Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9
It is the center of the universe however. Actually every point in the universe is at the center.
Is there any other kind?
LOL!
Very fascinating, I didn't know that!
> That begs the question of whether observed facts support evolution
Again, back to the gravity parallel. There are problems, some quite serious, with the theories (yes, there's more than one) of gravity that we have today. None of them explain all the observations. Then again, there are the FACTS of gravity. If you hold an apple up and let it go, it will fall.
If somebody wants to discuss legitimate objections and alternatives to various theories of gravity, that's a fun and serious undertaking. If somebody wants to claim gravity doesn't exist, the earth just sucks, well....
That's where the parallel with evolution and creationism is.
It's not "begging the question", it's clarifying the question.
A gap argument: We don't know what the cosmological constant should be but God did it therefore it is just right.
A telic/id argument: On general principles we know what the cosmological constants should be, roughly. It turns out to be 120 orders of magnitude smaller than expected.
A response from naturalism/materialism: If you legs were 10% shorter, you'd hover above the ground as you walked. If they were 10% longer, you'd have to have someone dig holes for you to step into in order to walk. (again, see the ‘gap argument’ above as it avoids any consideration due to an a priori belief)
"It means that the system is a product of *all* bodies in the system, and that it doesn't matter what coordinate system you..."
The question is do *you* understand what that means. I'm betting that you philosophically adopt a severely-restricted definition and ignore the greater.
"No matter what coordinate system you use, you will notice that the behavior can be explained by the same set of equations, based on the gravitation pull of the two objects in question."
Not quite.
Strictly speaking, it's not the 'gravitational pull' but the 'laws of gravity'. This might seem trivial but is an important difference.
In addition, gravity is not understood and the laws of gravity are observed to operate differently between the solar system and intergalactic space. That's what 'dark matter' is all about.
'Dark matter' is an invisible entity that is invoked to explain anomalous behavior of galactic objects.
Please explain why you think the the difference between 'sidereal' and 'mean solar' uniquely supports heliocentrism?
Can you tell the difference between a fact and a claim, boys and girls?
Someone please help RA with this.
No, when you say, "There's the observed fact of evolution..." you are clearly begging the question.
That you refuse to admit it is... understandable.
Although we know something about nature, we cannot state that God created nature as being a miracle - it could come out that there is indeed a scientific explanation that God meant for us to figure out. The Holy Spirit is a miracle and so is my son not being hurt at all when he flipped his car over at a high rate of speed and said that "something" which he believes an angel held him back from hitting the roof (already preached to him - but he was not wearing a seatbelt). Freaked the ER right out - not even a scratch or sore muscle. Life changing experience - he is firmly convinced that God has more for him to do.
I don't see this as contradictory at all - I believe He created one man in His image, etc., but what does God look like? There are two theories - we were created in His image spiritually (love, respect, etc.) or we look like Him. Either way, or both, there is nothing that contradicts that over time we changed, or adapted to our environment. I do not believe in any form of evolutionary belief that says otherwise - and perhaps he chose to have us evolve by our own free will. I don't have all the answers but I will always keep an open mind because Lord knows that as humans, we err.
Ah yes, “dark matter”… does this actually exist? Higgs (or the force exchange particle) should have shown up when the atom-smashing energy levels reached ~.8 TeV. We are beyond that now… It’s turtles all the way down when you start invoking a heavier mass in smaller particles, quark-gluon plasma, mini-black holes from heavy ion collisions, etc…
BTW, everyone must have been tricked into a religious and biblical creationist view due to the fact that the Big Bang is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. No one fought the Big Bang theory because of the obvious telic implications. / sarc…
BTW, did you take a look at the peer reviewed article I posted in 157?
I read the article several days ago when you posted it.
I was particularly struck by the findings, one part of which was summarized in the abstract as follows:
As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.
No, your logic is false. Your premise, observed fact = planets orbit the sun, cannot be true if you also claim that it is not an observed fact that the planet earth orbits the sun. If a=b then a=b.
Also what exactly is your point about Einsteins point that there are no absolute reference points? How does that invalidate heliocentrism?
Beep. Circle takes the square. The phases of Venus only make sense if Venus is orbiting the Sun closer in than the Earth. Planets orbiting the Sun farther out than the orbit of the Earth will not exhibit phases, as we can only ever see the face pointed toward the Sun.
I must admit it is strange having to explain this to you. It's almost like talking to someone from the Middle Ages.
Yes, the only way to disprove it is if God shows up and says He made us or an alien says he put us here. That's what makes the theory of evolution a religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.