- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,216
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
And to be even more accurate, stuff accelerates at a rate of 22 mph/s[sup]2[/sup].
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And to be even more accurate, stuff accelerates at a rate of 22 mph/s[sup]2[/sup].Gravity = Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup] --- that's about all I know.
Stuff falls at 32 fps[sup]2[/sup] --- or 22 mph[sup]2[/sup] --- until it attains terminal velocity --- or something like that.To be more accurate, "stuff" accelerates at a rate of 9.8m/s^2 when in free-fall on Earth.
And to be even more accurate, stuff accelerates at a rate of 22 mph/s[sup]2[/sup].
That would be either 22 mph/s, or 79,200 mi/h^2 (miles per hour squared), or 0.006 mi/s^2 (miles per second squared). The units mph/s[sup]2[/sup] are not acceleration.
Um.... that's LESS accurate.
9.8 m/s = 21.9219757 mph
Yup! Then the higher derivatives are snap, crackle, and pop. But I've never ever seen them used...
Why? Are you hoping that oneday we will discover that the world is 6000 ish years old? That there is enough water on earth to cover the highest mountain? That evolution is a lie created by satan? I think your confusing what is and isnt possible.evolution does not make sense... to believe all the variety of plants came from a single strain of algae, or all insects, reptiles, animals, and man came from a single cell creature, and yet they all show up at about the same time...
Where do you get this from? ITs clear that they did not show up at the same time.
Evolution or Creation? I have to go with God...
Thats your choice, of course why not both? Surely god is smart enough to start the process. Not to mention I dont think god would try to deceive us by making it look like life came about throught he process of evolution when he used another method.
Theory by definition (as in Darwin's Theory of evolution)
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Ill let you figure out which one is used in science.
So a theory requires what... you to belief in something that cannot be proven... it is a guess...
Nope, not a scientific theory.
If it was fact and not theory, it would be called Darwin's Facts of Evolution.
No, its both.
There is just as much and more historical facts surrounding the documented history laid out in the Christian & Jewish bible than there is of evolution.
Actually no. Especially if you are talking about Jesus. And history and science are different matters.
The only part evolutist point to is the 6-days creation, and that is simply because we cannot rationalize it with our simple minds. So if we cannot comprehend it, it must not be capable of happening. That is because we have such a firm hand on time and space... right?
NO actually we point at it cause there is no evidence to support it and tons that contradicts a 6 day creation.
The fact is, we have not a clue as to what is and is not possible.
I disagree. We typically use the laws to figure out what is possible. We know that some laws bend or break under certain conditions but overall id say we have a good understanding of many things. We are hardly clueless.
We cannot even begin to comprehend what is all posSible. We are learning, and we are getting a little smarter every year... but how many times through out history, have we rewritten history based on new knowledge... too many times to count...
Yep, still learning and all thanks to Science.
Thanks... but I will stick with God...
Wrong. The fossil record has provided us with transitionals between:
"The remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. ...This moment, right at the start of the Earth's Cambrian Period...marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. ... the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today...a menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertevrates that would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver." - Richard Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science News Discovery p. 40
"We find many of them (fossils) already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." - Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230
Actually the fossil recoreds have shown the same fossils in the different stages, not to mention that there are no fossils showing a fish with legs, or a shory necked girafe.
fish and tetrapods
http://www.devoniantimes.org/index.html
A pro-evolutionary "paper" says there are transitions. Not a good source.
dinosaurs and birds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
a scientific consensus has emerged - from the above article
Consensus -
1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports from the border John Hersey> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief
Not a proof but a general agreement by those involved. I.e.those believing in evolution agree on the matter.
reptiles and mammals
http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html
Wow another evolutionist saying they believe in evolution. How ever could we doubt?
non-human apes and man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
The fossil evidence is insufficient to resolve this vigorous debate - From the above article in Wikipedia.
primitive whales and modern whales
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/cgi-bin/webring/list.pl?ringid=cetacea;siteid=cetacean_04
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
primitive horses and modern horses
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] We have found and collected virtually complete skeletons of middle-to-late Eocene Basilosauridae (Dorudon and Basilosaurus), exceptionally complete skeletons of middle Eocene Protocetidae (especially Rodhocetus and Artiocetus), and a partial skull of earliest middle Eocene Pakicetidae (Pakicetus). Recovery of diagnostic ankle bones in the skeletons of primitive protocetids[/FONT] - From the above article.
In other words we find entire skeletons of whales of today, and partial and parts of others that recreated into what we believe they looked like and there for they were whales.
This sounds a lot like brontosaurus, oops we meant Apatosaurus, which ended up being one in the same.
It is not, and oh, by the way, carbon dating is not used to date fossils.
That is a boldfaced lie. Isn't that a sin?
Would you like to see Lucuspa's list of Observed Speciations?
Wrong. Thermnodynamics deals with the transfer of Heat. Hense the term, "Thermo" (heat) "Dynamics" (movement). It does not deal directly with living organisms.
Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is all that is required. Can you prove creationism beyond a reasonable doubt?
Sorry. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a religious belief. No parity for you.
How would you know there is no hard evidence? Everything you wrote in this post shows you do not have a clue as to what the evidence actually is.
Richard Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science News Discovery p. 40
- Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230
The fossil record as Darwin knew it seemed to suggest that the major metazoan groups appeared in a few million years of the early to mid-Cambrian, and even in the 1980s this still appeared to be the case.[12][13]
However, evidence of Precambrian metazoa is gradually accumulating...
Actually the fossil recoreds have shown the same fossils in the different stages, not to mention that there are no fossils showing a fish with legs, or a shory necked girafe.
A pro-evolutionary "paper" says there are transitions. Not a good source.
Ah, well, I figure I'll respond to just this point.I was of course referring to enthropy included in the law.
