Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity

[EugeneS]

Einstein’s special theory of relativity is a fundamental science that is infinitely more reasonable than evolution yet many people reject relativity because it has so many bizarre consequences.

If you’ve ever struggled to make sense of relativity but couldn’t get past the physical mysticism used to explain it, then here’s a great link that you should study: http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity

I assume that you’ve mastered high school mathematics.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by EugeneS
Einstein’s special theory of relativity is a fundamental science that is infinitely more reasonable than evolution yet many people reject relativity because it has so many bizarre consequences.

Nice site. Thank you.  If you notice, people reject SR for about the same reason they reject evolution:  they don't like the consequences.  In this case the consequences contradict their common sense experience.  For evolution, the consequences contradict their literal interpretation of the Bible.

BTW, evolution has been tested far more than SR.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Originally posted by EugeneS
Einstein’s special theory of relativity is a fundamental science that is infinitely more reasonable than evolution yet many people reject relativity because it has so many bizarre consequences.

To me, they are equally reasonable, though evolution is more intuitive.

 

[Orihalcon]

evolution is hard to directly test and observe. there are many other pieces of evidence pointing us in the direction of it though. the only way to actually see evolution for yourself would be with bacteria, but some people say that it's not enough evidence =P

 

[sulphur]

Get a piece of paper then fold it.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by Orihalcon
evolution is hard to directly test and observe. there are many other pieces of evidence pointing us in the direction of it though. the only way to actually see evolution for yourself would be with bacteria, but some people say that it's not enough evidence =P

When debating with YEC's you must remember that "enough evidence" will always be one more piece of evidence than whatever you provide.

-brett

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Orihalcon
evolution is hard to directly test and observe. there are many other pieces of evidence pointing us in the direction of it though. the only way to actually see evolution for yourself would be with bacteria, but some people say that it's not enough evidence =P

There are dozens if not hundreds of papers in the literature documenting evolution in multicelled organisms up to fish.  This includes the acquisition of new traits through natural selection and speciation.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by euphoric
When debating with YEC's you must remember that "enough evidence" will always be one more piece of evidence than whatever you provide.

-brett

While true, this is not unique to YECs.  Some of the phlogiston chemists were the same. Right now Alan Feduccia and colleagues are exactly the same when it comes to the theory of birds descending from dinos.

Theists must often feel the same way about agnostics and atheists.  No matter what evidence they supply, it never is enough to convince.

 

[sulphur]

Lucapa from dizzying heights of intellectulism explain why stephan jay gould rejected every idea you rejected.Come on be a man and put all your ideas forward so we poor mortals can pull them apart

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by sulphur
Get a piece of paper then fold it.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by EugeneS
Einstein’s special theory of relativity is a fundamental science that is infinitely more reasonable than evolution yet many people reject relativity because it has so many bizarre consequences.

If you’ve ever struggled to make sense of relativity but couldn’t get past the physical mysticism used to explain it, then here’s a great link that you should study: http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity

I assume that you’ve mastered high school mathematics.

I agree. Once I understood Einstein I had no problem with his logic.

Evolution is bizarre also. There I am to accept that every life form evolved from cells, which somehow popped up in the oceans, below the surface of earth, or just on earth.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by lucaspa
While true, this is not unique to YECs.  Some of the phlogiston chemists were the same. Right now Alan Feduccia and colleagues are exactly the same when it comes to the theory of birds descending from dinos.

Theists must often feel the same way about agnostics and atheists.  No matter what evidence they supply, it never is enough to convince.

I would definitely agree that this behavior is not confined to YEC's.  It just happens that on this topic, they are the ones who are the most obvious example. 

As for agnostics and atheists regarding questions of religious belief, I have certainly seen many examples of what you're talking about.  I do think however that the agnostics and atheists on this and other boards I've visited do a pretty good job of explaining why the evidence presented fails to satisfy.  Rather than simple handwaving or goalpost shifting, most are clear about the deficiencies they percieve in an argument.

The other problem there is that in the case of evolutionary theory, an old earth and other topics that YEC's feel strongly about, the evidence against their claims is both concrete and overwhelming.  This tends to reduce one to tactics like shifting the goalposts and other less than honest tactics.  With arguments about the existence of gods or religion, the evidence is usually of a personal nature and the case for the existence of a god isn't so concrete and overwhelming as to prevent honest and/or informed dissention.

-brett

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by EugeneS

I assume that you’ve mastered high school mathematics.

Partial derivatives are covered in high school?  If there are any high schools covering that it would only be maybe honors course in advanced math in a VERY good school. 

And while it is certainly not unusual for high schoolers to be exposed to limits, it probably only in pre-calculus courses that most don't take.  

 

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Theists must often feel the same way about agnostics and atheists.  No matter what evidence they supply, it never is enough to convince.

Or they will say it is fake. Get a before and after test to show that a person was healed of aids and they will claim the documents are a fake. The evidence would hold up in a court of law, but it is not good enough for them.

 

[Physicist]

Relativity and the Theory of Natural Selection are what would be called in the field beautiful theories. While the application of these theories are sometimes difficult and require years of study, the underlying concepts can be explained to any reasonably intelligent person.

Quantum theory, however, is another kettle of fish. No one understands its meaning although many know how to use its algorithms to calculate results. That is why you see so many different interpretations of it. Fortunately for the science, it sems to have limited Biblical implications so that there are no Fundamentalists insisting it not be taught in schools.

 

[Orihalcon]

yeah, and it doesn't seem like chemistry is going away either. who's actually seen an atom or molecule anyway?

 

[sulphur]

Many people have seen photographic images of large protein molecules and many will wont they.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Or they will say it is fake. Get a before and after test to show that a person was healed of aids and they will claim the documents are a fake. The evidence would hold up in a court of law, but it is not good enough for them.

I your evidence is that good, John, then I encourage you to apply for James Randi's one million dollar prize.

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

They even have an on-line preliminary application for you to download and fill out. What's stopping you?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by sulphur
Lucapa from dizzying heights of intellectulism explain why stephan jay gould rejected every idea you rejected.Come on be a man and put all your ideas forward so we poor mortals can pull them apart

  The ad hominen is obvious, but I'm not sure what statement of mine triggered it.  Care to be a bit more specific, Sulphur?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Hank
Evolution is bizarre also. There I am to accept that every life form evolved from cells, which somehow popped up in the oceans, below the surface of earth, or just on earth.

What you described is abiogenesis.  That is not part of evolution.  Evolution deals only with organisms once they are here.  The quote from Darwin illustrates that.  However, there are several ways that you can get life from non-life and we can discuss those.  The mechanisms, however, are chemistry, not evolution.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."  C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.