, distance and motions - all of which depend on Aristotle's assumption that the properties of matter are not emerging.
        >


        Arsistotle never made such a statement. Science goes with the observations. There are no observations that matter expands like a balloon.





        > Science's primary unit is the second. An empirical system must assume perpetual motion somewhere. You cannot invent equal valued seconds unless you assume that some sort of change or motion has the property of perpetual motion. In the scientific systrem, atoms are assumed to do perpetual motion and the entire empirical system is built on that idea.
        >
        > Biblical physics cannot assume any perpetual motion - because the Bible clearly states the the creation is fundamentally changing - phthora.
        >

        biblical physics is a silly idea of yours that has no meaning, no merit, and no purpose.






        > When scientists assume that orbits do not continually accelerate, they use their perpetual motion atoms to calculate the orbits.



        it is because we do not see it.





        > The entire structure of scientific physics depends on the idea that time is an independent variable.



        So what does time depend on?





        > Yet we can see how the stars in billions of galaxies accelerated continually throughout cosmic history as galaxies grew - the stars coming out, expanding, as the atomic clocks also accelerated.



        No one sees such nonsense.





        > Raqiya, as you have properly pointed out, is is something that spreads out, a hammered out sheet or anything that spreads out.


        No it is something that has been hammered out.







        > According to the Bible, God placed the Sun, Moon and stars in the raqiay, the spreading out place. The placing of the Sun moon and stars in incomplete, an action that continues. From the literal text of the Bible, one would expect that the orbits of the Sun, Moon and stars are accelerating, spreading out continually. THis is exactly what we see in the visible history of the universe, how the stars acclerated as billions of galaxies grew into huge, dusty growth sprials.
        >


        Nonsense.





        > Next week the Herschel will launch. It will be the largest space telescope to date, with the ability to see the farthest in infrared. I predict that, if the launch is successful and it works, that the pictures will clearly show a literal biblical cosmic history.



        There is no biblical cosmic history since the Bible is not a science book.





        > Hubble deep photos already show a literal biblical cosmic history, but the deeper photos should image the galaxies in an earlier stage of their growth. We might be able to see bow-shocks, gas trails, star streams, periodic jets as galaxy clusters formed by ejections. Perhaps we will be able to see the linkages between the equally spaced chains of galaxies that show the raqiya, the pounded out heavens. We already see with hundreds of telescopes how every atom in the universe keeps on changing its properties throughout cosmic history.
        >
        > I predict that the God of the Bible will utterly and completely humiliate science - bring scientists to shame and disrepute. He said He would make foolish the wisdom of this world. He even warns believers that if they try to be wise in this world - they will deceive themselves because He is taking the wise with their own wisdom. How? In the heavens, in the pounded out spreading out heavens that continually go from dense things to cloud like things, that continually spread out like a tent as the stars continually come out - just like the literal words of the Bible state. The triumph of the Bible over science will be absolute and complete.
        >
        > Prepare for war. Scientists will not like the humiliating experience of having to examine their fundamental assumption, the assumption their entire structure depends upon. Think about it.
        >



        drop the ad baculum, it changes nothing. Prepare for war? What war? What in the world are you talking about now?

        I did. I think you are nuts.

        paul
      • eric benson
        ...   Evolution In A Test Tube: Scientists Make Molecules That Evolve And Compete, Mimicking Behavior Of Darwin s Finches ... Scripps Research Institute has
        Message 3 of 18 , May 1, 2009

