This is the question I have!

[Astrid]

You dont know what i know. Your claim is baseless.

Terrif! Tell us the flaws , that we may advance the
science!

 

[Lost4words]

Terrif! Tell us the flaws , that we may advance the
science!

Woof!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Woof!

Bad dog.

 

[AV1611VET]

What are you on a debate forum for if you are going to act this way?

Saying someone is wrong then playing doggie when asked to explain is very childish.

Are you talking to anyone particular?

Or just Warden?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you talking to anyone particular?

Or just Warden?

They're talking to Lost4Words. They slightly goofed a reply.

 

[AV1611VET]

They're talking to Lost4Words. They slightly goofed a reply.

I was just kidding anyway.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I guess some of this comes down to how any of us defines a 'Solar Day' ....

There isn't any debate on that. A Solar day is the mean period between Solar zenith (noon) observed in the same spot over the course of the year. (86,400 seconds) It should not be confused with the sidereal day which is the average time between the zenith of any star outside the solar system, as it is 4 minutes shorter.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Having organisational policies in opposition of free scientific investigation and any history of scientific misrepresentation are, to me, demonstrate them as totally unreliable.

Under what confines do you pertain to the authority of your science over others?...a science that will most likely be revised/corrected/changed within the next 100 years? How can you call your source an authority if you know it is not totally correct, but will be corrected in the future?

Then it seems you are mistaken to some degree about content or interpretation of the Consensus of the Fathers.

Multiple Popes have made comments in support of the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution:
Pope Francis: 'Evolution ... is not inconsistent with the notion of creation'

Some, as did Pius XII, but that does not mean they accept it themselves; they merely condone its belief within the Church.

That's a claim with no justification for anyone who doesn't share your specific faith to accept.

Well, then, they do not accept it, but that does not mean it is incorrect. For example, if I give you an argument (A) and that argument is founded on a religious belief (B), then by all intents and purposes, one can deny the argument based on its foundation. Take the Big Bang, promulgated by a Catholic priest, therefore is based on religious observance. This would cause a paradox:

• A + B = Null
• A - B = Null (on the basis of the argument being made on religious foundation)
• A ÷ B = Null (as you cannot separate evidence from its hypothesis and receive the same data, according to Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where he argues that paradigms determine what scientists see and interpret as evidence)

Thus, this mentality leads to nothing but an absence of scientific theory, as the basis of all science is made from theology, the 'queen of the sciences.'

Geological, biological and astrological evidence has been consistently counter to a Young Earth interpretation of history for centuries.

Science contends that truth must be found in all areas, regardless of philosophy. Of whose philosophy "disproved" the Young Earth interpretation?

The assumption of a series of conclusions without methods or mechanisms.

And this is true of every study on the Young Earth, regardless of who begun, partisipated, published, or prumulgated the study?

You are mistaken.

A world wide flood is completely impossible within the physical constraints of the Earth.

Floods leave significant evidence that is well understood, with the additional issues of a flood of the depth to cover mountains has additional levels of devastation that would have left very different evidence to the geological structures we see today.

In addition biology makes a literal reading of the Flood narrative impossible with both genetic diversity and stable ecosystems impossible with the tiny number of animal survivors of the flood.

Constant and deceptive miraculous intervention are required to make the Flood possible.

This is not my field of expertise, I will leave that up to others who can defend the Flood; also, what creationist sources do you accept research from, if any at all? Im sure not every creationist research group fails your credibility test; if none do, then I would think that it is more your philosophy on the matter than the real lack of scientific evidence.

I don't like to make statements about valid Creationist arguments existing or not, just that I have not been presented with them.

But in my experience Creationism begins with an acceptance of specific theological interpretations of the Bible and reality. Missing is the reason to accept those truths in the first place.

So absolutely no creationist arguement that you have been presented with is valid...have you thought it may be how you think about creationism as a whole?

I think you are misunderstanding what the evidence indicates.

