Quote:As far as evolution is concerned I think there is a large portion of Christians who have no problem with it. The Pew Forum showed that the majority of Catholics and Mainline Protestants actually believe evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life.

You're not a very good xtian ( as defined by some of our fundie nut jobs ) are you, Coffee.


I knew there was a reason I liked you.

(December 23, 2011 at 2:46 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:As far as evolution is concerned I think there is a large portion of Christians who have no problem with it. The Pew Forum showed that the majority of Catholics and Mainline Protestants actually believe evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life.

You're not a very good xtian ( as defined by some of our fundie nut jobs ) are you, Coffee.


I knew there was a reason I liked you.

Haha! I guess so, but if you're fundie enough the only good Christians are you and Pat Robertson.

(December 23, 2011 at 2:43 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: Haha! I'm glad for your encouragements! As far as evolution is concerned I think there is a large portion of Christians who have no problem with it. The Pew Forum showed that the majority of Catholics and Mainline Protestants actually believe evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life. As for virgin birth, that is scientifically possible, but not all that important to me anyway. It really comes down that I don't think science can eliminate the possibility of something more. Increasingly, in light of postmodernism, I feel that many would say we aren't even close to knowing everything, let alone knowing enough to define the universe by exclusion. It's all just a part of the way I filter things. I can certainly see how you would filter things differently, and I respect that.

Pretty sure "scientifically possible" doesn't apply to the particular virgin birth we're talking about. The status of jesus divinity isn't all that important? If he were simply the son of an un-named human that would be A-Ok with you? If science can't eliminate the possibility of "something more" on other articles of faith (yours), then on what basis do you discard young earth creationism (theirs) in favor of physics and evolution? Wouldn't that be one of those "something more"s that science cannot eliminate (according to you)? What about all the "something more"s of faiths other than you own that science cannot eliminate and which directly contradict your own?

(December 23, 2011 at 3:11 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(December 23, 2011 at 2:43 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: Haha! I'm glad for your encouragements! As far as evolution is concerned I think there is a large portion of Christians who have no problem with it. The Pew Forum showed that the majority of Catholics and Mainline Protestants actually believe evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life. As for virgin birth, that is scientifically possible, but not all that important to me anyway. It really comes down that I don't think science can eliminate the possibility of something more. Increasingly, in light of postmodernism, I feel that many would say we aren't even close to knowing everything, let alone knowing enough to define the universe by exclusion. It's all just a part of the way I filter things. I can certainly see how you would filter things differently, and I respect that.

Pretty sure "scientifically possible" doesn't apply to the particular virgin birth we're talking about. The status of jesus divinity isn't all that important? If he were simply the son of an un-named human that would be A-Ok with you? If science can't eliminate the possibility of "something more" on other articles of faith (yours), then on what basis do you discard young earth creationism (theirs) in favor of physics and evolution? Wouldn't that be one of those "something more"s that science cannot eliminate (according to you)? What about all the "something more"s of faiths other than you own that science cannot eliminate and which directly contradict your own?

All human behavior is multiply motivated. So if I'm being honest I would have to say it's a mixture of hope, bias, things I've read, a vague sense I have about the world, and lots of postmodern philosophy. I like the my philosophy, it's a rather relaxed and pleasant way to live. Knowing what to advocate and who to refute is something that everyone has to figure out, what with postmodernism and all. It's tough, but the more you live life the harder it is to figure everything out. Eventually you have to just figure out who you want to be, how you want to treat people, and what is important to you. The rest has to just kind of work itself out, because no one can prove one, supreme way of looking at the world. As long as there is human life on earth, we'll have the whole spectrum of opinions, and that's okay.

As for the specifics of how I view religion and faith see John Polkinghorne and his ideas about how to understand faith.

(December 9, 2011 at 10:05 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: You think so? Then look at this......
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...KGK2VDqFYA

To keep it simple for you, in 1676 Ole Roemer, by observing the transit of Io behind Jupiter calculated when it should reappear, then demonstrated that the times differed depending on where Earth was in its orbit. This showed that light was taking longer to get to Earth the further away from Jupiter it was. Therefore proving that contrary to previous belief c was not infinite.

And, incidentally, shooting ASC stone cold dead before it was even born.

Zen, I don't think this really supports your position like you think it does. I think in special relativity, the frame of reference of the earth changes as it orbits the sun because there is a change in velocity (speed and/or direction). This change in the frame of reference changes the clock used to make the measurements. In other words, once the earth moves from position 1, the clock would not remain synchronized with a clock that stays at position 1. I think this is the whole issue with the conventionality thesis. Without knowing that the clocks remain synchronized, you cannot rely on the results as a measure of the one-way speed of light and the clocks cannot be synchronized without assuming the speed of light.

In addition, I found that there is still discussion in the literature regarding the conventionality thesis, some for and some against. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacet...nvensimul/ for a review of both. If what you said really is true, i.e., that the experiment you pointed out really does shoot ASC down, then it seems to me it would also shoot down the conventionality thesis too. Yet, there is still discussion in the literature for and against. It makes me wonder why those for it would even bother if there is an old experiment that shoots it down. It also makes me wonder why those against it provide all sorts of other arguments when they could dispatch the position as quickly as you did. This all makes me think that you have made some serious errors in taking the experimentation that you cited and making the conclusions that you did.

Perfectly understandable Coffee, I'll check out that link.

(Meh, cosmological fine tuning rears it's ugly head again, and a whole host of other ideas which amount to nothing more than platitudes. But hey, you were unabashedly honest in your response, and so it is what it is)

(December 23, 2011 at 2:47 pm)rjh4 Wrote: Zen, I don't think this really supports your position like you think it does. I think in special relativity, the frame of reference of the earth changes as it orbits the sun because there is a change in velocity (speed and/or direction). This change in the frame of reference changes the clock used to make the measurements. In other words, once the earth moves from position 1, the clock would not remain synchronized with a clock that stays at position 1. I think this is the whole issue with the conventionality thesis. Without knowing that the clocks remain synchronized, you cannot rely on the results as a measure of the one-way speed of light and the clocks cannot be synchronized without assuming the speed of light.

Three things:
First, relativity predicts time dihilation as an object approaches the speed of light. Objects. Not light.
Second, measuring the speed of light is not dependant upon whether or not clocks are perfectly synchronized unless you're specifically measuring the time Dihilation of objects moving at various speeds (like what is necessary to allow the GPS to continue functioning.)
Third, you need to understand relativity and physics better if you're going to refute it, especially using these ridiculous creationist conventions.

(December 23, 2011 at 2:47 pm)rjh4 Wrote: In addition, I found that there is still discussion in the literature regarding the conventionality thesis, some for and some against. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacet...nvensimul/ for a review of both. If what you said really is true, i.e., that the experiment you pointed out really does shoot ASC down, then it seems to me it would also shoot down the conventionality thesis too. Yet, there is still discussion in the literature for and against. It makes me wonder why those for it would even bother if there is an old experiment that shoots it down. It also makes me wonder why those against it provide all sorts of other arguments when they could dispatch the position as quickly as you did. This all makes me think that you have made some serious errors in taking the experimentation that you cited and making the conclusions that you did.

That's cute, but the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy doesn't constitute a scientific journal. It's philosopy. Not science.
Yes, the experiements (all of them) that establish the speed of light and relativity both do shoot down those things because those things are wrong.
Yes, people still work on things and experiments despite mountains of experimental and practical evidence otherwise. That's why we have "creation science" and even actual scientific research behind things that have been supposedly 'proven' wrong because sometimes things supposedly proven correct are actually wrong.
This happened when we figured out gravity and the heliocentric solar system vs. earth being the center of the universe.

(December 23, 2011 at 2:47 pm)rjh4 Wrote: In other words, once the earth moves from position 1, the clock would not remain synchronized with a clock that stays at position 1. I think this is the whole issue with the conventionality thesis. Without knowing that the clocks remain synchronized, you cannot rely on the results as a measure of the one-way speed of light and the clocks cannot be synchronized without assuming the speed of light.

Of course, this is why our understanding of the subject was enhanced with the use of satellites and probes as points of reference. Differing speeds, differing trajectories, differing positions........... same readings. You failed hard on this one.

(December 23, 2011 at 2:47 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(December 9, 2011 at 10:05 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: You think so? Then look at this......
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...KGK2VDqFYA

To keep it simple for you, in 1676 Ole Roemer, by observing the transit of Io behind Jupiter calculated when it should reappear, then demonstrated that the times differed depending on where Earth was in its orbit. This showed that light was taking longer to get to Earth the further away from Jupiter it was. Therefore proving that contrary to previous belief c was not infinite.

And, incidentally, shooting ASC stone cold dead before it was even born.

Zen, I don't think this really supports your position like you think it does. I think in special relativity, the frame of reference of the earth changes as it orbits the sun because there is a change in velocity (speed and/or direction). This change in the frame of reference changes the clock used to make the measurements. In other words, once the earth moves from position 1, the clock would not remain synchronized with a clock that stays at position 1. I think this is the whole issue with the conventionality thesis. Without knowing that the clocks remain synchronized, you cannot rely on the results as a measure of the one-way speed of light and the clocks cannot be synchronized without assuming the speed of light.

In addition, I found that there is still discussion in the literature regarding the conventionality thesis, some for and some against. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacet...nvensimul/ for a review of both. If what you said really is true, i.e., that the experiment you pointed out really does shoot ASC down, then it seems to me it would also shoot down the conventionality thesis too. Yet, there is still discussion in the literature for and against. It makes me wonder why those for it would even bother if there is an old experiment that shoots it down. It also makes me wonder why those against it provide all sorts of other arguments when they could dispatch the position as quickly as you did. This all makes me think that you have made some serious errors in taking the experimentation that you cited and making the conclusions that you did.

You misunderstand my point RJh4, If Lisles theory was correct there would be no change in the observed times of Io's emergence from behind Jupiter. It wouldn't matter where Earth was in relation to Jupiter because the transit time would always be zero.
The fact that Roemer did in fact observe a delay in transit means that the further away from Jupiter Earth is the longer it is taking the light to reach us and therefore its velocity is finite.

The actual speed might be open to question (plus or minus a percentage point), but it is nonetheless a finite speed.
And not the instantaneous speed that Lisle is claming.

Gee, I must've hurt Statlers feelings.
Oh well.......