Posted on 07/14/2007 10:33:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Madonna and Bon Jovi are no match for Hawaiian flies when it comes to karaoke hits at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln. In a popular exhibit activity, visitors attempt to mimic the unique courtship calls of different species of Hawaiian Drosophila, a group of 800 different flies that may have evolved from a single species.
Fly karaoke is part of "Explore Evolution," a permanent exhibit currently at Nebraska and five other museums in the Midwest and Southwest...that explores evolutionary concepts in new ways. Such an activity is a far cry from the traditional way science museums have presented evolution, which usually included charts called phylogenies depicting ancestral relationships or a static set of fossils arranged chronologically. "Explore Evolution'' has those, too—and then some, because museum curators came to realize that they needed better ways to counter growing attacks on their integrity.
...
Under pressure from these kinds of groups, the Kansas State Board of Education in 2005 approved a curriculum that allowed the public schools to include completely unfounded challenges to the theory of evolution.
In an effort to make their case to the public, creationists raised $26 million in private donations to build the 50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., which opened in late May. The institution presents the biblical history of the universe. Visitors learn that biblically, dinosaurs are best explained as creatures that roamed Earth with humans. In its first month of existence, the museum drew over 49,000 visitors, according to its Web site.
"Explore Evolution," funded by a $2.8 million grant from the National Science Foundation, is one of many recent efforts by science museums to counter such resistance to evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
And I can blame part of it on the teaching of evolution since it has been taught exclusively for the last half century.
One might be tempted to consider gravity as an aspect of a greater brane which causes inertia, but this won't specifically work since the entire universe is a gravitational field sourced in the 'allness' and 'concentrated' at spots of accumulated mass. The physical processes of the universe would be variable depending upon the mass neighborhood, upsetting the extreme balance of the whole.
The real question is why a heavier and a lighter body respond exactly the same to a gravitational field while they respond differently to a directly applied force.
No, ignorance, even when you're aware of it, just doesn't faze you guys. I, on the other hand, might just click the back links and read a few posts. Among other things, you would have discovered that I was not "attack[ing] his grammar" but simply answering his question.
In this sentence "predictive" is indeed being used as an adjective and "prediction" is indeed being used as a noun.
And so what? My young daughter often uses correct grammar but she doesn't know the difference.
He asked for an explanation of how something that’s predictive isn’t a prediction. One trivial way to discern the difference, and the one I pointed out, is that they have different grammatical roles but I doubt CottShop was aware of this. I think his posts that you didn't bother to read make that clear. For example, when I previously used the word "predictive," his reply used the word "predictable." In his very next post, he changed from "predictable" to "prediction."
Oh, I get it now, you think when I said “your grasp of English is abysmal” I was remarking on his grammar. No, I was remarking on the fact he didn’t know the difference between “prediction” and “predictive.”
TOE circling the drain BUMP
Brecht’s donkey says it is the frame of reference that makes the difference.Applied force specific to each object (thus reference specific) as opposed to warping of the ‘background field’ in which both exist.
Good question.. Drop a bowling ball and a BB(small ball of copper) off a building and they both fall at the same inertia if no additional inertia is applied... and let again moving each on ground takes variable force.. according to "weight"..
What is inertia and what is weight?..
No matter how much/many/quantity of photons you have there is zero weight.. and zero mass..
Dark energy/matter seems to mandatory for mass/weight/inertia to be possible.. yet dark energy/matter cannot be proved to exist.. Proved being; nobody has "seen" it or measured it(experimentally) or even touched it.. Therefore; Dark energy/matter could be "spiritual" energy/matter/mass.. or UN-designated energy/matter..
If true; then Un-designated and Designated energy/matter raised it head to me again.. Consider this inertia.. Jesus walks up to some blind "guy" with many observers observing, and ((( "SPITS" ))) on that dudes eyes.. and heals his blindness.. No doubt serious inertia was put in motion... I can "feel" the inertia of that event just recounting it now, WoW..
Indeed, WHAT IS INERTIA?...
Very perceptive. I am vastly ignorant of a great many things. For instance I am very ignorant of the French language, knowing only a tiny fraction of the vocabulary and being uncertain of its grammar. But indeed being ignorant of so much doesn't faze me, because if it did I could hardly function.
But you seem to imply that you are different in this respect. So are you fazed by your own ignorance, or is it that you have none -- which might explain your keen insight into what kind of "guy" I am.
Maybe I'm missing your point, but as I understand it the answer is pretty simple: weight is proportional to mass, thus the force exerted is proportional to the inertia necessary to accelerate it at a given rate. But in this respect we are ignoring not only air friction, but we are thinking in terms of a gravitational field from something much more massive then either object, such as a planet. For instance, if the "heavy" object were much larger then the planet, its acceleration would be much smaller -- thus not "responding exactly the same" to the same gravitational field.
The 4350 years ago date for the global flood is the average of several biblical sources. I could post the list if you like.
The date of 4780 years ago (2780 BC) was from the web. Source
Brecht’s donkey does not say that. He doesn’t say the frame does not affect the form of the laws, although he would if he knew it.
Photons carry momentum and energy but not mass. Mass has something to do with inertia, so does momentum. But there is that photon ignoring one part selectively. What is going on?
Why is weight proportional to mass? It doesn’t have to be, although it seems to be. This is where science shows that it is dogmatic at heart—it cannot be otherwise. There is no way we could know that without looking. The gravitational field is inverse square. Same thing, why? We could find something else, but we find this. Why questions are improper in science, of course, since they presuppose purpose.
>The date of 4780 years ago (2780 BC) was from the web.
Did you know that Isaac Newton studied the chronologies of ancient nations extensively, and concluded that they routinely exaggerated their antiquity strictly for reasons of national vanity?
I would include the Egyptians in the list of suspects unless I knew otherwise.
Yeah man. Things have REALLY gone downhill since Bible readings in the public schools got tossed out due to Madalyn Murray O. This happened in the early ‘60s right?
Yeah. SEVERELY downhill. This country was doing great until it started turning it’s back on God.
I think I see what you are saying, but I see some points of refinement.
Seems like asking "why" is a good tool for developing a hypothesis. For instance "Why is the sky blue"? Perhaps for someone with a deeper understanding of physics then you or I have, it makes sense to ask why mass is proportional to weight -- or perhaps why it appears to be so.
Admittedly asking why during the experimental stage seems akin to cheating. As in: "Why didn't it work like I expected? Perhaps if we made a few adjustments...". But realistically it is probably often prudent in the real world. For instance if the results are just wacky, one might ask "why did I get wacky results?" and look for some corrupting factor (like "oh, my foot was on the scale" or "oh, I forgot to calibrate the dang thing").
What I think you were really touching on though was the kind of "why" question which is too big for human beings to approach with science. The idea is that science, although highly accurate in answering many questions, is less useful or even applicable to providing answers about things we are not wise enough or powerful enough to conduct repeatable controlled experiments on.
I would include the Egyptians in the list of suspects unless I knew otherwise.
There are lots of other cultures with continuity across the date given for the flood. Egyptians were one culture with writing, but they weren't the only one.
As for the date of the global flood, this is what I base my estimate of 2350 BC/4350 years ago upon:
2252 BC -- layevangelism.com
2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).
2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com
2500 BC -- http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html
2522 BC -- Dr. Gerhard Hasel
2978-3128 BC -- http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199605/0162.html
3300 BC -- http://www.biblediscoveries.com/flood1.html
3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)
We also have DNA continuity in most areas of the world from before to after this date for the flood. North America, for example, has a number of skeletons radiocarbon dated to before the flood with DNA matching individuals after the flood or living today.
One specimen (On Your Knees Cave, southern Alaska) has a date of 10,300 years and living descendants with that same DNA lineage along the coasts of North and South America.
Another specimen dates nearly 5,300 years ago and there are archaeological specimens matching that DNA at 1860 years ago 200-1000 years ago, as well as living individuals.
This suggests no discontinuity/replacement at the date given for the flood.
The only other speculation I've seen which speaks of temporal phases wrt to the "origin of inertia" question is here.
A brane translates to a membrane in my way of looking at the space/time continuum. A field, OTOH, exists at all points of space/time (regardless of dimensions.)
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.