The consistency of the universe is on a significantly larger scale than that of the Earth... it's about the movement and relationship between the distant Galaxies. The Earth is still clearly orbiting the Sun and the Sun is orbiting the Galactic core of the Milky Way.

The activity and expansion of the outer known Universe is, to me, a further reason to doubt any Young Earth time line. The scale of the universe mean that many visible remnants of events see in the cosmos are simply false images of events and objects that never existed.

On "The consistency of the universe is on a significantly larger scale than that of the Earth... it's about the movement and relationship between the distant Galaxies. The Earth is still clearly orbiting the Sun and the Sun is orbiting the Galactic core of the Milky Way" this is your interpretation, however there is no scientists contend that there is no way to prove that, and that geocentrism is still possible. I can provide proof for this through prior threads, however if you believe that, in spite of all of your previous generations' scientific leaders that they are all wrong in saying that there is no way to observantly prove heliocentrism or geocentrism then it just goes to my point that it is your philosophy of science and how you think about creationism as a whole.

I have never doubted that there are people with scientific qualifications and experience that believe in Creationism.

What I have yet to see is any method of study of the Universe that didn't require the conviction of the truth of Creationism before any evidence was even examined.

Nor have I have yet to see any method of study of the Universe that didn't require the conviction of the rejection of Creationism before any evidence was even examined; it goes both ways, and to think that secular science is without conviction while creationist science is, again, just goes to my point that it is your philosophy of science and how you think about creationism as a whole.

Also, as you know I respect and love you, I must ask why you are named after a fallen angel? I consider it strange that you are named after an expelled angel, an angel which stated in Enoch 6:3-5: "And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: "I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin." It is clear Semjaza was the catalyst behind the rebellion of the 200 Watchers, after which Gabriel is given the command for Samjaza to be punished according to Enoch 10:11-14. So I just ask why you are named after such a terrible fallen angel? Is it to spite Our Lord?

 

[BCP1928]

Nor have I have yet to see any method of study of the Universe that didn't require the conviction of the rejection of Creationism before any evidence was even examined;

There you are wrong. The modern science of geology was created in the 18th century by scientists, most of them devout clergymen, who set out in a sincere effort to find evidence of the Flood. It took quite a bit of (literal) digging, looking at actual geological evidence before they gradually became convinced that there hadn't been one.

 

[AveChristusRex]

There you are wrong. The modern science of geology was created in the 18th century by scientists, most of them devout clergymen, who set out in a sincere effort to find evidence of the Flood. It took quite a bit of (literal) digging, looking at actual geological evidence before they gradually became convinced that there hadn't been one.

Ah! Good point, and I contend that point on this basis. However, a second question is to what extent is that mentality used today?

 

[BCP1928]

Ah! Good point, and I contend that point on this basis. However, a second question is to what extent is that mentality used today?

I think for the most part science is indifferent to creationism and is sincerely interested in finding out what actually happened. Except for a relatively few individuals who contend with creationism whenever it impacts publical policy--public school science teaching, for example.--creationism isn't really an issue.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think for the most part science is indifferent to creationism and is sincerely interested in finding out what actually happened. Except for a relatively few individuals who contend with creationism whenever it impacts publical policy--public school science teaching, for example.--creationism isn't really an issue.

This is why I say every scientist on earth should read John 9.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, then, they do not accept it, but that does not mean it is incorrect. For example, if I give you an argument (A) and that argument is founded on a religious belief (B), then by all intents and purposes, one can deny the argument based on its foundation.

We'll get to that argument in a moment (such as it is), but

Take the Big Bang, promulgated by a Catholic priest, therefore is based on religious observance.

To characterize Georges Lemaître as simply a "Catholic priest" is really to ignore the reality of his work on what became known as the Big Bang. For starters Lemaître was physicist and mathemetician and a Ph.D. in those subjects. His work on cosmology was as physicist, not as a priest. There is nothing about religion that would provide a solution to Einstein's field equations.

