Hi Brad:
Well, it is hard for me to “rationalize” that the people you named a priori dismiss “things like transubstantiation.” Is there actual information that Einstein dismissed it?
You must be kidding....
In case you are not then I think it safe to assume if Einstein did not believe in the existence of the soul and a personal God capable of being embraced through revelation; then it is equally safe to assume he did not believe in transubstantiation.
Now, have you read,
Jammer's book on the history of mass with Einstein intro?
While reading this, I %was% able to relate RATIONALLY the notion of transubstantiation to the issue of unobservables in scientific theories by giving a certain reading between the lines over the transition to premodern notions beyond the Greek division of fire, earth, air, and water. This was thought by me in the 80s and is no longer particularly the track my mind runs over and over again.
No, I have not read the book mentioned.
Are you saying an insight was suddenly triggered while reading a book on physics that recognized the concept of transubstantiation in a scientific argument or principle ?
Also you could know something about
Kervran's elemental transmutation review
Negative. I quickly scanned the link and its content and the science is way above my head.
because this idea provides a basis to carry the thought of macroscopic unobservables in biology right back to this historical analysis via Jammer provided one dealt with modern skepticism in physics. You can learn from Von Weisacker (“Unity of Science”) that the word “transmutation” was used simultaineoulsy in biology and physics during the 20s and 30s.
Fascinating Brad. But what is YOUR point....make an application revelant to the OP thesis ?
Thanks for reminding me about an old thought I had had on the relation of speciation and transubstantiation. Unfortunately we substitute a single judgement often where mentally more than one probably does exist.
This thought actually helps to answer my first query above. I think you are saying that the OP suddenly reminded you of the religious concept while innocently reading a physics book. If so, this is the point of the OP. The ORIGIN of transmutation is Pentateuchal prohibited RELIGIOUS worship (idolatry). I have not traced the exact path of the concept as to how it was introduced into science, but, the point is, that transmutation is not indigenous to science or scientific thought.
The next earliest emergence of transmutation outside of the Old Testament that I am prepared to argue comes in the New Testament. When Christ resurrected His burial cloth was left with an imprint of His face. Science has determined that the image on the Shroud was caused by heat and light. The image is now verified as the result of scorching and not any paints or dyes (one side only three dimensional).
Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud is now proven inaccurate....the dates produced are now viewed as scatter....because there is evidence that the Shroud was subjected to a transmutation phenomenon....the carbon 14 ratios were blown making an accurate dating impossible. [Dr. Gene Scott]
Critics say radiodating does not work on cloth or fiber anyway.
The point is transmutation is a supernatural concept. Darwinists, undoubtedly, have no interest in finding out how the same made its way into their minds. The OP answers this question SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SPECIATION IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. Therefore, we have evidence of the effects of the presence of something invisible (not the atomic particles of physics) but Satan. How could the Darwinist think transmutation has occurred if there is no physical observation corresponding with the idea ? Homology is circumstantial falsified by many monkey wrenches that are hand-waved away by saying "natural-selection-did-it".
Where are observable intermediate effects of natural selection besides varieties ? Reductionist extrapolationism (transubspeciation) gone amok.
If it really is possible for one creature to transsubstatiate itself into another (and this will be doubted up and down on EVC) the issue of "symbols" will be a result with consequences for philosophy before it is for theory in biology. That last statment is impossible to establish if one seeks a priori rejection without concurrent synthesis of empirical determinations. This is what "modern" science defensively wears the hat of.
I have read this paragraph numerous times and your point is just beyond my grasp.
Ray
Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2