10 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWell you at least came up with another way to find a fact instead of
Please go read an 8th grade Physical Science book and it will explain to you the facts about the physical characteristics of the earth and why it must be of extreme age i.e. in the neighborhood of 3.6 billion years. I will explain it to my three year old grandson if he asks me, but a grown man should be able to do his own rudimentary research. If ...[text shortened]... th a red nose and big floppy shoes so we can laugh at something besides your ridiculous beliefs.
if it was observed, measured, or repeated, just check the 8th grade
physic books. I guess it is the new Bible of today uh?
Kelly
10 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiMuch like a null value in Perl programming, any variable in a program
I'm saying that "existences" is irrelevant. God exists. The question should is whether a particular definition of God is real or imaginary.
Unicorns exist. Mars exists. Plant X which has never been observed by human minds exists. All things exists that can be defined either as real or hypothetical. The question is not is does thing A exist. The ...[text shortened]... .
Saying God exists is nothing more than saying that a particular definition of God is true.
holds at least a null value and takes up space in Perl. While a variable
can be initialized to contain other values as well. So I agree with your
statement on God. Nothing would be nothing, but as soon as we
start defining anything if it is in reality, we run into facts or not.
Kelly
10 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayI won't waste time with someone who is being purposely disingenous and/or deliberately ignorant. Anyone which an adequate education is aware of the physical characteristics of the Earth and anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the earth sciences knows those facts overwhelming prove that the Earth is billions of years old. If you want to act the fool, you'll have to do it on your own dime. The Bible is a collection of some fairy tales and some history of brutal semisavages who invented a monstrous God to justify their atrocities. It is not a scientific description of the world and was never meant to be. When you substitute creation myths made by ancient peoples for undenialable and obvious scientific truths and insist the former are literally true and latter are false, you have abandoned human reason and entered the realm of madness. Since there is little point discussing matters of importance with someone who is irrational, I leave you to your fairy tales.
Well you at least came up with another way to find a fact instead of
if it was observed, measured, or repeated, just check the 8th grade
physic books. I guess it is the new Bible of today uh?
Kelly
10 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiThere is so much confusion in this post that it is hard to know where to begin. Declarative sentences like 'God exists' have what is called propositional content. The propositional content of the declarative sentence 'God exists' is the proposition God exists. The declarative sentence 'God exists' is true if and only if the propositional content God exists is made true by it being the case, or it being a fact that God exists, or that the state of affairs of God's existing obtains. In order to determine any of this, one must start with some notion of God. One must determine the reference of the term 'God'. This has to be done before one goes about asserting that 'God exists'. To do otherwise leads either to senselessness (e.g., if one defines 'God' in a contradictory manner) or tautologousness (e.g., if one defines 'God' such that 'God' refers to some necessary existant, like the relation of identity). Clarify the terms! Then determine the truth of claims! To do otherwise is to sheer madness and an affront to both logic and the philosophy of language!
I'm saying that "existences" is irrelevant. God exists. The question should is whether a particular definition of God is real or imaginary.
Unicorns exist. Mars exists. Plant X which has never been observed by human minds exists. All things exists that can be defined either as real or hypothetical. The question is not is does thing A exist. The ...[text shortened]... .
Saying God exists is nothing more than saying that a particular definition of God is true.
10 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYour input so far as been a waist of time, you have made claims
I won't waste time with someone who is being purposely disingenous and/or deliberately ignorant. Anyone which an adequate education is aware of the physical characteristics of the Earth and anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the earth sciences knows those facts overwhelming prove that the Earth is billions of years old. If you want to act the ...[text shortened]... iscussing matters of importance with someone who is irrational, I leave you to your fairy tales.
of facts, you were asked to back them up. You resort to attacking
creation, without so much as an attempt to show why your cliams
were real. You simply rant, and run. The discussion is why facts are
what they are and theories are what they are, You open your
mouth and once again, attack anyone who questions your view
of the universe.
Kelly
10 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you are pretending to not know the facts concerning the geological processes, like plate tetonics as one example of many, that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth is billions of years old, then you're being a jerk; if you are actually so uneducated that you don't know them, then you need to study some rudimentary science texts. One or the other; if the first then you are being disingenous and playing games; if the second, I assume you prefer to stay ignorant to believe in fairy tales. Either way, a rational discussion with you on these matters is impossible; RWingett is right, you could sit there and claim that the Earth is flat and we must "prove" it isn't according to your twisted "logic". Dealing with fanatics like you is tiresome; either get a grasp of the real world or stay in your dream land - it's up to you, not me, to drag yourself out of the cesspool of ignorance you're dwelling in.