As for his "promulgation" of the Big Bang model, Lemaître worked out a solution for expanding space-time, but he wasn't even the first person to do so, that would be Alexander Friedmannn.

This would cause a paradox:

Now onto your "proof" or "argument" such as it is. You've posited an "argument (A)" and a "religious belief (B)"

• A + B = Null

Argument and (or is it with) religious belief give nothing/cancellation (Null)

Not quite sure what you mean, but I cant really argue with it.

• A - B = Null (on the basis of the argument being made on religious foundation)

Argument minus/(without?) religious argument is nothing/cancellation.

If these operators are meaningful (and I am not convinced they are), then the results you are giving make no sense.

• A ÷ B = Null

This now makes no sense at all. This seems to be because you are applying this to the origins of Big Bang Theory and have incorrectly claimed that the Big Bang model was based on "religious observance". It most certainly is not.

(as you cannot separate evidence from its hypothesis and receive the same data, according to Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where he argues that paradigms determine what scientists see and interpret as evidence)

Referencing Kuhn will not make your claim sensible. And Kuhn is mere philosophy, not an axiomatic aspect of the scientific methodology.

Thus, this mentality leads to nothing but an absence of scientific theory, as the basis of all science is made from theology, the 'queen of the sciences.'

No, no, no. Not one single bit of science is based on or dependent upon theology. Science has no "queen" and theology is about as far from a science as one could get.

 

[AveChristusRex]

To characterize Georges Lemaître as simply a "Catholic priest" is really to ignore the reality of his work on what became known as the Big Bang. For starters Lemaître was physicist and mathemetician and a Ph.D. in those subjects. His work on cosmology was as physicist, not as a priest. There is nothing about religion that would provide a solution to Einstein's field equations.

As a Catholic, I consider his being a Priest the most important aspect of his life.

As for his "promulgation" of the Big Bang model, Lemaître worked out a solution for expanding space-time, but he wasn't even the first person to do so, that would be Alexander Friedmannn.

Neat! Good to know.

Argument and (or is it with) religious belief give nothing/cancellation (Null)

According to secular science, an argument with religion gives nothing (the +), yet an argument without its religious foundation also gives nothing (the -), and if you try to divide the religious and scientific portions of the theory, you also get nothing (the ÷).

This now makes no sense at all. This seems to be because you are applying this to the origins of Big Bang Theory and have incorrectly claimed that the Big Bang model was based on "religious observance". It most certainly is not.

It was originally posited that way by Lemaître.

Referencing Kuhn will not make your claim sensible. And Kuhn is mere philosophy, not an axiomatic aspect of the scientific methodology.

It was not attempting to make my claim sensible; it was to show that there have been individuals prior who have come to the same conclusion.

No, no, no. Not one single bit of science is based on or dependent upon theology. Science has no "queen" and theology is about as far from a science as one could get.

That is your view, and you are entitled to it!

 

[Astrid]

Under what confines do you pertain to the authority of your science over others?...a science that will most likely be revised/corrected/changed within the next 100 years? How can you call your source an authority if you know it is not totally correct, but will be corrected in the future?

Some, as did Pius XII, but that does not mean they accept it themselves; they merely condone its belief within the Church.

Well, then, they do not accept it, but that does not mean it is incorrect. For example, if I give you an argument (A) and that argument is founded on a religious belief (B), then by all intents and purposes, one can deny the argument based on its foundation. Take the Big Bang, promulgated by a Catholic priest, therefore is based on religious observance. This would cause a paradox:

• A + B = Null
• A - B = Null (on the basis of the argument being made on religious foundation)
• A ÷ B = Null (as you cannot separate evidence from its hypothesis and receive the same data, according to Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where he argues that paradigms determine what scientists see and interpret as evidence)

Thus, this mentality leads to nothing but an absence of scientific theory, as the basis of all science is made from theology, the 'queen of the sciences.'

Science contends that truth must be found in all areas, regardless of philosophy. Of whose philosophy "disproved" the Young Earth interpretation?

