Is evolution sin?

[Prayerful]

Pope Pius XII's encyclical of 1950, Humani generis expressed a wary neutrality. A Catholic cannot be a literalist. They should see how the evidence falls.

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

[Quaremerepulisti]

In order to measure anything though we need an absolute thing that doesn't change.

Absolutely wrong.  ALL measurement is relative to something else, which is relative to what is measured.  Think about it.  Our definition of what is "absolute" is arbitrary.  I could make the claim that everything in the universe grew by 2X during the time you are reading this post.  You can't refute it.

We measure space by time, but time is not absolute.  What are we measuring time by? 

Change.  Some kind of change, whether it is the number of rotations of the earth on its axis, the number of revolutions of the earth around the sun, or the number of atomic decays of a certain radioactive element, etc.  This is ALL time is.  Think about it.

God confounds our attempts at ultimate knowledge everywhere; not sure why you'd call that skepticism.

Of course.  But God doesn't confound our attempts at some and relative knowledge everywhere and always.  We don't need to take Last Thursdayism seriously; and we do not need to take the hypothesis that God created starlight "in transit" with evidence of supernova explosions that never happened seriously either.

[Baldrick]

In order to measure anything though we need an absolute thing that doesn't change.

Absolutely wrong.  ALL measurement is relative to something else, which is relative to what is measured.  Think about it.  Our definition of what is "absolute" is arbitrary.  I could make the claim that everything in the universe grew by 2X during the time you are reading this post.  You can't refute it.

Are you trying to be ironic here, lol?  Somehow I doubt it.   

So you couldn't be more wrong actually.  The whole thrust of modern physics is to find an absolute constant by way to measure.

We measure space by time, but time is not absolute.  What are we measuring time by? 

Change.  Some kind of change, whether it is the number of rotations of the earth on its axis, the number of revolutions of the earth around the sun, or the number of atomic decays of a certain radioactive element, etc.  This is ALL time is.  Think about it.

So we measure space by time, which is not an absolute-constant.  And your answer to the question of "how we measure time" is that we observe change in matter as it takes place in space.  That is what time is; but it isn't a constant because it is based upon what isn't a constant.  Thus, the time-space continuum - being both a supposition and a conundrum - is exactly why theoretical physicists have been looking for a constant by which to measure.         

God confounds our attempts at ultimate knowledge everywhere; not sure why you'd call that skepticism.

Of course.  But God doesn't confound our attempts at some and relative knowledge everywhere and always.  We don't need to take Last Thursdayism seriously; and we do not need to take the hypothesis that God created starlight "in transit" with evidence of supernova explosions that never happened seriously either.

Knowledge that last Thursday happened is a far cry from determining the age and size of the universe itself.  The former is a simple operation of memory.  The latter involves measuring everything with a yardstick that changes size and shape.   

[Baldrick]

One thing I find very interesting is how amateurs (like myself) have a tendency to believe things are clearer and more sure than they in fact are.  My brother is a theoretical physicist; he would probably guffaw at my above attempt to explain. 

However, one thing he he would say, if he were here, is that physics is hitting major brick walls - both at the macro level (how old/large is everything) and the subatomic level.  That is, at these extreme ends of the spectrum, "it's as if we are being confounded" - those are his words, not mine. 

And he's a rabid atheist-secularist in the mold of Dawkins. 

[Quaremerepulisti]

So you couldn't be more wrong actually.  The whole thrust of modern physics is to find an absolute constant by way to measure.

Interesting.  Perhaps you could provide a citation to a published article?

Your "absolute" constant either has units, or it is unitless.  If it has units, then it is by definition not "absolute" since the unit could change.  If it is unitless, then it is impossible to measure anything with it as it is just a number.

So we measure space by time, which is not an absolute-constant.  And your answer to the question of "how we measure time" is that we observe change in matter as it takes place in space.  That is what time is; but it isn't a constant because it is based upon what isn't a constant.  Thus, the time-space continuum - being both a supposition and a conundrum - is exactly why theoretical physicists have been looking for a constant by which to measure.

