Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

More Fluctuations Found in Isotopic Clocks
Institute for Creation Research ^ | 8-17-2012 | Brian Thomas

Posted on 08/17/2012 11:21:22 AM PDT by fishtank

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-205 next last
To: Zeneta

[ BTW, I think evoking Occam’s razor at this stage is premature. ]

Depends on what you’re dividing...


51 posted on 08/17/2012 6:48:39 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

dividing infinity (eternity) by anything gets a little silly.


52 posted on 08/17/2012 6:52:45 PM PDT by Zeneta (Why are so many people searching for something that has already found us ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

Freedom of religion means that no one else can tell you what your religious beliefs must be. It also means you don’t get to tell anyone else what theirs must be.


53 posted on 08/17/2012 6:52:46 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Freedom of religion means that no one else can tell you what your religious beliefs must be. It also means you don’t get to tell anyone else what theirs must be.

So, you think comparative religion classes are a waste of time ?

54 posted on 08/17/2012 6:54:56 PM PDT by Zeneta (Why are so many people searching for something that has already found us ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
So, you think comparative religion classes are a waste of time ?

What assumptions lead you to that conclusion?

55 posted on 08/17/2012 7:00:35 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Listen.

If you are actually sincere about exploring these issues, having an open mind and understanding of history will allow you to break on through to another side.

You can start with either:

http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926

http://www.amazon.com/Reasonable-Faith-Christian-Truth-Apologetics/dp/1433501155/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345255459&sr=1-1&keywords=reasonable+faith+by+william+lane+craig

best of luck to you.


56 posted on 08/17/2012 7:06:06 PM PDT by Zeneta (Why are so many people searching for something that has already found us ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

You appear to have made the assumption that someone else can only have different religious belifs than you out of ignorance. Is that an accurate assesment?


57 posted on 08/17/2012 7:10:03 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
First of all, your statement is redundant.

Freedom of religion means that no one else can tell you what your religious beliefs must be. It also means you don’t get to tell anyone else what theirs must be.

It implies relativism.

That is the assumption that enforced my conclusion.

58 posted on 08/17/2012 7:11:25 PM PDT by Zeneta (Why are so many people searching for something that has already found us ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
You appear to have made the assumption that someone else can only have different religious belifs than you out of ignorance. Is that an accurate assesment?

Yes.

Some religious beliefs are completely illogical, and many others have no historical foundation.

Still, there are those that are still seeking.

59 posted on 08/17/2012 7:16:57 PM PDT by Zeneta (Why are so many people searching for something that has already found us ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
I thought it an accurate statement of the practical effect of having freedom of religion.

Do you find that assesment to be inaccurate?

If it is accurate, then do you disagree with the idea that we should have it, because it allows people to have incorrect religious beliefs?

60 posted on 08/17/2012 7:20:16 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Forrestfire
So does that mean Mick Jagger is even older than we thought?

Has anyone dated Mick recently?

5.56mm

61 posted on 08/17/2012 7:28:59 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Freedom of Religion is more about freedom than Religion.

The practical effect was to establish a Country that was not “told” by their Gov’t what religion they must practice.

That is it.

Individuals are to be free to practice whatever religion they wish.

It made no statement about which region is correct, and yes, some folks will and do have “incorrect” religions.

I’m willing in a free society to explore, as I have, the merits associated with those positions.

It doesn’t in anyway mean that they are correct, just because they exist.

We are back to relativism.


62 posted on 08/17/2012 7:32:00 PM PDT by Zeneta (Why are so many people searching for something that has already found us ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
Some religious beliefs are completely illogical, and many others have no historical foundation.

Agreed. But I think religious beliefs that are logical leads people to make logical agruments in support of them. This article is a litany of logical fallacies, and gives me no reason to have faith in the theology behind it.

63 posted on 08/17/2012 7:59:31 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

You may be correct about logical fallacies contained in the referenced article.

But that, in and of itself, doesn’t logically mean that the conclusions are incorrect.

In addition, try to set aside the “faith” behind any argument and simple consider the evidence as a skeptical scientist. Ask a lot of questions, and question ever assumption.

