Evolution Vs Creationism

[Nightingale]

Gravity isn't a law... its simply an observable force.

if you think about what happens when you stretch out a bedsheet and drop a basketball in the middle, and then drop a bunch of marbles and see where they roll to, you get an idea of how gravity works on a 2 dimensional level. Gravity is actually 3 dimensional, and the sheet represents a volume of space, not an area, but you can get the idea.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by qizmoduis
Not exactly. The graviton model of particle transportation of gravitational forces isn't a theory as much as it is a hypothesis. It is a model that serves to adequately explain what we see in the behavior of gravity so far, but hasn't been elevated to a theory because of lack of verification. From everything I've read about it so far, it certainly isn't generally accepted among scientists as anything beyond that, pending verification or falsification. But the model WORKS mathematically. Hence, it has some utility. There's definitely plenty of debate about this right now.

The graviton is part of a particle physics theory that will eventually spit out Quantum Gravity, according to scientists. There is a bit of faith mixed in this statement.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by qizmoduis
No, evolution isn't a theory, and Punctuated Equilibrium and Natural Selection do not compete for their place in the mechanisms for evolution. PE is a refinement of natural selection, nothing more. There's certainly some disagreement about how much effect PE has over more gradual development, but that's to be expected.

Evolution is most certainly a theory! Natural Selection and Punctuated Equilibria have very distinct differences and are theories unto themselves. The biggest you notified as gradualism. The other differences are genetic. Natural selection relies on natural mutations. While Punctuated Equilibria relies on "switch" genes and junk DNA. For instance, if one of these "switch" genes is manipulated, entire sections of DNA can be activated or inactivated. In essence, DNA you carry that is inactive, such as the code for gills, could be activated under extreme environmental stress. This leads to quick punctuated changes in species. Those are large differences.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Nightingale
Gravity isn't a law... its simply an observable force.

if you think about what happens when you stretch out a bedsheet and drop a basketball in the middle, and then drop a bunch of marbles and see where they roll to, you get an idea of how gravity works on a 2 dimensional level. Gravity is actually 3 dimensional, and the sheet represents a volume of space, not an area, but you can get the idea.

The Law of Universal Gravitation states that gravity is a force exerted between two masses over a distance.

F = G (m1*m2)/r^2

The law is not in question. It is how gravity works. You described an Einstienian view of gravity above. This view predicts something called gravitational waves, which have never been observed. On the quantum level Einstienian gravity completely breaks down. Your description was actually 3 dimensional. If you had actually performed the demonstration, it would be 4th dimensional. Hey, did you watch the Nova special?

 

[MisterMike]

Why is it that only the "scientists" are touting evolution as a fact? Becuase they have to look like they're doing soooomething. After all, our school textbooks are supposed to be teaching facts, right?

Actually, every class I ever had on it referred to it as the "Theory of Evolution"

And this isn't the only thing scientists cannot agree on. If we go back further to the "Big Bang", you run into even more bizarro content. But oh no, this is the truth children, and if you want to pass this class, you had better believe it.

 

[Makalakumu]

Anyone want to discuss the bizzarro Big Bang Stuff? This is, afterall, part of the concept of evolution. Cosmological Evolution, that is.

 

[Nightingale]

nope...

I had a physics PhD try to explain it to me (a film major!)

 

[michaeledward]

Why is it that only the "scientists" are touting evolution as a fact? Becuase they have to look like they're doing soooomething. After all, our school textbooks are supposed to be teaching facts, right?

Schoolbooks don't teach anything. Teachers ... People ... teach. Hopefully, our teachers are using all of the aids available to them to help our children think; to apply their ability to reason to a set of circumstances in front of them. Hopefully, one of the items our children will learn (and maybe some of their parents) is what is called the 'Scientific Method'.

Defined:
scientific method : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

The wonderful thing about using the scientific method on everyday observations is that this method is self-correcting. It is also subject to peer-review.

For instance, maybe we can't agree that gravity exists. Is there anyway we can observer gravity in action? Sure ... let's drop something from a height. Now, on the day that a dropped object (that is not subject to other external forces) doesn't fall to the ground, we can all go back to the woodshed to re-think gravity.

Of course, heavier items fall faster then lighter items. So, lets take to spherical items of Identical size and texture, and drop them, at the same time from the same height. We can carefully measure that the heavier item reaches the ground quicker than the lighter item .... but wait ... they hit the ground at the same time... now, why could that be? Don't know... But I can publish my findings, and a fellow scientist can perform the same experiment on the other side of the world, and get exactly the same results. So, someone smarter than me can figure out that gravity is 'pulling' harder on the heavier item, than it is pulling on the lighter item - this would explain why they items fall at the same rate of speed - because that is what we observed.

Now, let's apply the scientific method to religion. Jesus was crucified, buried, and rose again after two nights in the tomb. Let's see if we can construct a test to reproduce this ... who wants to volunteer to be crucified? anyone? I'm sure the two nights will pass real quickly ... and we can put aside all this science stuff... OK ..this last paragraph is a bit over the top. But, it is not possible to apply the self-correcting, peer-reviewed scientific method to religion. Religion by its very nature (and its very strength) is that it must be taken on Faith.

 

[Nightingale]

A good textbook will present macroevolution as the best explanation we have at the moment that fits all the current evidence. A good teacher will do the same.

When I was taught evolution in high school this is how it was presented to me. My mother is a science teacher. That is how she presents it to her students.

If you are concerned about the way your child is being taught, go sit in on the class.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by michaeledward
Of course, heavier items fall faster then lighter items. So, lets take to spherical items of Identical size and texture, and drop them, at the same time from the same height. We can carefully measure that the heavier item reaches the ground quicker than the lighter item .... but wait ... they hit the ground at the same time... now, why could that be? Don't know... But I can publish my findings, and a fellow scientist can perform the same experiment on the other side of the world, and get exactly the same results. So, someone smarter than me can figure out that gravity is 'pulling' harder on the heavier item, than it is pulling on the lighter item - this would explain why they items fall at the same rate of speed - because that is what we observed.

