EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[oriel16]

. 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.

The person who created the Piltdown man hoax deserves a medal because he exposed what happens when nationalism colors science investigation and especially in the empirical attempt to find a single line trajectory for man back to a pool of chemicals -

clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/ABBOTT/Abbot_defense/piltman_englishmystery.html

Darwin’s ‘cause’ was in a similar nationalistic vein,a conclusion which is both anti-scientific in content and character and a complete distraction from the original biological evolutionary framework in tandem with geology and symbiotic relationship between all lifeforms,between themselves and their inanimate environment.

The hoax of Newton is many magnitudes worse than the minor 20th century one insofar as the nature of the material,in this case astronomy,and the length of time it persists pales in significance compared to the realisation that few appear to have the competence or the willingness to deal with the matter.Genuine investigators in the evolutionary matter of Piltdown man fossil had every reason to deal with the matter as it railroaded genuine investigations on to a false track and I assure you it is no different with Newton’s ‘laws of motions’.When he temporarily succeeded in promoting his Arian/empirical agenda it then became open season for all aspects of creation to come under human conceptions of ‘laws’ with Darwin jumping on that particular empirical bandwagon.

 

[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.

I guess you can think of predictions that way. But the point is, the theory is considered a good one, because it has made so many predictions that were later verified.

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.

No. Science is merely interested in finding out what is true about the world. It is intended to be useful, although it so frequently is, people tend to confuse scientists, who merely discover the truth, with engineers, who find ways to apply that truth to make things better for us.

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.

Again, you should be thanking engineers, as well as scientists.

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.

There shouldn’t be any goals at all, except to figure out what happens.

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.

Most of that was done by Linnaeus, long before Darwin.

Another intermediate objective would be to find where genomic systems diverge.

I’m not sure what you mean by that.

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.

Yeah, plumbing is like that, too. Science is, by its methodology, limited to the physical universe. It is a major limititation, but it works very well within those limits. As you just observed, science can’t talk about the spiritual, but scientists can.

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.

Something is, but science can’t get to it. Which is all right. Turns out that God operates nature by consistent laws, so we don’t have to wonder if He’ll change the settings today.

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.

I once read, in “Woman’s Day” or some such, (doctor’s office, and nothing else to read) a column by a woman who criticized a father who explained to his daughter how leaves turn colorful in the fall. She accused him of draining all the wonder from it, and expressed pity for the child. I felt pity for the woman who wrote the column.

Knowing more about nature enhances one’s appreciation and awe at the wonder of it all. So stories about some fairies painting the leaves don’t come close to the reality, and cheapen God’s creation in the minds of children told those stories.

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

 

[Orogeny]

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.

I guess you could be right that the scientists that work at NIST and the Naval Observatory are morons and don’t understand the extremely basic concept that a day is exactly 86,400 seconds long. Or maybe you are wrong and don’t know what you are talking about. Hmm. Let me think about which of the two are most likely.

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.

Nope.

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.

Nope. You know, you could actually learn something by reading the links I gave you.

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.

How long does it take for the earth to make one complete 360 degree revolution around the sun?

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.

Oriel, could you please explain the difference between the length of one day and the length of one year? What does the fact that the earth revolves 360 degrees in approximately 24 hours have to do with the time it takes the earth to make one complete 360 degree revolution around the sun?

Peace

Tim

 

[grannymh]

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

Pardon me. These sentences

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.

do not refer to an “echo” of God’s history with His people. They refer to science and the world. Could it be that your comments are confusing metaphysical poetry with Scripture?

Regarding your earlier comment about science students taking philosophy courses…Unless you have data to the contrary, the days are long gone when a minor in philosophy was required for liberal arts students. More important than that bit of history, is that there is barely room in a current science major’s schedule to blow one’s nose.

Blessings,
granny

Human beings belong at the foot of Christ’s cross.