When I say set aside faith, I mean the faith in Darwinism as well.

There are so many problems that it has become unworkable.

Best of luck to you.


64 posted on 08/17/2012 8:29:36 PM PDT by Zeneta (Why are so many people searching for something that has already found us ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
You appear to be starting from a premise that it is impossible for God to have created life with the ability to evolve. This leads to the conclusion that if evolution happened, then there is no God.

I do not accept that premise because I do not assume restrictions on the power of God. Because I do not start from that premise, I arrive at different conclusions.

Just so you know.

I did not grow up with a Biblical or Cristian belief. I was left to my own to decide. I spent the better part of the past 25 years searching.

Ironically, it was Joseph Campbell's work on mythology that started me on this path. It has been a rough and rocky road, however the burning questions about the core of belief kept me going. It was never about what I wanted or needed to feel better. It has been, and is, what foundations a certain system are based on.

And as I said before, if you are sincere, then keep asking questions. DO NOT accept anything on authority alone.

65 posted on 08/17/2012 8:52:41 PM PDT by Zeneta (Why are so many people searching for something that has already found us ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Thanks for the ping!


66 posted on 08/17/2012 9:03:30 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Science fiction must be logical and entertaining else whats the point.. Reality however need not be logical at all.... And I don’t see how time must be linear.

LOLOL! Thank you for sharing your views, dear hosepipe!
67 posted on 08/17/2012 9:05:13 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

More gibberish from the science haters.

What was really reported was that the ratio of U238 to U235 differed by half a percentage point more than was commonly believed.

That means instead of a rock formation being a billion years old, it’s 995 million years old.


68 posted on 08/17/2012 9:19:06 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
You may be correct about logical fallacies contained in the referenced article.

But that, in and of itself, doesn’t logically mean that the conclusions are incorrect.

No, it does not. I have no problem with the proposition that the conclusions may be true. I do have a problem with the proposition that it must be true, and this proves it. It's implied that the decay rate of Uranium can be accelereated to 4 million times normal by heating it to magma temperatures. If that works you should be able to make an atom bomb with a chunk of Uranium and a blast furnace.

69 posted on 08/17/2012 10:09:19 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; YHAOS; Whosoever

[ dividing infinity (eternity) by anything gets a little silly. ]

Why?.. its done all the time! (wry smile)..
Eternity is composed of many moments..
which are like strings... in the Quantum moment..

“Quantum Moment Theory”, <<-I may have just coined a phrase.. LoL


70 posted on 08/18/2012 10:28:29 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; Zeneta
"dividing infinity (eternity)"

What?
Infinity relates to distance.
eternity relates to time.
(doesn't it? )

71 posted on 08/18/2012 10:38:09 AM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
“Quantum Moment Theory”,

I thought I had a "Quantum Moment" the other day, but when I looked, it was different.

72 posted on 08/18/2012 10:48:34 AM PDT by Zeneta (Why are so many people searching for something that has already found us ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

[ Infinity relates to distance. eternity relates to time.? ]

Good question.. seems to be a speed question..
How far can you go in a specified Quantum Moment..
Humans may never know the answer to this question..


73 posted on 08/18/2012 10:54:21 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

LoL...


74 posted on 08/18/2012 10:55:23 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Forrestfire

Ping for later. Thanks.


75 posted on 08/18/2012 11:04:07 AM PDT by huskerjim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
"How far can you go in a specified Quantum Moment..
Humans may never know the answer to this question..
"

Indeed.

So . . . Why ask me? ( ^8 }

76 posted on 08/18/2012 11:39:45 AM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I find it interesting that you keep making sweeping generalized statements. I personally believe that one of the most wonderful gifts from God is the capability and capacity to evolve. This discovery of non-constant decay rates is quite remarkable. It seems analogous to the discovery of a non-static speed of light. You seem to prefer to attack people like me who believe in a Creator. Our ability to understand even 10% of the mysteries of life, love, and science are impeded by your irrational insistence on presuming that I am stupid, and made worse by liberals that think like you in government. Please think about abandoning your position of haughty arrogance and read the entire Bible; every word. If you remain convinced that you cannot both love and respect science and your Creator, then out of respect you might want to reconsider saying Creationism is akin to ignorance.


77 posted on 08/18/2012 11:39:54 AM PDT by gcraig (Freedom is not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
You say, “The world is not 6,000 or so years old.”

The actual, countable annual layers in ice cores can be counted back to 20,000 years after which the ice has compacted so much it becomes difficult to distinguish them. However the ice cores themselves are steeper still by miles. But just for the sake of proof, you already have 14,000 years of ice that existed before the people who misinterpret the Bible say the universe existed.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3409400161.html

78 posted on 08/18/2012 12:01:43 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (Goode over evil. Voting for mitt or obie is like throwing your country away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; YHAOS; Zeneta; fishtank; allmendream; MrB; MHGinTN
I'm sure Isaac Newton took quite a risk publicly disagreeing with radiometric dating.

Are you joking tacticalogic?

When did Isaac Newton ever publicly disagree with radiometric dating? Indeed, how could he have done so, since nobody at the time had ever even heard of "radiation?"

It seems to me that, in Newton's time, knowledge of the atom and atomic behavior hadn't advanced all that much beyond the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus of Abdera (ca. 460 – 370 BC).

79 posted on 08/18/2012 12:37:32 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MrB; Alamo-Girl; tacticalogic; allmendream; YHAOS; Zeneta; fishtank; hosepipe
Those cultures (Chinese, Muslims) which didn't have this foundational belief gave up on scientific advancements as futile because they had no expectation of consistency or rationality in nature.

Excellent observation, MrB!!! Thank you!

What evolutionists seem not to wish to explain is how a purely "blind, random process" can generate consistency and rationality in nature.

Another way to put the question (as Plato did): If natural phenomena are solely the products of ceaseless change (i.e., "evolution"), then how can anything ever be anything at all?

tacticalogic, allmendream: Care to take a stab at that question?

It seems the fundamental duality of the Universe consists of that which does not change, and that which is capable of changing. Evolution entirely omits the former from its mindscape....

Which is why Darwin's theory appears to be so irrational to me. FWIW.

80 posted on 08/18/2012 12:56:27 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Sister BooP you nailed it ..... YET AGAIN...
You have a “habit” of doing that...


81 posted on 08/18/2012 1:59:25 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

[ So . . . Why ask me? ( ^8 } ]

I suspect, because you’re not as dumb as you look... d;-)...


82 posted on 08/18/2012 2:02:59 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

I thought he was being sarcastic, actually. But then I was having a Hebrew moment ... studying my Hebrew don’tchaknow.


83 posted on 08/18/2012 2:17:23 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Well if studying Hebrew gets you a sarcasm detector, then maybe I should study Hebrew, too!
84 posted on 08/18/2012 3:12:23 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Thank you for your kind words, dear brother ‘Pipe!


85 posted on 08/18/2012 3:14:01 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Are you joking tacticalogic?

To the same degree they are joking by putting him on that list posted at 32.

86 posted on 08/18/2012 3:19:18 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Anything using DNA is incapable of staying the same. DNA cannot replicate without error.

Is a coyote not a coyote if it has 5% wolf ancestry? It can BE just fine without fitting nicely into one neat category.

Humans want things to be clearly defined. Nature is usually not so obliging.


87 posted on 08/18/2012 4:35:23 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: gcraig

I find you arrogant in thinking that I have not read every word of the Bible AND that doing so would change my acceptance of science.

The Pope is a renowned Biblical scholar and accepts evolution. Would you suggest he should read the Bible until his opinion changes?


88 posted on 08/18/2012 4:42:21 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; MHGinTN; MrB; allmendream; YHAOS; Zeneta; fishtank; hosepipe
Well, I do agree that it's a tad "anachronistic" to put Isaac Newton on the list fishtank posted at #32. (Ditto for Louis Pasteur.)

