SIMPLE Astronomical Evidence Supports the Bible

Hi Ptolemy,Carefully defining your terms would make it easier for people to understand your point. For example, you say: You earlier suggested that people scan through Aristotle's metaphysics, but there aren't many people who will do that, plus you're expected to make your arguments here, not hand out reading assignments.Poking about on the web I found Aristotle's First Principle of Logic, that holds that soemthing cannot be simultaneously both true and false, also called the principle of non-contradiction, but that doesn't seem the right first principle for this context.I found this definition of Aristotle's First Principle at Science and Worldviews: This would mean that someone who rejects Aristotle's First Principle is actually rejecting all of western science, especially fields like physics and chemistry, so that couldn't possibly be right.What I think you really mean by Aristotle's First Principle is what you at one point earlier in your post stated as Aristotle's belief "that there is something whose nature is changeless." This is from Book IV of Aristotle's Metaphysics, which most commentators believe is very difficult to interpret. You're the only person I could find on the web who refers to this as Aristotle's First Principle.Whether or not a rejection of changelessness is consistent with the Bible, it is certainly consistent with modern science. But you go on to say: The items you mention, cosmological expansion, dark matter, dark energy, black holes and the big bang, are all postulated because of evidence and are not "merely mathematical". Evidence for all these things varies. For example, the evidence for cosmological expansion, the big bang and black holes is extremely strong, while evidence for dark matter is indirect, and that for dark energy is probably the closest to being what you called "merely mathematical", though it is necessary under current theory to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. Inutility? Together-words? Excluding atoms from all creation? Could you express this in terms other people can understand?I did some hard work figuring out your meaning and didn't get much of anywhere. If the one significant constant in discussions with you becomes that people can't understand what you're trying to say then what's the point of being here? Could I request that you take to heart this criticism that extends back to your initial topic proposal and make a much greater effort to render your contributions intelligible to the average person?--PercyThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-20-2005 12:47 AM

Hi Ptolemy,You had me confused there for a bit. It seems you quoted PhatBoy but replied to Eta. This would be incorrect. You're probably trying to say that the stars in the outer regions of spiral galaxies have approximately the same orbital period, not the same speed, around the galactic core as closer stars. It is this observation that tells us our galaxy must be surrounded by a halo of dark unobservable matter, because the orbital period of a star like our sun around the galactic center (around 220 million years) is a direct function of the amount of mass enclosed with the orbit (for example, see Rotation of Our Galaxy and Rotation Curve of Galaxy for some pretty clear explanations).Since stars further from the galactic center than our sun have roughly the same orbital period, that means there must be considerable mass in the region of space between our respective orbits. But when we observe this region there is far too little observable matter (i.e., luminous matter) to account for the orbital period, and so we know that there must be a great deal of matter present that we cannot see. In this way the observed phenoma of equal orbital periods for orbits of different radii leads directly to the conclusion of dark matter. There are experts here who can better comment about this possibility, but I believe you are correct that astronomers do not believe the spiral arms of galaxies are ejecta from the galactic core. If this were the case then they would have a radial outward velocity, not an orbital velocity. Hopefully someone more knowledegable than me will comment. The description of density waves you found at Answers.com is not an explanation for the orbital period phenomena you tried to describe above, but only a theory for why the stars in some galaxies organize themselves into clearly identifiable spiral arms. I think people's response to this has pretty uniformly been that they don't understand what you mean when you talk about matter as a relationship or things changing as a relationship. Perhaps you could provide a specific and detailed example. Constants that change aren't constants, so again, I don't know what you mean.--Percy

I'm afraid I'm going to have to correct you some more. As I already explained, dark matter isn't undetectable. We know with absolute certainty that it isn't undetectable because we've detected it. It is because of its gravitational effects that it is detectable. Were it undetectable it would have no gravitational effects, or any others, for that matter.Your argument was that when scientists confront evidence that conflicts with their primary assumption (their arche, as you put it), they invent undetectable things. You used dark matter as an example. But since dark matter is detectable, your example fails.Rendering arche in red isn't providing a remedy to the lack of a definition. You claim, in effect, that scientists make things up when confronted with conflicts to their primary assumption, but you still haven't explained what that primary assumption is. But the issue of changelessness or constancy keeps coming up, and so I'm beginning to believe that what I stated back in Message 12 must be what you actually mean by primary assumption: Is this the first principle you say you are rejecting? Pi is a property of circles in a Euclidean geometry. The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is a constant. But you're rejecting changelessness, i.e., constancy. You seem to be contradicting yourself.I think you contradict yourself again concerning Peter's first principle. You argue that the Bible is absolute truth, but then propose that Peter's arache (whatever it is) is wrong. Since Peter states his arache in the Bible, that would mean the Bible contains error and could not be absolute truth.--Percy

