Posted on 12/03/2009 8:35:52 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Evolutionists retreating from the arena of science
--snip--
Today, the Darwinian scientific consensus persists within almost every large university and governmental institution. But around the middle of the 20th century an interesting new trend emerged and has since become increasingly established. Evolutionary theorists have been forced, step by step, to steadily retreat from the evidence in the field. Some of the evidences mentioned earlier in this article were demonstrated to be frauds and hoaxes. Other discoveries have been a blow to the straightforward expectations and predictions of evolutionists. Increasingly, they have been forced to tack ad hoc mechanisms onto Darwin’s theory to accomodate the evidence. Their retreat to unfalsifiable positions is now evident in every arena where they once triumphed. Let us examine how Darwinian theorists have moved from concrete predictions and scientifically observable supporting evidences to metaphysical positions in several key fields of research...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
“Not according to Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis.” GourmetDan
Show me where Einstein said that the gravity of the “rest of the universe” could move the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless. Not your drivel about them being equivalent as a COORDINATE SYSTEM. You lie when you say “according to Einstein”. Einstein never signed on to your ludicrous geocentricism, and never said ANYTHING about any “gravitational imbalance” from the “rest of the universe” moving the Sun around the Earth. You lie.
"Either CS could be used with equal justification."
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
Note that "equal justification" means that the justification you use for geokineticism is scientifically equivalent to the justification used for geocentrism under GR.
As Hoyle notes, there is no meaningful physical difference between one CS and another. To say that equivalence as CS is 'drivel' is to profoundly misunderstand GR. You may not like the physical equivalence of different CS, but then you must disprove GR because that's what GR is about.
"...it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view..."
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
Of course, Ellis notes that philosophical commitments drive the choice of model.
“For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
"You lie when you say “according to Einstein”. Einstein never signed on to your ludicrous geocentricism, and never said ANYTHING about any “gravitational imbalance” from the “rest of the universe” moving the Sun around the Earth. You lie."
Get a grip dude. Just because you don't like statements from scientists noting the equivalence of geocentrism and geokineticism under GR doesn't mean that you have to run around saying that people lie. Is your commitment to your favorite paradigm that tenuous?
You are free to choose whatever CS you like. Choose geokineticism, I don't care. The point is that it's a philosophical choice, not a scientific one. I'm not lying and neither are Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis.
You lie when you say Einstein supports your asinine contention about a “gravitational imbalance” that factors in the “rest of the universe” that would cause the Sun to move around the Earth. That is not “according to Einstein”, that is merely according to you.
Still no peer reviewed scientific literature to back up your “rest of the universe” garbage, just more of your memorized cut and pasted drivel about coordinate systems.
“According to Einstein” is a lie. Einstein was not a geocentrist and never said anything about the gravity of the “rest of the universe” causing the Sun to orbit the Earth. When you say your ludicrous model is “according to Einstein” you lie, blatantly.
As Hoyle notes, there is no meaningful physical difference between one CS and another. To say that equivalence as CS is 'drivel' is to profoundly misunderstand GR. You may not like the physical equivalence of different CS, but then you must disprove GR because that's what GR is about.
"...it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view..."
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"You lie when you say Einstein supports your asinine contention about a “gravitational imbalance” that factors in the “rest of the universe” that would cause the Sun to move around the Earth. That is not “according to Einstein”, that is merely according to you."
"Either CS could be used with equal justification."
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
Note that "equal justification" means that the justification you use for geokineticism is scientifically equivalent to the justification used for geocentrism under GR.
"Still no peer reviewed scientific literature to back up your “rest of the universe” garbage, just more of your memorized cut and pasted drivel about coordinate systems."
Of course, Ellis notes that philosophical commitments drive the choice of model.
“For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
"“According to Einstein” is a lie. Einstein was not a geocentrist and never said anything about the gravity of the “rest of the universe” causing the Sun to orbit the Earth. When you say your ludicrous model is “according to Einstein” you lie, blatantly."
Get a grip dude. Just because you don't like statements from scientists noting the equivalence of geocentrism and geokineticism under GR doesn't mean that you have to run around saying that people lie. Is your commitment to your favorite paradigm that tenuous?
You are free to choose whatever CS you like. Choose geokineticism, I don't care. The point is that it's a philosophical choice, not a scientific one. I'm not lying and neither are Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis.
That is NOT “according to Einstein” that is according to YOU. Einstein wasn't stupid, and he would have to be to accept your ‘gravity from the rest of the universe’ model.
Can you explain the difference between DNA, which is something like 96% identical (depending on how you measure it), versus "protein coding" which is far less so?
Is it possible that these differences have something to do with the rate at which random mutations accumulate in DNA versus "protein coding"?
No I don't.
According to Einstein:
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
According to Hoyle:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
And according to Ellis:
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
"That is NOT “according to Einstein” that is according to YOU. Einstein wasn't stupid, and he would have to be to accept your ‘gravity from the rest of the universe’ model."
This from a guy who says, "All things in science are “putative”;...", who uses Alec's Evolution Pages and an article by 'Alec' himself as a 'scientific source' .
The hilarity of your position is dwarfed only by your hypocrisy.
I know you can blab on about coordinate systems all day. I am not arguing that they are not equivalent as a coordinate system. That should be obvious even to you.
I simply ask you to back up, with quotes, and/or peer review literature; Einstein making ANY claims about the ‘gravity of the rest of the universe’ moving the Sun around the Earth.
When I make fun of your ludicrous ‘gravity of the rest of the universe’ model, and you say your model is “according to Einstein” you lie blatantly.
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
To say I have not supplied anything to support the geocentric model is to be profoundly dishonest. That should be obvious even to you.
" I simply ask you to back up, with quotes, and/or peer review literature; Einstein making ANY claims about the ‘gravity of the rest of the universe’ moving the Sun around the Earth. When I make fun of your ludicrous ‘gravity of the rest of the universe’ model, and you say your model is “according to Einstein” you lie blatantly."
To insist that Einstein make the quote when it is the combined quotes of Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis that are important is to display profound dishonesty yet again. That should be obvious even to you.
Again, I am not contesting that the two models are not equivalent as a COORDINATE SYSTEM, but one model is possible and predictable under the GRAVITY SYSTEM, and the other is absolutely moronic and impossible.
When you say “according to Einstein” you lie. When you regurgitate your CS talking points ad nauseum, you simply avoid the issue of backing up your claim that your ‘gravity imbalance’ model is “according to Einstein”, no it is only according to an idiot on the interweb who is incapable of backing up his moronic model other than to lie about who supports it.
Again, I am not contesting that the two models are not equivalent as a COORDINATE SYSTEM, but one model is possible and predictable under the GRAVITY SYSTEM, and the other is absolutely moronic and impossible.
When you say “according to Einstein” you lie. When you regurgitate your CS talking points ad nauseum, you simply avoid the issue of backing up your claim that your ‘gravity imbalance’ model is “according to Einstein”, no it is only according to an idiot on the interweb who is incapable of backing up his moronic model other than to lie about who supports it.
Again, I am not contesting that the two models are not equivalent as a COORDINATE SYSTEM, but one model is possible and predictable under the GRAVITY SYSTEM, and the other is absolutely moronic and impossible.
When you say “according to Einstein” you lie. When you regurgitate your CS talking points ad nauseum, you simply avoid the issue of backing up your claim that your ‘gravity imbalance’ model is “according to Einstein”, no it is only according to an idiot on the interweb who is incapable of backing up his moronic model other than to lie about who supports it.
“Evolutionary theorists have been forced, step by step, to steadily retreat from the evidence in the field”
And fortunately for humanity, “Creation Science” has been able to step into the void with Biblically-consistent hard-hitting, documented, and proven research to set thousands of years of errant science straight.
I know you are just the messenger, but I don’t think it is too strong to say that I am sure God has an exalted place reserved for you, perhaps, even at his right hand for showing humanity the error of its ways in pursuing non-Biblical science.
Your service has only been exceed on earth by the Lord Himself.
I know I am not alone in thanking you for your tireless service in the name of the Lord.
Of course it was. If you understand GR (which was developed by Einstein, BTW) and you understand what Hoyle and Ellis said when they said that there is no physically-significant or observational difference, then a gravity imbalance is the only possible answer. Since you reject all that, you insist on denying the truth.
"Again, I am not contesting that the two models are not equivalent as a COORDINATE SYSTEM, but one model is possible and predictable under the GRAVITY SYSTEM, and the other is absolutely moronic and impossible."
Please remain calm. Yelling doesn't do anything at all for your position and neither does labeling geocentrism with emotionally-charged terms. You simply seek to frame the issue in emotional terms because your philosophical paradigm cannot accept the truth.
As Hoyle points out, equivalent CS are equivalent physically. You are simply wrong to insist that geocentrism is impossible under GR but are not honest enough to admit such.
"When you say “according to Einstein” you lie. When you regurgitate your CS talking points ad nauseum, you simply avoid the issue of backing up your claim that your ‘gravity imbalance’ model is “according to Einstein”, no it is only according to an idiot on the interweb who is incapable of backing up his moronic model other than to lie about who supports it."
I do not lie. What I post is true. Equivalent CS are equivalent physically (according to Hoyle) and observationally (according to Ellis).
That you criticize the fact that I continue to point this out to you speaks only to your own ad nauseum denial of the truth. That you continually seek to frame the debate in emotionally-charged terms only proves the weakness of your position.
And all this from a guy who says, "All things in science are “putative”;...", who uses Alec's Evolution Pages and an article by 'Alec' himself as a 'scientific source' .
So far the only backing for your ‘gravity imbalance’ model is your own blather, unbacked by anything that would make your ‘gravity imbalance’ model “according to Einstein”.
When you say that impossible and idiotic system is “according to Einstein” you lie.
But please, by all means, keep arguing that they are equivalent as coordinate systems, which I do not dispute, and regurgitate the same old tired quotes that you don't understand.
Once you decide to reject science in favor of your own biblical interpretation you may as well be a Geocentrist. You are the living embodiment of the reducto ad absurdum of the creationist argument.
Again:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view...."
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"So far the only backing for your ‘gravity imbalance’ model is your own blather, unbacked by anything that would make your ‘gravity imbalance’ model “according to Einstein”."
Again:
"“For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds."
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
"When you say that impossible and idiotic system is “according to Einstein” you lie."
Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.
"But please, by all means, keep arguing that they are equivalent as coordinate systems, which I do not dispute, and regurgitate the same old tired quotes that you don't understand."
Again:
"The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view...."
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"Once you decide to reject science in favor of your own biblical interpretation you may as well be a Geocentrist."
Again:
"For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds."
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
"You are the living embodiment of the reducto ad absurdum of the creationist argument."
Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.
The gravitational force necessary to make the Sun orbit the Earth would move the Earth like a leaf in a storm, not leave it magically and mysteriously motionless.
But trying to talk reason, or get a straight answer, out of a Geocentrist truly IS a fool's errand.
But thanks for playing along, I really enjoy showing what ludicrous foolishness creationism is.
Let's see what you think is so difficult to understand.
According to Einstein:
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
According to Hoyle:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view...."
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973. According to Ellis:
"For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds."
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
"The gravitational force necessary to make the Sun orbit the Earth would move the Earth like a leaf in a storm, not leave it magically and mysteriously motionless."
Not according to Einstein, Hoyle and Ellis.
"But trying to talk reason, or get a straight answer, out of a Geocentrist truly IS a fool's errand."
Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.
"But thanks for playing along, I really enjoy showing what ludicrous foolishness creationism is."
Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.
But creationists must lie about science out of necessity.
It is quite appropriate to present the evidence over and over when confronted with someone who uses serial denial as a form of argument.
Again, according to Einstein:
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
"But creationists must lie about science out of necessity."
Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.