Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: balrog666; AndrewC; Dataman; Con X-Poser; gore3000
Nope, anyone can look it up. It is a theory (based on observation -> that makes it a "Law") that defines the relationship between temperature, pressure, volume, and molecular count of an ideal gas.

Brilliantly done. The "Ideal Gas Law" only works with Ideal gases. As there are none, one must use a set of tables, that can be easily found in the back of a Thermodynamics book. Why are there no ideal gases? Because the real world is much more complex than it seems. While the Theory of Evolution seems to work nicely in a hypothetiacl sense, the world is much more complex than the simple straight line extrapolations evolutionists like project from their misunderstood observations and incomplete and failed experiments. In pariticular the fruit fly mutations and Miller-Urey.

So much for science.

Regards,
Boiler Plate.

791 posted on 03/17/2003 7:37:27 PM PST by Boiler Plate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies ]


To: Boiler Plate
So much for science.

Well, that explains your (non-existent) education background to us all.

Come on, we're all waiting. Tell us about any "scientific theory" that has been magically transformed into a "scientific fact". Tell us how the Theory of Evolution is somehow not a scientific theory.

Your turn, support your BS assertions. And how many times are you going to make us post this until you admit you were wrong?

793 posted on 03/17/2003 7:42:28 PM PST by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies ]

To: Boiler Plate
The "Ideal Gas Law" only works with Ideal gases.

A law can be wrong. Physicist likes to cite Ampere's law as another example. He could have used Newton's Second as easily, as F = ma goes seriously wrong at observed velocities near that of light.

A law is not a theory, nor does a theory become a law, nor do lawyers make very good scientists.

795 posted on 03/17/2003 7:45:10 PM PST by VadeRetro (Out for the night.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies ]

To: Boiler Plate
While the Theory of Evolution seems to work nicely in a hypothetiacl sense, the world is much more complex than the simple straight line extrapolations evolutionists like project from their misunderstood observations and incomplete and failed experiments. In pariticular the fruit fly mutations and Miller-Urey.

I'm not sure I should confuse you any more, after all you have problems answering my earlier question... Do you know of any other theories that explain the world better?

I would note, of course, that science can be successful when it can explain one aspect of a thing, even if it coesn't explain all aspects of a thing. F=ma is a great example of this. Great approximation at non-relativistic velocities, no good at all in the relativistic regime. Miller-Urey was great in the day because it showed that complex elements could form in what was believed to be an early-Earth environment. Now, after the idea that the early Earth environment has changed, it is useful in a historical sense, to show people what has come before, it shows that complex molecules can form in energetic environments. Obviously these molecules have been able to form in strange places, since we seem to be finding them in odd places like the deep cores of Giant Molecular Clouds. It is just not particularly useful in modelling Earth anymore.

811 posted on 03/17/2003 8:37:49 PM PST by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson