EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[reggieM]

Why do people think Darwinism is a perfect creation?

As an old hand at tangling with Darwinists, I was well aware that a howl of furious protests would greet my item last week describing their curious inability to recognise just how much of the story of evolution Darwin’s theory cannot explain, For pointing out that they rely on no more than an unscientific leap of faith to believe that an infinite series of minute variations could bring about all those extraordinary leaps in the evolutionary story, such as the emergence of the eye and countless others, I was derided as “stupid”, “idiotic” and “scientifically illiterate”. Clearly I was unaware all these riddles had been solved by genetics and the decoding of the human genome.

The trouble is that, as my colleague Dr James Le Fanu has lucidly set out in his admirable new book Why Us? How Science Rediscovered The Mystery Of Ourselves (Harper Press, £18.99), the unravelling of the genome has done nothing of the kind. When mice, men and chimpanzees all turn out to be made of almost identical genetic material, the unknown factor which determines why the same building blocks should give rise to such an astonishing variety of different life-forms leaves the Darwinian thesis as full of holes as ever. To believe that genetics have solved the riddle relies as much on a leap of faith as that Biblical ‘Creationism’ which causes the more fanatical Darwinians to foam at the mouth.

On Friday another group of scientists, including several professors, wrote to the Telegraph to say that the problem with Darwinism Is that it has ‘far outrun its basis in scientific evidence’. While he might have been right on micro-evolution (Galapagos finches etc,), the evidence for how complex organisms developed’ - those macro-evolutionary jumps - is ‘modest in the extreme’.

Is it surprising, they asked, ‘that there is such incredulity’ that random mutations alone can ‘account for the vast complexity of life?’.

In other words, as they put it, these hugely important questions are far from settled, and if we attempt to shut down the debate ‘we dishonour the spirit of science’. Or as one scientist, L.Harrison Matthews, himself a convinced Darwinian, wisely put it 40 years ago in his introduction to my dog-eared copy of The Origin of Species: "belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to the belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present has been capable of proof’.

 

[oriel16]

Having been a student, and taught students of science for many years, I know that faith is most often lost when young people are taught creationism and later realize that it cannot be true. Assuming that creationism is part of Christian belief, they lose their faith in God. This is the real danger of ID/creationism.

.

I am afraid the ingredients that conspire to make the empirical cult especially difficult to deal with is that it hijacked the educational or rather institutional machinery from its emergence in the late 17th century.Teacher indoctrinates pupil,pupil becomes teacher and the falsehoods are perpetuated through their students with the merit system now geared towards those who look at Christ and Christianity as little more than a superstition wrapped up in a moral authority.The elements which distinguish the anti-scientific empirical doctrine from genuine science are actually the truths of the original scientists hidden behind a thicket of empirical language and the characters that block the way for student and the wider population to appreciate.

No student is taught creationism but then again no student is taught where the evolutionary frameworks comes from either, that bishop Steno basically started the disciplines of evolutionary biology/geology and William Smith added a biological trajectory to that study via a geological time-line. The wider population only gets Darwin as a kind of a poster boy for science vs religion where if you don’t affirm Darwin/evolution then you must be into creationism/religion.The setup is so crude that any Christian proposing it,at least those who are college level,should be excommunicated for stupidity.

academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/histgeol/steno/steno.htm

strangescience.net/smith.htm

The Arians cannot,even with the greatest effort,break the cycle of their indoctrination and even when presented with the actual texts which show Darwin simply superimposed an essay on racial supremacy on biological evolution as a ‘cause’,it will not register that this is not bad science but anti-scientific.

This new business of tethering creationism to intelligent design is unfair but then again the flaw of the intelligent design proponents is that they try to resolve the issue within empiricism thereby making matters worse.The issue is the ‘scientific method’ itself as the root cause of the problem rather than individual works such as Darwin ect ,as it emerged via Newton,it can be taken for granted that it is an Arian strain in content and character.