There is no such thing.

Knowledge that last Thursday happened is a far cry from determining the age and size of the universe itself.  The former is a simple operation of memory which is known in many cases to be unreliable. The latter involves measuring everything with a yardstick that changes size and shape but which is known in most cases to yield reproducible measurements.

See, you are arbitrarily determining that our memory should be reliable, whereas our yardstick should not.  There is no basis for this determination.  It is completely ad hoc.

Even well before Vatican II, the Church has declined to follow the lead of some Protestants in denying the findings of science regarding an old earth and universe, a non-geographically universal flood, and so on, while nevertheless upholding the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture.  Wise thinkers realized that to do so would be to saw off the branch apologetics sits upon and to resort to a Fideist-like approach.

[Baldrick]

So you couldn't be more wrong actually.  The whole thrust of modern physics is to find an absolute constant by way to measure.

Interesting.  Perhaps you could provide a citation to a published article?

Your "absolute" constant either has units, or it is unitless.  If it has units, then it is by definition not "absolute" since the unit could change.  If it is unitless, then it is impossible to measure anything with it as it is just a number.

So we measure space by time, which is not an absolute-constant.  And your answer to the question of "how we measure time" is that we observe change in matter as it takes place in space.  That is what time is; but it isn't a constant because it is based upon what isn't a constant.  Thus, the time-space continuum - being both a supposition and a conundrum - is exactly why theoretical physicists have been looking for a constant by which to measure.

There is no such thing.

So, if you take the famous E = MC (sq)

What do you think the value "C" represents?  And what was the whole point?  And what was so revolutionary about it?  And why was it so important.   

....edit: the supreme court just legalized gay marriage... just got a note from my fiancee.  I can't believe it.  Sorry, Q, shall return to this interesting discussion...

[james03]

 

ALL measurement is relative to something else,

Rotation appears to be absolute.

You could argue that the thing rotating is made up of atoms, and there is a relative rotation with the atoms.  However the rotation as a whole is absolute, not relative.  Interesting subject.

[james03]

Bacteria populations adapt and develop resistance to antibiotics;

Maybe not.  It might be epigenetics, for example the genes for an ABC transporter being switched on.

[Quaremerepulisti]

ALL measurement is relative to something else,

Rotation appears to be absolute.

No, there is no difference kinematically between me rotating in my chair relative to a stationary universe and the entire universe rotating around a stationary me.

If you want to argue dynamics (e.g. I get dizzy from the centrifugal and Coriolis forces on the fluid in my vestibular system): 1) modern physics shows that the universe rotating around me in fact produces centrifugal and Coriolis forces; and 2) the choice of preferred frame as one with zero centrifugal and Coriolis forces (inertial frame) is arbitrary anyway.

[Baldrick]

So you couldn't be more wrong actually.  The whole thrust of modern physics is to find an absolute constant by way to measure.

Interesting.  Perhaps you could provide a citation to a published article?

Your "absolute" constant either has units, or it is unitless.  If it has units, then it is by definition not "absolute" since the unit could change.  If it is unitless, then it is impossible to measure anything with it as it is just a number.

So we measure space by time, which is not an absolute-constant.  And your answer to the question of "how we measure time" is that we observe change in matter as it takes place in space.  That is what time is; but it isn't a constant because it is based upon what isn't a constant.  Thus, the time-space continuum - being both a supposition and a conundrum - is exactly why theoretical physicists have been looking for a constant by which to measure.

There is no such thing.

So, if you take the famous E = MC (sq)

What do you think the value "C" represents?  And what was the whole point?  And what was so revolutionary about it?  And why was it so important.   

....edit: the supreme court just legalized gay marriage... just got a note from my fiancee.  I can't believe it.  Sorry, Q, shall return to this interesting discussion...

Anyway, the point is:  "C" not only stands for the speed of light, the letter "C" was used to indicate a Constant.  Einstein, like everyone else in the 20th century, had been looking for a constant by which to measure everything else.  It is not at all clear that he found it, however, even in the speed of light. 