 

[oriel16]

I guess you could be right that the scientists that work at NIST and the Naval Observatory are morons and don’t understand the extremely basic concept that a day is exactly 86,400 seconds long.

Peace

Tim

Do you think that a basic error created by Flamsteed and now adopted by organisations as a principle can overturn millenia of astronomical principles just because people are not competent enough to figure out how the 24 hours of Monday turn into the 24 hours of Tuesday without the need for an external reference for daily rotation as an independent motion.

The 24 hour day is a human devised average extracted from the observation that the natural noon cycles are unequal,it does not take much of an intellectual effort to get that far and anybody can do it.

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. … 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

As each 24 hour day turns into the next 24 hour day after the ‘aequation’ correction is applied to observation of natural noon (again ,an unequal external reference),they simply adopted ‘constant’ daily rotation as a convenient principle,as one 24 hour day follows the next then so is daily rotation kept constant.That is why 15 degrees of separation equals 1 hour time difference the world over,even as a broad principle,4 minutes equals 1 degree of geographical separation and 24 hours /360 degrees.

I should not have to fight to get this lovely astronomical principle understood which both creates the 24 hour day,keeps them turning over into each other and provides the principles by which clocks are used to determine distance based on 24 hours/360 degrees -

town-usa.com/timezoneworldclocks.html

What Flamsteed tried to do was detach the relationship between the 24 hour day and global 360 degree geometry After the Equation of Time was applied and pin daily rotation through 360 degrees directly to an external celestial reference.Organisations like NIST just assume Flamsteed was correct just as Isaac once did yet it has all the substance of a flat Earth idea.

The timekeeping astronomers never,ever fixed daily rotation through 360 degrees directly to an external celestial reference for the principles which create the 24 hour day via the unequal natural noon cycle prohibit such an idiocy.This is history we are dealing with here.

However well meaning the guys at NIST are,they always make the same mistake as other organisations do in believing that the 24 hour day and its ‘second’ fraction was once defined by the rotation of the Earth,considering this represents the basic value for the most fundamental rotation of all -the daily cycle,it is important to find people who can actually reason their way to understand how each average 24 hour cycle is converted to ‘constant’ daily rotation through 360 degrees as a principle but not as an observation.

 

[oriel16]

I What does the fact that the earth revolves 360 degrees in approximately 24 hours

Peace

Tim

That which you call a ‘fact’ is stupidity incarnate,it simply means you do not appreciate why the 24 hours today will turn into the 24 hours of Wednesday.

As you can see,not a single comment from anyone else on Huygens and his magnificent treatise on how the 24 hour day is extracted as an average from variations in natural noon.

The guys at NIST believe that the noon cycles are exactly 24 hours as can be seen in the graphic of the Wiki article -

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_day

The distortion of the very old astronomical rules governing the creation of the 24 hour day through observing that the natural noon cycle are unequal ,which in turn leads to the calendar system is one of the most disturbing acts of unintentional vandalism ever visited on an existing human achievement.

That the false value for daily rotation is promoted,along with its new ‘leap second’ extension only shows that people have washed their hands of genuine science.

 

[oriel16]

.

Knowing more about nature enhances one’s appreciation and awe at the wonder of it all. So stories about some fairies painting the leaves don’t come close to the reality, and cheapen God’s creation in the minds of children told those stories.

.

I’ll tell you what,how are you going to explain to children that behind the cute story of turtles and finches on the Galapagos islands the ‘eureka’ moment is ripped clean out of an essay on national supremacy and the English idea of who were civilised or savage.

“One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease, accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also… because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the origin of species.” Charles Darwin

The empiricists understood long ago that once you hijack the machinery of the education system you can insert whatever indoctrination you want.That is why few know that the evolutionary framework already existed before the empiricists inserted a nationalistic ‘cause’ to biological evolution.That is propaganda and far removed from genuine science.

 

[Orogeny]

The 24 hour day is a human devised average extracted from the observation that the natural noon cycles are unequal,it does not take much of an intellectual effort to get that far and anybody can do it.

Average? I thought you said that every day was exactly 24 hours? What is the need for an average value if EVERY day is exactly 24 hours?

As each 24 hour day turns into the next 24 hour day after the ‘aequation’ correction is applied to observation of natural noon (again ,an unequal external reference),they simply adopted ‘constant’ daily rotation as a convenient principle,as one 24 hour day follows the next then so is daily rotation kept constant.That is why 15 degrees of separation equals 1 hour time difference the world over,even as a broad principle,4 minutes equals 1 degree of geographical separation and 24 hours /360 degrees.

Clearly scientists in 1669 were much more advanced that the morons we have now, but why do we need a correction if the day is EXACTLY 24 hours?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

That which you call a ‘fact’ is stupidity incarnate,it simply means you do not appreciate why the 24 hours today will turn into the 24 hours of Wednesday.

I know, I am stupid. Now answer the question.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

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.

Empiricism is a philosophical model which asserts that the truth can only come through knowledge acquired by sensory observation. With that, it can’t be part of the philosophical model which accepts other means of arriving at the truth (logical deductions, for example).

Empiricism is related to scientism, the belief that science is the only valid method of arriving at the truth about things.

Both can be considered cults based on irrationality. Empiricism cannot be proven by empirical data since it is a philosophical system. The same is true of scientism – it cannot be proven by science.

All science requires a philosophical foundation in order to be able to function on a rational basis.

Modern science is built on atheistic-materialsm and thus has an irrational foundation.

 

[oriel16]

Average? I thought you said that every day was exactly 24 hours?

Peace

Tim

No offence but when you have major organisations believing that the natural noon cycle is exactly 24 hours in order to bridge a 3 minute 56 second gap to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds,this is no longer in the realm of science but a cartoon creation by men who do not know what they are doing -

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_day

That original mistake can be traced to John Flamsteed and it was on that value that Newton hung his empirical agenda and the ‘laws’ which followed.

How much effort was wasted because of this and all the contentious issues that followed and remain,not least that science which was a magnificent facet within Christianity is now attacking it as a separate entity.

It is the first day of Lent tomorrow,a day to break habits.It is the intellectual ones that have to be broken this year.

 

[grannymh]

Dear The Barbarian,

Your patience with me is appreciated. I should warn you that I learned stubbornness from some old-time Jesuits.

quote=The Barbarian;4856976]I guess you can think of predictions that way. But the point is, the theory is considered a good one, because it has made so many predictions that were later verified.

To clear up another remark. Evolutionary theory is a good one that has always fascinated me. It doesn’t matter if I write with a creationist, ID, Catholic, protestant, analytic, philosophical view, it is still the same theory that I am addressing. It is my free-spirit nature that reacts unfavorably toward being labeled.

No. Science is merely interested in finding out what is true about the world. It is intended to be useful, although it so frequently is, people tend to confuse scientists, who merely discover the truth, with engineers, who find ways to apply that truth to make things better for us.

Could one substitute philosophers for engineers? This is probably granny semantics but I consider that finding out what is true about the world is a universal goal of humans and thus it is also a “goal” of science.

Again, you should be thanking engineers, as well as scientists.

As I am in a spiritual crisis regarding prayer, I am now putting a post-it note on my printer to pray a prayer of thanksgiving for engineers as well as scientists and poets, etc.

There shouldn’t be any goals at all, except to figure out what happens.

To me figuring out what happens is a very important goal.

Most of that was done by Linnaeus, long before Darwin.

I am sure everyone here realizes that I am in the midst of catching up with all you intellectuals. I’ve found some interesting remarks about people before Darwin e.g., they did not assign a cause to evolution whereas Darwin did. I just starting checking Carolus Linnaeus on Google. It sounds like what I remember from high school biology which at times was a wee bit different. While other students dissected their rats in a normal way, I skinned mine first because its pelt was beautiful and then I brought the pelt home.

I’m not sure what you mean by that.

I’m interested in the branches of the tree of evolution.

Yeah, plumbing is like that, too. Science is, by its methodology, limited to the physical universe. It is a major limitation, but it works very well within those limits. As you just observed, science can’t talk about the spiritual, but scientists can.

Bingo!

Quote from granny: 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

.

Reply from The Barbarian: Something is, but science can’t get to it. Which is all right. Turns out that God operates nature by consistent laws, so we don’t have to wonder if He’ll change the settings today.

Meaning something is conspicuous by its absence from scientism:shrug:

One time, I had to research a major donor’s ancestors because a fact, conspicuous by its absence, was missing from her biography. The fact regarded which side of the civil war they were on. Besides learning that the joy of politics permeates everything including charitable giving, I learned that looking at “missing” information can be important. Using available sources within a small time frame, I could not find the civil war answer. My answer that the family allegiance was unknown was acceptable, but that did not preclude further research by other interested parties…

(To put this in its historical perspective, I did not have the benefit of computer technology and Google. I worked in the days when we had a “breaking” news story we called a taxi to deliver it to the media.)

The point is that today’s technology promotes immediate gratification and instant knowledge. While this benefits science, it also works against science when there is missing information.
My intention is not to point fingers, but I get the impression that the general public believes that missing scientific information is because the particular missing piece does not exist. It seems to me that this occurs because some scientific findings are presented in such a dogmatic way, that others don’t look at what is missing. I probably should add “for the time being” since the grandchildren of the above donor probably know, through ancestor dot whatever, which army uniform their ancestors wore.

I once read, in “Woman’s Day” or some such, (doctor’s office, and nothing else to read) a column by a woman who criticized a father who explained to his daughter how leaves turn colorful in the fall

.
I am thankful that I am interested in how nature works and have also rediscovered the beauty of metaphysical poetry.

Blessings,
granny

Human beings are part of the mystery of God’s plan.

 

[Orogeny]

It is the first day of Lent tomorrow,a day to break habits.It is the intellectual ones that have to be broken this year.

Please answer the question. If the time it takes for the earth to make one complete 360 degree rotation is exactly 24 hours, why is an AVERAGE number used?

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel16]

Please answer the question. If the time it takes for the earth to make one complete 360 degree rotation is exactly 24 hours, why is an AVERAGE number used?

Peace

Tim

I cannot account for why you are missing the reasoning process which creates the average 24 hour cycle out of the observation that the natural noon cycles are unequal.

The facility which keeps the 24 hour average cycle fixed to natural noon also keeps the continuity of 24 hour days elapsing into each other.Our civilisation keeps this historical astronomical process through the terms AM and PM signifying the relationship between the observation of natural noon and its conversion to 24 hour clock noon.

Once you have the average 24 hour cycle and can keep them turning over in the continuity you know as Monday into Tuesday into Wednesday and so on,you also have the basics for treating daily rotation as a ‘constant’.Although the daily cycles as referenced to natural noon varied,the timekeepers used the human devised 24 hour ‘average’ to act as though daily rotation through 360 degrees is ‘constant’ without having to consider an external reference.

Flamsteed’s premise and conclusion is that there is actually an external reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees contrary to every known astronomical principle that preceded him.That conclusion is no better or worse than looking out and declaring that the Earth is flat.I am not kidding,the idea that you could shift the daily cycle and its relationship with the 24 hour day away from the central Sun and out to the distant stars is truly shocking.

This distortion has catastrophic consequences not least that Newton added to them.Now,it is the beginning of Lent for me and I must attend to that period in my own way.

 

[StAnastasia]

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’.

Oriel, those are Pope Benedict’s words I quoted. Do you disagree with him?

 

[StAnastasia]

Pardon me. These sentences …
do not refer to an “echo” of God’s history with His people. They refer to science and the world. Could it be that your comments are confusing metaphysical poetry with Scripture?

Regarding your earlier comment about science students taking philosophy courses…Unless you have data to the contrary, the days are long gone when a minor in philosophy was required for liberal arts students. More important than that bit of history, is that there is barely room in a current science major’s schedule to blow one’s nose. Blessings,granny.

Grannymh,

(1) In questioning me you are actually questioning Pope Benedict, whom I quoted without punctuation, to see what the reaction would be. Pope Benedict says:

“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.”

(2) I was not suggesting a minor in philosophy. What I argued was that if the study of science was preceded by a course or some lectures in the philosophy or science, and if the study of religion was preceded by a course or some lectures in the philosophy of religion, we might avoid a lot of the pointless wrangling over evolution that goes on for hundreds of posts on Catholic Answers fora.

StAnastasia

 

[Orogeny]

I cannot account for why you are missing the reasoning process which creates the average 24 hour cycle out of the observation that the natural noon cycles are unequal.

Perhaps because you have made two claims regarding the amount of time it takes for the earth to complete a 360 degree revolution. The first is that it is exactly 24 hours. The second is that 24 hours is an average time.

Which is it? Why would you average an exact number?

This is important as apparently my soul depends on it.

Peace

Tim

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh,

(1) In questioning me you are actually questioning Pope Benedict, whom I quoted without punctuation, to see what the reaction would be.
StAnastasia

My reaction is------

I consider myself warned.

 

[oriel16]

Oriel, those are Pope Benedict’s words I quoted. Do you disagree with him?

There are your words -

“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.”

If you are going to quote the Pope then quote him,if not then you can use the same words of the Pope to support Darwin’s ‘cause’ for evolution based on national supremacy and now we have a Nazi in the Vatican.I can’t see how your dumb maneuver is going to serve the Pope or Catholics here and I sure am not going to engage the same practice that the Scribes used as there is no good intent in the question.

 

[oriel16]

Perhaps because you have made two claims regarding the amount of time it takes for the earth to complete a 360 degree revolution. The first is that it is exactly 24 hours. The second is that 24 hours is an average time.

Which is it? Why would you average an exact number?

This is important as apparently my soul depends on it.

Peace

Tim

The original Sin of Adam was claiming something of his own,I am claiming nothing but admiring the magnificent achievement of astronomers in creating the 24 hour day , its application to the calendar system and eventually,with the invention of accurate clocks,its use to determine position on the planet based on the rotation of the planet through 15 degrees per hour making 24 hours for a full rotation through 360 degrees.The history is now so well known through popular works such as that by Dava Sobel and the invention of clocks by John Harrison that you literally have to live in a cave to believe an alternative value for this most basic question.

“The Earth rotates one full turn (360º of longitude) in one day. It therefore turns one degree of longitude in 1/360th of a day, or every four minutes. To calculate your longitude, you therefore simply need to work out the time difference between noon at your location and noon at the Prime Meridian”

open2.net/sciencetechnologynature/maths/measuring_latitude_and_longitude.html

Most certainly,the Equation of Time correction which equalises the main reference of natural noon to 24 hour clock noon is omitted but if people wish to see the full principles then Huygens explains it in full -

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

The false premise and conclusion of Flamsteed produced not only a different value for daily rotation through 360 degrees but a thoroughly stupid distortion of reasoning which uses the motions of the Earth to justify the value,including a noon cycle that is 24 hours exactly and in direct conflict with every known observation since antiquity ! -

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

What did our astronomical ancestors do to deserve this mess and that it went on to form the basis of the ‘predictive’ framework of Newton shows how desperate men are to follow that Arian numbskull.

Is there a Christian out there who actually likes how they created the 24 hour day and then kept these 24 hour days turning into each other ?.I can easily explain what Flamsteed did wrong but it matters that I encounter people who understand the genius of the original system.In that Church history,through calendar reform, shows that it once was a facet within Christianity is all the more reason to become involved.