You had previously posted a paragraph couching the Copernican discovery in empirical terms as mathematically difficult whereas modern time lapse footage shows Copernicus was correct in conclusions whereas Newton got it wrong,the difference being that Copernicus used orbital comparisons between Earth and the other planets whereas Newton introduced an illegal solution based on a hypothetical observer on the Sun.This is where the damage was done as empiricism entered astronomy ,the learning institutions and the merit system became corrupted scientifically and eventually leads to the current science vs religion mess.

I actually need a few people who are willing to take a crash course in astronomy and how Copernicus arrived at his conclusions that the Earth has a daily rotation and an annual orbital motion.It is just plain judgments using modern imaging and knowing what is correct allows a person to judge what is incorrect,at least that is the plan.

apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Within the time lapse footage of the Earth overtaking the planets Jupiter and Saturn contains most of the Christian reasoning which can be set against the distorted empirical approach.There is nothing that can’t be explained in a normal way with just a bit of effort and it is good for everyone.

 

[grannymh]

If I were really concerned about young people laying aside their Catholic Faith and I do mean concerned enough to seek a Catholic solution in the area of evolutionary theory, I would consider what is actually meant when a person writes:

It is never my intention to blame science per se for one’s loss of faith. However, I do find that scientism in its “ism” definition is part of the problem.

The first sentence is general and fairly reasonable. Aha! There is that red flag word “however.” Pause. Plus an -ism word. Time to shift gears. -ism words can be dangerous. Look how many people fear Catholicism for the wrong reasons. Mmm, definition indicates a nitpicky writer. Do I reply with one of those catch-all phrases or do I explore what scientism actually is in relation to science and in particular in relation to evolutionary theory? On the one hand, it is easier to shift the subject to the real dangers of intelligent design and creationism. On the other hand, the mentioned -ism is being presented as a “part” so do I follow curiosity to ask what are the other parts? Am I being challenged to look for solutions beyond the cliches? Should I consider the next declarative sentence?

Quote:
This is about the point where young people begin to lose their Catholic faith because they have not been grounded in the supernatural aspects of life.

The writer did say that the point was referring to one of the details of evolutionary theory. Should a reader be curious about which detail? Probably not. The point probably has to do with scientism since the writer used her dictionary. Aha! A double red flag word “because”. Good grief! Supernatural aspects of life? How is one grounded? That writer is also shifting to an unfamiliar “because”. Shame on her for being a black kettle.

Everyone knows science can’t help with supernatural aspects of life. This reminds me, the faucet is dripping. Let’s see. I believe this is the spot where I’m suppose to listen to the Church. But being the kind of writer I am, I’ll try a granny wager as to what is supposed to be listened to. There I am again. Being nitpicky about details. What is that poem – for want of a nail, the shoe was lost…I need another Pepsi

Blessings,
granny

Every human being is worthy of love.

 

[StAnastasia]

However, I do find that scientism in its “ism” definition is part of the problem.

You’re certainly right about that. That’s why we need more philosophy taught in schools, so that children come to understand from a young age the meaning of terms such as “science,” “religion,” and “theology.” They also need to recognize the parameters and scope of different disciplines, and what science is not competent to do, and what religion or theology are not competent to do.

StAnastasia

 

[The_Barbarian]

No student is taught creationism but then again no student is taught where the evolutionary frameworks comes from either, that bishop Steno basically started the disciplines of evolutionary biology/geology

Ibn Sina. Much earlier. He first noted the law of superposition, for example.

 

[edwest2]

For Catholics, the answer must include the deposit of faith and a recognition of what God can do, including miracles. Science is limited and cannot consider a first cause. The Church tells us all things were brought into existence by an uncaused being, God.

Life did not arise spontaneously but was willed by God. As Pope John Paul II stated, along with Cardinal Schoenborn and Pope Benedict, there is actual design in nature. DNA did not write itself. And we are not haphazard mistakes.

The Catholic answer is that if a process like evolution occurred, it was entirely guided by God, since He willed it. It is at this point that we Catholics depart from Darwin and modern variants of the theory. Nature has no intelligence and is not goal oriented. Science cannot be the whole answer.