And this is true of every study on the Young Earth, regardless of who begun, partisipated, published, or prumulgated the study?

This is not my field of expertise, I will leave that up to others who can defend the Flood; also, what creationist sources do you accept research from, if any at all? Im sure not every creationist research group fails your credibility test; if none do, then I would think that it is more your philosophy on the matter than the real lack of scientific evidence.

So absolutely no creationist arguement that you have been presented with is valid...have you thought it may be how you think about creationism as a whole?

On "The consistency of the universe is on a significantly larger scale than that of the Earth... it's about the movement and relationship between the distant Galaxies. The Earth is still clearly orbiting the Sun and the Sun is orbiting the Galactic core of the Milky Way" this is your interpretation, however there is no scientists contend that there is no way to prove that, and that geocentrism is still possible. I can provide proof for this through prior threads, however if you believe that, in spite of all of your previous generations' scientific leaders that they are all wrong in saying that there is no way to observantly prove heliocentrism or geocentrism then it just goes to my point that it is your philosophy of science and how you think about creationism as a whole.

Nor have I have yet to see any method of study of the Universe that didn't require the conviction of the rejection of Creationism before any evidence was even examined; it goes both ways, and to think that secular science is without conviction while creationist science is, again, just goes to my point that it is your philosophy of science and how you think about creationism as a whole.

Also, as you know I respect and love you, I must ask why you are named after a fallen angel? I consider it strange that you are named after an expelled angel, an angel which stated in Enoch 6:3-5: "And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: "I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin." It is clear Semjaza was the catalyst behind the rebellion of the 200 Watchers, after which Gabriel is given the command for Samjaza to be punished according to Enoch 10:11-14. So I just ask why you are named after such a terrible fallen angel? Is it to spite Our Lord?

Theology is opposite to science.

Yec is for the ignorant who’ve been conned.

 

[AV1611VET]

Theology is opposite to science.

Meaning science can take a hike?

Yec is for the ignorant who’ve been conned.

Ya ... and we have a generation of Thalidomide adults, whose mothers were conned by science.

 

[Shemjaza]

Under what confines do you pertain to the authority of your science over others?...a science that will most likely be revised/corrected/changed within the next 100 years? How can you call your source an authority if you know it is not totally correct, but will be corrected in the future?

Because science is a system, not a conclusion.

Scientific investigation is about the process not simply declaring that you are

Some, as did Pius XII, but that does not mean they accept it themselves; they merely condone its belief within the Church.

Which is directly counter to your implication that it was counter to being a part of the church.

Well, then, they do not accept it, but that does not mean it is incorrect. For example, if I give you an argument (A) and that argument is founded on a religious belief (B), then by all intents and purposes, one can deny the argument based on its foundation. Take the Big Bang, promulgated by a Catholic priest, therefore is based on religious observance. This would cause a paradox:

• A + B = Null
• A - B = Null (on the basis of the argument being made on religious foundation)
• A ÷ B = Null (as you cannot separate evidence from its hypothesis and receive the same data, according to Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where he argues that paradigms determine what scientists see and interpret as evidence)

Thus, this mentality leads to nothing but an absence of scientific theory, as the basis of all science is made from theology, the 'queen of the sciences.'

The evidence for the big bang is not religious because the theory was proposed by a religious person. Nor is the concept of the big bang based a religious interpretation of scripture.

The Big Bang and expansion are explanations for physical evidence and theoretical models based on that evidence.

Georges Lemaître studied the universe and found explanations for the evidence that was visible and comprehensible regardless of personal religious convictions.

Science contends that truth must be found in all areas, regardless of philosophy. Of whose philosophy "disproved" the Young Earth interpretation?

Disproved? Nothing. It's impossible to disprove unfalsifiable assertions.

What I said was that the evidence was counter to Young Earth interpretations.

Genetic diversity is counter to animal populations being reduced to 7/2 per "kind".

Geological patterns are counter to world wide flood patterns and oceans covering the mountains.

The scale and age of archaeological structures are counter a recent flood and devestation.

Linguistics are counter to the formation of languages by recent miracles in the Middle East.

And this is true of every study on the Young Earth, regardless of who begun, partisipated, published, or prumulgated the study?

Not necessarily, but it is true of every study that begins with the assertion that the Young Earth interpretation must be true.

This is not my field of expertise, I will leave that up to others who can defend the Flood; also, what creationist sources do you accept research from, if any at all? Im sure not every creationist research group fails your credibility test; if none do, then I would think that it is more your philosophy on the matter than the real lack of scientific evidence.

Every Creationist organisation I have encountered have participated in very suspect behavior, which leaves them suspect... but evidence is evidence. If they had workable, testable methods of demonstrating their point of view, I'd be interested in seeing it.

So absolutely no creationist arguement that you have been presented with is valid...have you thought it may be how you think about creationism as a whole?

I'd be open to new information and new examples of evidence.

If there is valid evidence it should be demonstrable and not require a priori acceptance of a particular conclusion.

On "The consistency of the universe is on a significantly larger scale than that of the Earth... it's about the movement and relationship between the distant Galaxies. The Earth is still clearly orbiting the Sun and the Sun is orbiting the Galactic core of the Milky Way" this is your interpretation, however there is no scientists contend that there is no way to prove that, and that geocentrism is still possible. I can provide proof for this through prior threads, however if you believe that, in spite of all of your previous generations' scientific leaders that they are all wrong in saying that there is no way to observantly prove heliocentrism or geocentrism then it just goes to my point that it is your philosophy of science and how you think about creationism as a whole.

"Prove" in a mathematical or philosophically logical sense no... but that wasn't my claim. My claim was that the evidence was against geocentrisim, and that is certainly the evidence we can observe. There is the evidence for the movement of the Earth and the clear and orderly pattern of the orbits of the planets around the Sun... a geocentric model is chaotic nonsense with no explanatory power.

Nor have I have yet to see any method of study of the Universe that didn't require the conviction of the rejection of Creationism before any evidence was even examined; it goes both ways, and to think that secular science is without conviction while creationist science is, again, just goes to my point that it is your philosophy of science and how you think about creationism as a whole.

I think you are quite mistaken.

The study of the universe does not in any way require the rejection of the possibility of a Young Earth... it merely turns out that a its rejection is a reasonable conclusion from the examination of the evidence.

Also, as you know I respect and love you, I must ask why you are named after a fallen angel? I consider it strange that you are named after an expelled angel, an angel which stated in Enoch 6:3-5: "And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: "I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin." It is clear Semjaza was the catalyst behind the rebellion of the 200 Watchers, after which Gabriel is given the command for Samjaza to be punished according to Enoch 10:11-14. So I just ask why you are named after such a terrible fallen angel? Is it to spite Our Lord?

I was very interested in occult mythology and fantasy stories as a teenager and I've used the name online for decades. The Book of Enoch and the early parts of Genesis are more fantastical and intriguing than many other Christian and Jewish religious writings.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Because science is a system, not a conclusion.

Scientific investigation is about the process not simply declaring that you are

Well, while that may be true generally, I showed quotes earlier that, at least regarding geocentric science, conclusions were already made and some science was ignored to posit a philosophy.

Which is directly counter to your implication that it was counter to being a part of the church.

No, no, you asked me what authority says the Holy Spirit works through the Scriptures and Church; I cited the Church's Law and de fide; it was not a call to say that all non-YEC science is not allowed in the Church; you misunderstood me on that point.

The evidence for the big bang is not religious because the theory was proposed by a religious person. Nor is the concept of the big bang based a religious interpretation of scripture.

The Big Bang and expansion are explanations for physical evidence and theoretical models based on that evidence.

Georges Lemaître studied the universe and found explanations for the evidence that was visible and comprehensible regardless of personal religious convictions.

After further study, I have found that Lemaître reportedly expressed concerns when Pope Pius XII initially suggested that the Big Bang might provide evidence for the moment of divine creation as described in Genesis. Thus, he emphasized that his theory was purely scientific and not intended to serve as proof for religious doctrine. And to that point [on the religious foundation of the Big Bang theory], I yield.

Disproved? Nothing. It's impossible to disprove unfalsifiable assertions.

What I said was that the evidence was counter to Young Earth interpretations.

Genetic diversity is counter to animal populations being reduced to 7/2 per "kind".

Geological patterns are counter to world wide flood patterns and oceans covering the mountains.

The scale and age of archaeological structures are counter a recent flood and devestation.

Linguistics are counter to the formation of languages by recent miracles in the Middle East.

For genetic diversity, what is your view of Dr. John Sanford's theory of "genetic entropy," which shows rapid genetic variation is plausible even in a short timescale. For geological patterns, I agree with Dr. Snelling's analysis that the formation of the Grand Canyon and other features is often cited as evidence of rapid, large-scale water movement. As for archeological structures, the dating of archaeological structures relies heavily on radiometric dating methods, which assume constant rates of decay and initial conditions. And for linguistics, we do not have enough evidence to show it did not happen through the 'proto-' language families to speak authoritatively on that matter.

Not necessarily, but it is true of every study that begins with the assertion that the Young Earth interpretation must be true.

So some YEC studies you will accept, but you will pick and choose what / when those come up?

Every Creationist organisation I have encountered have participated in very suspect behavior, which leaves them suspect... but evidence is evidence. If they had workable, testable methods of demonstrating their point of view, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Now see, while I respect your view, if I were to say that about all of secular science, I would be laughed at.

I'd be open to new information and new examples of evidence.

If there is valid evidence it should be demonstrable and not require a priori acceptance of a particular conclusion.

With respect, I really don't think you would be given your seeming denial of all of religious-driven science. I think most scientific studies are a self-fulfilling prophecy; if secularists go in and want to find the absence of creationism, they will find it based on their interpretation of the evidence; if creationists go in and want to find the abundance of creationism, they will find it based on their interpretation of the evidence. We can never really know what science contends as everyone has an agenda, and to say that they don't is rather spurious.

"Prove" in a mathematical or philosophically logical sense no... but that wasn't my claim. My claim was that the evidence was against geocentrisim, and that is certainly the evidence we can observe. There is the evidence for the movement of the Earth and the clear and orderly pattern of the orbits of the planets around the Sun... a geocentric model is chaotic nonsense with no explanatory power.

I do not focus my time or effort in YEC specifically, as there are individuals who do far better at that than I do, however I do focus on geocentric science, and I will say that my aforementioned quotes speak volumes on the matter. Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time makes it very clear that scientific studies on geo- or helio- are a self-fulfilling prophecy: "…all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe."

Moreover, Paul Davies, editor of Nature magazine, commented on George Ellis's work, stating: "These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own." Here are a few more points to show that you cannot disprove geocentrism based on observations:

• From George Ellis, a famous cosmologist in Scientific American, “Thinking Globally, Acting Universally,” October 1995: "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.”
• From Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system: "No absolute uniform motion exists in classical physics. If two c.s. are moving uniformly, relative to each other, then there is no sense in saying, "This c.s. is at rest and the other is moving". But if two c.s. are moving nonuniformly, relative to each other, then there is very good reason for saying, "This body moves and the other is at rest (or moves uniformly) ". Absolute motion has here a very definite meaning. There is, at this point, a wide gulf between common sense and classical physics. The difficulties mentioned, that of an inertial system and that of absolute motion, are strictly connected with each other. Absolute motion is madepossible only by the idea of an inertial system, for whichthe laws of nature are valid. It may seem as though there is no way out of these difficulties, as though no physical theory can avoid them. Their root lies in the validity of the laws of nature for a special class of c.s. only, the inertial. The possibility of solving these difficulties depends on the answer to the following question. Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all c.s., not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? If this can be done, our difficulties will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any c.s. The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either c.s. could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, u 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 c.s."
• Max Born said in his famous book, “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”, Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345: "…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 Corpenicus are equally right."
• Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology – A Modern Course, (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.), p. 416,1975: "We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

So no, you cannot disprove geocentrism based on observations. You are mistaken on that topic, and I think it is interesting that philosophy dictates what model we use and what model we call absurd, regardless of the fact that we cannot prove either of them definitively over the other. We are taught that Isotropy and Homogeneity create the Cosmological Principle, which calls on Copernicus for support: "Observed isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), combined with the Copernican principle..." The Copernican principle, according to the Wikipedia article, is: "named after Nicolaus Copernicus, [and] states the Earth is not in a central, specially favoured position. More recently, the principle is generalised to the simple statement that humans are not privileged observers. In this sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle, with significant implications in the philosophy of science. This is circular logic, and thus, how can one say that scientific study on the matter is not pushed to one side over the other, regardless of the equality of both models? For more sources/papers proving that there is no physical difference between geocentric and modern heliocentric views:

1. Barbour and Bertotti, 1977. Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38:1.
2. Brown, G. B., 1955. Proceedings of the Phys. Soc. B, 68:672.
3. Thirring, H., 1916. Phys. Z. 19:33.
4. Lense, J. & Thirring, H., 1918, Ibid. 22:29.
5. Gerber, P., 1898. Zeitschr. f. Math. u. Physik, 43:93.
6. Møller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 318-321.
7. Moon, P. & Spencer, D. E., 1959. Philos. of Science, 26:125.
8. Rosser, W. G. V., 1964. An Intro. to the Theory of Relativity, (London: Butterworths), p. 460.

For rotation see: P. F. Browne, 1977. “Relativity of Rotation,” Jrnl. of Physics A: Math. & Gen. Relativity, 10:727.

I think you are quite mistaken.

The study of the universe does not in any way require the rejection of the possibility of a Young Earth... it merely turns out that a its rejection is a reasonable conclusion from the examination of the evidence.

I think both of us are quite mistaken, but I flipped the words around from your original statement, so again, I think both of us are quite mistaken.

I was very interested in occult mythology and fantasy stories as a teenager and I've used the name online for decades. The Book of Enoch and the early parts of Genesis are more fantastical and intriguing than many other Christian and Jewish religious writings.

Oh, neat!

 

[Hans Blaster]

As a Catholic, I consider his being a Priest the most important aspect of his life.

To which I could reply...

Neat! Good to know.

But I have never seen any practical usage of a priest. That said, Lemaître did not work on cosmology as a priest, but as a physicist. That he took a job as a physics professor is a real big hint here.

According to secular science, an argument with religion gives nothing (the +), yet an argument without its religious foundation also gives nothing (the -), and if you try to divide the religious and scientific portions of the theory, you also get nothing (the ÷).

The usage of basic arithmetic notation was confusing. I thought it might be from formal logic, but it was not. Writing the paragraph above would have been far more useful. Now a reply:

1. There is no "secular science", only science. Science does not use religion at all for arguments.
2. As such, the division claim is nonsense. No science has religion in it, so removing or dividing out the religious portion has no impact.

It was originally posited that way by Lemaître.

It was not attempting to make my claim sensible; it was to show that there have been individuals prior who have come to the same conclusion.

I do not care what philosophers say, but to repeat, there is no religion in science, so there is none to remove. It was not and is not a part of any scientific hypothesis. (And anything claiming to be science, but is instead wrapped in religion, is not science.)

That is your view, and you are entitled to it!

Because it is factually correct. Science is not dependent on theology in any way. That is just basic scientific methodology. I know this because I have decades of experience.

 

[timothyu]

Does not science seek origins, that being to some of us, God? What happens with science, as we saw during the pandemic, is it isolates itself and refuses alternate views and thus goes nowhere, just as Christianity did and does. How is that true science or Christianity? Its not. The reason is simple. They are both run by humans.