The stars in the heavens - God promise to Abraham

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 08:59:55 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:


On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 07:32:46 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
wrote:

Pendulum clocks were the first devices that we now know as clocks and
the first real device can be attributed to Huygens who built the first
accurate one about 15 years after Galileo died -

Sundials, water clocks, candle clocks, hour glasses... these are all
clocks, and all were used centuries before mechanical pendulum clocks
were invented. Some of these were capable of remarkable short term
accuracy. Galileo utilized several mechanical devices to measure time
while he was investigating pendulums and falling objects.
_______________________________________________ __

So no matter what you're shown, it doesn't count.

--

Bathroom Fact: Most toilets flush in the key of E-Flat.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:31:55 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:


On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 09:57:22 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
wrote:

To create an accurate clock,that reflects constant hours minutes and
seconds,as Huygens did...

A clock can serve many purposes, and need not be calibrated to any of
the above units in order to be useful.
_______________________________________________ __

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

You loved dodge ball when you were a kid, huh?

--

"Weakness of faith ought not be mistaken for falseness
of promise." - Unknown

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:33:11 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

But there is some that you may want to checkout here.
http://bibleprobe.com/pi.htm

So? No science there. Just an observation (maybe) that a circle's
circumference is about three times its diameter. I'm sure that's been
known for a very long time.


Keep reading there is more then just pi.



Similarly, there is no evidence
of any cosmological knowledge deeper than that which can be observed
with the senses alone.

Which would be true of most science till modern times.

There was no science until modern times. That's the point. The first
documented use of a scientific method I'm aware of was by Greeks about
2400 years ago, and that wasn't applied systematically. The method then
seems to disappear for another thousand years, and only becomes
systematically applied from the 1500s on.

The ancient Greeks did not do experiential science. I don't read
of them taking two weights to the top of a building and dropping
them to see what falls faster. The Greeks believed that the world could
be explained by pure reason.



For example Tycho de Brahe and Johannes Kepler did science and they only
used their senses. Galileo's mechanics were done without a clock.

Nonsense. Tycho developed precise astronomical measuring instruments and
used them for his observations. Kepler used those same observations.


Okay but he did it with his senses. Furthermore we do not know what the
ancients astronomers used but they must have used some astronomical
measuring instruments.

As what the ancient astronomers did please look here.
http://doormann.tripod.com/asssky.htm


Galileo did many experiments using instruments.

Such as????

He certainly used clocks
for his work with pendulums.

Some say he used his pulse others that he sang music and recorded the
time by how much he sang.

Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:12:29 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
spake thusly:


Chris L Peterson wrote:

The idea that the bible and evolution are the opposite of each other is
simply bizarre.
Quite right.

Quite wrong.


The Bible and Evolution are like Hockey and Calzone. They really don't
have anything to do with one another.

The lie you tell yourself, because you're a coward.

There you go with the personal attacks again. Is this really the best
you can do? Come back to this thread and sprinkle insults at everyone
in response to what they have written? It is likely you are merely a
troll. I sure hope so, at least. If you aren't just pulling everyone's
leg then you are a very poor representative of Christ.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye

Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:59:30 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
spake thusly:


Pastor Dave wrote:

I am well acquainted with the various sciences involved
and you son, are just another moron trying to play the
game you were taught to play, thinking that your time
spent seeing how to fool most people, equates to real
and actual research!
I, "father", am the guy who just won this argument. The evidence? You
responded with irrationality and personal insults. Apparently that's
the best you can do.

No real surprise there.

I'm sorry that I had to expose you as a liar.
But that's what happens when you lie.

If you are expecting me to respond in kind to your insults, forget it.
But if you wish, you can go right on ignoring my words and insulting me
instead. It really helps my case quite a bit. Thanks!

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 01:06:35 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

Keep reading there is more then just pi.

Keep reading where? That silly list at the bottom of the page? I checked
about a third of them against the referenced passages. What hogwash! Not
only is there no science, there's practically no knowledge described.
This looks no different than the nuts reading all sorts of modern
history into Nostradamus.


The ancient Greeks did not do experiential science. I don't read
of them taking two weights to the top of a building and dropping
them to see what falls faster. The Greeks believed that the world could
be explained by pure reason.

That was a common viewpoint, but not universal. You need look no further
than Archimedes to see that some people were applying an almost modern
analytical approach to seeking physical knowledge. But it may be because
an experimentalist approach never became widely accepted in Greece that
we went another 1500 years without much solid physical knowledge.


Okay but he did it with his senses. Furthermore we do not know what the
ancients astronomers used but they must have used some astronomical
measuring instruments.

By that argument, everything requires the senses. Certainly, that is the
ultimate channel of observation, whether you use an astrolabe or the
Hubble telescope. There is no doubt that ancient people used observation
instruments, maybe even in biblical times. But that doesn't mean they
were doing science with them.


Some say he used his pulse others that he sang music and recorded the
time by how much he sang.

Also, dripping water, rolling balls on ramps, and for his pendulum
experiments, other pendulums. All crude by modern standards, but
nevertheless they were being used in support of science in the modern
sense.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Aug 4, 3:19*pm, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 07:54:39 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:

Which would be true of most science till modern times.

There was no science until modern times.

That's not true, but most major branches of what
you call science were invented by Bible believing
Creationists.


That is simply not accurate,the founder of modern geology was among
others - Archbishop Steno who most certainly would have taken a
balanced approach to creation -

http://alan-cutler.com/excerpt.html

As Cutler accurately writes,clergy,many of whom were geologists
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Buckland ] could live
comfortably with a less than literal interpretation of Genesis and
accept that the Earth had a beginning and that life developed ,all
this is the broadest possible sense.Genesis is not a newspaper account
of creation yet its narrative is developed around an Earth that has a
beginning (as opposed to Eternal) for one of many purposes,both
pragmatic and Spiritual .Steno's discovery was made against a backdrop
of social conditions,politics,theological perspectives just as
Copernicus made his discoveries in the flow of different
circumstances,the point is that many people today do not takes these
things into account when forming modern ideological approach to
science and religion.

How it came to be that in the early part of the 21st century,that an
acceptable format such as science vs religion or creationism vs
evolution emerged may actually represent the same side of the same
coin for neither side seems particularly scientific or religious and
that is not overly critical,just a commentary based on laziness or
unfamiliarity with the topics and the people who made the
discoveries .

Nobody has to run outside and peer at rocks or stars and planets but
if they do,give a thought to those who once worked out discoveries
that belong to humanity's heritage and not just a group of people who
now call themselves scientists.






--

"The greatest and noblest pleasure which men can have
*in this world is to discover new truths; and the next
*is to shake off old prejudices. -Frederick The Great

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

Note: I think here we have reached a point where we will have to agree
to disagree. Note it has been interesting.

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 01:06:35 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

Keep reading there is more then just pi.

Keep reading where? That silly list at the bottom of the page? I checked
about a third of them against the referenced passages. What hogwash! Not
only is there no science, there's practically no knowledge described.
This looks no different than the nuts reading all sorts of modern
history into Nostradamus.



I agree they are not much but they do show that people were asking
question and trying to find answers.


The ancient Greeks did not do experiential science. I don't read
of them taking two weights to the top of a building and dropping
them to see what falls faster. The Greeks believed that the world could
be explained by pure reason.

That was a common viewpoint, but not universal. You need look no further
than Archimedes to see that some people were applying an almost modern
analytical approach to seeking physical knowledge.


Can you give me some examples of Archimedes doing some experimental
research?

But it may be because
an experimentalist approach never became widely accepted in Greece that
we went another 1500 years without much solid physical knowledge.


Yes.




Okay but he did it with his senses. Furthermore we do not know what the
ancients astronomers used but they must have used some astronomical
measuring instruments.

By that argument, everything requires the senses. Certainly, that is the
ultimate channel of observation, whether you use an astrolabe or the
Hubble telescope. There is no doubt that ancient people used observation
instruments, maybe even in biblical times. But that doesn't mean they
were doing science with them.


They certainly would have used them for astrology.


Some say he used his pulse others that he sang music and recorded the
time by how much he sang.

Also, dripping water, rolling balls on ramps, and for his pendulum
experiments, other pendulums. All crude by modern standards, but
nevertheless they were being used in support of science in the modern
sense.

But all this was available to the ancient Babylonians.

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 22:49:52 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

I agree they are not much but they do show that people were asking
question and trying to find answers.

People have always done that. The question is whether that can be called
"science". IMO that has not generally been the case until the last few
hundred years. Most ancient knowledge was equivalent to the modern idea
of a hypothesis (sometimes, just an observation); the next steps of
science- testing and modification of the hypothesis- were not performed.
This is why ancient knowledge about physical principles- most of it
incorrect- stood for so long without correction. These days, the average
lifetime of most errors in physical knowledge can be measured in years,
months, or sometimes even less.


Can you give me some examples of Archimedes doing some experimental
research?

I think that his development of theory about buoyancy is the best
example. It almost certainly required a cycle of observation,
theorization, and testing. I also think some of his inventions required
a cyclical development process that could be called scientific. While I
wouldn't consider any of this work to be the product of a fully
developed scientific method in the modern sense, I do think that key
elements were in place. Had this approach not been out of sorts with the
more accepted belief system that knowledge could be obtained
synthetically, or had Greek civilization persisted longer, we might live
in a very different world today.

It seems certain to me that individuals were applying the scientific
method to problems all through the ages. But we have little record of
that, and little evidence in the form of ancient physical knowledge. I
think this is because a scientific approach was not being applied to the
"big" problems- cosmology, gravity, etc. To the extent it was used, it
was for practical problems, like irrigation, seasonal prediction, and
the like.


But all this was available to the ancient Babylonians.

It was. But is there any evidence that it was used in support of the
scientific pursuit of physical knowledge? Not that I'm aware of.

In any case, thanks for an interesting discussion. As you say, we'll
probably just have to disagree about some points. Just what "science" is
remains in part a philosophical question, and like all such questions,
there can be no absolute answers.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Aug 5, 3:52*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:

In any case, thanks for an interesting discussion. As you say,
we'll
probably just have to disagree about some points. Just what "science" is
remains in part a philosophical question, and like all such questions,
there can be no absolute answers.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

How dumb to you have to be to demote a planet (Pluto) to a rock and
then define a planet as a body which has cleared its neibourhood of
rocks.It is not a matter of whether there are now 9 planets or 8
insofar as Pluto intrudes into Neptune's orbit thereby disqualifying
Neptune as a planet for not having cleared its neighbourhood around
its orbit,it is a matter of whether there are 9 planets or 7 (minus
Pluto and Neptune) .You simply cannot make this stuff up,the clear
lack of intelligence never mind wisdom that was applied in full public
view should shock even the most indiffeent observer let alone
particpants in sci.astro.amateur.

The root word 'planet' is from the Greek meaning 'wanderer' insofar as
the planets not only appeared to move against the stellar background
but wandered backwards periodically -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

It is impossible to detach 'planet' from either the geocentric view
or the heliocentric resolution of the 'wandering' motion through the
discovery of Copernicus via an orbitally moving Earth between Venus
and Mars and try to isolate a planet without refering it to its motion
in respect to the Earth or around the central Sun but it sure has not
stopped your crowd from trying.

Remember Chris,like it or not,under the present IAU 'planet'
definition there are either 9 planets or 7 with no in-between,it may
be that you and Solomon here cannot figure out why but at least
somebody else did -

http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.as...76af3010?hl=en