The Catholic answer cannot exist for the atheist who sees no plan but the end results and concludes, this all happened by mutation and selection, no God involved. Evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory, and I only trust the Catholic Church to provide the complete details.

Peace,
Ed

 

[oriel16]

Ibn Sina. Much earlier. He first noted the law of superposition, for example.

You are the guy who give the correct answer to the question as to how long it takes the Earth to turn 360 degrees,the correct answer being 24 hours exactly.

You would disappoint Isaac and his empiricist/arian followers who work off an alternative and false value of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds as this was the astrological ‘predictive’ framework for the stupid ‘laws’ of motion -

hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

So,there are numbskulls who are not competent to talk of science never mind even approach Christianity insofar as they cannot even get the most basic fact straight such as how the 24 hours of Monday elapse into the 24 hours of Tuesday.

Newton opened the floodgates for ‘laws’ and the other guy was just jumping on the bandwagon with his evolution ‘cause’ so ultimately it comes back to the technical question - how long does it take the Earth to turn 360 degrees ?.Answer it correctly and forget Newton,answer wrongly and welcome to the anti-scientific Arian cult.

 

[Orogeny]

Newton opened the floodgates for ‘laws’ and the other guy was just jumping on the bandwagon with his evolution ‘cause’ so ultimately it comes back to the technical question - how long does it take the Earth to turn 360 degrees ?.Answer it correctly and forget Newton,answer wrongly and welcome to the anti-scientific Arian cult.

As I have answered before, approximately 24 hours. Am I a heretic? Am I an Arian?

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel16]

As I have answered before, approximately 24 hours. Am I a heretic? Am I an Arian?

Peace

Tim

Ah you are back,did you discover that leap seconds refer only to the calendar correction as it refers to orbital motion.Those who propose a ‘leap second’ within the 24 hour day as it refers to daily rotation have the intelligence level of a flat Earther but it all goes back to the false premise and conclusion of Flamsteed in the late 17th century which resulted in this idiotic value being accepted -

hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

You most certainly display the intelligence of an Arian as you appear unable to reason like a Christian astronomer such as Huygens who clearly shows you that the 24 hour day is already a human devised average derived from observation of the unequal natural noon cycle.There are really old rules governing the creation of the 24 hour day,its application to the orbital cycle and the creation of the calendar system based on equable 24 hour days amounting to the 365/366 day system.The once great scientific tradition within the Church and its involvement in the calendar correction where it drifts against the orbital cycle should be enough but in this idiotic world at present ‘leap seconds’ within the daily cycle are justified.All this tells me is that Christians have washed their hands of their scientific heritage.

How a bunch of empiricists managed to convert a calendar correction like ‘leap seconds’ and there are 86 400 seconds/24 hour day applied every 4 th year on Feb 29th whereas contemporaries apply ,stupid reasoning surrounding a ‘leap second’ tied to daily rotation staggers the imagination.

I would not ask you where the roughly quarter day goes each year in order to apply the full 86 400 leap seconds/24 hour day correction on Feb 29th of the 4th year because it would dishonor the brilliant timekeeping astronomers who created the system.

Again,a race of humans who cannot admire the principles which give us the 24 hour day and even how these principles were applied to daily rotation as a 24 hour/360 degree correlation are anti-scientific,not because they accept an alternative value but because they do not admire the astronomical jewel which precedes Flamsteed’s stupid premise and conclusion.

 

[The_Barbarian]

You are the guy who give the correct answer to the question as to how long it takes the Earth to turn 360 degrees,the correct answer being 24 hours exactly.

In the same sense that a yard is distance from a certain king’s nose to the tip of his outstretched hand. Such definitions are suitable for most purposes, but science needs things a bit more accurate. For example, the day is somewhat longer now, than it was when the Babylonians came up with their definition. And the recent earthquake/tsunami that killed so many in East Asia actually affected the rotation of the Earth.

So my definition, the one used by the Babylonians, is no longer accurate, even by their standards. They wouldn’t have had instruments capable of measuring it, but it’s true.

 

[Orogeny]

Ah you are back,did you discover that leap seconds refer only to the calendar correction as it refers to orbital motion.Those who propose a ‘leap second’ within the 24 hour day as it refers to daily rotation have the intelligence level of a flat Earther but it all goes back to the false premise and conclusion of Flamsteed in the late 17th century which resulted in this idiotic value being accepted -

hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

Nope. Nothing to do with your personal boogie man or a leap year.

From the Time Service Department, U.S. Naval Observatory:

The Earth is constantly undergoing a deceleration caused by the braking action of the tides. Through the use of ancient observations of eclipses, it is possible to determine the average deceleration of the Earth to be roughly 1.4 milliseconds per day per century. This deceleration causes the Earth’s rotational time to slow with respect to the atomic clock time. Thus, the definition of the ephemeris second embodied in Newcomb’s motion of the Sun was implicitly equal to the average mean solar second over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Modern studies have indicated that the epoch at which the mean solar day was exactly 86,400 SI seconds was approximately 1820. This is also the approximate mean epoch of the observations analyzed by Newcomb, ranging in date from 1750 to 1892, that resulted in the definition of the mean solar day on the scale of Ephemeris Time. Before then, the mean solar day was shorter than 86,400 seconds and since then it has been longer than 86,400 seconds.

The length of the mean solar day has increased by roughly 2 milliseconds since it was exactly 86,400 seconds of atomic time about 1.88 centuries ago (i.e. the 188 year difference between 2008 and 1820). That is, the length of the mean solar day is at present about 86,400.002 seconds instead of exactly 86,400 seconds. Over the course of one year, the difference accumulates to almost one second, which is compensated by the insertion of a leap second into the scale of UTC with a current regularity of a little less than once per year. Other factors also affect the Earth, some in unpredictable ways, so that it is necessary to monitor the Earth’s rotation continuously.

In order to keep the cumulative difference in UT1-UTC less than 0.9 seconds, a leap second is added to the atomic time to decrease the difference between the two. This leap second can be either positive or negative depending on the Earth’s rotation. Since the first leap second in 1972, all leap seconds have been positive and there were 23 leap seconds in the 34 years to January, 2006. This pattern reflects the general slowing trend of the Earth due to tidal braking.

tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
and another source:
hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/

Now, how about addressing the leap second and forget about Flamsteed and leap years for a moment. The time needed for the earth to make one 360 degree revolution is approximately 24 hours (86,400 seconds). Not exactly 24 hours, approximately 24 hours.

And now you know why.

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel16]

In the same sense that a yard is distance from a certain king’s nose to the tip of his outstretched hand. Such definitions are suitable for most purposes, but science needs things a bit more accurate. For example, the day is somewhat longer now, than it was when the Babylonians came up with their definition. And the recent earthquake/tsunami that killed so many in East Asia actually affected the rotation of the Earth.

So my definition, the one used by the Babylonians, is no longer accurate, even by their standards. They wouldn’t have had instruments capable of measuring it, but it’s true.

Empiricism is full of this type of junk and its proponents would prefer to traffic in trivia than face the fact that the foundations of the ‘laws of motion’ by Newton is based on the wrong value for the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees.Destroy the reasoning that Newton used,and it is exceptionally stupid, and the ground for all the other natural ‘laws’ or rather,the injection of ‘causes’ vanishes.

We take the 24 hour day for granted just like we do clocks but there was a time when there were no accurate clocks which kept a constant pace day in and day out .Astronomes knew that the length of a day from one noon to the next varied but as the variation in the natural day was always the same for each day of the year,they applied a correction to allow the 24 hour day to be created and to keep each 24 hour day ticking over into the next 24 hour day - Monday into Tuesday ect -

To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.

" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon’d from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers’d in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call’d the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew’d by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew’d by the Sun, or are reckon’d according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call’d the Aequation,"

xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

It is no small thing for a technologically advanced society to be unable to answer the question as to how the 24 hour day was created and how each 24 hour day turns into the next 24 hour day,they will not even recognise the history surrounding the creation of accurate clocks around this principle where clocks measure distance based on 24 hours/360 degrees.

