slightly OT, but still connected

"Chris" == Chris L Peterson writes:

Chris On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:27:27 GMT, "Clayton Doyles" wrote:
On the other side of the coin, I don't see any evidence that the
universe is really billions of years old.

Chris There is overwhelming _scientific_ evidence that the Universe
Chris is billions of years old.

We have two schools of thought here that are similar in one way:
both ages come from man.

Chris Yes, that's exactly it. There are two schools of thought-
Chris religious and scientific. You may consider it an act of faith
Chris to accept one or the other, but once you have done so the
Chris evidence that science provides is internally consistent. Most
Chris religions simply provide a mass of facts and beliefs that
Chris don't follow from one another, and are often contradictory.
Chris If you accept religion, you are thinking in a completely
Chris different way than a rationalist.

Are we so sure that radiocarbon and other methods of dating
aren't invalid? Are we so sure that The Bible is correct? The
point is... no matter how you look at it, you must pick what you
believe is the most correct and depend on man's correctness (or
lack thereof).

Chris There is really just one science. Theories hold together or
Chris they don't. Scientifically, we are very certain about the
Chris quality of dating methods.

Indeed, and it is physics bg. Of course, being a physicist might
leave me biased, but in point of fact we all know that chemistry and
biology are merely applications of physics bg.

Seriously, I assume that you mean that there is one fundamental approach
to science (I do *not* like the phrase "scientific method" because it is
so badly used in most contexts to make science sound cut-and-dried).

Chris Why should we believe the Bible? It is simply one of many
Chris collections of stories, one that is accepted as truth by a
Chris minority of humans (and an even smaller minority of all
Chris humans who have ever lived).

You'll have to define "believe" before you can really discuss that. And
you don't need a rigorous definition, you just have to figure out what
range of things you do and don't mean by the word. After all, I use it
every day to mean all sorts of things most of which are just synonyms
for "I expect such and such to happen." I believe that the light will
come on when I flip the switch. Of course sometimes it doesn't. And
sometimes well meaning "believers" happen to believe nonsense and
proclaim it as dogma. Kind of like the "refractors are best" comments
you get here sometimes g.

And there is the question of believe it for what? It is, after all, a
valid historical document with a rather large corpus of evidence as to
its historical veracity in *some* areas that are "non-controversial"
i.e., not specifically doctrinal (e.g., who was king/emperor/whatever of
someplace and who preceded them, etc.). There is a whole area of
"biblical archeology" which seems pretty well rooted in using the Bible
in this mode. Does that mean the rest must be "true" also? From a
scientific approach, certainly not, but from an evidentiary approach, it
has to make you think.

Chris While I'm not religious, if I were to rationally evaluate my
Chris religious options, Christianity would be about the last of my
Chris choices, with Judaism and Islam right behind. What I find
Chris interesting about these discussions is how rarely anyone
Chris offers a straight science versus religion question. Usually
Chris it is science versus the Bible, as if that is the only
Chris religious choice.

As a Christian and as a physicist, I've never really felt the need to
pose such a confrontational question. I don't see the conflict in most
practice. Of course, in some Christian circles, I'm not particularly
welcome since I fall into the "old earth" camp.

Chris I don't believe the Bible is correct because so many of the
Chris stories are just too damned silly, the characters are so
Chris unbelievable, and the morals are reprehensible. I don't
Chris believe the New Testament is correct for the same reasons,
Chris and because I consider the fundamental premises of salvation
Chris from sin to be unbelievable and offensive.

Some of the stories are silly---and they are supposed to be understood
as silly because sometimes real people do silly things---sometimes they
do outright stupid things. Don't believe me? Maybe you should watch a
few "reality TV" shows (but only a few, the stuff is pure rot...).

The rest of your claims seem to fall into the category of being both
sweeping, vague, and contrary to fact. Which part of "love your
neighbor as yourself" is reprehensible? Of course, if we're going to go
to far down that path, we *should* take this offline. But I think your
comments are at least partially hyperbole. I don't find the
"fundamental premises of salvation from sin to be unbelievable and
offensive." While I recognize that many do, many do not, including some
in science. John Polkinghorne comes to mind off hand (only because I
recently missed the opportunity to hear him speak at U-Mass).

Disclaimer: I am no longer in academia and currently work as a "software
engineer" so some people whould claim I am no longer a physicist, but
the APS disagrees, so I'll hold onto the name for now.

regards,

roland
--
PGP Key ID: 66 BC 3B CD
Roland B. Roberts, PhD RL Enterprises
6818 Madeline Court
Brooklyn, NY 11220

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:56:21 -0400, Roland Roberts
wrote:

And there is the question of believe it for what? It is, after all, a
valid historical document with a rather large corpus of evidence as to
its historical veracity in *some* areas that are "non-controversial"...

As a Christian and as a physicist, I've never really felt the need to
pose such a confrontational question. I don't see the conflict in most
practice. Of course, in some Christian circles, I'm not particularly
welcome since I fall into the "old earth" camp.

Some of the stories are silly---and they are supposed to be understood
as silly because sometimes real people do silly things---sometimes they
do outright stupid things. Don't believe me? Maybe you should watch a
few "reality TV" shows (but only a few, the stuff is pure rot...).

Please understand that I'm mainly concerned with Biblical literalists-
people who accept as literally true everything in the Bible and New
Testament (or any religious writings, for that matter). You do not
appear to fall into that category.


The rest of your claims seem to fall into the category of being both
sweeping, vague, and contrary to fact. Which part of "love your
neighbor as yourself" is reprehensible?

That one isn't reprehensible, although I don't think it is particularly
sound advice. There are plenty of things in the Old and New Testaments
that I do find reprehensible, although I note that most reasonable
believers are willing to see these as anachronistic fossils. Of course,
literalists have a problem getting by these things.

Anyway, concepts like good and evil and sin and redemption are
philosophical issues that have little or no connection with science. So
while my personal philosophy is that the first two are relative, and the
second two non-existent, that has nothing to do with science. A
rational, scientific person can as easily accept these things as deny
them.

_________________________________________________

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

Roland Roberts wrote:
I don't find the "fundamental premises of salvation from sin to be
unbelievable and offensive."

It is often presumed that all people, Christians and non-Christians
alike, are born sinners, and therefore must be saved. Many Christians
therefore take it upon themselves to save, by means of conversion, many
of us who don't want to be saved (and in fact don't believe we need to
be saved). It is that expression of the notion of salvation that I
find offensive and patronizing. I *understand* it--but I certainly
don't condone it, and it does annoy me.

To bring this somewhat back on topic, I find too much of high school
science education to consist of (a) a dry recitation of scientific
"laws of nature" and (b) straightforward engineering. For instance,
we learn that the Earth goes around the Sun, and the axial tilt causes
the seasons. How in the world (!) do we know this? Considering that
we often hear that motion is relative, what does it really mean to say
that the Earth goes around the Sun, and not vice versa? If we cannot
answer these questions, I have my doubts about whether we really
understand those things we profess to.

If there is such a wellspring of people who do not think rationally
when it comes to large-scale aspects of the natural world (the cosmos,
development of life over long time-scales, etc.), perhaps it's because
we don't teach them the reasoning that leads to the conclusions reached
by the scientific world. People understandably rely on the commonsense
principle that seeing is believing, and it can only be through conscious
effort that they learn that in science, objective evidence is believing.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Cousin Ricky wrote:
Pierre Vandevenne wrote:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../4341062a.html

Semantical translation, quantum leap, whatever... We'll soon be at
the "who
designed the designer" level...


The *concept* of intelligent design sounds intriguing.

However the Intelligent Design turns out to be not just a concept, but
a *movement*. Or two. Part of the movement turns out to be the same
old, rancid wine in yet another new bottle. At least when they called
themselves "creationists," they weren't trying to bamboozle anyone.
But after the courts carefully pointed out the 1st Amendment,
creationism became "creation science." Now that the courts have
decreed their failure to discern the difference between creationism and
creation science, we have a new, scientific "no, really, *this* time
it's really scientific" alternative, "Intelligent Design." Then you
listen to the ID crowd, to see what theories and models they have
proposed. Dang, looks mighty familiar, doesn't it...?

