Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
How do you measure velocity?
N-Body simulation using Newton's laws of motion.
Three body problem simulated.
Good thing NASA had an IBM mainframe to calculate.
Good thing NASA had an IBM mainframe to calculate.
Something is lacking with ITN, heh.
How do you measure velocity? Please tell me.
How do you measure velocity? Please tell me.
You can carry the droplets along with you. They survive on surfaces for extended periods of time.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
You have a habit of going straight to the pejorative with the Bible thumper thing. It’s apparently not possible to be skeptical of some of what has essentially become dogma—even as science is founded on skepticism. Dogma has no place in science. Appeals to authority has no place in science. Story telling has no place in science and ‘consensus opinion’ has no place in science.
I don’t accept the evidence that man evolved from a subhuman ancestor because, I judge, the evidence for the claim to be weak. The ‘gaping chasm’ between our brains and our nearest putative hominid ancestor lacks an adequate explanation. I see the claim as a kind of dogma that exists mostly because the alternatives are philosophically unpalatable.
For me to accept the claim that our supposed ‘very much human like’ ancestors were actually different species requires an interfertility test. Since no one has a time machine we are deprived of that. Which means I have to accept it on faith.
I have better uses for faith.
Dear captain moron, we are not scientists, you are not a scientist, this is not science. Some of what you wrote would be true IF you were a scientist DOING science, but since
you are a self identified retired unemployed nurse or something, consensus of science and appeals to authority are proper uses of rhetoric and persuasion on a retard Nazi leaning message board
while discussing the relative merits of science versus moronic god in the gaps sophistry.
And scientific 'dogma' aka scientific law better models the natural world than religious dogma.
Love
Another non scientist written while not doing anything approaching science.
cc: all you fucking religious suckers
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
It was the fifth paragraph down, dumbass.
What phrase would you use for someone who believes the KJV Bible is the direct word of God and is completely free of error so they take it literally? If you don't know, that's fine since I doubt you have an intelligent answer.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
In a word, I have to use faith.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Well thought out post and agreed.
You nailed it with the problem in the US of people how reject credible scientific evidence. Notice that those who reject scientific evidence are doing so for religious and/or political purposes and not using the brains God gave them.
HCQ. LOL
Note that Darth had his infamous 61 thread closed out of embarrassment although he never apologized for the tons of manure he spread in that thread.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...a-numbers-explode-to-61&p=3657367#post3657367
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...a-numbers-explode-to-61&p=3538463#post3538463
If we accept that God is all powerful, all knowing and all merciful, then why couldn't God have created the Universe just as we find it? A Big Bang that expanded out to what we are experiencing now 13.8 Billion years later? God is eternal. The few billions of years of the Universe's existence is nothing in comparison.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smit...-discovering-about-big-bang-theory-180949794/
It was cosmic microwave background radiation, a residue of the primordial explosion of energy and matter that suddenly gave rise to the universe some 13.8 billion years ago. The scientists had found evidence that would confirm the Big Bang theory, first proposed by Georges Lemaître in 1931.
“Until then, some cosmologists believed that the universe was in a steady state without a singular beginning,” says Wilson, now 78 and a senior scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “The finding helped rule that out.”
For sure.
I do not categorically rule out the possibility of providential design..
I am starting to have my doubts about the theist's claims on fine tuning, however.
And I do not think physicists have really done a good job articulating the uncertainties about the big bang theory.
We literally cannot observe time and creation past the veil of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which limits our direct observation of the observable universe at about 380,000 years after the big bang. It will be interesting to in the future if any experimental tests will be possible to infer the existence of a multiverse. Which would put us right back to what natural philosophers thought 200 years ago -- time and space are infinite.
This is Newton's second law of motion.
College physics for me was >30 years ago, but I am sure a vector value and centripetal acceleration can be derived from Newtons law of gravitation and his second law of mechanics.
Somebody in the rightwing media trotted out that fallacy of authority argument 20 years ago, and science deniers have been running with it ever since.
Expertise and scientific consensus matter.
And you put your faith in scientific consensus every time you go to the doctor, take a prescription drug, or give a blood sample.
You are your buddies on this thread have denied carbon isotope dating, denied evolution by natural selection, denied the evidence for evolution of anatomically modern homo sapiens from archaic human subspecies.
That is not healthy scientific skepticism. That is dogmatic denial.
And when painted into a corner you demand science offer you an impossible level of proof -aka, complete DNA samples from homo erectus.
There is enough evidence now to say with an extremely high level of confidence that homo sapiens evolved from anatomically archaic forms of hominids. It would easily pass muster in a court of law, even over your demands for a complete genome map of homo habilis.
F is a force of acceleration vector defined by the product of mass and acceleration.
F in the universal law of gravitation can be replaced by ma. The small m's on either side of the equation cancel out, resulting in a direct calculation of gravitational acceleration, using the universal law of gravity and the second law of mechanics.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Maybe in a civil suit where the standard of evidence is low. A competent trial lawyer would have a field day dismantling some of evolutions more ambitious claims.
And that’s a tired trope about denying science and science consensus as if all claims of science are created equal. We’ve already been through that and none of your fellow ‘believers’ would risk falling into the croc pit over ‘the high level of confidence’ in the hypothesis that man is descended from an anatomically inferior subhuman. They would tap dance, invoke off the wall theoretical physics analogies and do everything but answer a simple question.
Doesn’t say much for their confidence.
Your analogy of a civil lawsuit indicates you think it is less than 50 percent likely that anatomically modern homo sapiens evolved from archaic human species.
Wow.
That is a position only the most die hard science denier and Liberty University graduates would adopt.
Since you are talking odds now, what do you think the odds are that a providential creator created several dozen human species independently during a miraculous creation event and having no genetic evolutionary links bewtween them?
BidenPresident
Verified User
Robots may soon be able to reproduce - will this change how we think about evolution?
But could robots ever reproduce? This, undoubtedly, forms a pillar of “life” as shared by all natural organisms. A team of researchers from the UK and the Netherlands have recently demonstrated a fully automated technology to allow physical robots to repeatedly breed, evolving their artificial genetic code over time to better adapt to their environment. Arguably, this amounts to artificial evolution. Child robots are created by mixing the digital “DNA” from two parent robots on a computer.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/21/robots-reproduce-evolution-nature-technology
But could robots ever reproduce? This, undoubtedly, forms a pillar of “life” as shared by all natural organisms. A team of researchers from the UK and the Netherlands have recently demonstrated a fully automated technology to allow physical robots to repeatedly breed, evolving their artificial genetic code over time to better adapt to their environment. Arguably, this amounts to artificial evolution. Child robots are created by mixing the digital “DNA” from two parent robots on a computer.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/21/robots-reproduce-evolution-nature-technology
That's fine with me. Be faithful to your religion, leave it out of things like public schools where we all may have different
faiths or none at all. Science is not a religion, science is not a faith. Make all the skeptical snarky observations you would like.
I'd rather that not be a trojan horse to insert the cloud guy as a reasonable option for understanding the natural world.
Is there an "unnatural world" that interacts with this one? Who knows, but the scientific method doesn't shed light on that idea.
It certainly undermines those beliefs as time goes along since "the age of reason" on forward.
I won't ever say you don't have the right to say or think "God did that," unless you are in my kid's classroom.