Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222738 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113708 Jun 10, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed! You can not rule out humans when you are talking about religion.
Religion is man made and limited. Understand that!
And shall add: science, pertaining valid knowledge, as a human
endeavour, produces more in any random few decades than your religion
did in its 4,100 or so years history.
UNDERSTAND THAT!
You are ranting again, religion or science, can never change the evidence of the creator. We all met this world, and one day, we are going to leave it. Get that. This means we still don't know everything. Ok?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#113709 Jun 10, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don't know everything.
It is just not difficult to know more than an American.
Almost cut myself on that edge there, chief.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#113710 Jun 10, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. It is simple to use and a very good *approximation*. But we know it doesn't give the correct results in many situations. For example, you cannot analyze a black hole using Newton's laws. It simply won't work. Nor can you analyze a neutron star with Newton's laws.
Whether to use Newton's formulation or not is a matter of how much accuracy you want. For things in our solar system, where the masses are not too large and the speeds not too fast, we can use Newton's laws and get 6 decimal places of accuracy. But if you want to get 11 decimal places of accuracy, you need Einstein's theory of general relativity.
You left out this part: Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, published in 1915, resolved the issue of Mercury's orbit, but it has since been found to be incomplete as well, as it cannot account for phenomena described in quantum mechanics. String theory is one of the foremost modern theories to explain quantum gravity.
deutscher Stolz

Osnabrück, Germany

#113711 Jun 10, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Almost cut myself on that edge there, chief.
I don't know this idiom

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113712 Jun 10, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don't know everything.
It is just not difficult to know more than an American.
I'd go a little easier here. Your German Pride has gotten your folks into trouble more than once.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#113713 Jun 10, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand several things here let me explain what I meant.
Newtons calculations work in sub relativistic and low gravity situations and are considered the low level equivalent in GR.
No, not an equivalent. it is the low speed, low mass *approximation*.

I'll give you an example. In algebra,(1+x)^2 =1 +2x +x^2. This is exact,
But, if x is very close to 0, we can use the approximation that (1+x)^2 = 1+2x.

For example, 1.001^2=1.002001. This is approximated by 1.002. These are NOT equivalent. One is an approximation of the other.

It turns out that Newtonian physics is the low mas, low speed approximation to general relativity.
The principle of the law of gravity is how the gravitational constant is calculated. So that being said if the law of gravity is wrong then our physical constant of gravity is wrong, and so is GR.
First of all, the gravitational constant is one of the least accurate physical constants we have. We have about five significant figures for it. For Planck's constant we have 8.

Second, we can obtain G in the low mass, low velocity limit where Newton's laws give a good approximation.

Third, we can determine G through general relativity also if we wish.
Einstein extended the range and clarified gravity above Newton's idea, because of elliptical orbit's, Mercury and the points where Newton's calculations break down.
Now quite accurate. The orbit of a single planet around a single star is predicted by Newton's laws to be an ellipse. That is a mathematical calculation that is even done at the undergraduate level in physics.

But, if you add other planets, the orbit gets perturbed. The masses of the other planets will pull things off the perfect elliptical orbit.

But, when all of the other planets were taken into account, the orbit of Mercury did not fit what the calculations based on Newton's laws predicted.

Now, there were two possibilities:
1. The law was wrong.
2. There was another mass that was doing some extra pulling (another planet!)

It turns out that a similar thing had happened previously with the orbit of Uranus: the calculations based on Newton's laws with the known planets did not agree with observations. But in this case, it turned out that there *was* another planet and Newton's laws could be used to determine where to look for it. That was how Neptune was discovered.

So people proposed a new planet inside the orbit of Mercury. it was even given a name: Vulcan. But it was never discovered.

Instead, Einstein proposed a different theory of gravity that extended his special theory of relativity. This theory was galled the general theory of relativity (GR). In this new theory, orbits in the absence of other planets are NOT precise ellipses. Instead, the ellipses slightly shift in direction over time. It turns out that the amount of this shift was the amount Newton's laws were wrong when applied to Mercury.

BTW, the differences are too small to measure for Neptune.
But there are points where GR breaks down that cannot be explained. I know that the law of gravity wasn't perfect,
This biggest problem is finding a quantum theory of gravity. We have several proposals, but none that can be tested the way we like.
and G can change in certain situations but if it's wrong then so is the inverse square law and several other physical constants.
I don't know of any data saying that G can change. And the inverse square law for gravity is wrong in detail.
This was my point, and for this reason the law of gravity still stands. But here is the next question, will GR still stand in the year 2100?
GR will 'stand' at least as well as F=GMm/r^2. It may also be replaced by a more accurate description of gravity. But that new description will have GR as an approximation, just like Newton's is an approximation to GR.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#113714 Jun 10, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You left out this part: Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, published in 1915, resolved the issue of Mercury's orbit, but it has since been found to be incomplete as well, as it cannot account for phenomena described in quantum mechanics. String theory is one of the foremost modern theories to explain quantum gravity.
The main problem is that we have not been able to test string theory in any detail. It seems to be in trouble given some of the data from the LHC, but we shall see what the next run there says.

But you are correct, GR is not a quantum theory of gravity. It is a classical theory. There is no doubt that a more accurate theory will have to come along and replace it just as Newton's laws were replaced by GR.
deutscher Stolz

Osnabrück, Germany

#113715 Jun 10, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd go a little easier here. Your German Pride has gotten your folks into trouble more than once.
It was the fault of Brits and France who forced us into war twice.
deutscher Stolz

Osnabrück, Germany

#113716 Jun 10, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand several things here let me explain what I meant.
Newtons calculations work in sub relativistic and low gravity situations and are considered the low level equivalent in GR. The principle of the law of gravity is how the gravitational constant is calculated. So that being said if the law of gravity is wrong then our physical constant of gravity is wrong, and so is GR. Einstein extended the range and clarified gravity above Newton's idea, because of elliptical orbit's, Mercury and the points where Newton's calculations break down.
But there are points where GR breaks down that cannot be explained. I know that the law of gravity wasn't perfect, and G can change in certain situations but if it's wrong then so is the inverse square law and several other physical constants. This was my point, and for this reason the law of gravity still stands. But here is the next question, will GR still stand in the year 2100?
No the gravitational constant is the same in Newton's gravitational law and Einstein's field equations. Besides there isn't any theory that allows you to calculate the gravitational constant.

The laws will be the same in 2100.
Charles Idemi

Atlanta, GA

#113717 Jun 10, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Dodge
Dodge.
Charles Idemi

Atlanta, GA

#113718 Jun 10, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it will not change that indeed, according to Muslims, Allah is the
Almighty God.
It will not change that, according to Hinduists, Shiva, etc. etc.
It does not change either that evolution is a scientifically established
fact.
Who cares?
I do.
I do care about the fact that apparently there are still millions of
people in the western world clinging to bronze age mythology and who
mentally still live in the 5th century BC, believing in talking snakes, a
worldwide flood that should have happened 4,500 ya and a 6,000 yo
earth. Some even still believe that the earth stands still and the whole
universe encircles it.
THAT bothers me, and for the next reasons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =J_9MUzB8wjEXX.
And what bothers me too is the mentality behind your bronze age
mythology dwelling.
I quote:
“I don’t even mind, I don't even care when someone wants to say ‘you
don't understand that, so god did it’. That doesn’t even bother me. But
what really bothers me is as if you were so content in that answer that
you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you
stopped looking because you content ‘god did it’, I don’t need you in
the lab. You’re useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of
the world”. Neil deGrasse Tyson,
https://www.youtube.com/watch... . It is about moron
creationist Bill O'Reilly, who also lags behind and still does not
understand the tides.
GOD is one. The only difference is that all religions see him in a different light. This again does not change who the Almighty. The other of your post are atheistic.
deutscher Stolz

Osnabrück, Germany

#113719 Jun 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> GOD is one. The only difference is that all religions see him in a different light. This again does not change who the Almighty. The other of your post are atheistic.
Hahaha typical American who believes in fairy tales.
Every decent person is atheistic, of course.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113720 Jun 10, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
agreed
Sure. You are blessed.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113721 Jun 10, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
???, what, because we are not clairvoyant we must all believe in a bronze age guess?
Were you away from school the day logic was given out?
In two or one sentence(s), can you tell us the seconds, minutes and hour of your end?
No one knows that. Leave Logic out of this.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113722 Jun 10, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
It was the fault of Brits and France who forced us into war twice.
Uh-huh. And invading other countries was your solution? Give it a rest.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113723 Jun 10, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahaha typical American who believes in fairy tales.
Every decent person is atheistic, of course.
Charles isn't an American. If I remember right, he's from South Africa but now lives in Scandinavia or someplace up there. Don't be so quick to jump the gun.

By the way, he IS an idiot.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113724 Jun 10, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
So you believe in fairy tales?
I believe in a Creator. That Creator is God. Ok?
Wake up from your sleep.
FREE SERVANT

Tucker, GA

#113725 Jun 10, 2014
The God of the Bible is our father in Heaven and he is the Creator of all things. We as Christians believe the teachings of Jesus and he said God is a Spirit. The voice of God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning. The Word of God was God and all things that were made came from him. In addition,we read that the Word was like a seed and all things came from him. Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven is like a seed and it began very small and then became great. Jesus taught many things that were kept secret from the foundations of the earth.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113726 Jun 10, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahaha typical American who believes in fairy tales.
Every decent person is atheistic, of course.
Fairy tales?
Can you dictate to death when and when not come?
Stop the fairy tales thing and face reality. We are all just a visitor, or simply passing by.
deutscher Stolz

Osnabrück, Germany

#113727 Jun 10, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh-huh. And invading other countries was your solution? Give it a rest.
In WW1 we didn't start the war.

In WW2 we had to defend ourselves. It was a pre-emptive attack. Otherwise Poland had attacked Germany first with British support.
The main reason for the rise of the Nazis was the treaty of Versaille. Without treaty of Versaille Nazis wouldn't got any power.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Strange bedfellows: Jimmy Carter defends Trump 4 min southern at heart 211
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 5 min Brandiiiiiiii 27,230
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 15 min Brandiiiiiiii 12,380
one word only (Jun '08) 18 min Brandiiiiiiii 55,989
next word game (Apr '13) 18 min Brandiiiiiiii 993
Add a Word remove a Word (Oct '13) 19 min Brandiiiiiiii 5,547
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 20 min Brandiiiiiiii 13,718
Phrases that you don't hear very often (Nov '11) 22 min _Zoey_ 731
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 27 min Brandiiiiiiii 6,022
True False Game (Jun '11) 29 min Brandiiiiiiii 15,551
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr Ricky F 223,299
More from around the web