          > Science News

          > NEWSFLASH
           
          Evolution In A Test Tube: Scientists Make Molecules That Evolve And
          Compete, Mimicking Behavior Of Darwin's Finches
          >
          > ScienceDaily (Apr. 30, 2009) — A group of scientists at The
          Scripps Research Institute has set up the microscopic equivalent of the
          Galapagos Islands—an artificial ecosystem inside a test tube where
          molecules evolve to exploit distinct ecological niches, similar to the
          finches that Charles Darwin famously described in "The Origin of
          Species" 150 years ago.
          >
          > As described in an
          article published in the journal Proceedings of the
          National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the work demonstrates some of the
          classic principles of evolution. For instance, research shows that when
          different species directly compete for the same finite resource, only
          the fittest will survive.
          >
          > The work also demonstrates how, when given a variety of resources, the
          different species will evolve to become increasingly specialized, each
          filling different niches within their common ecosystem.
          >
          > Conducted by Sarah Voytek, Ph.D., a recent graduate of the Scripps
          Research Kellogg School of Science and Technology, the work is intended
          to advance understanding of Darwinian evolution. Using molecules rather
          than living species offers a robust way to do this because it allows the
          forces of evolution to work over the course of mere days, with a
          trillion molecules in a test tube replicating every few minutes.
          >
          > "We can study things very quickly," says Scripps Research Professor
          Gerald Joyce, M.D., Ph.D., who was Voytek's advisor and her coauthor on
          the paper. Joyce is the dean of the faculty at Scripps Research, where
          he is also a professor in the Department of Molecular Biology, the
          Department of Chemistry, and The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology.
          >
          > On the voyage of the HMS Beagle, Darwin collected and studied
          different species of finches on several of the Galapagos Islands. The
          finches differed in their beak structure — some had thick, strong
          beaks and others had thin, delicate ones. Darwin observed that the
          different finches were each adapted for the specific types of seeds that
          served as their primary food source. The big-beaked birds were
          indigenous to the places where the big seeds grew; in areas where there
          were also small seeds, there were also small-beaked birds. Darwin
          reasoned that the finches had a common ancestor but had separated into
          different species — a classic concept in Darwinian evolution known
          as "niche partitioning, " which holds that when two species are competing
          for resources within a common environment, they become differentiated so
          that each species adapts to use different preferred resources.
          >
          > For several years, Joyce has been experimenting
          with a particular type
          of enzymatic RNA molecule that can continuously evolve in the test tube.
          The basis of this evolution comes from the fact that each time one of
          the molecules replicates, there is a chance it will mutate —
          typically about once per round of replication — so the population
          can acquire new traits over time.
          >
          > Two years ago, Voytek managed to develop a second, unrelated enzymatic
          RNA molecule that also can continuously evolve. This allowed her to set
          the two RNAs in evolutionary motion within the same pot, forcing them to
          compete for common resources, just like two species of finches on an
          island in the Galapagos.
          >
          > In the new study, the key resource or "food" was a supply of molecules
          necessary for each RNA's replication. The RNAs will only replicate if
          they have catalyzed attachment of themselves to these food molecules. So
          long as the RNAs have ample food, they will replicate, and as they
          replicate, they will mutate. Over time, as these mutations accumulate,
          new forms emerge — some fitter than others.
          >
          > When Voytek and Joyce pitted the two RNA molecules in a head-to-head
          competition for a single food source, they found that the molecules that
          were better adapted to use a particular food won out. The less fit RNA
          disappeared over time. Then they placed the two RNA molecules together
          in a pot with five different food sources, none of which they had
          encountered previously. At the beginning of the experiment each RNA
          could utilize all five types of food — but none of these were
          utilized particularly well. After hundreds of generations of evolution,
          however, the two molecules each became independently adapted to use a
          different one of the five food sources. Their preferences were mutually
          exclusive — each highly preferred its own food source and shunned
          the other molecule's food source.
          >
          > In the process, the molecules evolved different evolutionary
          approaches to achieving their ends. One became super efficient at
          gobbling up its food, doing so at a rate that was about a hundred times
          faster than the other. The other was slower at acquiring food, but
          produced about three times more progeny per generation. These are both
          examples of classic evolutionary strategies for survival, says Joyce.
          >

        • ochs_matt
          ... MATT: That s exactly right Vic; you must have woken up. If not, I ve got lots more to wake you up boy.
          Message 4 of 18 , May 1, 2009
            --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Victor" <godsriddle@...> wrote: Garbage.
            >
            > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "isaac3rd2000" <isaac3rd@> wrote:
            > >
            > > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Victor" <godsriddle@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Parents often tell stories about Santa Claus. "The Christmas presents came from Santa who lives at the North Pole." Children can see many symbolical representations of Santa in shopping malls and on TV. However, no one has ever seen the real Santa or any presents that actually came from him. The stories have a foundation in myths that have been told for centuries.
            > >
            > > Victor then proceeds to bore us yet again with his own made up stories about "biblical physics," something he made up, that no one else can see, and is entirely useless for any purpose whatsoever. No one has ever seen the things Victor says are visible with plain sight, like the atoms in galaxies millions of light years away.
            > >
            > > "Biblical physics" is Victor's Santa Claus.

            Vic:
            > Unlike science <snip>
            MATT: That's exactly right Vic; you must have woken up. If not, I've got lots more to wake you up boy.
          • Rodger Wisniski
            ... From: Victor To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Comparing Santa and science Date: Fri, 01 May 2009
            Message 5 of 18 , May 1, 2009
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Victor
              To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Comparing Santa and science
              Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 05:46:38 -0000

              --- In creation_evolution_ debate@yahoogrou ps.com, "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@.. .> wrote:
              >
              > On 30 Apr 2009 at 16:57, Victor wrote:
              >
              > > Parents often tell stories about Santa Claus. "The Christmas
              > > presents came from Santa who lives at the North Pole." Children can
              > > see many symbolical representations of Santa in shopping malls and
              > > on TV. However, no one has ever seen the real Santa or any presents
              > > that actually came from him. The stories have a foundation in myths
              > > that have been told for centuries.
              > >
              > > Scientist tell stories about the history of the universe. According
              > > the these stories, the universe is filled with invisible matter and
              > > numerous vacuous processes that allegedly were involved in the
              > > universe's formation and ongoing processes. Children can see many
              > > symbolical representation of these stories in school and on TV.
              > > However, no one has ever seen a single ray of light traceable to the
              > > invisible things. The stories have a foundation in myths that have
              > > been told for centuries.
              >
              > There is a difference. The stories about Santa Claus are a
              > corruption of the actual history and life of St. Nicholas of Mira.
              > The hypotheses and theories about the structure and history of the
              > universe are the result of many, many observations and experiments.
              >
              > What are your qualifications to critique General Relativity? Do you
              > even UNDERSTAND it?

              I have dozens of books on time and relativity. I understand the principles. I also understand that general relativity is based on an assumption, like the other theories of physics. This assumption is: the properties of matter are not emergent. Indeed the very idea that time exists, that it has some sort of actuality, that actually affects motions and objects is based on the assumption that clocks measure linear time because they are made of perpetual motion atoms.

              >
              > Or is it really just that you envy the prestige of those who DO
              > understand these matters and seek to garner some personal prestige
              > for yourself by appealing to creationists whom you KNOW will be
              > suckers for just about any tripe that has the word "Bible" or
              > "biblical" in it regardless of how little it actually relates to the
              > Bible?

              On the contrary, most creationists are horrified by what I write. One creationist wrote me that I was upsetting forty years of efforts on his part to show that the Bible is scientific. However, a few bible students encourage me to interpret the Bible and earth-history with scripture instead of science.

              >
              > > When examining myths, it is useful to examine how the stories came
              > > into existence. Science was founded on a myth, an idea made up by a
              > > pagan philosopher 2300 years ago. He taught that we could not invent
              > > science unless we assumed that the properties of matter are fixed,
              >
              > Regardless of what Aristotle may have thought, no physicist today
              > thinks that the properties of matter are immutable. The LAWS THAT
              > GOVERN THEM are, for the most part, though unchanging. That is to
              > say, for example, any free neutron, since the very earliest seconds
              > of the universe's existence has had a 50% chance of decaying to a
              > hydrogen atom within about 5,956,825,386, 960 oscillations of a
              > Caesium-133 atom in the same reference frame.
              >
              Let go over epistemic history one more time.

              1. Every science must be built on an assumption, known as a first principle. It is impossible to contrive a science without such a principle because it the epistemic foundation for the entire structure.

              2. The pagan Greek tried for centuries to find agreement about a first principle upon which to construct a natural science. They were not able to agree on an arche during the classical age. Every arche was an attempt to solve the puzzle of how and if matter changes.

              3. Fifteen hundred years later, a mendicant friar, Thomas, wrote extensively suggesting that Christians adopt Aristotle's system. His system was based on the assumption that the properties of matter are fixed, not emergent, that matter does not change itself, change as it ages.

              4. Although Aristotle's physics eventually failed, over the centuries, his elementary assumption became dogma. All modern scientists have a creed, that historically came from Aristotle, that matter is not continually changing relationally.

              5. It was upon that creed that they constructed their operational definitions of matter and time; their methods; their mathematics, their laws of physics and their scientific histories. The entire structure was built on a single elementary assumption. The entire structure works locally because every part of it is based on the same assumption.

              6. However, none of the laws of physics work in the long ago visible universe. This is why science must invent magical matter and various vacuous processes to explain away what is so plainly visible - that the properties of all matter keep on changing throughout cosmic history.

              7. Biblical physics is not based on an elementary assumption of a pagan Greek. It is based on the literal Greek and Hebrew text of the Bible. According to the Bible, the creation is in bondage to phthora, change fundamentally. We confirm biblical physics with sight, not perpetual motion atomic-measuring units. Anyone who is allowed to believe their eyes can see in the history of how galaxies formed, that matter is always changing itself.

              > > not emerging. This idea did not achieve the status of dogma during
              > > the classical age. Fifteen hundred years later, a Catholic monk
              > > studied Aristotle's system and convinced the popes and school
              > > teachers of Europe to adopt his system. Aristotle's idea was that
              > > matter does not change itself, change as it ages, change
              > > relationally. Over the last centuries, many scientists used
              > > Aristotle's idea to define reality and to invent symbolical ways of
              > > measuring and mathematicating based his assumption. For example, the
              > > primary scientific measuring unit is the second, which is used to
              > > define many other units such as meters, velocities, gravity, energy
              > > and mass. Modern seconds depend on the notion that atoms do
              > > perpetual motion.
              >
              > I guess you were asleep in science class when they told about Galileo
              > Galilei deconstructing some of Aristotle's blunders.
              >
              Indeed he did. However, even Galileo did not question Aristotle's first principle - that the properties of matter are not changing relationally.

              > > Is the historical scientific foundation valid? Not according to the
              > > Bible. The Bible predicts that in the last days false teachers will
              > > come saying "panta outos diamenei - all things remain the same in
              > > being." Biblical physics is based on the word of God. The Bible
              > > clearly states that the creation is in bondage to phthora,
              > > fundamental change.
              >
              > This text which you take out of its historic context and misinterpret
              > to your own destruction was about people insisting that Old Testament
              > law remained valid in the New Covenant.
              > >
              This is a New Testament text, written in Greek by a fisherman disciple of Jesus, Peter. The context is
              1. knowledge - the most important knowledge.
              2. the history of the stars.
              3. the history of the earth.

              The second passage is also from the New Testament and also in Greek. The writer was a Jewish scholar who grew up and was schooled in a Greek city. According to Strabo, Tarsus' schools were so advanced during Paul's day that they rivaled the schools of Alexandria and Athens.

              The context is.
              1. That the creation is subject to degeneration. The word subject is hupotasso - and orderly arrangement under some rule or authority.
              2. The Greek word is repeated in two different verb forms.
              3. The context is the entire creation - all physical reality.
              4. The Apostle Paul illustrated this phthora with two Greek together verbs. What ever is changing, according to Paul, is changing together, changing relationally.

              What is so hard about interpreting the Bible hereneutically. This passage was interpreted by the Greek school teacher Origen, 1750 years ago. He understood it to mean that matter is changing - even the bodies of the sun, earth and planets. He even quoted other bible pasages to support his literal interpretation. Why don't modern Christians accept this passage literally? Why do they claim it means the second law? an idea that did not even exist when the Bible was written.

              > > When examining myths, it is useful to rely on visible evidence,
              >
              > Which is precisely what astronomers do. What they also do is use
              > LOGIC to connect one set of observations to another. I suspect it is
              > your inability to do so that has made you envious.
              >
              > > rather symbolical representations of reality. Is Santa real or is he
              > > merely a symbol? We see with our eyes a biblical cosmic history, how
              > > the universe was created. We actually see the creation of galaxies,
              > > how they grew from tiny objects packed with stars into huge growth
              > > spirals. NO perpetual motion atoms are visible in hundreds of
              > > billions of ancient galaxies. The history of how galaxies formed is
              > > overwhelming evidence for biblical physics. Galaxies cannot grow,
              > > the stars accelerating out even as the atoms also accelerate their
              > > clock frequencies, unless the properties of all matter are emergent.
              >
              > Atoms do not accelerate their clock frequencies. No such
              > acceleration has ever been observed.
              >
              > > What we see in the universe, its visible history, exactly fits the
              > > grammatical words of the Bible, how the stars continually come
              > > out.
              >
              > No, it fits your distorted misrepresentation of one Bible verse used
              > as a sop to your own envious ego. You really only have so much
              > actual time in which to correct this situation and repent your sin.
              >
              Many Bible verses describe the history of the universe and the processes at work on the earth and stars. I have already repented of twisting the Bible to fit science. I sincerely regret that I did so for many years, but I did it in ignorance because I was trained to think scientifically. I did not know that science was built on the idea of a pagan Greek until I began to interpret the Bible litearlly on the subject of earth-history.

              > > The Bible commands us in the imperative to look at the heavenly
              > > raqiya, the pounded out spreading out heavens. It is there in the
              > > sky that knowledge is available to all. Is your way of thinking and
              > > mathematicating based on symbols or on visible reality? Look at the
              > > heavens! How utterly and completely the Word of God will vanquish
              > > science, the system of mathematicating built on a myth invented by a
              > > pagan philosopher. The scientific universe is 99% invisible in order
              > > to protect this myth that the properties of matter are fixed, not
              > > emerging.
              >
              > What is emerging is a picture of your soul in the black despair of
              > ever-spiralling envy. And your appeal to the gullibility of latter-
              > day creationists is particularly sinful. You are attempting to prey
              > on their weaknesses, basically to hide your own.
              >
              > You know very little about the Bible and nothing about physics yet
              > sit here posting page after page of drivel trying very unsuccessfully
              > to pose as an expert in both. Get over yourself!!!
              >
              > --
              >
              > Dave Oldridge
              > ICQ 454777283
              > VA7CZ
              >
              I am not an expert. I am merely a bible student. Fortunately I have no degrees. If I did, I would have to interpret the Bible with the Western way of thinking. I am merely interpreting the Bible the way contemporaries did - according to the grammar and meaning of their language (in their culture instead of our science). Have a nice day.