The response of scientists to the tsunami was typical of Arian scientists,they stuck in a bit of false trivia based on the gigantic Earth ‘slowing down’ in response to the motion of a very thin and fractured crust,something that was only felt in the vicinity of the Earthquake.I registered disgust at the time but that is about all.

 

[Orogeny]

I registered disgust at the time but that is about all.

Wow! And nobody listened? Inexplicable!!!

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel16]

Nope. Nothing to do with your personal boogie man or a leap year.

From the Time Service Department, U.S. Naval Observatory:

tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
and another source:
hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/

Now, how about addressing the leap second and forget about Flamsteed and leap years for a moment. The time needed for the earth to make one 360 degree revolution is approximately 24 hours (86,400 seconds). Not exactly 24 hours, approximately 24 hours.

And now you know why.

Peace

Tim

The basis of empiricism and its entry into astronomy was through Flamsteed’s premise and conclusion that a star returning to a location represents the daily rotation of the Earth,in other words,he thought he had found an external celestial reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees -

“… our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical…” John Flamsteed

The existing principles which create the average 24 hour day are derived from observation that the natural noon cycles are unequal hence there is no external reference for daily rotation in 24 hours.Want to hear it from Huygens -

“and that those days, reckon’d from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers’d in Astronomy.” Huygens

As I am well versed in astronomy I know that the application of the Equation creates the average 24 hour day and keeps each of these 24 hour days ticking over as long as the Equation of Time is applied for each 24 hour day -

"And this is call’d the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew’d by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew’d by the Sun, or are reckon’d according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call’d the Aequation, " Huygens

So,accurate clocks were invented to come as close to this principle as possible.Now for the brilliant part - as each 'average '24 hour day elapses into the next 24 hour day reflecting the Equation of Time correction which keeps the 24 hour day fixed to natural noon,they considered that the daily cycle is ‘constant’ after the Equation of Time is applied.That is why Huygens goes to all that trouble to explain how clocks keep in sync with the daily cycle and our contemporary civilisation is built on the convenience of accurate clocks which reflect this very old astronomical jewel.

Have you got that straight,there is no external reference for the 24 daily turning of the planet through 360 degrees otherwise you are going to have one serious job trying to explain how all the world clocks keep pace at 1 hour difference for each 15 degrees of separation making 24 hours/360 degrees -

town-usa.com/timezoneworldclocks.html

That people take a holiday from their astronomical heritage and not bother to consider where the good stuff comes from is the sad part of this,the valuable information that I inherit from my astronomical ancestors is as lovely now as it was when those ancient people first devised the equable day and adapted it to the calendar.Today we can’t even acknowledge the basic relationship between clocks,planetary geometry and the daily cycle.

There is a good reason why the 24 hour/360 value is important notwithstanding that it is supposed to be the one fact everyone should know when dealing with science.Maybe God has a purpose in showing Arians how silly they actually are but these questions are not mine to ask.

 

[Orogeny]

As I am well versed in astronomy I know that the application of the Equation creates the average 24 hour day and keeps each of these 24 hour days ticking over as long as the Equation of Time is applied for each 24 hour day

I’m sorry, I don’t believe that you are being truthful here. You refuse to address the issue of the leap second. I know that you are smarter and holier than the rest of us, but please explain the leap second.

There is a good reason why the 24 hour/360 value is important notwithstanding that it is supposed to be the one fact everyone should know when dealing with science.

You have been shown that it is not a fact.

Maybe God has a purpose in showing Arians how silly they actually are but these questions are not mine to ask.

Are you sure?

Peace

Tim

 

[grannymh]

I don’t know of a list, but here’s a few:

Yep. Except for our souls, which are given immediately by God.

Dear The Barbarian,

When I looked at the list of items you gave me, I thought of their objectives in the same way I imagine goals for the future. One comment – your item, bacteria should evolve resistance to antibiotics is a very important representative of the goals/objectives to serve the medical needs of humanity.

If I may, I would like to run some ideas by you. When it comes to the why of human’s existence, etc., it is important to have definite long-range objectives/goals. When it comes to science, there should also be definite long-range goals such as service to humanity.

However, I am observing, from an analytical point of view, that science also has some very flexible objectives in the area of speculation. Speculation is great. Otherwise I would be reading this computer screen by candle light, i.e., if Edison hadn’t followed up on his imaginative speculations.

If I apply the above thoughts to evolutionary theory, there does not seem to be a lot of flexibility of goals when evolutionary scientists examine the past. To me there is a main goal of finding the common ancestor of life and the objectives of various research projects are to plot the various paths backwards to where all the paths join in some common ancestor or cell or some one thing. Another intermediate objective would be to find where genomic systems diverge.

What I am driving at is that the way evolutionary theory seems to be operating, it is limited to the physical and excludes the spiritual possibilities such as your last comment above about souls.

Am I saying that science should subject my soul to the empirical method? Of course not. But when I analytically look at what evolutionary science has accomplished and what it still doesn’t know, it seems it would be practical to allow that something else is operating in addition to the physical.

The following sentences were found on the www.newscientist.com website. They are taken out of context.

At first glance, science might seem to drain the world of its mystique, replacing the lovely unknown with mundane explanation. Peer deeper, though, and you will find that the appreciation of mystery is the foundation of science, and that science reveals to us a world far more profound and beautiful than common sense or superstition can behold.

Blessings,

Human beings are part of God’s world of mystery.

 

[StAnastasia]

At first glance, science might seem to drain the world of its mystique, replacing the lovely unknown with mundane explanation. Peer deeper, though, and you will find that the appreciation of mystery is the foundation of science, and that science reveals to us a world far more profound and beautiful than common sense or superstition can behold.Blessings,Human beings are part of God’s world of mystery.

Grannymh, the Holy Scripture in its entirety was not written from beginning to end like a novel or a textbook. It is, rather, the echo of God’s history with his people. The Bible is thus the story of God’s struggle with human beings to make himself understandable to them over the course of time; but it is also the story of their struggle to seize hold of God over the course of time.

Science in no way drains scripture of its mystery; indeed it illuminates and deepens the mystery of God’s dealings with us.

StAnastasia

 

[oriel16]

Grannymh, the Holy Scripture in its entirety was not written from beginning to end like a novel or a textbook. It is, rather, the echo of God’s history with his people. The Bible is thus the story of God’s struggle with human beings to make himself understandable to them over the course of time; but it is also the story of their struggle to seize hold of God over the course of time.

a

Sounds like the story of Babel to me which,in itself, is a cautionary lesson .The end of that story is that eventually nobody knows what they are talking about as all have different opinions or as the author framed it,they speak different ‘languages’.

In regard to the matter at hand,here is my view as a Christian scientist. The evolutionary framework and the time-line for biological evolution existed,though not exclusively, through the efforts of Steno and Smith and precedes the empirical treatment.This takes care of any problem of recognising that the planet is a much older and grander stage for the diversity of life and takes care of any issue relating to the Bible.At this stage a Christian is admiring the genius of Creation and appreciative of the men who demonstrated where to find clues.

The fall of Adam ,in one respect,represents the loss of intuitive intelligence to appreciate Divine things and then he sees himself separate to creation,that Christ restores this vision to the blind and shows the planet to be a genuine garden of Eden with a rich and magnificent history,not only shows God’s presence in celestial/terrestrial phenomena but how things fit together to allow humanity to exist in time and enjoy that the life of man occupies a much grander planetary stage - it is the Behold ! of creation that drives true scientific investigation .

The empiricists have not been successful in convincing people that Darwin/evolution represents a counterbalance to creationism/religion .They have been effective is disguising the original evolution framework which existed before Darwin and his attempt to inject a ‘cause’ into biological evolution therefore the argument swings from science vs religion to scientific vs anti-scientific where it exists at the moment.