I have no idea whether Newton was a Young Earth Creationist. But I have no doubt at all that he was a Creationist — in the sense that he believed that God created the Universe, that God is "the Lord of Life [Who Is eternally] with His Creatures."

That latter characterization indicates that Newton believed that God not only created the Universe, but is constantly, eternally "in contact" with it.

And a further thought that touches on MrB's earlier observation: It was Newton's understanding that the intelligibility of the Universe owes exclusively to the "fact" that it is the product of the will and mind of the eternal God. It could have no order except as the manifestation of the Logos of divine creation. And if it had no such order, then scientific discovery would be impossible.

Like Einstein (who loved Newton), Newton's motivation as a scientist was to discover the laws that God built into the world.

So I think it's pretty clear that Newton would have rejected Darwin's theory, had he ever heard about it. Which, of course, he hadn't.

89 posted on 08/18/2012 4:51:19 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Humans want things to be clearly defined. Nature is usually not so obliging.

And yet in this matter, it appears you want Nature to "oblige" you, by conforming to your ideological commitments.

90 posted on 08/18/2012 4:54:47 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

You a mindreader now? It has nothing to do with me that nature often doesn’t conform to fitting in well defined boxes. If you want to argue that nature always does or should I can oblige you. If you want to make the argument about me, as apparently you do, I am uninterested.


91 posted on 08/18/2012 5:15:04 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; betty boop
"Quantum moment" has a nice ring to it, dear hosepipe, especially when thinking about quantum entanglement.
92 posted on 08/18/2012 9:07:02 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; TXnMA; MrB; YHAOS
Another way to put the question (as Plato did): If natural phenomena are solely the products of ceaseless change (i.e., "evolution"), then how can anything ever be anything at all?

Right to the heart of the matter, dearest sister in Christ, thank you!

Indeed, I aver that the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences is like God's copyright notice on the cosmos.

God's Name is I AM.

93 posted on 08/18/2012 9:36:16 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
So I think it's pretty clear that Newton would have rejected Darwin's theory, had he ever heard about it. Which, of course, he hadn't.

That's probably true.

But I would think the relevant question would be whether he would have rejected radiometric dating, since that is the subject of the article. I don't think an assumption that because he would reject one means he would have to reject the other is valid.

94 posted on 08/18/2012 9:41:04 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop; TXnMA; MrB; YHAOS

Also keep in mind, “steady decay rate” is only ONE of many assumptions one must make in order to “date” rocks radiometrically. Three others are assumption of “initial” state, contamination of the sample, or leaching out of the elements/atoms in question.


95 posted on 08/19/2012 4:13:33 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: MrB; betty boop; TXnMA; YHAOS
Truly, steadiness is key in bases for scientific measurement, including decay rate, i.e. radiometric dating. And where there is a qualification to the measurement of an object, thing or phenomenon - for the sake of full disclosure and accuracy, that qualification should be included along with the measurement.

For instance, although general relativity and the inflationary model are widely accepted by scientists we rarely see age of the universe measurements supplemented by the phrase "from our present space/time coordinates."

96 posted on 08/19/2012 7:25:27 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop; YHAOS; Whosoever

[ “Quantum moment” has a nice ring to it, dear hosepipe, especially when thinking about quantum entanglement. ]

Quantum “Balls of String(S)” better called “matter”...
Is an interesting subject.. agreed..

In my “vision” that I had, I saw it as (A)”Designated matter/energy” and (B)”UN-designated energy/matter”...

(A) being balls of strings...
(B) just strings.. whatever they are..

Whoever gave me the “vision” seems to know.. I choose to call “it” the Holy Spirit(giver of visions) but any name will do since the Holy Spirit has no name anyway..

Seems to me the money concept is, who designates and UN-designates “stuff”.. AND if stuff can be designated From un-designated what is the un-designated(stuff) <<- “Dark Matter???”..


97 posted on 08/19/2012 10:58:30 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; MrB; MHGinTN; allmendream; YHAOS; Zeneta; fishtank
I don't think an assumption that because he would reject one [Darwin's theory] means he would have to reject the other [radiometric dating] is valid.