              Victor

              From Rodger,   Would some one please tell me what herenutically means?   I have a bad habit of looking up words I have not come across before.  Just can't stand not knowing the meaning of a word.  When I tryed to look this word up, I could not find in.  I looked in the online Marrion-Websters dictionary.  They did not have it listed.  And wikipedea though it might be heretical.  Then agin it just might be a word Victor pull out of his ass.  It would not suprise me from all he has written here.


              --
              Powered By Outblaze
            • Randy Crum
              ... That s actually a good habit and not a bad habit. The problem is that the word is misspelled. The proper spelling is: hermeneutics. Wikipedia talks about
              Message 6 of 18 , May 1, 2009
                > Rodger:
                > Would some one please tell me what herenutically means?
                > I have a bad habit of looking up words I have not come
                > across before.

                That's actually a good habit and not a bad habit.

                The problem is that the word is misspelled. The proper
                spelling is: hermeneutics.

                Wikipedia talks about it at
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

                Now that you have the correct spelling, I'm confident
                that you can ably research the word yourself.

                Randy C.
              • Rodger Wisniski
                ... From: Randy Crum To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Comparing Santa and science Date: Sat, 02 May
                Message 7 of 18 , May 1, 2009
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Randy Crum"
                  To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Comparing Santa and science
                  Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 00:43:28 -0000

                  > Rodger:
                  > Would some one please tell me what herenutically means?
                  > I have a bad habit of looking up words I have not come
                  > across before.

                  That's actually a good habit and not a bad habit.

                  The problem is that the word is misspelled. The proper
                  spelling is: hermeneutics.

                  Wikipedia talks about it at
                  http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Hermeneutics

                  Now that you have the correct spelling, I'm confident
                  that you can ably research the word yourself.

                  Randy C.

                   

                  From Rodger, Thanks Randy C


                  --
                  Powered By Outblaze
                • Dave Oldridge
                  ... I didn t ask about your book collection. I asked about your understanding. ... Actually, the one really fundamental assumption is that the velocity of
                  Message 8 of 18 , May 2, 2009
                    On 1 May 2009 at 5:46, Victor wrote:

                    > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Oldridge"
                    > <doldridg@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > On 30 Apr 2009 at 16:57, Victor wrote:
                    > >
                    > > > Parents often tell stories about Santa Claus. "The Christmas
                    > > > presents came from Santa who lives at the North Pole." Children
                    > can
                    > > > see many symbolical representations of Santa in shopping malls
                    > and
                    > > > on TV. However, no one has ever seen the real Santa or any
                    > presents
                    > > > that actually came from him. The stories have a foundation in
                    > myths
                    > > > that have been told for centuries.
                    > > >
                    > > > Scientist tell stories about the history of the universe.
                    > According
                    > > > the these stories, the universe is filled with invisible matter
                    > and
                    > > > numerous vacuous processes that allegedly were involved in the
                    > > > universe's formation and ongoing processes. Children can see
                    > many
                    > > > symbolical representation of these stories in school and on
                    > TV.
                    > > > However, no one has ever seen a single ray of light traceable to
                    > the
                    > > > invisible things. The stories have a foundation in myths that
                    > have
                    > > > been told for centuries.
                    > >
                    > > There is a difference. The stories about Santa Claus are a
                    > > corruption of the actual history and life of St. Nicholas of Mira.
                    > > The hypotheses and theories about the structure and history of the
                    > > universe are the result of many, many observations and
                    > experiments.
                    > >
                    > > What are your qualifications to critique General Relativity? Do
                    > you
                    > > even UNDERSTAND it?
                    >
                    > I have dozens of books on time and relativity. I understand the

                    I didn't ask about your book collection. I asked about your
                    understanding.

                    > principles. I also understand that general relativity is based on an
                    > assumption, like the other theories of physics. This assumption is:
                    > the properties of matter are not emergent. Indeed the very idea that

                    Actually, the one really fundamental assumption is that the velocity
                    of light in a vacuum will be the same regardless of the reference
                    frame in which it is measured. This "assumption" has been tested
                    experimentally a number of ways.

                    > time exists, that it has some sort of actuality, that actually
                    > affects motions and objects is based on the assumption that clocks
                    > measure linear time because they are made of perpetual motion
                    > atoms.

                    If you understood anything about relaitivity, you would know that
                    time is relative. Therefore, it is obvious that you are LYING about
                    understanding it. So much for your attempt to persuade us that you
                    are motivated by any respect for what the BIBLE says.

                    > > Or is it really just that you envy the prestige of those who DO
                    > > understand these matters and seek to garner some personal prestige
                    > > for yourself by appealing to creationists whom you KNOW will be
                    > > suckers for just about any tripe that has the word "Bible" or
                    > > "biblical" in it regardless of how little it actually relates to
                    > the
                    > > Bible?
                    >
                    > On the contrary, most creationists are horrified by what I write.

                    I'm not surprised. The better creationists, at least, will recognize
                    that your interpretation of scripture is off in the boonies somewhere
                    and that your science, so-called is a travesty.

                    > One creationist wrote me that I was upsetting forty years of efforts
                    > on his part to show that the Bible is scientific. However, a few
                    > bible students encourage me to interpret the Bible and earth-history
                    > with scripture instead of science.

                    Yawn. You interpret the Bible with your envy of scientists.


                    > > > When examining myths, it is useful to examine how the stories
                    > came
                    > > > into existence. Science was founded on a myth, an idea made up
                    > by a
                    > > > pagan philosopher 2300 years ago. He taught that we could not
                    > invent
                    > > > science unless we assumed that the properties of matter are
                    > fixed,
                    > >
                    > > Regardless of what Aristotle may have thought, no physicist today
                    > > thinks that the properties of matter are immutable. The LAWS THAT
                    > > GOVERN THEM are, for the most part, though unchanging. That is to
                    > > say, for example, any free neutron, since the very earliest
                    > seconds
                    > > of the universe's existence has had a 50% chance of decaying to a
                    > > hydrogen atom within about 5,956,825,386,960 oscillations of a
                    > > Caesium-133 atom in the same reference frame.
                    > >
                    > Let go over epistemic history one more time.
                    >
                    > 1. Every science must be built on an assumption, known as a first
                    > principle. It is impossible to contrive a science without such a
                    > principle because it the epistemic foundation for the entire
                    > structure.

                    Yes, and the idea that there is actually a real physical universe,
                    not just an illusion and that observations of it are meaningful are
                    all the assumptions science uses.

                    > 2. The pagan Greek tried for centuries to find agreement about a
                    > first principle upon which to construct a natural science. They were
                    > not able to agree on an arche during the classical age. Every arche
                    > was an attempt to solve the puzzle of how and if matter changes.
                    >
                    > 3. Fifteen hundred years later, a mendicant friar, Thomas, wrote
                    > extensively suggesting that Christians adopt Aristotle's system. His
                    > system was based on the assumption that the properties of matter are
                    > fixed, not emergent, that matter does not change itself, change as
                    > it ages.

                    You're so full of it you can't see for the feces!

                    > 4. Although Aristotle's physics eventually failed, over the
                    > centuries, his elementary assumption became dogma. All modern
                    > scientists have a creed, that historically came from Aristotle, that
                    > matter is not continually changing relationally.

                    Your words have no semantic content. Matter is continually changing,
                    sometimes quckly, sometimes slowly.

                    > 5. It was upon that creed that they constructed their operational
                    > definitions of matter and time; their methods; their mathematics,
                    > their laws of physics and their scientific histories. The entire
                    > structure was built on a single elementary assumption. The entire
                    > structure works locally because every part of it is based on the
                    > same assumption.

                    >
                    > 6. However, none of the laws of physics work in the long ago visible
                    > universe. This is why science must invent magical matter and various
                    > vacuous processes to explain away what is so plainly visible - that
                    > the properties of all matter keep on changing throughout cosmic
                    > history.

                    Oh? They all seem to be intact in pretty much everything we can see.
                    For example the fine structure constant is seen to be the same now as
                    it was 4 billion years ago (to 17 figures).

                    > 7. Biblical physics is not based on an elementary assumption of a
                    > pagan Greek. It is based on the literal Greek and Hebrew text of the

                    No, it is based on the idiotic nonsense of a modern apostate!

                    > Bible. According to the Bible, the creation is in bondage to
                    > phthora, change fundamentally. We confirm biblical physics with
                    > sight, not perpetual motion atomic-measuring units. Anyone who is
                    > allowed to believe their eyes can see in the history of how galaxies
                    > formed, that matter is always changing itself.

                    In short, you just make it up. Because you can't SEE anything for
                    the feces.

