Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   two important questions for Servant
Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 152 (107011)
05-10-2004 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by crashfrog
05-10-2004 2:02 AM


Forgot one thing...
Gravity, by definition, is the attraction between any two given bodies. However, that is the effect of the force that has been labeled "gravity," not the true sense of what the force IS and what causes it... the question I'm getting at is what is the cause and physical property of such a force?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 05-10-2004 2:02 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 05-10-2004 3:48 AM Servant2thecause has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 152 (107017)
05-10-2004 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Servant2thecause
05-10-2004 3:11 AM


the question I'm getting at is what is the cause and physical property of such a force?
Asked and answered. There is no "force", there's just straight-line motion through curved space.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-10-2004 3:11 AM Servant2thecause has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-11-2004 1:38 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 152 (107317)
05-11-2004 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
05-10-2004 3:48 AM


There is no "force"
Hmm, then I wonder what the Oxford Dictionary of Physics meant when saying:
The weight of a body is equal to the force of gravity acting on the body. According to Newton's second law of motion F = ma, where F is the force producing an acceleration a on a body of mass m. The weight of a body is therefore equal to the product of its mass and the accerleration due to gravity (g) [...] a force of gravity also exists... because it depends on the mass of the planet and its diameter, the strength of the force is not the same as it is on the earth...
--Isaacs, Alan. "Oxford Dictionary of Physics." Oxford University Press. 2003, p. 200.
"Force" is defined as the agency that tends to change the momentum of a massive body. Thus, gravity is a force (hence the wording above). Also, if gravity is not a force and is merely straight-line motion through curved space, then what causes the attraction between two bodies? Is there a truly a PHYSICAL property of gravity that can explain WHY two bodies of mass feel an attraction? Emphatically no--not with our understanding of science anyway.
Also, if gravity is simply straight-line motion through curved space, what CAUSES the motion in the first place?
Sincerely,
Servant

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 05-10-2004 3:48 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2004 2:00 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 124 of 152 (107320)
05-11-2004 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Servant2thecause
05-11-2004 1:38 AM


Hmm, then I wonder what the Oxford Dictionary of Physics meant when saying:
What they're saying is that you can describe the action of gravity through a model that includes forces.
The description of gravity, mathematically, is a force. Gravity itself is straight-line motion through curved space.
"Force" is defined as the agency that tends to change the momentum of a massive body.
Right. But the object is still moving in a straight line, so the momentum isn't changing. Sure, it looks like the momentum is changing to us, but that's simply an illusion caused by the curvature of space. So gravity isn't really a force - it just looks like one.
Remember that a "straight line" is defined as the shortest distance between two points. In non-Euclidian geometry, that line might appear curved from another geometry - much as the shortest distance between two points on a globe is actually an arc-segment of a circle (whose center is the center of the globe.) These figures are called "geodes", as I recall.
Also, if gravity is not a force and is merely straight-line motion through curved space, then what causes the attraction between two bodies?
There is no attraction. It's just that mass bends space in such a way that, as objects move through curved space, they move towards each other.
Also, if gravity is simply straight-line motion through curved space, what CAUSES the motion in the first place?
Kinetic energy. What does that have to do with gravity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-11-2004 1:38 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by coffee_addict, posted 05-11-2004 2:12 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 125 of 152 (107324)
05-11-2004 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by crashfrog
05-11-2004 2:00 AM


Easy there, frog. People that doesn't have the scientific background like you tend to have a hard time understanding your description of gravity there. That's why dictionaries define gravity in much simpler term so that normal people could understand.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2004 2:00 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 126 of 152 (107334)
05-11-2004 2:45 AM


BTW Servant when are you going to get around to addressing how paleobotany falsifies the Noaic flood? My points are in message 29 of this thread.

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 127 of 152 (108025)
05-13-2004 6:49 PM


Below is from the OP of this thread, and it is an important point that has not been adequately addressed.
Servant, if you would be so kind as to elaborate upon your explanation for the following, I would be most appreciative.
1) Based upon morphology (physical appearence) alone, long before anybody knew anything at all about DNA, Evolutionary Biologists constructed a huge, multi-branched "tree of life" showing the ways they thought life had evolved since the first life emerged.
Lo and behold, DNA and genetics was discovered and then the amazing similarity of the morphological tree of life with the genetic tree of life was revealed.
What is the Creationist explanation of this? Why would the morphlogical and genetic trees of life show the evolution of less-complex life to more complex life, with matching branch points between the two trees, etc., if Biblical creation is true?