Your input so far as been a waist of time, you have made claims
of facts, you were asked to back them up. You resort to attacking
creation, without so much as an attempt to show why your cliams
were real. You simply rant, and run. The discussion is why facts are
what they are and theories are what they are, You open your
mouth and once again, attack anyone who questions your view
of the universe.
Kelly
10 May 05
Originally posted by NemesioDuh....gee I dunno? Do you think perhaps that you may suffer from poor writing composition skills?
Because he, like many other people on this site, suffer from poor reading comprehension skills.
Nemesio
You blame others for not understanding you? I think in politics they call this....failing to get your message across.
RTh
10 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThere might have been a movement to get his works banned in some quarters of the Church, but the Church dealt with them quite effectively until Galileo decided stir things up:
That is patently false and you know it. As stated on the website I gave you, the letter to Castelli was in response to a movement to have his works banned by some Church officials. Far from "meddling in theological matters", he was trying to prevent religious based suppression of his freedom to write, teach and think. His campaign across Eu ...[text shortened]... be known?"
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gal_life.htm
"About this time, some members of another order of the Church, the Dominicans, were becoming aware of the Copernican world view, and began to preach against it. In 1613, Father Nicolo Lorini, a professor of ecclesiastical history in Florence, inveighed against the new astronomy, in particular "Ipernicus". (Sant p 25). He wrote a letter of apology after being reproved. In 1614, another Dominican, Father Tommaso Caccini, who had previously been reprimanded for rabble-rousing, preached a sermon with the text "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into the heaven?" He attacked mathematicians, and in particular Copernicus. (In the popular mind, mathematician tended to mean astrologer.) It should be added that these two were by no means representative of the order as a whole. The Dominican Preacher General, Father Luigi Maraffi, wrote Galileo an apology, saying "unfortunately I have to answer for all the idiocies that thirty or forty thousand brothers may or actually do commit"."
Who was Galileo responding to in his letter to Castelli?
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/lettercastelli.html (same site you provided, incidentally)
"Yesterday Mr. Niccolò Arrighetti came to visit me and told me about you. Thus I took infinite pleasure in hearing about what I did not doubt at all, namely about the great satisfaction you have been giving to the whole University…. However, the seal of my pleasure was to hear him relate the arguments which through the great kindness of their Most Serene Highness, you had the occasion of advancing at their table and then of continuing in the chambers of the Most Serene Ladyship, in the presence also of the Grand Duke and the Most Serene Archduchess, the Most Illustrious and Excellent Don Antonio and Don Paolo Giordano, and some of the very excellent philosophers there. What greater fortune can you wish than to se their Highnesses themselves enjoying discussing with you, putting forth doubts, listening to your solutions, and finally remaining satisfied with your answers?
After Mr. Arrighetti related the details you had mentioned, they gave me the occasion to go back to examine some general questions about he use of the Holy Scripture in disputes involving physical conclusions and some particular other ones about Joshua’s passage, which was presented in opposition to the earth’s motion and sun’s stability by the Grand Duchess Dowager with some support by the Most Serene Archduchess." (Letter to Castelli, 1613)
Castelli, a Benedictine abbot himself, had adequately dealt with the concerns of the Archduchess. Why did Galileo feel himself compelled to add his 2p worth?
10 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhile we're at it, let's discuss the scientific merits of Galileo's theory:
That is patently false and you know it. As stated on the website I gave you, the letter to Castelli was in response to a movement to have his works banned by some Church officials. Far from "meddling in theological matters", he was trying to prevent religious based suppression of his freedom to write, teach and think. His campaign across Eu ...[text shortened]... be known?"
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html
1. At the time Galileo threw his weight behind the Copernican model, there were three cosmological models - the Ptolemaic, the Tychonian and the Copernican. The first two were geocentric, the last heliocentric.
2. The Ptolemaic model held that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, and had a complex system of cycles to explain planetary movements.
3. The Tychonian model held that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, but all the other planets revolved around the Sun.
4. The Copernican model held that the Sun was the centre of the Universe (not just the solar system!)
5. Clearly, the Ptolemaic model could not explain the phases of Venus. But both the Tychonian and Copernican models could.
6. The key objection to the Earth revolving around the sun was that, were this the case, one would be able to observe stellar parallaxes. Galileo could not demonstrate this.
7. When asked to demonstrate the validity of his model, the best Galileo could come up with was his weird theory of tides - which was patent nonsense.
8. Galileo's model also rejected the findings of Kepler, which suggested elliptical rather than circular orbits.
By all accounts, Galileo could not demonstrate the superiority of the Copernican model (which, btw, was inaccurate on almost everything else except that the Earth and the planets went around the Sun) over the Tychonian one. Yet he continued to assert (almost dogmatically, I might add) the superiority of his model and pressured the Church to declare it true. He was unwilling to accept that his theory was simply a hypothesis - albeit a superior one to the in-vogue Ptolemaic one.
From an epistemological perspective, that his theory (atleast as far as the revolution of the earth) was true was accidental since he could not provide the justification required.
10 May 05
Originally posted by lucifershammer1) there where at least 4 models ,, Brunos and they killed him.
While we're at it, let's discuss the scientific merits of Galileo's theory:
1. At the time Galileo threw his weight behind the Copernican model, there were three cosmological models - the Ptolemaic, the Tychonian and the Copernican. The first two were geocentric, the last heliocentric.
2. The Ptolemaic model held that the Earth was the c ...[text shortened]... ion of the earth) was true was accidental since he could not provide the justification required.
2) and fit the churches dictation
3) he was chicken that didn't wanna be Roasted
4) Copernicus was a devout monk that didn't publish his work.
5) Tycho Brahe was trying to appease the church.
6) the history of science it filled with cases of Theory being ahead of Instrumentation
7) Which prior to Kepler and Newton was as good a guess as any.
8) A circle is a special case of an ellipse. the idea was still the same
Do you really think that the Church threatening scientists with imprisonment, torture and death, was a proper part of the scientific method?
observing,, hypothesizing,,, data gathering,,,concluding,,, theorizing,,,screaming,,,,burning
you only have helped no1 prove his point.
The entire sad episode of the Inquisition shows exactly why churches should not be allowed any secular power.
btw don't bother to attack Bruno, or make up plausable excuses why they cooked him,,, they " lost" the record of the " charges" against him.
In conclusion. Gallileo proof was the phases of Venus ,,which proved that Venus had an orbit interior to that of earth... that was enough for him ,, and is still enough proof all by itself.
10 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is your proof in a nut shell, attack the person who does not
If you are pretending to not know the facts concerning the geological processes, like plate tetonics as one example of many, that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth is billions of years old, then you're being a jerk; if you are actually so uneducated that you don't know them, then you need to study some rudimentary science texts. ...[text shortened]... it's up to you, not me, to drag yourself out of the cesspool of ignorance you're dwelling in.
agree with you, belittle them and be done with them. Keeps you
from actually defending your posts.
Kelly
10 May 05
1 edit
Geez, this thread has evolved into, dare I say it, predictable directions.
I began this thread with two simple questions:
What aspect of creationist theory was able to predict the existence of archaebacteria?
What new frontiers in microbiology are pioneered by creation scientists?
I asked these questions because they occurred to me during a debate in another thread. I asked them with the belief that both answers, if accurate, would be nil.
Of course, so called Creation Scientists could not predict archaebacteria, even though its discovery shook up certain models rooted in Darwinian theory. Archaebacteria was likely present in that primordial slime out of which we evolved, to put it the way Danny DeVito did in The War of the Roses. Of course, they are not breaking new ground in microbiology for that requires genuine research, not mere philosophical posturing.
I could have publicly predicted that either the thread would die a quick death (disappearing into the archives) or that it would become another shouting match in which the ususal suspects say the same things to one another that they say elsewhere. It has.
Thanks folks. 🙂
edit: the rhetorical beauty of DeVito's line in that movie is all the reason I need for clinging to evolutionary theory, but it is not all I have!
10 May 05
Originally posted by Wulebgryou ask two questions the creationists didnt like , so attacking evolution and science it what you were answered with.
Geez, this thread has evolved into, dare I say it, predictable directions.
I began this thread with two simple questions:
What aspect of creationist theory was able to predict the existence of archaebacteria?
What new frontiers in microbiology are pioneered by creation scientists?
I asked these questions because they occurred to me during a debate in ...[text shortened]... at movie is all the reason I need for clinging to evolutionary theory, but it is not all I have!
I myself think creationism is junk science and doesnt explain diddly squat.
check out the debate on Endogenous retroviruses:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Endogenous_retroviruses#ERVs_and_Evolution
and ,,
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Endogenous_retroviruses#Creationist_Replies