                    >
                    > > > not emerging. This idea did not achieve the status of dogma
                    > during
                    > > > the classical age. Fifteen hundred years later, a Catholic
                    > monk
                    > > > studied Aristotle's system and convinced the popes and school
                    > > > teachers of Europe to adopt his system. Aristotle's idea was
                    > that
                    > > > matter does not change itself, change as it ages, change
                    > > > relationally. Over the last centuries, many scientists used
                    > > > Aristotle's idea to define reality and to invent symbolical ways
                    > of
                    > > > measuring and mathematicating based his assumption. For example,
                    > the
                    > > > primary scientific measuring unit is the second, which is used
                    > to
                    > > > define many other units such as meters, velocities, gravity,
                    > energy
                    > > > and mass. Modern seconds depend on the notion that atoms do
                    > > > perpetual motion.
                    > >
                    > > I guess you were asleep in science class when they told about
                    > Galileo
                    > > Galilei deconstructing some of Aristotle's blunders.
                    > >
                    > Indeed he did. However, even Galileo did not question Aristotle's
                    > first principle - that the properties of matter are not changing
                    > relationally.

                    What properties are "changing relationally" and precisely what do you
                    mean by this garbage phrase?

                    > > Is the historical scientific foundation valid? Not according to
                    > the
                    > > > Bible. The Bible predicts that in the last days false teachers
                    > will
                    > > > come saying "panta outos diamenei - all things remain the same
                    > in
                    > > > being." Biblical physics is based on the word of God. The
                    > Bible
                    > > > clearly states that the creation is in bondage to phthora,
                    > > > fundamental change.
                    > >
                    > > This text which you take out of its historic context and
                    > misinterpret
                    > > to your own destruction was about people insisting that Old
                    > Testament
                    > > law remained valid in the New Covenant.
                    > > >
                    > This is a New Testament text, written in Greek by a fisherman
                    > disciple of Jesus, Peter. The context is
                    > 1. knowledge - the most important knowledge.
                    > 2. the history of the stars.
                    > 3. the history of the earth.

                    Actuall, neither of the apostles attributed to Peter were written in
                    the 1st century. Since Peter died 13 montsh after St. Paul, they
                    were either written by disciples in his immediate line of succession
                    or were pseudepigraphically signed.

                    In any case, there is NO WAY modern science deems the stars to be
                    fixed and constant. Nor is the earth deemed to be.

                    >
                    > The second passage is also from the New Testament and also in Greek.
                    > The writer was a Jewish scholar who grew up and was schooled in a
                    > Greek city. According to Strabo, Tarsus' schools were so advanced
                    > during Paul's day that they rivaled the schools of Alexandria and
                    > Athens.
                    >
                    > The context is.
                    > 1. That the creation is subject to degeneration. The word subject is
                    > hupotasso - and orderly arrangement under some rule or authority.
                    > 2. The Greek word is repeated in two different verb forms.
                    > 3. The context is the entire creation - all physical reality.
                    > 4. The Apostle Paul illustrated this phthora with two Greek together
                    > verbs. What ever is changing, according to Paul, is changing
                    > together, changing relationally.

                    And science showsus that the degeneration will quite possibly
                    continue until everything is gone.

                    > What is so hard about interpreting the Bible hereneutically. This
                    > passage was interpreted by the Greek school teacher Origen, 1750
                    > years ago. He understood it to mean that matter is changing - even
                    > the bodies of the sun, earth and planets. He even quoted other bible
                    > pasages to support his literal interpretation. Why don't modern
                    > Christians accept this passage literally? Why do they claim it means
                    > the second law? an idea that did not even exist when the Bible was
                    > written.

                    And science supports his view. Therefore you are lying about science
                    NOT supporting it. You are lying because you envy scientists their
                    understanding of nature and therefore lie about what they say.



                    >
                    > > > When examining myths, it is useful to rely on visible
                    > evidence,
                    > >
                    > > Which is precisely what astronomers do. What they also do is use
                    > > LOGIC to connect one set of observations to another. I suspect it
                    > is
                    > > your inability to do so that has made you envious.
                    > >
                    > > > rather symbolical representations of reality. Is Santa real or
                    > is he
                    > > > merely a symbol? We see with our eyes a biblical cosmic history,
                    > how
                    > > > the universe was created. We actually see the creation of
                    > galaxies,
                    > > > how they grew from tiny objects packed with stars into huge
                    > growth
                    > > > spirals. NO perpetual motion atoms are visible in hundreds of
                    > > > billions of ancient galaxies. The history of how galaxies formed
                    > is
                    > > > overwhelming evidence for biblical physics. Galaxies cannot
                    > grow,
                    > > > the stars accelerating out even as the atoms also accelerate
                    > their
                    > > > clock frequencies, unless the properties of all matter are
                    > emergent.
                    > >
                    > > Atoms do not accelerate their clock frequencies. No such
                    > > acceleration has ever been observed.
                    > >
                    > > > What we see in the universe, its visible history, exactly fits
                    > the
                    > > > grammatical words of the Bible, how the stars continually come
                    > > > out.
                    > >
                    > > No, it fits your distorted misrepresentation of one Bible verse
                    > used
                    > > as a sop to your own envious ego. You really only have so much
                    > > actual time in which to correct this situation and repent your
                    > sin.
                    > >
                    > Many Bible verses describe the history of the universe and the
                    > processes at work on the earth and stars. I have already repented of
                    > twisting the Bible to fit science. I sincerely regret that I did so
                    > for many years, but I did it in ignorance because I was trained to
                    > think scientifically. I did not know that science was built on the
                    > idea of a pagan Greek until I began to interpret the Bible litearlly
                    > on the subject of earth-history.

                    The Bible is not a single work by a single author. Nor is any part
                    of it actually a science book. You, sir, are a mountebank and a
                    charlatan, though not a very effective one.

                    --

                    Dave Oldridge
                    ICQ 454777283
                    VA7CZ
                  • Dave Oldridge
                    ... Mass is invisible. Its effects are not. Gravity is an invisible property of mass, but if you think it is of no effect, then I suggest you try dropping a
                    Message 9 of 18 , May 2, 2009
                      On 1 May 2009 at 3:41, Victor wrote:

                      > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "isaac3rd2000"
                      > <isaac3rd@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Victor"
                      > <godsriddle@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > Parents often tell stories about Santa Claus. "The Christmas
                      > presents came from Santa who lives at the North Pole." Children can
                      > see many symbolical representations of Santa in shopping malls and
                      > on TV. However, no one has ever seen the real Santa or any presents
                      > that actually came from him. The stories have a foundation in myths
                      > that have been told for centuries.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Victor then proceeds to bore us yet again with his own made up
                      > stories about "biblical physics," something he made up, that no one
                      > else can see, and is entirely useless for any purpose whatsoever. No
                      > one has ever seen the things Victor says are visible with plain
                      > sight, like the atoms in galaxies millions of light years away.
                      > >
                      > > "Biblical physics" is Victor's Santa Claus.
                      > >
                      > Unlike science that ends up contriving invisible things, biblical
                      > physics is the basis for accepting what is visible, the visible
                      > history of the universe from the creation to the present.
                      >
                      > Why can't scientists see what is visible? They do not see just with
                      > optics. They see with mathematical theories and symbolical versions
                      > of reality - things like mass, energy and time which are invisible.

                      Mass is invisible. Its effects are not. Gravity is an invisible
                      property of mass, but if you think it is of no effect, then I suggest
                      you try dropping a brick on your foot repeatedly until the message
                      penetrates to whichever of your two active brain cells is connected
                      to the foot.

                      > Their entire structured system was built on the very idea that the
                      > bible predicted for the last day false teachers - that all things
                      > diamenei - all things remain the same in being. Biblical physics is

                      It most assuredly IS NOT, you GODDAMN (I mean that literally at this
                      point in our discussion) LIAR.


                      > simple because it accepts what is visible as fact, that matter is
                      > always changing its properties throughout cosmic history. This is
                      > why biblical physics posits no invisible things. It simply accept
                      > how the all matter keeps on changing relationally and all galaxies
                      > grew from tiny objects packed with stars to great growth spirals.

                      Physics is not abou matter never changing, but about HOW and under
                      what circumstances it does change. Some things do have very long
                      staying power. Other things, like free neutrons manage to last only
                      minutes on average.

                      You have shown yourself to be unteachable in matters of science, yet
                      you continue to parade your ignorance here along with a FALSE claimto
                      be some sort of "expert." What you are an expert in is spiritual
                      pride, the same sin that got the devil (your master) where he is
                      today.


                      --

                      Dave Oldridge
                      ICQ 454777283
                      VA7CZ
                    • Dave Oldridge
                      ... I believe Victor misspelled hermeneutically. Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting texts. When applied to the Bible it does, of course, refer to the
                      Message 10 of 18 , May 4, 2009
                        On 2 May 2009 at 8:33, Rodger Wisniski wrote:

                        > From Rodger, Would some one please tell me what herenutically

                        I believe Victor misspelled hermeneutically.

                        Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting texts. When applied to
                        the Bible it does, of course, refer to the original autographs which,
                        though no longer available, can be studied by attempting to
                        reconstruct them from extant copies.

                        --

                        Dave Oldridge
                        ICQ 454777283
                        VA7CZ
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.