creationism and evolution

[wanerious]

john doran:

the speed of light isn’t “derived” from anything; it has been measured with increasing accuracy since the 17th century.

it is also interesting to see just how the philosophical biases of scientists work their way into the science…

I basically agree with your post, except the first bit. Maxwell’s unification of electricity and magnetism shows us that, if we believe that light has wavelike properties (which is verifiable), then the speed of the wave proceeds as a special combination of fundamental constants (electric and magnetic permittivity — c = (e*mu)^-1/2. This is true in the vacuum as well as in media, and is what gives rise to refractory behavior. Separately, this value has been empirically measure to high precision. Should it change, then many electric and magnetic phenomena should show a change in the permittivity values in the distant past. We don’t see this.

Your last bit is true, and must be identified and guarded against.

 

[john_doran]

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanerious
No, the constancy of the speed of light was derived as far back as Maxwell’s synthesis. It is a necessary consequence of electromagnetism. Einstein was the first to take seriously the idea that there was no ether, and the first to derive the physical consequences of a finite light speed. He did not “back into it”, and we have held it ever since because there is absolutely no evidence that it does not hold.

buffalo:

Nope. He admitted it. I will try to find the source.

i think you may be talking about the so-called cosmological constant that einstein put into his theory of general relativity to make it coincide with then-current cosmological models (static universe); he later called it the biggest mistake of his life…

or maybe you’re talking about something he said in a 1920 book on special and general relativity, namely that *c *need not be a constant in general relativity.however, if you buy into the geometry of minkowski space-time, then it seems that c is built in as an axiom. but there are alternative geometries that make no such assumptions…

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

I am starting to see where our disagreement comes from, I think: A scientist, who can only consider scientific evidence may indeed arrive at the conclusion evolution must be true, in the face of so little evidence to the contrary (or so evolutionists say ). The definition of fact given in your quote therefore, might make sense in a purely scientific world.

Excellent!

But guess what? I am not a scientist! That means I get the liberty of considering other evidences. Woohoo! I’m free. I’m free.

Excellent!

By the definition you are proposing, we should also believe, considering only sceintific evidence, as a matter of fact, that a man could not rise from the dead of His own power. Or walk unassisted on the water. Or calm a storm with a verbal command…see where I’m going with this?

Correct. There is no scientific evidence of these things as far as I know. That having been said, they are a matter of faith. I don’t understand why one must accept only science or only faith. I personally accept both.

You will not find any scientific evidence of a miracle because miracles are supernatural events. Science deals with nature. That doesn’t mean that miracles don’t occur, because they do. That just means that they are outside the realm of science.

Scientists may be experts in their respective fields, but if limited to only scientific knowledge, they may not necessarily be correct.

The point is is that there is a huge amount of evidence pointing to evolution, an old earth and an older universe. I believe that God gave us the gift of intelligence and, using that gift, He is slowly revealing the grandeur of His creation to us.

Peace

Tim

 

[john_doran]

wanerious:

I basically agree with your post, except the first bit. Maxwell’s unification of electricity and magnetism shows us that, if we believe that light has wavelike properties (which is verifiable), then the speed of the wave proceeds as a special combination of fundamental constants (electric and magnetic permittivity — c = (e*mu)^-1/2.

ok. while i understand that c is inherently related to (and thus, in some sense, derivable from) from e and m in maxwell’s equations, the actual value for each of those constants was measured, and not itself “given” or self-evident in any way. you know? which is what i thought you might be suggesting by your use of the word “derived” in the context.

as such, there’s nothing about the variation of any of these “constants” that is inconceivable or self-contradictory, or, perhaps, even improbable.

i mean, in the context of your observation about c,e, and m, measured variation in c might simply be the result of a variation in the actual value of e or m…

This is true in the vacuum as well as in media, and is what gives rise to refractory behavior. Separately, this value has been empirically measure to high precision. Should it change, then many electric and magnetic phenomena should show a change in the permittivity values in the distant past. We don’t see this.

depends on who you ask, i guess:

ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html

xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9811/9811022.pdf

homepage.sunrise.ch/homepage/schatzer/space-time.html

ldolphin.org/setterfield/vacuum.html

these are serious papers. make of them what you will.

 

[buffalo]

Chris W:

I am starting to see where our disagreement comes from, I think: A scientist, who can only consider scientific evidence may indeed arrive at the conclusion evolution must be true, in the face of so little evidence to the contrary (or so evolutionists say ). The definition of fact given in your quote therefore, might make sense in a purely scientific world.

But guess what? I am not a scientist! That means I get the liberty of considering other evidences. Woohoo! I’m free. I’m free.

By the definition you are proposing, we should also believe, considering only sceintific evidence, as a matter of fact, that a man could not rise from the dead of His own power. Or walk unassisted on the water. Or calm a storm with a verbal command…see where I’m going with this?

Scientists may be experts in their respective fields, but if limited to only scientific knowledge, they may not necessarily be correct.

Exactly,

Scientists are limiting themselves to looking through a naturalistic lens. Scientists being curious by nature have eliminated a large part of truth from their horizon. The net effect is a bias that I believe is a detriment.

 

[Chris_W]

Orogeny:

I don’t understand why one must accept only science or only faith. I personally accept both.

I agree. And I accept both, Orogeny…unless the two contradict each other, in which case I favor the truth revealed by God Himself through His infallible Church, and reject the conflicting science, giving as a reason, the fact hat science can be wrong. Pretty logical, huh?

Orogeny:

The point is is that there is a huge amount of evidence pointing to evolution, an old earth and an older universe. I believe that God gave us the gift of intelligence and, using that gift, He is slowly revealing the grandeur of His creation to us.

Peace

Tim

I agree with this statement, but that does not resolve my concerns about the current scientific understanding called evolution conflicting with Catholicism

 

[Chris_W]

buffalo:

Exactly,

Scientists are limiting themselves to looking through a naturalistic lens. Scientists being curious by nature have eliminated a large part of truth from their horizon. The net effect is a bias that I believe is a detriment.

I couldn’t agree more.

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

I agree. And I accept both, Orogeny…unless the two contradict each other, in which case I favor the truth revealed by God Himself through His infallible Church, and reject the conflicting science, giving as a reason, the fact hat science can be wrong. Pretty logical, huh?

Maybe I missed the infallible statements regarding evolution?

Peace

Tim

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

Because Adam is simultaneously symbolic of not just the receiver of the first soul, but of the entire race of full persons at the same time. This is not uncommon in epic literature…

That does not make sense to me. Was the entire race put into the garden of Eden? Did god breath the breath of life (which I assume you take to mean (name removed by moderator)arting a soul) on the intire race? Was the entire race guilty of commiting that first sin? Was the purpose for the creation of women (causing a completeness, symbolic of the triune God) applicable to the entire race, incuding those without an intellect and will?

On one hand you say Genesis was nt concerned with the other brutes that may have existed, but then you say it is talking about the entire race of persons. I am confused.

wanerious:

Logic and deductive reasoning are the hallmarks of scientific arguments, and not necessarily religious arguments. In fact, off the top of my head I’d say that no religious argument, when pursued, can be fully logical and deductive. .

I could not disagree more. Our religious beliefs do stand up to logic and reasoning. In fact, the study and use of apologetics rests on these principles. I would go so far as to say that if you have beliefs that do not stand up to logic and reasoning, they are probably incorrect beliefs.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Now perhaps this is simple-minded of me… but if the speed of light “c” is variable, then would the famous E = mc^2 imply that energy is not conserved as c changes? Or do we then assume that either E=mc^2 is wrong, or that conservation of energy is not as generally applicable as we think?

 

[Chris_W]

Orogeny:

Maybe I missed the infallible statements regarding evolution?

Peace

Tim

Are you just being argumentative, Orogeny? I have made it pretty clear that I understand the Church has not ruled against evolution. I think you know that.

I have also made pretty clear what my objections are to evolution, which are based on what the Church has taught…a topic you have remained pretty quiet about I might add.

 

[Chris_W]

Why is it that the only theistic evolution who is willing to defend his position on theological or philosophical grounds is a Protestant evolutionists?

I commend wanerious, but why don’t Catholic evolutionists step up to the plate and try to help me resolve the conflicts I perceive? Philvaz at least posted some brief information, but I pretty much hear the sound of crickets in the night from Catholic evolutionists. Do Catholic evolutionists realize that this only compounds the concerns of Catholic creationists?

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

Are you just being argumentative, Orogeny? I have made it pretty clear that I understand the Church has not ruled against evolution. I think you know that.

No, Chris, I’m not. That’s why I put the smiley face on the end of my reply.

Why don’t you read your post that I was responding to. You said

I favor the truth revealed by God Himself through His infallible Church

My reply was in response to your invocation of infallibility of the Church’s teaching. Since we are discussing EVOLUTION, I took your statement to be regarding EVOLUTION.

So, who’s being argumentative?

I have also made pretty clear what my objections are to evolution, which are based on what the Church has taught…a topic you have remained pretty quiet about I might add.

OK, I guess that I have to do this for every literallist thread regarding evolution.

I believe in God. I believe that God created everything, including life. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans in that they were the first gifted with an eternal soul. I believe all humans share a spiritual heritage with Adam and Eve.

Now, what Catholic teaching don’t I understand, Chris? I don’t object to church teaching, Chris. I, like the Church, don’t have a problem with evolution. It is YOU, Chris, that is implying that Church teaching is incompatible with evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

Why is it that the only theistic evolution who is willing to defend his position on theological or philosophical grounds is a Protestant evolutionists?

Because I don’t believe that evolution is a theological or philsophical subject.

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel36]

Bobby Jim:

Now perhaps this is simple-minded of me… but if the speed of light “c” is variable, then would the famous E = mc^2 imply that energy is not conserved as c changes? Or do we then assume that either E=mc^2 is wrong, or that conservation of energy is not as generally applicable as we think?

It is simple-minded but you are in good company insofar when it comes to matters regarding natural phenomena such as the distance light travels in one second everyone here is an undisciplined liberal - creationist,evolutionist,atheist,Catholic,you are all the same to me in these matters.

The dumbest race ever to set foot on the planet managed to convert an observational illusion known previously as the ‘Mora Luminis’ or Equation of Light into mathematical notation where it can be squared as in the above equation from 1905.

dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/OnlinePubs/Roemer/index.html

So,like the uneccesary Protestant/Catholic slogan chanting quagmire that every Christian appears to be happy to remain in,there is now the intellectual holocaust built on poor comprehension of the astronomical insights such as Kepler’s and Roemer’s.

So, finite light distance gets locked up as mathematical notation ‘c’ and loses its astronomical significance while the world applauds,I do not fault those who are unfamiliar with these matters but that Catholics ‘scientists’ accept this vacuous contemporary situation is another matter altogether.

 

[john_doran]

Bobby Jim:

Now perhaps this is simple-minded of me… but if the speed of light “c” is variable, then would the famous E = mc^2 imply that energy is not conserved as c changes? Or do we then assume that either E=mc^2 is wrong, or that conservation of energy is not as generally applicable as we think?

rest mass (m) has increased over time in order to keep E conserved.

that’s one way to keep the status quo, anyway, and one that has the benefit of experimental confirmation, if you believe the author of one of the papers linked-to above.

 

[john_doran]

oriel36:

It is simple-minded but you are in good company insofar when it comes to matters regarding natural phenomena such as the distance light travels in one second everyone here is an undisciplined liberal - creationist,evolutionist,atheist,Catholic,you are all the same to me in these matters.

The dumbest race ever to set foot on the planet managed to convert an observational illusion known previously as the ‘Mora Luminis’ or Equation of Light into mathematical notation where it can be squared as in the above equation from 1905.

dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/OnlinePubs/Roemer/index.html

So,like the uneccesary Protestant/Catholic slogan chanting quagmire that every Christian appears to be happy to remain in,there is now the intellectual holocaust built on poor comprehension of the astronomical insights such as Kepler’s and Roemer’s.

So, finite light distance gets locked up as mathematical notation ‘c’ and loses its astronomical significance while the world applauds,I do not fault those who are unfamiliar with these matters but that Catholics ‘scientists’ accept this vacuous contemporary situation is another matter altogether.

umm…can you be a little clearer? i’m afraid you lost me. totally.

thanks.

 

[wanerious]

john doran:

depends on who you ask, i guess:

xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9811/9811022.pdf

these are serious papers. make of them what you will.

This is the most “serious” and interesting, but they admit in their conclusion that a varying c causes a whole host of problems in fundamental physics. They do present what they consider a “minimal” changing-c theory, which they also admit is not without its problems. It is an interesting and necessary academic exercise, but as of yet there is no evidence of a changing c that would necessitate construction of such a theory.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

I commend wanerious, but why don’t Catholic evolutionists step up to the plate and try to help me resolve the conflicts I perceive? Philvaz at least posted some brief information, but I pretty much hear the sound of crickets in the night from Catholic evolutionists. Do Catholic evolutionists realize that this only compounds the concerns of Catholic creationists?

The second link I posted includes a short article that may come as some relief — that more “official” Catholic sources will start to encourage evolutionary teaching and the Church’s position in order to combat the “anti-evolution biases that Catholics pick up” from our society. I am encouraged that “Denying that humans evolved seems by this point a waste of time” and that “the official Church sees little danger in evolution”. It is noteworthy that “…the 2004 document properly recognizes evolutionary theory as firmly grounded in fact” and that “The Genesis creation stories should not be read literally because “they are stories, after all,” he said. They are meant to express “deeper truths” about God’s intent in creating humans, said Byers.” I agree with the bishop that the “Church has been too slow to correct these wrong-headed notions.”

 

[john_doran]

wanerious:

This is the most “serious” and interesting, but they admit in their conclusion that a varying c causes a whole host of problems in fundamental physics. They do present what they consider a “minimal” changing-c theory, which they also admit is not without its problems. It is an interesting and necessary academic exercise, but as of yet there is no evidence of a changing c that would necessitate construction of such a theory.

i’m not sure what your criteria of “seriousness” are, so i am not sure how you are able to rank the papers; whether or not they are interesting to you is, of course, simply a matter of personal preference.

i imagine that this paper:

ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html

failed whatever test to which it was you subjected it, and which provides what the authors feel is good evidence for variance in c.

here’s another one for you, though perhaps it may fare equally poorly under the rigors of your scrutiny…

setterfield.org/atqustates.html