Empiricism drains science of its substance and turn it which way you will,that is what the whole issue amounts to.I have a few mysteries of my own but they do not relate to creation or God but as to why my fellow human beings are behaving like pretensious numbskulls .The Arians have a talent for telling people what they want to hear if it can be called a talent and I seen it in Newton when he decided to ‘define’ time,space and motion for his mathematical audience -

"Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are less known, and explained the sense in which I would have them to be understood in the following discourse. I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe, that the vulgar conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which, it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common. "

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time

In short,some have a talent for telling people what they want to hear and whether it is national supremacy or intellectual supremacy it still comes out as pretension in the end.Newton was an Arian,thought like one and his attempt to fit planetary motion into a terrestrial ballistics agenda,commonly known as the ‘laws of motion’ reflects Arian sensibilities,in other words,it is junk.

Telling people that they should have no fear of science is one thing,telling them they should fear empiricism which is something else as that cult approach becomes anti-scientific.

 

[oriel16]

I’m sorry, I don’t believe that you are being truthful here. You refuse to address the issue of the leap second. I know that you are smarter and holier than the rest of us, but please explain the leap second.You have been shown that it is not a fact.Are you sure?

Peace

Tim

A ‘Leap second’ adjustment tied directly to daily rotation represents the symptom of a problem,the problem being that humanity does not know historically where the 24 hour day comes from and how,for instance, the 24 hours of Tuesday will turn into the 24 hours of Wednesday and keep doing so indefinitely.I guess people just take the 24 hour day for granted and assume that scientists understand the process which creates the 24 hour day but unfortunately that is not the case.

The actual term ‘leap second’ is a contradiction in terms as the leap day,again,made up of 86 400 leap seconds/24 hour day reflects the marvelous calendar system which allows humanity to create a linear progression of years and subsequently historical dating out of a system that is strictly cyclical and the cycle calculated in equable days reflects 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes.

The ‘leap second’ ,in modern terms, reflects the dumb premise and conclusion of Flamsteed that there is an external celestial reference for the daily turning of the Earth through 360 degrees.Nowadays, they still base the conclusion of a distant celestial object returning back to the same position in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds as representing the daily rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees they try to gauge if the planet’s rotation is ‘speeding up or slowing down’ based on the external celestial reference hence their 'leap second 'correction.

It does not beg the question as to why we apply 86 400 leap seconds/ 24 hour day every Feb 29th to bring the human devised calendar system based on equable 365/366 days back in line with the orbital cycles because leap corrections do not require physical causes based on the motions of the Earth.In other words,if you understood why the Church went to all that trouble to correct the calendar drift against the natural cycles by refining the matter of the application of the ‘leap day’ you would understand that the convenience of having the calendar and a linear progression of years does not require an association with daily rotation.

Let me put it this way,if you are dead set in applying a leap second to a 24 hour day because you draw an incorrect conclusion that the Earth’s daily rotation is speeding up or slowing down ,maybe you would like to give the physical causes for the 86 400 second leap correction that has been applied for many,many centuries on Feb 29th every 4th year using daily rotation .Let me spare you the effort,there is no physical causes as the calendar represents human achievement at its greatest and most pragmatic insofar as leap correction represent the convenience of converting a linear progression of years out of a cyclical system and as an extension of the creation of the equable 24 hour day.It is strictly a relationship between the human devised calendar system and the annual orbital cycle with no possibility of tethering leap anything directly to daily rotation.

 

[Squishy]

Telling people that they should have no fear of science is one thing,telling them they should fear empiricism which is something else as that cult approach becomes anti-scientific.

Emm, please someone else correct me if im wrong, but i always thought science was empiricial by nature. Because of this though, modern science will always have unanswered questions. Which is why we have philosophy and religion.

Why do you claim empiricism is a cult. Its part of a philisophical model for understanding the world. Their are otherways, and all contrabute to a greater understanding in someway or another. But modern scientists like to try and answer questions in such a way that people who follow have the ability to come to the same conclusion. Or at leaste expand on the original ideas. Science is an ever growing branch of subjects and subject matter. It isnt for 1 persons life time. The dream of most scientists is to give future generations a basis for understanding that can be expanded upon and to grow. To leave something worthy behind that their children and childrens children can benifit from. But its difficult to do this if you have as many competing answers for the same question. Which is why the empirical model is used. Something that can be independinty verified or rejected.