But what about those ID proponents who don't try to link the Bible into
intelligent design? Well, what about them? Seriously, man, do they
have ANYTHING???

Forget it. The "non-denominational" faction is just another attempt to
reconcile two disciplines that don't need to reconcile. At best, it is
philosophy--and even philosophers don't try to shoehorn themselves into
science classrooms.

At worst, it's yet another variant of demoting the Chief Astronomer to
"god of the gaps." Injecting divine intervention into science in this
manner is blasphemy. First of all, the very desire to do so presumes
that the Almighty needs us to save Her--a sublimely offensive idea to
those who push ID in the first place! And then, just how *is* this
religious intrusion supposed to save God? I'm sure everyone here knows
the problem with god of the gaps: with every scientific advance, God
shrinks. While not all will agree that this is a bad thing, it is the
very conclusion that ID pushers wish to avoid. After all, they call
Him "Jehovah" or "Yahweh," loosely translated as "I am," "He Who
exists," "That Which is necessary."

If Mr. Cordova needs intelligent design to validate his Christian
faith, then i suggest he avoid pursuing the idea to its logical
conclusion.


Clear skies!

------------------- Richard Callwood III --------------------
~ U.S. Virgin Islands ~ USDA zone 11 ~ 18.3N, 64.9W ~
~ eastern Massachusetts ~ USDA zone 6 (1992-95) ~
--------------- http://cac.uvi.edu/staff/rc3/ ---------------


A very nice bit of writing, Richard.
Clear Skies,
Uncle Bob

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:02:22 +0000 (UTC), Pierre Vandevenne
wrote:

Semantical translation, quantum leap, whatever... We'll soon be at the "who
designed the designer" level...

No, because I'm pretty sure the Intelligent Design (read creationists)
people will tell you there is nothing greater than the Designer. We
don't have enough knowledge to determine if there is a 'designer' so
why treat it as fact? We don't have all the answers so we instantly
conclude that writing God..oh sorry, intelligent designer, in all the
blanks takes care of everything? That's called ignorance.

As I see it, we can not conclude one way or the other with respect to
the existence of a God or designer (or Great Maker as a certain scifi
species refers to it). We've barely scratched the surface of the
universe so how in the heck can we be expected to know the answer to
that question for certain? That's called arrogance, and no surprise
that it's still teaming up with ignorance.

We don't know and we probably won't know for thousands of years. I
know for some people it's troubling not to know for certain of a
superior being (to the point of delusion), but half the fun of living
is not knowing everything...you know.

-Drew

"Roland Roberts" wrote in message

Indeed, and it is physics bg. Of course, being a physicist might
leave me biased, but in point of fact we all know that chemistry and
biology are merely applications of physics bg.


Of course physics is merely the application of mathematics vbg

Ed T.

"Ed T" wrote:
"Roland Roberts" wrote in message

Indeed, and it is physics bg. Of course, being a physicist might
leave me biased, but in point of fact we all know that chemistry and
biology are merely applications of physics bg.


Of course physics is merely the application of mathematics vbg

"Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation."

- Richard Feynman


Tim
--
May contain traces of nuts.

"Tim Auton" wrote in message

"Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation."

- Richard Feynman


Sounds like Mr. Feynman was a big fan of physics (or autoerotica).

Ed T.

Ah,your just another useless creep at the end of a very bad joke and
call it whatever you will,because you freaks never corrected a simple
mistake that exists at the bottom of the empirical method originating
at Newton even the creationists now look sensible.

The Pre-Copernican average 24 hour day corrected by the Equation of
Time translates into constant and independent axial rotation within a
Copernican/Keplerian heliocentric framework.As this is the only
acceptable principle for observed constant axial rotation as an
independent motion what made you freaks hitch your wagon to the average
axial and orbital motion tied to the calendar system as 23 hours 56 min
04 sec,you had better take up a belief because the one you have is
seriously stupid.

Faith is not an exercise in virtue,moral or otherwise and regardless of
what you have heard about denominational Christianity,it does not
suffer fools.The Church was correct in dealing with Galileo and would
still be correct to this day because the empirical method cannot be
applied directly to observations and Galileo deviated from the
astronomical methods (but certainly not as much as Newton !) of
Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer.