Anyway, if theoretical physicists see the measurement problem as fundamental - and as rooted in the deeper problem of what we can hold as a constant - then I'm not going to argue. 

[Quaremerepulisti]

Anyway, the point is:  "C" not only stands for the speed of light, the letter "C" was used to indicate a Constant.  Einstein, like everyone else in the 20th century, had been looking for a constant by which to measure everything else.  It is not at all clear that he found it, however, even in the speed of light. 

Hardly.  Then throw in the cosmological model of an expanding universe, and c is even less constant.

Anyway, if theoretical physicists see the measurement problem as fundamental - and as rooted in the deeper problem of what we can hold as a constant - then I'm not going to argue.

Absolute space could exist in theory, as could absolute time.  But we have no way of getting from our measurements to absolute space or time.  We have no way of knowing whether our measuring unit - whatever it is - whether it's a yardstick, an atomic clock counting decay events, rotation of earth on its axis, or anything else - is or is not changing relative to absolute space or time.  And all other measurements are going to be relative to that unit.

[james03]

2) the choice of preferred frame as one with zero centrifugal and Coriolis forces (inertial frame) is arbitrary anyway.

It is not arbitrary, that is the point.  Rotation involves acceleration.  It is absolute.  If you put two objects together, and rotate them, they will put a measurable tension on a connecting string.

Now you can have an unknown VELOCITY of the axis of rotation.  That is not measurable absolutely.  But rotation is measurable.  That is how inertial guidance works.  Send up a space craft.  Send it in all different directions.  If you have working gyros, you can go back to where you started (throw in an accelerometer to figure out the relative velocities).  But you can point back to the starting point even without an accelerometer.

As far as the argument from modern physics, easily disproven.  Remove the universe.  You'd still be able to tell if an object is rotating by measuring the acceleration.

[Quaremerepulisti]

2) the choice of preferred frame as one with zero centrifugal and Coriolis forces (inertial frame) is arbitrary anyway.

It is not arbitrary, that is the point.  Rotation involves acceleration.  It is absolute.  If you put two objects together, and rotate them, they will put a measurable tension on a connecting string.

Yes, but nothing forces you to choose the frame in which the centrifugal force is zero. You can choose the frame which is stationary relative to the two objects, put a centrifugal force into the equations of motion, and everything works out just fine.

Now you can have an unknown VELOCITY of the axis of rotation.  That is not measurable absolutely.  But rotation is measurable.  That is how inertial guidance works.  Send up a space craft.  Send it in all different directions.  If you have working gyros, you can go back to where you started (throw in an accelerometer to figure out the relative velocities).  But you can point back to the starting point even without an accelerometer.

And all this still works even if you choose a non-inertial frame to do the calculations.

As far as the argument from modern physics, easily disproven.  Remove the universe.  You'd still be able to tell if an object is rotating by measuring the acceleration.

No, you wouldn't.  Rotating relative to what, if there are no fixed stars?  "Mass there = inertia here."

[james03]

Eliminate the rest of the universe.  Have two objects connected by a string and strain gage.  If there is a strain on the gage, the objects are rotating.  If there is no strain, the objects are not rotating.

For a one object system, put an accelerometer on the surface.  If it measures acceleration, then the object is spinning.  If not, then it is not rotating.

Appears absolute to me.   

[Rube]

Eliminate the rest of the universe.  Have two objects connected by a string and strain gage.  If there is a strain on the gage, the objects are rotating.  If there is no strain, the objects are not rotating.

For a one object system, put an accelerometer on the surface.  If it measures acceleration, then the object is spinning.  If not, then it is not rotating.

Appears absolute to me.

You really only need one object with a gauge attached indicating some centrifugal force. I think that would work if the rotation was at constant velocity. Of course, I don't think it would not work if substantial gravity is involved.

I don't believe an accelerometer measures constant velocity?