HRG

We are arguing over details, but I still like to add the following points.

Newtonian mechanics, too, recognizes the equivalence of all inertial systems for purely mechanical processes. The difference is only that the transformations between different inertial systems are Galilei transformations instead of Lorentz transformations; and Galilei tr. are limits of Lorentz tr. as c -> infinity.

Light, like all electromagnetic processes, is obviously outside of the proper domain of Newtonian mechanics.

This may be a pet peeve of mine, but I've read too many "Einstein proved that Newtonian is completely wrong; how can you be sure that someone will not prove that evolution is completely wrong?" arguments by creationists.

Regards,
HRG.

Stephen T-B

Religions - specifically Christianity and Islam - claim to know absolute truth because it reaches them, via divine revelation, from god.
To question that is to question
1) the validity of divine revelation, which would fatally subvert the whole structure of their religious teachings
2) the reliability of their god, with the same result.

The fact is, religious “truth” has its own meaning, and is to be found in the same bag as the “truth” contained in the statement: “I love you.”

What is noticeable about people who subscribe to religious beliefs is their assumption that everyone else on the planet shares their perspectives. So Christians, wedded to a religious belief, are unable to understand that atheists are actually without religion; they assume they have replaced a theist religion with a non-theist religion.
Their view of truth is the same: religion provides them with the absolute truth - and an explanation for everything - as revealed by god; Science, by contrast, is often tentative, and because they are temperamentally / emotionally dependent on certainty, some of them struggle to discredit it.

Starboy

Greetings HRG,

Your comment illustrates my point well. IMHO “truth” is in the mind’s eye of the beholder. In the argument you post science does come up short. Religious “truth” by implicit convention is absolutely true and unchanging whereas scientific “truth” is not “truth” at all, but something that changes over time. When you engage in such an argument you have already lost. I think it is important to remember that the theory of evolution was not concocted to be the “truth”, but to explain in natural terms the variety and complexity that is observed around us and in the fossil record. Nothing works better at this then evolution. Genesis is a myth. Its purpose was to present a mystical “truth”. Only those who are profoundly ignorant would ever consider it to be a literal description of the physical world. There is no point in arguing with such people. If you must have discourse with those types, your time would be better spent trying to shore up their pitiful education.

Starboy

Starboy

If they understood what religion and science were, we would not be having this discussion.

The problem with Christianity is that anyone can become a Christian and it is not required that they know a damn thing about what they profess.

It is also an incredibly dishonest multi-tiered marketing scheme that is protected by law. Any other human activity that engaged in the deceptive tactics practiced by Christians would have been outlawed long ago.

Starboy

Bubba

Actually this makes a pretty damn good life philosophy if you think about it.

Bubba

Bubba

Which is a real problem for religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Bubba
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

RufusAtticus

It's also a problem with politics.

Bubba

Why else would Bush be thinking of invading Iraq?

I think that most people don't understand politics, just like most people don't understand science. There's no direct an immediate pentalty for ignorance, so people often remain ignorant.

Bubba

Starboy

At least in principle there is supposed to be a selection process for politicians. There is none whatsoever for christians.

Starboy