Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
The science is for ID? LOL Can you point to a single scintilla of evidence that supports ID? ID is not even a hypothesis it is merely the pointing out that TOE does not explain origin of life questions.
The science is against common descent? That is even more funny. We are all eukaryotes, we may all have descended from a single eukaryote. If you are looking for Adam and Eve, the eukaryote agrees better with the story of Genesis. Cell division is akin to taking the ribs out and of Adam and making another copy.
Could you tell me what educational level my target audience is? That would be more helpful : )
Jimmy - No, I am not saying anything of the sort. Those are your ideas. M=F/A, if A=0, M is undefined. Basic algebra dictates that there can not be a zero in the denominator.
I think you should be directing your comments to Metmom she is the one who is trying to divide by zero. Unless of course you are disagreeing with the equation F=MA then you can take that up with Newton. I will attempt to defend Newtons honor to the best of my ability though : )
I mean what educational level talks about force and mass and energy and at the same time doesn't seem to realize that the units are different. And what educational level mashes up division and multiplication as if division is multiplication?
I've checked the in-school detention, and the special needs rooms, I'll wander over to a poetry class. A bad poetry class. Maybe there they throw words around in whatever way they chose.
Jimmy - No, I am not saying anything of the sort. Those are your ideas. M=F/A, if A=0, M is undefined. Basic algebra dictates that there can not be a zero in the denominator.
I think you should be directing your comments to Metmom, she is the one who is trying to divide by zero. Unless of course you are disagreeing with the equation F=MA then you can take that up with Newton. I will attempt to defend Newtons honor to the best of my ability though : )
That is my point. Mass is energy. Yes, we measure mass differently than we measure energy, but they are equivalent. Do you disagree with that?
And what educational level mashes up division and multiplication as if division is multiplication?
That is just my EEE background. All computer functions are addition operations. Subtraction, division, integrals, spread sheets, HTML pages, etc are just addition functions. I learned that in grade school too, I just didn't realize what I had learned until later.
Proposing a theory, not offering any mechanism to disprove it, demanding that it be accepted unless disproved, then blowing off any attempt to do so as *religious and not scientific*, is intellectually dishonest. To determine a priori that any argument against the ToE is religious instead of scientific is as well.
Just because the ToE the only and best explanation that *science* has for a naturalistic, no-God explanation of life on earth, doesn’t mean that it’s right, or even a good one. It’s merely all they have and we don’t have to accept it as correct because there’s no better one in the wings. That’s doing the very thing that creationists are condemned for. ]
This logic is in-escapable.. and pure..
Should be recounted with Barry Whites voice..
and a lilting tune..
Yes, mass may be converted to energy, but the conversion involves at least a constant that has physical units, not a unit-less constant. And moreover the conversion of mass to energy takes an event. The difference between mass and energy in a system is very hard, very established, and they have different physical units. You did learn something called "unit analysis" is class, did you not?
On examples and test problems "units have to cancel out" and all that?
Mass is not force, mass is not energy, force is not energy. There are formulas for converting mass to force -- that involves acceleration. There are formulas for converting mass to energy. They involve the square of velocity.
Physicists do speak of E = M-zed -- the M in that equation is not mass, it's energy. Rest energy. Sometimes they call it rest mass -- but they don't mean mass, they really mean energy. It's a convenience of expression.
But a physics teacher throwing out a mix of nonsense such as you have would have all his students confused and failing.
Division by zero: In the real world division by zero is not indefinite. We use something in maths called limit theory to get the result.
(1) Local School Boards are not a good vehicle for a long legal fight, because the electoral turnover is too quick -- as quick as a whim.
(2) Judges make science. In today's culture science is dicta. That is what you wanted, right?
The lesson of Dover (short version):
A local school board stocked with creationists sought to have their particular narrow brand of religion taught as science. They got caught. It cost the school district over a million dollars. The school board got turned out of office.
“Proposing a theory, not offering any mechanism to disprove it, demanding that it be accepted unless disproved, then blowing off any attempt to do so as *religious and not scientific*, is intellectually dishonest. To determine a priori that any argument against the ToE is religious instead of scientific is as well.”
How does one disprove ID?
“A local school board stocked with creationists sought to have their particular narrow brand of religion taught as science. They got caught. It cost the school district over a million dollars. The school board got turned out of office.”
Yeah, you’re right. better to have the schools indoctrinate a captive audience into Secular Humanism. That’s a much better religion. / sarc
You should step out of your science box. You might think everything in existence is inside the box, but it’s not.
I think it's pretty easy to argue that the Designer isn't human and doesn't design like humans.
For one thing, the Designer went to a great deal of trouble to make living things look like they are related by common descent, right down to non-coding DNA and inherited scars from retrovirus infections. The Designer also also took great pains to make genomes that look like the result of incremental change.
By itself this doesn't prove anything, but we now have many examples of genomes designed or engineered by humans, and they lack these key diagnostic features. When humans are designing life they use genetic material that crosses species, families, even kingdoms. The human designer leaves fingerprints of his design philosophy all over the scene.
You would have been out front of that school with pitchfork in hand had they been teaching islamic creationism.
Which approaches zero, tell it to Metmom. I am not the one who divides or multiplies by zero, exploding infinities are too exciting for me : )
May all your units of time be used wisely!
Not only that, even the Evos cannot come up with a stepwise explanation for the core processes of the cell. For instance, Williams quotes evolutionary researchers Kirschner (Harvard) and Gerhart (Berkeley) who state that the “Core processes (which they define as cellular architecture, metabolic function, body plan, and modular regulatory functions—GGG) may have emerged together as a suite, for we know of no organism doayy that lacks any part of the suite...The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world of today that we are left baffled.”
What they are talking about, as Williams points out, is the insurmountable hurdle that the autopoietic structure of life presents to evolutionary and origin of life researcher. And the more they learn, the worse it gets for them (and the better it gets of Creation/ID).
Sorry, I wasn't quite as accurate as I should have been. You and a few others have done a fine job grappling with the issues involved re: Life's Irreducible Structure. What I meant to say, is that I pinged dozens of the most prominent Evos on FR, gave them the papers several days in advance, and almost none of them showed up.
F=Ma
Force is the resultant of two components: mass and acceleration.
Anything composed of atoms has mass. Mass is the amount of “stuff” of which an object is composed; but mass is not “weight.” Weight is actualy a measure of the force generated by an object within a gravitational field. Weight is the result of the acceleration of gravity. So we may write F=Ma as W=Mg.
Acceleration is a “change” in velocity OR direction. Where velocity is a measure of an object’s speed in relation to time and space, when changing its position at a constant rate in a straight line. However there is ALWAYS a component of acceleration, no matter how imperceptible, because EVERYTHING in the universe is moving in relation to everything else, and moving along CURVED paths... not straight lines. All mass is effected by gravity fields, and mass produces gravity (curved space time) Velocity is used for calculations having a simple frame of reference, but does not provide the whole picture.
If there is no acceleration component, then there is no energy of motion (kinetic) and thus no force produced; however the acceleration of gravity is always present for any object within Earth’s gravitational field (32fps^2), and likewise the influence of the Moon and other celestial bodies, so there is always the energy of mass in motion, whether it be perceived as a kinetic “force” (momentum) or a gravitaional “force” (weight). Weight is actually the “force” an object exerts on another object due to the influence (acceleration) of a gravitational field. Even when an object is moving at a fixed rate of speed (velocity) there still is a component of acceleration because the object is moving over a curved surface (the earth of other celestial body) or through curved space (gravity) and thus a change in the directional vector is always present.
For any moving object, its acceleration may have a linear or a rotational component. An object in orbit about the Earth, or any other celestial body, “falls” at a fixed rate of speed (velocity) about a center of another mass (the celestial body) and thus while the magnitude of the velocity vector is constant the directional vector is always changing, hence there is a moment of acceleration. This is why orbital mechanics require the use of “the calculus” (derivatives and integration) because there is a continuous dynamic change over time in the x, y or z plane.
Because acceleration is a “change” in speed OR direction, objects appearing to be at rest are actually in acceleration: The Earth is rotating (24 hour period) and precessing (23000 yr period) on its axis, and, in turn, the Earth orbits the Sun (365 day period), which, in turn, orbits within the galactic plane, which, in turn, is in recession from other galaxies... etc. We are always moving... even when dead, for our dust is made of atoms that remain in motion.
In reality, because everything in the universe is in motion in relation to everything else, and all mass is affected by and effects a gravitational field, then force can never equal zero. If F=Ma, and F=0 then transposing the equation to solve for mass: m=F/a; we have m=0/x, which equals zero; but everything has mass. Conversely, we could solve for acceleration: a=F/m, where F=0, in which case acceleration would equal zero; but everything is in motion at some level. There is the mathematical absurdity where if mass or acceleration equaled zero then we would have a=F/m or m=F/a ==> 0=x/0, which is an untrue statement, for we know that division by zero is impossible (except in the case where the numerator is zero... so 0=0/0 gives zero mass, zero force, and zero acceleration: non-existence. (Off topic, the question of whether any object having mass is capable to travel at the speed of light is made impossible by the Lorentz transforms, where as an object approaches the velocity of light, its mass approaches infinity, thus the acceleration, and hence energy required by its propulsion unit, also becomes infinite.)
Nothing is ever at rest. If we go to the molecular scale, we know that molecules move and vibrate (temperature). In the electromagnetic spectrum, photons of light propagate at different frequencies to produce the colors of the visible spectrum. If their frequency is very short (ultra-violet radiation, x-radiation, gamma radiation, cosmic radiation) or very long (infrared, microwaves, television-VHF and UHF, radio) then they are at energy levels outside what the rods and cones of human retina is “tuned” to receive. At the sub-atomic level the electrons rotate about their nucleus so fast (speed of light) that we see them where they were, not where they are. The atoms of gas (solar wind) ejected by our star, the Sun, generate a force when they encounter the Earth’s magnetic field (bow shock wave) and release their kinetic energy in the form of the Aurora Borealis.
So everything is in motion... converting its energy to kinetic or chemical energy, and, in turn, dissipating that energy in the form of heat (entropy, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, SLT) By the SLT all things fade to black: all energy converts to heat; higher states of energy degenerate to lower states; purposeful organization devolves to random chaos. This law cannot be violated in the natural sphere... organization can only be begun and sustained by something operating outside all laws, both physical and philosophical... something not bound by any law... something greater than law... the author of law, its First Cause... He whom we know as God.
It has been asserted by more than one person on this board that “complexity” is an illusory construct and does not exist.
Which, to me, is about as convincing as the turtle and snake origins story. It comes from a world and mindset that I seem to be incapable of grasping, let alone agreeing with.
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.