Neither is that my assumption at all, dear tacticalogic!

The two are not at all directly comparable. One — Darwin's theory — is based on a speculation regarding the historical evolution of the biota which some people find "intuitive" and "emotionally satisfying."

Seems to me this has more to do with proving Nietzsche's dictum — "God is dead" — is correct than with showing how species actually evolve. Plus it goes without saying that historical events are precisely those which are not known and cannot be known by means of direct observation. But genuine science must stick to the latter.

To the extent that radiometric dating relies on direct observation, and can be validated by replicable experiments, Newton probably would have approved of it.

But bear in mind that Newton had no knowledge whatever of relativistic and quantum effects that bear on the behavior of material bodies. And it is also true — as Alamo-Girl and MrB have already pointed out — that a fundamental presupposition WRT radioactive decay rates is that they are "steady" and uniform over time. But if actual observations indicate that this may not be the case — the thesis of the article at the top of this thread — then on what principle does this presupposition rest?

Newton's sublime work describes the behavior of material bodies at all scales, which he expressed in terms of mechanical action. But he was the very first to say that any mechanistic system would generate and accumulate errors over time, which would tend to "derange" the systems so described. Implicit in Newton's work is the idea of Final Cause, otherwise known as purpose or goals operating in Nature: For Newton allowed that God himself would have to step in every now and then to set matters aright again, to restore the order of material systems over time.

Compare this with the Darwinist belief that biological systems evolve by chance + selection. Looking to the logic of Newton's reasoning, it would appear that he would say instead that living systems evolve according to their Limit (the Aristotelian Final Cause) and not ever by "pure, blind chance," as Jacques Monod put it.

Anyhoot, back to the problem of radiometric dating, and its expectation that decay rates are steady and therefore predictable. This may not be the case.

A similar problem for physics these days is that, even though the expectation is the expansion of the universe proceeds at a steady rate, recent observational data indicate that this expansion has actually accelerated in "recent" times. Which tends to show that the expectation of a steady expansion rate has no basis in observational fact. Likewise, recently observed anomalies in the behavior of material objects in the vicinity of the event horizon of black holes do not conform with expectations (scientific predictions).

It seems to me that physics itself has bumped up hard against its own self-imposed limitations, the most critical being the banishment of Final Cause from its field of study, which was arguably the entire point of Francis Bacon's scientific revolution.

Science retains the other three Aristotelian causes: Formal, material, efficient. But Final Cause — again, which deals with purposes, goals, limits in Nature — is totally gone from its permissible methods.

In my very humble opinion, science has to being back Final Cause if it expects to make any further progress. It seems to be at a dead end without it.

It seems to me that issues of relativistic and quantum behavior could be further illuminated by the reintroduction of Final Cause to science.

JMHO FWIW

Thanks so much for writing, dear tacticalogic!

98 posted on 08/19/2012 10:59:19 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Just a note: radiometric dating assumes a large enough ‘gaggle’ of atoms such that the unpredictable decay of individual atoms is averaged out for the ‘gaggle’ as an average rate of decay. Of course ‘sampling’ can have an effect, as in where in the ‘gaggle’ the sample is taken and the localized effects on ‘neighborhoods’ in the gaggle.


99 posted on 08/19/2012 11:27:34 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; Alamo-Girl
In my “vision” that I had, I saw it as (A)”Designated matter/energy” and (B)”UN-designated energy/matter”...

Dear 'Pipe, my brother in Christ, I take the "vision" you had as further evidence in support of my own thesis about the fundamental duality implicit in the natural world, which consists of: (a) The "designated" component — that which eternally does not change (e.g., Being, Truth, Logos); and (b) the "undesignated," or "free" component — that which is capable of changing (all existent natural systems, which have no real Being "in their own right," but only as participants in divine Being, and thus, though "undesignated" in advance, still must behave according to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God").

Eric Voegelin commented about the "indefeasible integrity of the [human] soul." I think you're proving him right there, too.

Thank you, dear brother in Christ, for sharing your marvelous insights!

100 posted on 08/19/2012 11:31:43 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-205 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson