[geocentrism] Re: Puzzle
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:10:03 +1000
But they[modern physicists] are embarrassed by the Greek teachings about
physics, for most of these have all been consigned to the trash-heap of history.
I'd like to see a list of the trash.. would it include Archimedes priciple, the
steam engine, geometry and all that old stuff I learned in High school..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: Geocentrism
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:13 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Puzzle
The reality of scientific debate has surely changed from its lofty ideal of
being open to everyone. I definately challenge that. It is easy to fall into
the trap of assuming that just because others dissagree with you that there is
a conspiracy against you, and many do just that.
Was conspiracy ever mentioned?
Can I ask if you would go to http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/home.htm, choose
Intelligent Design ..., then Uses and misUses of Logic? I hope there is at
least something here with which you can agree. For myself, this article speaks
most eloquently on the subject as indeed do a great number of the other
articles at this site.
Thanks for the link, for it makes clear where our communication problems lie.
There are some things that are agreeable here, but those that are unpalatable
vitiate them….. such as:
Re Intelligent Design: Dr. Don says:
Creationists, having largely failed in their efforts, lend their support to
this effort, as perhaps the best they can get—for now
Creationists don’t support ID, although all its science arguments are valid,
because it denies knowing the identity of the Designer.
..its claims of supportive evidence from nature are contrived and easily
shown to be invalid.
Dr. Don thinks the ID science evidence is so easily shown invalid that he
doesn’t bother to show it. Just take it on his assurance. After all, he’s a
doctor.
Really convincing, doc.
Most of the "scientific" claims of ID are simply irrelevant, for the fatal
flaws of ID are much more fundamental. The elaborate arguments of ID only serve
to hide the fact that intelligent design arguments are completely devoid of
scientific content. Intelligent design is a philosophical assertion without the
slightest logical or scientific support.
Does the good Dr. even know what irreducible complexity is? This is an ID
claim that’s highly relevant to the possibility of natural selection. Has he
ever read Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box , and offered a explanation of the
evolution of blood clotting or bacterial rotifersIf he can, he’ll be the first.
In 1998 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the
biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians,
physicists and astronomers) were asked to repaeat similar surveys of 2 prior
years. The return rate was slightly over 50%. The results were as follows
(figures in %):
BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8
About 90% of the MS physics academics at the top schools today are atheists,
continuing the centennial trend. Who believes that these demagogues can
objectively decide a science issue that happens to be favored by religion (that
is, other than Paul) ?
The possibility of a global flood – ever – in 4 billion years, is ruled out a
priori, because it has a Biblical basis.
Re use of logic
address the question of how we can have confidence in knowledge that is less
than perfect.
Godel’s theorem shows that all inductive sciences have assumed axioms
unprovable within their boundaries. They can only be logically complete if the
truth of those axioms are validated outside the system.
The only deductive science, theology, receives its truth from outside its
scope – supernatural revelation. This is the only science that can possibly and
logically achieve perfect (i.e., complete) truth.
Nearly every argument and conclusion he [Aristotle] made about physical
science was wrong and misguided. Any tool can be misused, and in these
pre-scientific days logic was misused repeatedly.
Wow – one of the greatest intellects ever on this earth….. trashed by Dr.
Don. Again he doesn’t care to spell out any of the errors and illogic of
Aristotle – it must be so obvious. Not that Aristotle was perfect, but to say
that nearly every conclusion was wrong??
Aristotle’s logic included the denial of contradictions, as pointed out on
this forum before. With Dr. Don as his mentor, one can see why Paul is
enamored of contradictions.
His error was his failure to realize that we have no absolutely true
premises, except ones we define to be true (such as 2+2=4).
This a classic. 2 + 2 = 4 isn’t always true (as in vector spaces).
But the real laugh is that Dr. Don is flaunting his embrace of
contradictions, by stating we have no absolutely true premises. I f the
statement is true, then its meaning is false. If it is false, then there are
absolutely true premises. Dr. Don’s statement proves the opposite of what he
stated, according to the rules of logic which Aristotle established 2500 years
ago. What sweet irony!
Medieval scholastics, who brought Aristotelian modes of thought to a height
of absurdity, thought that absolutely true premises could be found in
revelations from God, as recorded in the Bible.
Duhh – you just proved that absolutes do exist, Dr. D.
Just what is an 'empty' argument about the 'real world' of our experience?
· One kind is the argument that may have faultless logic but is based
on premises that have not, or cannot, be experimentally verified. Another kind
is based on premises that are not part of any well-established and accepted
scientific theory.
Evolution is an example of the first type- unfalsifiable.
Scientific theories are like popular fads that come and go. Geostatism was
believed for 2 millennia, then HC, then AC, then both. The next phase is a
return to GS. Anybody remember the caloric theory?
Any argument based on scientific theory is bound to a certain time.
Science proceeds as if there are no absolute truths, or if there are such
truths, we can never know what they are.
Then why does MS pursue the TOE – Theory of Everything – and the GUT – Grand
Unified Theory?
The first conditional is a contradiction, the second is agnosticism. Such is
the basis of MS science.
The fact that science claims no absolute truths is seized upon by people who
hold strong religious beliefs and who dislike those conclusions of science that
run counter to their emotional convictions.
Faith is not based on emotion; it is the acceptance of truth based on
credible witnesses, truth that is never contrary to reason.
Now science is also based on belief by credible witnesses, since all that
science believes cannot be tested empiraically by one person.
But they[modern physicists] are embarrassed by the Greek teachings about
physics, for most of these have all been consigned to the trash-heap of history.
And the 20th century theories of relativity, big bang, evolution and quantum
mechanics will also be tossed on the trash-heap. Despite the history of
paradigm breaking in science, Dr. Don believes this generation of science has
got it all right. What would Aristotle say to that illogic? TRASH!
Today I realize that my thesis was mathematically sound, impressively couched
in the formalism of tensors, but proceeded from false premises, and so is only
approximately valid. If you claim competance in Newtonian physics, do you also
claim that this is a ' ... false premise ...'?
Newton assumed an absolute space and time; so also do GS and I.
Newton could not identify the location of this absolute reference system; GS
and I can and do.
….. Now Robert, can we bury the hatchet and get back to arguing cases on
their merit?
If merit means Revelation and reason (id est, w/o contradictions) …… that’s
always been intended, but not always executed.
Robert
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.0/763 - Release Date: 16/04/2007
5:53 PM
Other related posts:
