scigirl

S2focus,

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

That was fabulous!

scigirl

(ok can I ask a dumb question though - how do we KNOW that micro and macrogravity are the same thing? Can you point me to a web site or reference explaining "gravity for dummies?" I have a feeling this analogy will be useful with the E/C debate. . . )

lpetrich

A very good discussion of Bible cosmology: <a href="http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm" target="_blank">The Flat-Earth Bible</a>. The writers of the various parts of the Bible had little interest in cosmological questions; one has to work out their views from offhand comments. However, the noncanonical Book of Enoch goes into detail about the astronomical views that the canonical Bible's writers had likely held; here's some detail:

The Earth is, of course, flat, with the sky being a bowl overhead.

The Sun and the Moon enter this bowl through doors at its base, move across the bowl on its inside, and then exit the bowl through some other doors. To get ready for their next rising, they move along the bowl's rim, resting in their storerooms along the way.

Stars are anthropomorphic beings that have similar motions, the rising and setting ones entering and leaving the dome through doors in it. They ride chariots, some of them are hung like horses, and they may be imprisoned for various misdeeds, such as dawdling ("You didn't rise when you were supposed to! Into the slammer!!!").

So where are the advocates of Enochian cosmology? Where are those who denounce the godless, mechanistic, materialistic theories of those who claim that the Moon is a giant rock and that the Sun and the stars are giant fireballs?

I wonder if Vanderzyden will convert to Enochian cosmology and criticize those who "strain at the gnat of evolution while swallowing the camel of modern astronomy", as flat-Earth Fundie Wilbur Glenn Voliva put it.

RufusAtticus

Scigirl,

F = G*m1*m2/r*r

• m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects.
• r is the distance between them.
• G is the gravitational constant.
• F is the magnitude of the attractant force between the objects.

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Kevin Dorner

If you want to get this from "the source" look up an English translation of Isaac Newton's "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" ie the Principia Mathematica.

The fabled story of Newton seeing an apple fall from a tree and then glancing up at the moon in the night sky, and realizing that the same force that held the moon to the earth also pulled the apple down is true, not an urban legend. The apple didn't fall on Newton's head though.

Simply:

It had been shown already that a falling body falls 4.9m in the first second of falling near Earth's surface (1/2at^2) and that acceleration is constant; Galileo demonstrated thus with his experiments rolling balls down marked tracks. Accleration at earth's surface is thus 9.8m/s^2.

The moon is 60 earth-radii from the earth's centre, therefore should "fall" towards the earth by:

(1/60)^2 * 4.9m/s * = 1.36 mm/s

Assuming that the moon's orbit is circular to simplify the calculation its orbital radius is 384,400 km (this is the semi-major axis of the ellipse of its orbit.) Its revolution period is 27.3217 days. Its orbital velocity is therefore:

(3.844x10^5 * 2 * Pi)/(27.3217 * 3600 * 24) = 1.02315 km/sec.

A little geometry is required.



So for a one-second piece of the moon's orbit, we end up with a long, very skinny triangle with a side 1.02315 km and angle theta/2 as a fraction of a complete circle:

(2 * Pi) / (27.3217 * 3600 * 24 * 2) = 1.3308 * 10^-6 radians

For very small thetas like this, sin(theta) is very close to theta. We can use this approximation. So, the distance that the moon has "fallen" is:

1.02315 km * (1.3308 * 10^-6) = 1.36 mm

So it has been shown that the amount that the moon would "fall" to towards the Earth by gravity is the same distance that it would move away from earth if it were not orbiting but instead travelling away tangent to its orbit. Thus the same force is responsible for both falling and orbits.

I hope this helps, and is accurate. My physics is terribly rusty as I am an official amateur Life Sciences guy now.

[Edited to fix diagram]

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Starboy

Hi Vander,

It is gravity that is observed all the time. The “law of gravity” is not observed unless you do an experiment. I have taught enough kiddie physics labs to know that for many people it is not easy to see “the law of gravity”. “The law of gravity” is observed to break down at the galactic scale. This is the primary reason why the concept of dark matter was introduced. There are alternate theories, one of which would require the “law of gravity” be changed. So much for the “law of gravity.”

Macroevolution and microevolution are both definitions. Both are observed in nature. They are both explained with the theory of evolution. I am not a biologist, and I have complained about this before, the terminology and differentiation of ideas could use some work. The word evolution is used in so many ways that is can be very confusing. In biology’s defense it was their first big theory and I guess they are very proud of it. They should be, it has withstood the test of time. I just wish they would sort the terms out better.

Starboy

Lizard

Vander,

I expect you have already read "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution"

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" target="_blank">here</a>

and found all of them specious. Can you please go through them one by one and explain why? Or hey -- I'm feeling generous. How about just three?

NOGO

-- Incredible complexity arising from utter simplicity.

Where do you see this. I believe that the building blocks of the universe are very complex.
Where do you see utter simplicity?

-- a mechanism by which new species are generated

Not required to prove evolution.
Inter-species procreation often but not always leads to sterile offsprings. This fact alone shows that species are not as well defined as you would like to think.

-- how mind comes from non-mind

A good question. I can show you how to go from a mind to a non-mind. People who have had severe damage to the brain remain in a vegetable state. From that I conclude that the mind is a structural part of the brain. Therefore there is no reason to believe that a mind cannot be constructed from non-mind.

Also take twins at birth. Educate one as you would normally. The other is to receive no education. No one is to speak to him. He will not learn to speak. He will be fed and treated like an animal treats her children.

I doubt that you will be able to discern a human mind in such a case. The twins will be as different as humans are to apes or nearly.

Interesting let us apply this to the claim that the Bible is the inspire word of God.

Any evidence must be:

-- uncontrived
-- compelling (accompanied by sound argument)
-- explained in the simplest terms possible (e.g., no handwaving theospeak)
-- logically consistent
-- unfalsified by other evidence
-- able to withstand critique from scientific disciplines

Now there is challenge!
Are you up to it?


Nonesense!
This is not a limitation on science it is a limitation on current technology, a very different thing. Reading Bibles and praying God will not give us this technology. Science will.

Scientist don't waste their time with this kind of question.

Point 1
Why do we die?
There are in fact two types of anwers for this.

TYPE 1
We die because our cells divide and with time this ability degrades due to damages to the genetic machinery and as a consequence we die. Or some similar answer.

TYPE 2
We die because we need to make room for the next generation... or similar answer.

Vanderzyden's question is one which requires the second type of answer. Generally these types of questions and answer are of no use to scientists. Scientists deal with TYPE 1 question and answers. TYPE 2 are left to people who have lots of time on their hands. Besides, if there was nothing then you would not be asking this question.

Point 2
The question is slanted. It speculates about the possibility that at some point in time in the past there was nothing. But how do we know that this state ever existed? The question is slanted to theist view of the universe ie "nothing" came first and then "something" and God explains it all.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Does "something" include God? My guess is that Vanderzyden will say no. But why not? Because if it does then this question will be as useless to him as it is to everybody else.

What a mix!

Cosmology is a science based on emperical data.

Logic and mathematics simply do not belong here at all. No doubt that Vanderzyden will want to argue this point from a philosophical standpoint. I look at it from a practical standpoint. Logic and mathematics are highly structured and proof driven. They have given results which are there for everyone to see.

The rest on his list have certainly wasted the time of untold number of people but to my mind they are totally useless and have precious little to show for the effort put into them.

Again mixing things that should not be mixed. I reject metaphysics but I do not reject logic.
Based on what?
Track record if nothing else.

The idea that non-emperical "sciences" are to accepted or rejected as one is sheer nonesense.

Like what? What evidence?
Try the experiment that I described above and then compare human and apes. You will get a clearer picture than the one you have now.

There are many structural similarities between human and ape brains. For example each has the cerebellum which is responsible for the regulation and coordination of complex voluntary muscular movement as well as the maintenance of posture and balance. Also the brainstem which is responsible for involuntary activity such breathing.

Have you ever wondered why involutary movements are located in the same place for humans and apes? Because these primitive functions were there in a common ancestor.

Where science fails there are no answers. The bible provides no answers for the differences between humans and apes.

No what makes the events unbelievable is not that they are ancient but the fact that

the evidence is:
-- contrived
-- not compelling
-- logically inconsistent
-- falsified by other evidence
-- not able to withstand critique from scientific disciplines and logic

The answer of the theist is unreasonable because there is zero evidence for it. This kind of answer satisfies only theists. For the rest of us it is no answer at all.

Again vanderzydem is lumping things which do not belong together.
Mathematics and logic have come to us from so called pagan cultures to which we are greatly indebted. These two fields have shown great progress in the last 300 years or so. Mathematics and logic have been used in the emperical sciences to model nature and gain tremendous understanding of the world around us. There is in these fields great concurance and worldwide unity. Even in communist china logic, mathematics and the emperical science are thought. This kind of unity and acceptance is what theists can only dreamed about.

What about religion? and in particular what about Christianity?
From it very birth Christians have been divided. By the fourth century people slaughtered other who did not agree with such things as "Mary mother of God" versus "Mary mother of Jesus". Notice the difference. Very critical, right? The fate of the world depended on this. So much for theology and intuition and the authority of Moses. So much for contacts with God. So much for the non-emperical "sciences". Christians cannot agree about the tiniest things about their beliefs.
Then a dictator came along and decided what kind of Christianity everybody was going to believe in from then on. For a 1000 years nobody could think for himself on the threat of death.
God works in mysterious ways.
Then came the protestant reform. From that point on Christianity split into thousands of groups who all claim to have the truth and the only truth.

Christianity diverged from its birth and is still diverging.

So Vanderzyden wants us to believe that logic and mathematics should be lumped with other non-emperical "sciences" like religion. They are one and the same. They should be accepted or rejected as one.

Right!

Why is that Christians cannot validate their claims to knowledge even among themselves?

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Nat

Wow Vander, the more you post, the more you make yourself look like a fool. Here, you demonstrate quite convincingly that you know nothing of science if you do not understand the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is an equation that mathematically relates a theory (Newton's Theory of Gravity) to observed phenomenon. It is a useful tool in most cases, but it does not explain the nature or mechanisms of gravity (something SciGirl mentioned if you read closely) nor is it even accurate in many situations. General Relativity replaced Newton's Law nearly early in the 20th Century because it is a more accurate predictor of motion of stellar bodies. Newton's work was great, but not nearly as accurate as Einstein's work which provided a much fuller explanation of gravity (actually, Newton produced no explanation of gravity at all - he just described it).

Einstein, however, would be the first to admit that his theory of gravity is incomplete because it begins to break down at distances less than about a cm. Someday soon (hopefully) we will have a quantum theory of gravity that will be able to model gravity at very small distances and, more importantly, actually explain what gravity is.

So, as a physicist, I can admit without hesitation that we have less understanding of gravity than we do of evolution - we at least know how evolution works (descent with modification culled by natural selection).

Vanderzyden

They are one and the same, sir. When a satellite or the space shuttle orbits the planet, they are perpetually "falling". In effect, the increased distance from the center of the earth and suitable angular velocity balances the centripetal force. These same principles affect planetary and stellar orbits.

Edited later to add: see Kevin Dorner's example above for a specific example of the Earth and Moon.

Incidentally, I wonder if you are paralleling your description of gravity with micro- and macroevolution. If so, for what reason?


Vanderzyden

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Scigirl,

Yes, WHY and HOW are indeed scientific questions. But, I wonder, if you are really concerned with the why. Your focus must certainly be HOW, since that is all you write about. But here you begin to discuss why gravity works. Why is that? Indeed, we know the how. In fact, we have an equation, as has been shown. Yes, there is also an answer to the "why" question, but you don't want to hear that.

May I repeat, yet again, that I reject evolution on the lack of convincing evidence. It is not because of metaphysical or religious beliefs. Formerly, I accepted evolution, while maintaining the basic framework of other beliefs that I hold now. However, when I began to examine the support for the theories of evolution, I was amazed at the lack of persuasive evidence.

That is my position. There should be no ambiguity. Is it that you do you understand what I am saying, or that you do not believe me? If you do not believe me, then our conversation is over.

Again, please also note: I am unafraid that the apes are our physical ancestors. It seems a bit odd, since there are many differences among the striking similarities. But that's OK. I don't really mind. No, I do not reject evolution because of my religious beliefs or because I can't stomach the idea that we are physically linked with the apes. The problems are chiefly three: (1) the paucity of convincing evidence, (2) no definitive explantion of HOW, and (3) the immense difference between Man and the mere animals.

You say that C.S. Lewis was an evolutionist, but he wasn't. He found that the theories didn't match up with the real world:


The modern acquiescence in universal evolutionism is a kind of optical illusion, produced by attending exclusively to the owls emergence from the egg. We are taught from childhood to notice how the perfect oak grows from the acorn and to forget that the acorn itself was dropped by a perfect oak. We are reminded constantly that the adult human being was an embryo, never that the life of the embryo came from two adult human beings. We love to notice that the express engine of today is the descendant of the "rocket;" we do not equally remember that the " Rocket" springs not from some even more rudimentary engine, but from something much more perfect and complicated than itself-namely, a man of genius. The obviousness or naturalness which most people seem to find in the idea of emergent evolution thus seems to be a pure hallucination.

-- C.S. Lewis, They Asked for a Paper


Let me grant you something: There is perhaps something to the chromsome fusion evidence, but corroborating research is necessary to affirm the work that was done 12 years ago. I am still puzzled why this is not promoted more in scientific circles.

Let me be clear: Macroevolution is, at present, and unviable notion. While many support it, enough prominent scientists have rejected it.


The theory of evolution (is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

-- D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, Vol. 123 [sic Vol. 124] (1929), p. 233)

(quoted by Lewis in the above essay)



Vanderzyden