Posted on 01/11/2003 9:53:34 PM PST by DWar
Pot, meet kettle.
Many brilliant scientists were wrong when they wrote on nonscientific subjects. Think of Einstein's defense of socialism.
Demonstrably untrue.
Ever hear of Leibniz? He independently discovered Calculus around the same time that Newton did, and it is Leibniz's formulation of it that is used today, NOT Newton's.
Additionally, PH is correct that SR can be done without appeal to Calculus. In point of fact, the principle equations of SR are deriveable using nothing more than the Mathematics of Vector Spaces (with the addition of a rather clever "inner product"-like function). No calculus is required.
Darwin was a biologist, not an astronomer. The biological theory of evolution is not even remotely related to cosmology -- except that the time required for speciation is consistent with the age of the universe and the age of the earth. No "scientist" would even think to "extended Darwin’s evolutionary theory into the universe" because stars aren't biological entities.
You do but scientists don't? Scientists do extend and link together biological evolution and cosmological evolution. Or at least they snuck it under your radar.
I would like to clear up a few ideas regarding the Christian life that seem to be confusing. This relates to this thread because we believe that Darwin's theory was the final straw that enabled intelligent people to "logically" reject the concept of God.
This is the context of our ongoing discussion.
Euclid probably believed in the Olympian gods. So what?
Have you read an extensive commentary where Euclid used his superior intellect to support his belief in Olympian Gods? Newton has laid out why he believes in Jesus in a logical cogent fashion. Check out his extensive research regarding the prophecies in the book of Daniel. Newton was convinced by his own logic of Christ's authenticity.
If light, being particles having mass (strangely traveling in waves), approaching a black hole accelerates the C (light traveling about 186,000 miles per second not so constantly) in E=MC2 would cause a clock in that area of space, relative to our clocks on earth, to be way faster than normal (relative to the acceleration).
[Sigh.] Not faster. Slower. Much slower.
So you believe that if light traveled faster than 186,000 relative to an area of space, the clocks in that area would slow down. I believe you have the astronaut twin analogy confused with what I am saying. The traveling astronaut is accelerating to a point where he approaches 186,000; therefore time slows down for him.
But if the speed of light accelerated the converse would happen.
Speed of light C = 186,000 miles per sec.
Speed of light Cx5 near black hole = 930,000 miles per sec
Atomically the age of things is a relative consideration.
Correction: I wish you good luck in your anti-intellectual activities.
At some point you have to realize the mind you are dealing with is hopelessly broken, and just move on.
I have done just that, in case you haven't noticed. I've had enough of exercises in futility to last me for a while.
But the next time one of these people say to me, "It stands to reason" I'm going to laugh in his or her face.
For all the 'reason' exhibited by the ideologues on this site I should go back to being a Daoist, but it's way too late for that, I'm afraid.
Oh well, onward and upward. It's just too bad that they share in the fruit of our labor. They should have to live in the reality their irrationality creates. That would be cosmic justice.
How is the Book?
=== It's sad but funny to come back after almost a year
I think it's cool you did. Trust all is well, Stingray.
1132 posts later.
What a firestorm. I can hardly believe it.
"In physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, is clear that all complex systems are in a continual process of being reduced to less complexity."
"The second law says no such thing. You really should learn some elementary thermodynamics to avoid making such mistakes."
Actually, your own link DOES say such a thing:
(From Sears and Zemansky): 100% conversion of heat into mechanical work is not possible by any form of engine. (p. 342) There is a tendency in nature to proceed toward a state of greater molecular disorder. This one-sidedness of nature produces irreversible processes. (p. 347)
In other words, "soup" (regardless of its chemical composition) doesn't become cells, no matter how much time and energy it's given.
Remember this thread? Its nearly 5 years old now.
AAhhh...good times.
Anyone change their minds on the matter?
i’ve met perloff a few times and read his books, they are right on the mark.
Sure do. Where does the time go?
While I don't follow the crevo threads any longer I sure miss the back-and-forth good natured bantering with general_re.
AWWWW...f.christian...I miss that degenerate.
Go here to find all the usual suspects:
http://forum.darwincentral.org/
Many errors of fact by the author.
The rest is pure fantasy.
You woke up a four-year-old thread just to demonstrate how stupid you are?
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.