2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.
The 2nd Law says that complex ordered arrangments become simpler and more disorderly with time. Where evolution has the arrangment become even more complex, (one cell organisms becoming multi-celled).
"There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries " - G.N. Hatspoulous and E.P. Gyftopoulos: physicists
"It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. - Emmitt Williams, PhD
Entropy - a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
Evolution is an open system and therefore would not have the energy to do as it states it does.
Basically it's a statement that if, for example, you shut off your fridge, its temperature will eventually approach that of the room it's in (while the room's temperature will decrease slightly). Nice, simple, easy.The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
It was until it was realized that carbon dating can only be used for fossils thousands of years old and not millions. Dates for many fossils prior to the discovery of in accuracy have still been left with inaccurate dating.
The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.[/B] - Michael Benton, Ph.D., a vertebrate paleontologist .
To this day it is unknown who perpetrated the Piltdown hoax so don't try and peg it on evolution. As far as evolution supporters advocating it, that was a product of the times. There was still debate over which came first big-brain or bipedalism and most of its supporters were English mainly because of cheauvanism.Piltdown man - it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a fully developed, modern man. - Wikipedia
Correct, at least the National Geographic part. The supposed fossil was tauted by them before paleontological vetting and they wound up with egg on their face. As soon as qualified scientists got a look at it, they realized it was fraudulent. A similar situation happened with Nebraska Man.Archaeoraptor - appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body. - National Geographic
No, no and no. Neandertals might be a cousin species or a cousin subspecies by they are not modern humans. And the rickets myth was busted a long time ago.Neanderthal Man - No longer considered to be pre-man. Neanderthal is fully human but believed to have suffered from rickets due to malnutrition.
No one claims Cro-Magnons are anything but modern humans so saying anyone refers to them as "pre-human" is a straw man. Also, they didn't live with "contemporary" man, but were humans that were alive 50,000+ years ago.Cro-Magnon Man - Proven to be completely human and there is clear evidence of religious practices and artistic creativity. This so-called pre-human co-existed with contemporary man.
No, no and no. Java Man was a Homo erectus.Java Man - Proven to be a deliberate hoax and no longer accepted by evolutionary scientist, however it is still taught in many school textbooks as a missing link.
No and yes. No skeletal structure was "created" and not by scientists. The London Illustrated Mail ran a drawing of what it was thought to have looked like but that was a journalistic decision, not a scientific one. And peccary molars and human molars are very similar, but the confusion was cleared up after more scientists got a chance to look at it.Nebraska Man - An entire skeletal structure was created from a single tooth...Additional research has proven that this tooth was actually the tooth of an extinct pig.
Yep, the Chimpanzee, just like we are. She's actually and Australopithecus afarensis.Lucy - Considered to be related to the arboreal ape.
A cousin is still a family member. And the current designation if Paranthropus.Zinjanthropus - Proven to be a primitive ape and has no ties to modern man or human development.
Finding a living dinosaur is much less problematic for evolution than finding a Permian rabbit.Coelacanth - This was strongly considered by evolutionary scientist to be an index fossil linking early cretaceous which were considered to have become extinct over 80 million years ago. Recently living specimens have been found near Madagascar. - History of the Earth, Henry Morris
You'll need to do better since none of them are "lies" (though, ironically, some of the Creationist assertions about them are), and each of the ones that actually were hoaxes were uncovered not by Creationists, but by scientists.These are just few.
OH! and I suppose God created man by BIOgenesys? Mud is Alive?
If you have no idea of chemistry then you cannot understand how ABIOgenesys can happen.
What do you think life is comprised of?
NONE of the Chemicals comprising life is living. Show me one living Chemical or element?
What in the world does any of this have to do with whether or not abiogenesis is taught?
Perhaps you should, as well. Seeing as how you got this from my Alma Mater (Boston University), I'll enlighten you; BU's CGS curriculum teaches that the various work on origins of life doesn't yet amount to a true scientific theory, just as posters here have been telling you. Your cut-n-paste of their core curriculum shows nothing about the actual content of the course, which is what really matters, here...
I highlighted the part in which I am interested, please provide where in the resources provided by the University that it states this. If I am wrong about the content having no part reserved for abiogenesis then by all means please provide that as well.
Thanks I already have it....oh, that was for those who didn't...thanks.
Interesting, too, that you got this from the College of General Studies, a college within BU specifically designed to bring under-performing students that show potential, but had a horrible quality of high school education, up to speed on the fundamentals they should have gotten in high school, so that they can enter a proper course of university study by their junior year. Who does that remind me of, off the top of my head? Home-schooled kids whose parents brought them to church and/or the Creationist Museum for their biology curriculum, for one.
The fact that students who have under-performed (but show Potential) but have had a horrible quality of high school education are being "brought up to speed" about the origin of life is not something that really supports your argument, now does it?
What you posted was a curriculum of a social studies department. Abiogenesis does not fall under the social sciences.Well then please by all means correct me if I am wrong that the study of origin of life has nothing to do with abiogenesis the theory and what has and is being done to supply evidence for it?
Steadfastly claiming this again and again won't make it true. The facts that demonstrate our common ancestry with other species are myriad, but I personally think that this is a rather beautiful illustration of one tiny piece of the evidence:The origin of man in either case is an unproven theory, that can not be proven using the scientific method.
Well then please by all means correct me if I am wrong that the study of origin of life has nothing to do with abiogenesis the theory and what has and is being done to supply evidence for it?
What?
Many who understand chemistry more than I do not "understand" how abiogenesis could happen. If the world's top scientists do not "undertand" how in the world do I or you have an understanding of it?
Saying that life is comprised of chemicals that are not "living" is not really a good argument, in my estimation at least, of abiogenesis since everything is made of such and some are actually living and some of course are not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?