The statement by Copernicus is valid for you useless pack of
cataloguing creeps as it was for the original geocentric freaks to
which it was addressed.

". . . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions,
with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like
someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would
be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their
demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to
have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something
inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to
them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses
which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows
from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus, 1543

"Brian" == Brian Tung writes:

Brian Roland Roberts wrote:
I don't find the "fundamental premises of salvation from sin to be
unbelievable and offensive."

Brian It is often presumed that all people, Christians and
Brian non-Christians alike, are born sinners, and therefore must be
Brian saved. Many Christians therefore take it upon themselves to
Brian save, by means of conversion, many of us who don't want to be
Brian saved (and in fact don't believe we need to be saved). It is
Brian that expression of the notion of salvation that I find
Brian offensive and patronizing. I *understand* it--but I
Brian certainly don't condone it, and it does annoy me.

As I said, I don't have a problem with that. The question that gets
asked is "are we 'sinners' because we 'sin' or do we 'sin' because we
are 'sinners.'" I fall into the second camp. I have two boys ages 4
and 6 and am quite sure that they didn't need any coaching to learn
about being bad; disobedience, selfishness, and temper tantrums seem to
come quite naturally. Not remembering my own experiences at that age,
I'll take my mom's word that I was pretty much the same....

And to follow your lead back on topic....

Brian To bring this somewhat back on topic, I find too much of high
Brian school science education to consist of (a) a dry recitation
Brian of scientific "laws of nature" and (b) straightforward
Brian engineering. For instance, we learn that the Earth goes
Brian around the Sun, and the axial tilt causes the seasons. How
Brian in the world (!) do we know this? Considering that we often
Brian hear that motion is relative, what does it really mean to say
Brian that the Earth goes around the Sun, and not vice versa? If
Brian we cannot answer these questions, I have my doubts about
Brian whether we really understand those things we profess to.

This is an area where amateurs can have an impact. On my "to buy" list
is a video from the Astronomical Society of the Pacific called "A
Private Universe." I've been working with the kids of my 6-year old's
class to do some astronomy outreach events, but I'm also planning some
small science lessons that fit into the current "discovery-based
curriculum." Kids are very good at detecting patterns in things, so the
main issue is to present them with good data. The hard part is to teach
them how to *generate* good data and how to distinguish good data from
bad.

Matthew, my 6-year old, and I did a little "experiment" on water flow
rates through different orifices from our sink---with the aerator on,
with it off, through the counter-top water filter. I worked the faucet,
he worked the stopwatch. We did 5 data points, 3 times each. Through
practice, he learned to tell when we had a "good" measurement by whether
or not he and I managed to start and stop (more or less) at the same
time. In analyzing the data, he recognized the straight-line feature of
each data set---it takes twice as long to get twice as much water for
the same orifice. He recognized that faster meant a steeper line on the
graph and then predicted what the curve would look like if we measured
the flow coming out of the bath tub.

Astronomy has a number of opportunities for this sort of hands-on
approaches. I'm going to pick up some equipment for solar projection so
kids can draw pictures of the changing sunspots. Yeah, bad timing with
the minimum coming. For younger kids it opens up the idea that the sun
is not just a thing that brings light to the daytime, but that you can
ask questions about it and it *changes*. For older kids, there's
actually the possibility of measuring the sun's differential rotation
using sunspots. Another project that works even here in New York City
is to have the kids try to draw the phases of the moon each night they
can for a couple of months, then have them estimate the synodic month.
With older kids, you have an opportunity to discuss the differences
between the synodic and siderial month.

I'd love to see amateur astronmers come up with small projects like
these that work for kids---underneath each project the unspoken lesson
is how science actually works; i.e., the careful and systematic
collection of data that helps you understand the world. It's not all
about some corpus of facts, its about the systematic process that
organizes those facts into families that reveal structure in the
universe around us.

regards,

roland
--
PGP Key ID: 66 BC 3B CD
Roland B. Roberts, PhD RL Enterprises
6818 Madeline Court
Brooklyn, NY 11220