Posted on 10/16/2005 11:50:09 AM PDT by Crackingham
Edited on 10/16/2005 12:04:43 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/orbit.htm
here's a pretty clear development of the classic orbital equation, pitting the force due to angular acceleration against gravitational acceleration. The equation for the force due to angular acceleration is a simply derived from F=mA.
I noticed that too.
Ah, the real haters of religion are those within that manipulate it for their own gain instead of for the good of man. Nothing of the sort is showing, what is showing is that when you start losing it, you start with the slurs and attacts.
Once again old friend, you've brought a religious argument where none was made. What set you off? Why is your hatred so deep that you'd impose it into a conversation? Do you think that you can simply ignore a direct question with childish obfuscation? Why did you people accept the unsubstantisated claim that evolution that once took millions of years now takes billions of years?
Now you can go back and correct #81. Thanks.
Humm. When the creationists come and say that their ID vs. Evolution movement is not a religious argument, I begin to wonder about their sanity.
Why did you people accept the unsubstantisated(SIC, since you so like to insert such) claim that evolution that once took millions of years now takes billions of years?
Please show some basis for your claim.
You posted something as fact based upon the fact that you had heard it when growing up. I was just showing how silly your post was and how much credibility it had here. But my post went right over your head because you think that people should believe whatever you say no matter how poor your memory and no matter that it many never have been true in the first place and you are just pulling it out of your rear.
My mistake. It never happened. Bad memory. You could have just said that rather than posting a tirade of hateful and insulting tripe.
Where's the God reference in the scientific theory? Don't read it in, show where the scientific theory says "God did this."
btt
Okay, try this: If what you reported is exactly correct in every particular, the answer is that science adapts itself to the evidence. Ignoring the evidence is not science.
So if the evidence indicated a "millions of years old earth" thirty years ago, and it now indicates a "billions of years old earth," science adapt itself to the evidence.
I was in school thirty years aso, and I seem to recall being taught that the earth was billions of years old, but it could be faulty memory.
Why do you want to know this? People have different reasons. I suppose you could read Aristotle and find out why he said it was divine. Divine causality shouldn't be that scary.
Sorry, Aristotle is pre-science. He was great in his day -- and yes, I've read him.
To answer your "why" question directly, the reason is your assertion here that "Not all scientific theories don't refer to God."
You don't have to be sorry about it. There are scientific theories that you don't ascribe to.
:>)
There are scientific theories that you don't ascribe to.
Your argument is akin to the lists of scientists who don't accept Darwin's theory. When the lists are printed they turn out to be composed of a lot of people like Sir Issac Newton, who died long before the theory was even proposed. If you want to try telling me that Aristotle didn't accept Darwin's theory, go ahead, but please don't be offended if I'm completely unimpressed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.