RE: Predetermination: God's controlling will?

From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 15:57:36 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Predetermination: God's controlling will?"

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
    >Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 10:20 PM
    >To: glennmorton@entouch.net
    >Cc: hvantill@chartermi.net; asa@calvin.edu
    >Subject: Re: Predetermination: God's controlling will?
    >
    >
    >Glenn,
    >I'm not talking about nonsense. The YEC position is not scientific.
    >Einstein's two relativity theories are. I noted Whitehead's attempt to
    >replace Riemannian geometry (1925--if my memory serves). It fit what was
    >known, but not what was later discovered. A later attempt to "correct"
    >Einstein was produced by Dicke and someone whose name I don't recall.

    Brans-Dicke theory I beleive it was. See Thornton, Misener and Wheeler,
    Gravitation, p1048 and following and 1068 and following.

    Now, while I believe there are an infinite number of theories, the fact that
    they are so hard to find tells me that they are not all equally good.

    If there are an infinite number of theories to explain the facts of
    relativity all of which are equally good, why are they so difficult to find?
    I know of none as of this time, since Whitehead, Brans-Dicke and the rest
    have been refuted. The only reason I can see for believing an infintitude of
    theories is if they are trivial, non-testable clones. That is why I cited
    the YEC stuff.

    >Many predictions identical to Einstein's, one clearly different. That one
    >did it in after the experimentalists were able to mount a test. There was
    >an article on these multiple theories in /Scientific American/ a goodly
    >number of years back (can't locate the reference), listing a couple dozen
    >alternatives. Not all, if I remember correctly, were intended to
    >supplant: some were designed to clarify. Given the complexity of
    >relativity, I don't expect to see a large number of alternates. That
    >there are any indicates that scientific theories are not unique to a set
    >of data.

    I would agree with that.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 13 2003 - 15:58:09 EDT