Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
107,801 - 107,820 of 115,185 Comments Last updated 4 min ago

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#113678 Jun 9, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Aura Mytha says on the law of gravity: Still you cannot falsify it, you can't prove the statement wrong. It still stands as a law.
The only thing that changed is our view of gravity from being a force to a consequence.
See you are using Newtons calculation, this is what is now considered inaccurate.
You cannot demonstrate what we see is anything different from what the law says though.
Sure we can strike the word force from it, but it is only a method of description in observation.
How do we describe the error in Einsteins equations when we see them?
That is enough to show that this 'GR' is wrong in detail.
The problem we have is a perfect description and a perfect explanation.
I don't propose to lecture you poly, but you should think about this in a different way.
Not even close to what you tried to say.
No, Newton's work does not stand as a law since it was found to be in error. It was known to be wrong in the late 19th century.

It seems that you do not understand what was wrong with Newton's Law of gravity.

The problem with "Law's" is that if any error is found then the Law can be said to be disproved. Theories can be tweaked and adjusted. Scientists have learned that it is easy to be mistaken in the details. That is one of the reasons that theories are thought to be superior to Law's. Theories can be fixed.

Newton's work was extremely accurate. His work was accurate enough for us to go to the Moon and back. It was not accurate enough to power a simple GPS system.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#113679 Jun 9, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I left out----- don't want to be accused of the dreaded quote mining-----Aura Mytha said The law of gravity has not been replaced, that's why it's still there.
Newtons calculations were replaced, by GR. But since GR is a radical departure in thinking from treating gravity as a force, we consider the Law of Gravity superseded by GR. You simply cannot falsify this statement, which is the law of gravity.
"Any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."
This is still true in relativity.---------
Now how was I wrong in the end of my post by saying "When scientifically discussing gravity, you can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and you can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other."
Once again you are simply letting your inner idiot out.

Newton's "Law" is accurate enough for most problem. Heck, most people use Galileo's formula for gravity, even though it is very inaccurate. It is still accurate enough for everyday life.

Once again you are arguing from idiocy which tends to make you an idiot.

And no, the inverse square law is not quite true in relativity. There are qualifying factors that have to be applied. In very simple cases, and with limited accuracy it does simplify to Newton's Law. But when extreme accuracy is necessary Newton's Law no longer works.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

#113680 Jun 10, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you are simply letting your inner idiot out.
Newton's "Law" is accurate enough for most problem. Heck, most people use Galileo's formula for gravity, even though it is very inaccurate. It is still accurate enough for everyday life.
Once again you are arguing from idiocy which tends to make you an idiot.
And no, the inverse square law is not quite true in relativity. There are qualifying factors that have to be applied. In very simple cases, and with limited accuracy it does simplify to Newton's Law. But when extreme accuracy is necessary Newton's Law no longer works.
I say again; You know there is an old saying that says you can tell how weak and simple a person is by how often the accuse others of being the same. You my little friend must be very weak and very simple for you accuse others of being an idiot in at least every other post you make(probably more than every other post).
Do you realize what you are calling me an idiot on are actually Aura Mytha’s comments just pasted to you? They are not my comments.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113681 Jun 10, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
"Puppy dogs are cute" is not evidence for the existence of God. It is evidence for the existence of puppy dogs.
We all met the universe already formed, how was it formed? Who made it?
Not your puppy dog or humans. So, that is why the Almighty fits in.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113682 Jun 10, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Present your single best evidence , and demonstrate why it evidence for
your specific god , rather than hundreds of others that have/are
worshipped over the centuraries
You have none to date either. You only base your arguments on guessing and projections. Those gods over the centuries, are going down the drain, because the Almighty God is the only one true God.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113683 Jun 10, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope you seem to use the following choices
Human/god
The rational choices are
Natural means that can be tested by science
Science doesn't know
God
The latter isn't testable / falsifiable so outside realms of what science can address
Nope. You can not rule out humans when you are talking about Science. Science is man made and limited. Understand that!

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113684 Jun 10, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
hahaha.
How deep the world has fallen that a nation which believes in fairy tales is the world power?
Wake up!

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113685 Jun 10, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
There are 75% Christians in the USA and 62% Christians in Germany.
In Germany it means nothing to be a Christian. Almost every Christian in
Germany is just a Christian because he was born as a Christian but he
doesn't believe in Christianity.
The churches in Germany are mostly empty.
In contrast to the USA where the churches are full.
Officially I am a Christian but I and my friends don't take it
seriously.
Who cares. That does not and will never change who the Almighty God is.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

#113686 Jun 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Wake up!
Charles I like being blunt. Now yes I do believe in God but yet there is no evidence for God. Does that mean he is a myth, I don't think so. Now we have in just the last 200 years been excelling in learning about natural things and still have a lot to learn. God would be supernatural and we have no ideal if supernatural is real or not and we have no way to test or study anything that maybe supernatural. Now the God of the bible is said to live in the universe and last time I checked we have only explored about 1% of the universe,,, so we have a long was to go. But like it or not there is no physical evidence to test or study for God and that is why people reject him. Keep to your beliefs and carry on. Whether you believe in God or not we are all going to die. If there is a heaven we won't know until we are dead and if there isn't, we will never know.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#113687 Jun 10, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Aura Mytha says on the law of gravity: Still you cannot falsify it, you can't prove the statement wrong. It still stands as a law.
The only thing that changed is our view of gravity from being a force to a consequence.
See you are using Newtons calculation, this is what is now considered inaccurate.
You cannot demonstrate what we see is anything different from what the law says though.
Sure we can strike the word force from it, but it is only a method of description in observation.
How do we describe the error in Einsteins equations when we see them?
That is enough to show that this 'GR' is wrong in detail.
The problem we have is a perfect description and a perfect explanation.
I don't propose to lecture you poly, but you should think about this in a different way.
Not even close to what you tried to say.
In THAT case SubductionZone's rendition is BETTER (with all respect to AuraMytha).
Newton's "laws" were found to be incorrect and yielding errors e.g. calculating the precession of Mercury. These errors disappear in Einstein's models. Calculating orbits needed, to put it simplistic, some mathematical corrections on the equations of Newton. Hence not only did our view on gravity changed but Newton's laws also needed to be corrected.
The observations on the precession of Mercury (=what we see) were different from what Newton's laws predicted. That is not what we might expect from a "law" and not only a "method of description in observation" but a flaw in the "law" itself and within the cery mathematical equations of it.

Einstein corrected this by providing a better model.
But he made a mistake himself: he still thought that the universe were only validly to be understood by perfect, persistent, mathematical frameworks, being only a matter to produce the correct models ("Gott würfelt nicht" - "God doesn't play dice with the world"). That's why the old physics refers to "classical MECHANICS".

Already in Einstein's lifetime quantum mechanics came with notions like the wavefunction, which provides information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle. It is about the statistical nature of our knowledge of reality. Probability? Statistics? Einstein abhorred it, hence his "tossing the dice" argument.

In modern science, the classical notion of "scientific law" has been abandoned. For instance, take wikipedia: "A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements". Repeated experimental observations? In the classical rendition, you have firmly established mathematical equations that need no further empirical observations to be confirmed.

the scientific law you are referring to, doesn't exist any more.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#113688 Jun 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Wake up!
YES, wake up from the bronze age mythology?
Enter 21st century reality!
Glad you at last got the picture.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#113689 Jun 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Nope. You can not rule out humans when you are talking about Science. Science is man made and limited. Understand that!
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!
Mugwump

London, UK

#113690 Jun 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Nope. You can not rule out humans when you are talking about Science. Science is man made and limited. Understand that!
Dodge

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#113691 Jun 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Who cares. That does not and will never change who the Almighty God is.
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:
.

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.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

#113692 Jun 10, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
In THAT case SubductionZone's rendition is BETTER (with all respect to AuraMytha).
Newton's "laws" were found to be incorrect and yielding errors e.g. calculating the precession of Mercury. These errors disappear in Einstein's models. Calculating orbits needed, to put it simplistic, some mathematical corrections on the equations of Newton. Hence not only did our view on gravity changed but Newton's laws also needed to be corrected.
The observations on the precession of Mercury (=what we see) were different from what Newton's laws predicted. That is not what we might expect from a "law" and not only a "method of description in observation" but a flaw in the "law" itself and within the cery mathematical equations of it.
Einstein corrected this by providing a better model.
But he made a mistake himself: he still thought that the universe were only validly to be understood by perfect, persistent, mathematical frameworks, being only a matter to produce the correct models ("Gott würfelt nicht" - "God doesn't play dice with the world"). That's why the old physics refers to "classical MECHANICS".
Already in Einstein's lifetime quantum mechanics came with notions like the wavefunction, which provides information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle. It is about the statistical nature of our knowledge of reality. Probability? Statistics? Einstein abhorred it, hence his "tossing the dice" argument.
In modern science, the classical notion of "scientific law" has been abandoned. For instance, take wikipedia: "A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements". Repeated experimental observations? In the classical rendition, you have firmly established mathematical equations that need no further empirical observations to be confirmed.
the scientific law you are referring to, doesn't exist any more.
Essentially, gravity is an attractive force between objects. Most people are familiar with gravity as the reason behind things staying on the Earth's surface, or "what goes up, must come down," but gravity actually has a much vaster significance. Gravity is responsible for the formation of our Earth and all other planets and for the movement of all heavenly bodies. It is gravity that makes our planet revolve around the Sun, and the Moon revolve around the Earth.

Around the late 19th century, astronomers began to notice that Newton's law did not perfectly account for observed gravitational phenomena in our solar system, notably in the case of Mercury's orbit. 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.

Though Newton's law is not perfect, it is still widely used and taught because of its simplicity and close approximation of reality.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113693 Jun 10, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Charles I like being blunt. Now yes I do believe in God but yet there is
no evidence for God. Does that mean he is a myth, I don't think so. Now
we have in just the last 200 years been excelling in learning about
natural things and still have a lot to learn. God would be supernatural
and we have no ideal if supernatural is real or not and we have no way
to test or study anything that maybe supernatural. Now the God of the
bible is said to live in the universe and last time I checked we have
only explored about 1% of the universe,,, so we have a long was to go.
But like it or not there is no physical evidence to test or study for
God and that is why people reject him. Keep to your beliefs and carry
on. Whether you believe in God or not we are all going to die. If there
is a heaven we won't know until we are dead and if there isn't, we will
never know.
Sure. That is why we must all believe in that Creator, because, no one knows the time of his or her death. We are all just passing by.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113694 Jun 10, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Charles I like being blunt. Now yes I do believe in God but yet there is
no evidence for God. Does that mean he is a myth, I don't think so. Now
we have in just the last 200 years been excelling in learning about
natural things and still have a lot to learn. God would be supernatural
and we have no ideal if supernatural is real or not and we have no way
to test or study anything that maybe supernatural. Now the God of the
bible is said to live in the universe and last time I checked we have
only explored about 1% of the universe,,, so we have a long was to go.
But like it or not there is no physical evidence to test or study for
God and that is why people reject him. Keep to your beliefs and carry
on. Whether you believe in God or not we are all going to die. If there
is a heaven we won't know until we are dead and if there isn't, we will
never know.
And again, you said there is no evidence of God?
You are in correct here, you would have say, physical evidence. We are only moved by what we see, but the Almighty is a Spirit. Does that mean, he does not exist, because he is a spirit?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#113695 Jun 10, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Why couldn't the Evolutionists come up with a laboratory controlled test with fast reproducing single cell organisms that reproduce by the millions every day and PROVE once and for all Evolution? You do not need to go to the Sketchup Program and wonder anymore.
That happened before you were born. The problem is not evolution. The problem is you fundies deny reality.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

#113696 Jun 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And again, you said there is no evidence of God?
You are in correct here, you would have say, physical evidence. We are only moved by what we see, but the Almighty is a Spirit. Does that mean, he does not exist, because he is a spirit?
agreed

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#113697 Jun 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Sure. That is why we must all believe in that Creator, because, no one knows the time of his or her death. We are all just passing by.
???, 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?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min Katrina 255,973
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 5 min Obskeptic 32,463
Longtime GOP Texas Gov. Perry wins another term (Nov '10) 6 min Liberal forever 22,282
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min forks_make_us_fat 1,100,082
Race in America: Why are blacks being seen as r... (Jul '13) 11 min Mr Johnson 9,796
KKK Endorsement (Mar '08) 12 min Rock 94
Teen's Shooting Highlights Racial Tension 14 min Colbert 1,354
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

US Politics People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••