I think you're going to have to put this in familiar terms that people will recognize and understand. If this is a foundational principle of science it isn't one I've ever heard of. I can't know if I agree with you until you can articulate what that principle is in terms I can understand. The way you're currently describing it is not something I've ever heard before. I do a lot of scientific reading, and I don't recall anyone ever insisting upon a scientific first principle, though the one I cited in my Message 12 seems a pretty good one.Not that we don't all respect Aristotle, but Western science is thought to be based more upon the thinking of Francis Bacon. If Peter says this in the Bible, how can you reject it?--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 04-15-2005 04:16 PM

I'd like to add my voice to the others to please clearly define this First Principle. I think it would help everyone understand what you're trying to say if you could follow these requests while defining it:

• Please do not use the word arache.
  ​
• Please do not use the phrase "matter changing as a relationship" or any variation along these lines.
  ​
• Please use clear examples.

You might want to reconsider your views on this First Principle of yours. Despite your claims that this principle is fundamental to western science, no one here who's familiar with science has ever heard of it or has any idea what you're talking about.I gave you what I thought might be the definition of your First Principle in Message 12, and again in Message 25, and you have yet to comment on it. Could you please comment on it this time? Here it is again: If this or something close is your first principle then I think we would probably agree that some principle along these lines is fundamental to scientific study.--Percy

You characterization of a first principle is not generalized but is simply a characterization of your own first principle.Your first principle remains undefined. You've merely repeated yourself again. Things remaining unchanged in being or as a relation means nothing to anyone but you.Why don't you try this? Describe one of the theories of western science that has been influenced by your first principle and describe how the theory would be different if the first principle had not been followed.--Percy

This would be incorrect. The properties of dark matter are not defined by scientists, but are only what they measure about them. They've measured only gravitational effects, but these gravitational effects are very real, as was already explained to you in Message 25, to which you posted no reply. Scientists do not yet know the makeup of dark matter, but the two proposals I'm aware of are WIMPs (Weakly Interactive Massive Particles) and MACHOs (Massive Astrophyical Compact Halo Objects). Whatever dark matter is eventually discovered to be, because its gravitational effects are very real we can be sure that dark matter is real, too. I'd like to ask two things of you. Please explain Aristotle's Conjecture in a way that other people can understand. And explain how rejecting this conjecture helps provide a better explanation for why the stars and clouds in galaxies have roughly constant orbital periods about the galactic center.--Percy

If it isn't possible to separate cause from effect, then you can't know whether the first principle has an effect. And since you can't articulate the first principle in understandable terms, or provide examples of the effects of the first principle, your use of the first principle in your arguments carries no weight. You cannot convince people that the first principle has an effect until you can tell people what it is. Once again, if you can't tell us what this historical assumption was, and you can't tell us what its effects are, it may as well not exist. What are those assumptions? This is incorrect. Science has actually discovered that all parts of the universe we can detect follow the same natural laws as here on earth. We see matter and energy here on earth, we see matter and energy throughout the universe. We see a star at the center of our solar system, we see stars throughout all space. Our solar system is part of a galaxy, and we see galaxies spread throughout the universe. Our solar system has planets, we've detected planets in orbit around nearby stars. The universe out there is pretty much the same as the universe around here. As already explained in Message 21, evidence does not support your view that the stars and gas of galaxies were ejected. The stars and gas of galaxies like ours do not have a radial outward velocity such as they must have if they were ejecta. Basing your conclusions on visual inspection of pictures of galaxies instead of detailed analysis is misleading you. You cannot concede that the material in galaxies revolves around the galactic center and remain consistent with your prior statement that the material in galaxies is ejecta that would have radial velocities. In order to make any point about a first principle, you must first define it, something you have yet to do. You haven't even provided an example of it. You need more than excuses for why despite its far reaching effects, it can't be defined or explained or even provide examples of the first principle at work. So far we have only your claim there is a first principle. You've provided no workable definition, no understandable explanation, no examples. I'm thinking that you should work toward more effective ways of making your points clear. You could have a very important and insightful point, but it does the world no good if you can't explain it to anyone.--Percy

Unless third time's a charm, don't waste your breath. I've pointed this out to him twice already, to no effect. He just ignores it and continues repeating himself.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 04-25-2005 01:28 PM