Posted on 12/19/2006 2:19:29 PM PST by Sopater
Here is Einstein on a non-creationist web site:
"Is it false that the sun goes around the earth? Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld say in their The Evolution of Physics 1938, p 212): "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? If this can be done, our troubles will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any CS. 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. Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative motion? This is indeed possible! [general relativity]."
http://www.gfisher.org/chapter_7.htm
Here is the Sir Fred Hoyle quote from a non-creationist site:
"Sir Fred Hoyle wrote: 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."
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Geocentric_model/id/482586
Are you so simple that you decide what is truth by who posted the quote rather than what the quote said?
I want a sticker explaining naturalism.
So then you admit that heliocentrism is not proven?
I don't care about stickers at all.
My concern is to present the truth to you so that you can accept it.
I did not see where Einstein said a geocentric systems was possible. As for Sir Hoyle, I have already remarked that he was thoroughly discredited.
That is so beautiful, man.
Wiping tears, heading to bed....
So then you admit that heliocentrism is not proven?
Please note the definitions dealing with theory and proof: (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 9/26/06]
>>I don't care about stickers at all. My concern is to present the truth to you so that you can accept it.
The truth is that you are frightened of what science might uncover in the future and wish to slow that advancement toward the truth.
>>Here is Einstein on a non-creationist web site:
Thanks. An astrology site lends credibility to your research.
Soylent Gree is people.
>>I want a sticker explaining naturalism.
I saw this sign on this road to a beach that said "Naturalist Campsite".
>>And I would stand in proud company with Sir Fred Hoyle,
" He argued that the primeval molecules from which life evolved on Earth had been transported from elsewhere in the universe. In itself this idea would not necessarily be rejected as absurd by the scientific community, but Hoyle had publicised a further argument that influenza epidemics were associated with the passage of the Earth through certain meteor streams, the particles of which conveyed the virus to Earth."
>>And I would stand in proud company with Sir Fred Hoyle, Max Born ...
Seems that ol' Max Born beleived in formulating theories where 99.9% was unobservable! Aren't you the hypocrite!
Judges are irrelevant when it comes to the truth or untruth of Darwin's theory of evolution. I could have made that a bit clearer. They are pivotal as far as the discussion about the teaching of evolution in classrooms, though.
I decided to cruise over to dictionary.com and get the definition of "science".
It's a pretty broad term, you could call quite a few things "science" and fit with in the dictionary definition. I'll go with you and call Darwin's theory "Science". Of course, I'll toss "Junk" in front of it, but let us call it "Science".
It could also be studied in a history class, or a philosophy class, using the particular methods of those disciplines.
The scientific method is capable of dealing with origins. However, origins are a completely separate study from the theory of evolution--scientists know this, but science-deniers apparently do not in spite of being repeatedly advised of the differences between these two fields of study.
Ah, a light touch of ad hominem dusted in there for flavor.
The theories of origins (abiogenesis) are in their infancy, unlike the theory of evolution, which is well supported by fact and theory.
Theory of evolution supported by other theories? Sounds a bit circular. It's also attacked by contradictory theories. Supported by facts, sure. Also attacked by other facts which refute the same theory.
For example, the idea of irreducable complexity. Easily demonstrated in a classroom, pass out some mousetraps and ask students to remove a piece and still have a functional mousetrap. One can observe irreducable complexity in the biological world, strip away the outer wall of a single cell organism and observe the results. Start disassembling an amoeba and there will be a point where it will die. How then did the amoeba come to pass in the first place if it cannot survive without all of it's components in place all at once?
So here is a a concept, irreducable complexity, deomonstratable as fact, reproducable, observable. Why is this idea somehow unworthy of consideration as a legitimate antagonist to Darwin's theory? Why is Darwin's theory sacrosanct and other theories dismissed as so much religious rubbish?
In the US, the primary opposition to the theory of evolution comes from a few fundamentalist religions. Individuals frequently attempt to use the trappings of science in their arguments, but they have to so distort and misrepresent actual science that they quickly expose their intentions.
So what? If somebody has faith in God, and also wishes to put forth the theory that the complexity of man is beyond what could be achieved by random evolution, how does that invalidate the theory? If I were to point out that most adherents to Darwinian evolution are hardcore athiests who donate to the ACLU and the DNC, does that invalidate Darwin's theory on the basis of it's proponents? I think not. Expose all the theories to the harsh light of blind objectivity, and see what remains, but don't discard them simply because you don't like the proponents or their purposes.
On these threads we see the weirdest science imaginable: just a couple of recent examples are carbon 14 dating spanning millions of years and the second law of thermal documents. Those of us who have actually studied science can readily tell who is posting apologetics (defense of religion) and who is posting arguments based on actual science. Unfortunately, as of late we see little actual science.
Ah, more appeal to authority; the ol "We're the overlords, you peons just run along now..." talk. I'll give it a shot. Those of us who have actually got a relationship with God are saddened to see people living in a body God created, walking on a planet God formed, possessing a unique soul like no other living creature, seeing with their own eyes that man and man alone possesses a belief in the Divine, and yet not coming to an acceptance that God actually exists; instead choosing to see themselves as being a single step past the hunchbacked ape on the ol' Darwin chart.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and humming won't make the judges go away.
Nor will it cure your willing ignorance.
Judges have nothing to do making Darwin's theory true. Go halfway around the world and stick yourself in a Sharia courtrom in Iran. Do their judges somehow make their admittedly Islamic version of creation true? Of course not. So, in this instance, the Georgia ruling simply means yes, the Creationism side lost in court. And that's all it means.
Now as to your charge of willing ignorance, I certainly do laugh that off, noting that I am not at all ignorant of Darwin's theory, I reject it. That's quite a bit different from being ignorant.
You left out the 'R'.
... you sure are pRetty....
MUCH better!!
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.