I agree with most of what you said, except the bit about gravity. Gravity accelerates all objects equally, regardless of their mass. This can be tested anywhere on the planet or in space.

As far as the beginning, the real beginning, the Big Bang goes...imagine an infinitely small, infinitely dense point from which all of the matter in the universe sprung. At the same time, this point in infinite in magnitude in the same way that .9 repeating is infinite yet it is has boundaries - extending the mathmatical analogy... .9 repeating = 1 and since 1 is an integer defined and real. The universe is expanding and infinite, yet it is bound with an edge.

Now THAT is bizzarro...

 

[Nightingale]

Then why, when I skydive, my normal fall rate is 120 miles an hour, but when I wear a 25lb weight belt, my fall rate is 140 mph?

this is consistent. I have an altimeter that tracks fall speed, and my fall rate without weights is ALWAYS around 120 mph (I can slow down a bit or speed up a bit depending on my body position, but its always right around there), and my fall rate with weights is ALWAYS around 140 mph with similar variations in body position. Since the weights are flat and worn around the waist, it doesn't really change the shape of the falling object (in my case, me).

can anyone figure this out? Most skydivers aren't rocket scientists, so we know that wearing weight makes lighter jumpers fall faster, but we can't figure out why.

 

[Jmh7331]

Nightingale, here's a good site for explaining that:


http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3e.html

 

[michaeledward]

Of course, heavier items fall faster then lighter items. So, lets take to spherical items of Identical size and texture, and drop them, at the same time from the same height. We can carefully measure that the heavier item reaches the ground quicker than the lighter item .... but wait ... they hit the ground at the same time... now, why could that be? Don't know... But I can publish my findings, and a fellow scientist can perform the same experiment on the other side of the world, and get exactly the same results. So, someone smarter than me can figure out that gravity is 'pulling' harder on the heavier item, than it is pulling on the lighter item - this would explain why they items fall at the same rate of speed - because that is what we observed.

Hello ... that is Sarcasm .... That ... right up there ... that is my own typing I have quoted....

Heavier objects DO NOT fall faster than lighter objects. Don't you folks remember the experiment from the leaning tower of Pisa? On earth, when factoring for air resistance is considered, all objects accelerate at the same rate of speed. I believe this is called (cleverly) the 'Acceleration of Gravity'. As I recall, the accelleration of gravity is 9 meters per second squared (on earth). This means, if you fall from the top of, lets' say, the sears tower in Chicago - during the first second (1/60th of a minute) you would fall approximately 30 feet - during the second sixtyth of a minute, you would fall approximately 60 feet - during the third sixtyth of a minute, you would fall 90 feet. Which means, by the time 3 seconds have passed, you have fallen at 180 feet. - and you are still accelerating. Go Go Gadget Go.

Mike

 

[allen]

Hey Dr. Robertson.

Your brothers ans sisters in Kenpo will always find you. How does it not surprise me that you would be slamming peoples faith again? Are these people aware of your extreme radical liberal leftist views. Do they know that you are a socialist? and all of that stuff. They will soon I'm sure.

C'mon man. Give it a break. GOD created the world we didn't evolve from a microorganism or a pretzel or anything else. and God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. O.k? O.K.

If you want to believe differently that's fine, just don't influence the kids with your personal beliefs please.

Thanks,
Your right wing,
allen


P.S. How do you like my avatar. It's Tony Soprano laying in bed, depressed.

 

[Nightingale]

Please keep the discussion polite and respectful.

Thank you.

Nightingale
MT MODERATOR

 

[allen]

Sure.

Hi Kris. How's everything and Grilli's? Hey, Have you heard from Hebler? Everyone is looking for him?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by michaeledward
Hello ... that is Sarcasm .... That ... right up there ... that is my own typing I have quoted....

Heavier objects DO NOT fall faster than lighter objects. Don't you folks remember the experiment from the leaning tower of Pisa? On earth, when factoring for air resistance is considered, all objects accelerate at the same rate of speed. I believe this is called (cleverly) the 'Acceleration of Gravity'. As I recall, the accelleration of gravity is 9 meters per second squared (on earth). This means, if you fall from the top of, lets' say, the sears tower in Chicago - during the first second (1/60th of a minute) you would fall approximately 30 feet - during the second sixtyth of a minute, you would fall approximately 60 feet - during the third sixtyth of a minute, you would fall 90 feet. Which means, by the time 3 seconds have passed, you have fallen at 180 feet. - and you are still accelerating. Go Go Gadget Go.

Mike

Mike,

No disrespect.
A or Acceleration is 9.8 Meters per second squared or
32 ft per second squared.

:asian:

 

[Nightingale]

Hey, Allen.

I don't know Mr. Hebler, but you could try contacting Mr. Darrin Phillips (7of9's dad on kenponet). I know they know each other.

I haven't been into the kenpo studio in a bit... had a nasty bout of food poisoning followed three days later by this awful flu that's been going around, and I'm still feeling more than a little under the weather. My instructor has been sending me emails telling me to get my tail back in the studio, and I will as soon as I'm sure I'm not going to give this flu to everyone else in the class, because NOBODY should have to suffer through days of 102.8 fevers.

 

[allen]

Kris, I hear ya. Take care of that flu. Don't spread it around here either.

I think Mr. Phillips is going to "Mr. Lee's" studio in Dalles Oregon this weekend for a littlle seminar or something. We'll see how that goes.


Take Care.

 

[allen]

I was just thinking. You must feel like my avatar looks.