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-14-2004 7:17 AM nator has not replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5395 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 128 of 152 (108149)
05-14-2004 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by nator
05-13-2004 6:49 PM


Already answered
Hi all,
As I suggested before, the Creator created the DNA of every living thing "before it was in the earth" (Gen 2:5) including the ability to replicate. He extended each simple string of DNA to get a more complex string. Thus, the appearance of a common ancestor.
Then He rendered (as in .bmp or .jif) each DNA string into its mature earthly form.
We wonderful humans from Adam onward are a special part of that creation. We notice His work and recognize Him in it - or not.
Hope this rephrase of an earlier post is helpful.
Bob, Alice, and Eve

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by nator, posted 05-13-2004 6:49 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Sylas, posted 05-14-2004 8:04 AM BobAliceEve has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 129 of 152 (108152)
05-14-2004 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by BobAliceEve
05-14-2004 7:17 AM


Re: Already answered
BobAliceEve writes:
As I suggested before, the Creator created the DNA of every living thing "before it was in the earth" (Gen 2:5) including the ability to replicate. He extended each simple string of DNA to get a more complex string. Thus, the appearance of a common ancestor.
Your DNA is different to mine; did the Creator create your DNA? Did He create mine?
We can use DNA to test for paternity. Is this just an appearance? Or is it a reasonable way to check if someone is, or is not, the father of a child?
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-14-2004 7:17 AM BobAliceEve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-14-2004 10:07 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 142 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-15-2004 12:20 PM Sylas has replied

  
Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 152 (108299)
05-14-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Sylas
05-14-2004 8:04 AM


Trying to catch up on a busy schedule (sorry about the delays)
There is no attraction. It's just that mass bends space in such a way that, as objects move through curved space, they move towards each other.
Your second sentence contradicted your first. Attraction is the tendency for two objects to move toward each other. Btw, how does mass bend space? Space is a three-dimensional void, so where does the power of bending space come from? Matter is, by definition, compressed energy (positively, neutral, and negatively charged subatomic particles) and therefore the mass of an object already boasts energy within, but from where does the kinetic energy from two bodiesfrom two different points in open spaceto move toward each other come?
Kinetic energy. What does that have to do with gravity?
What causes the kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is the energy of motion. What causes the motion? Potential energy? Then what catalyzes the potential energy into the form of kinetic energy?
Easy there, frog. People that doesn't have the scientific background like you tend to have a hard time understanding your description of gravity there. That's why dictionaries define gravity in much simpler term so that normal people could understand.
Are you suggesting that people like me are normal and don’t have a scientific background. It’s just that I refuse to rely so quickly on a touch-base and move on explanation of how gravity works. We still do not know what causes it, or what it is (yes, gravity is the movement of two bodies toward one another, but we do not know where the movement originates or WHY it happens that way).
BTW Servant when are you going to get around to addressing how paleobotany falsifies the Noaic flood? My points are in message 29 of this thread.
I have not forgotten about your requests for a response. However, I see a greater importance in closing a can of worms that has already been opened FIRST.
1) Based upon morphology (physical appearence) alone, long before anybody knew anything at all about DNA, Evolutionary Biologists constructed a huge, multi-branched "tree of life" showing the ways they thought life had evolved since the first life emerged.
True. But this has nothing to do with how it REALLY happened (emphasis on your use of the phrase they thought is in order okay, moving on)
Lo and behold, DNA and genetics was discovered and then the amazing similarity of the morphological tree of life with the genetic tree of life was revealed.
WOW! So you’re saying that the tree of life that the geneticists constructed and speculated fit that of the morphological tree of life? And the evidence that EITHER tree (or both, in fact) is how it REALLY happened in nature would be. . . ?
What is the Creationist explanation of this? Why would the morphlogical and genetic trees of life show the evolution of less-complex life to more complex life, with matching branch points between the two trees, etc.,
Neither argument for biological evolution (genetic or morphological) can stand on its own. Therefore, the concept that they coincide is the only evidence for evolution (shaky, but it’s all you’ve given me).
We can use DNA to test for paternity. Is this just an appearance? Or is it a reasonable way to check if someone is, or is not, the father of a child?
Yes, we can use genetics to test for hereditary traits, and often predict them quite accurately. However, that is based largely upon the works by Gregor Mendel and his successors in genetics, who were studying the PRESENT genetic variations within a gene pool but not the HISTORY of genetic variations within a gene pool. Seeing a pattern, and connecting the dots to make the pattern fit how they speculate earlier life forms to have originated only means one thing: that their interpretations of genetic paternity fits with their conjectures of neo-Darwinian evolution. But that does not point to a common ancestor.
Okay, they see a pattern, yes, but that does not give them the right to speculate common ancestry whatsoever. For instance, if I saw you driving north on Highway 101 in Oregon, passing mile-marker after mile-marker and gassing up every 150 miles (hey, you’re in an SUV so what do you expect), am I allowed to speculate--based ONLY on your periodic pattern of driving north through Oregon on Highway 101 past mile-markers and gas stations--that you started your journey in Los Angeles three days ago? If I predicted that, in 97 miles you will need to gas up again (based on the fact that you’ve driven 53 miles on your current tank) it would be an accurate assumption. However, I do NOT see your odometer, nor do I see the maps or driving directions sitting on your dashboard--all I see is the pattern of your driving (I’m on the side of the road in, say, Cannon Beach Oregon)--and thus, by a similar stature, the geneticists of today can see a periodic pattern of DNA placement (much like the pattern of driving in a specific direction) but the geneticists are taking a leap of blind faith by agreeing that the pattern implies common ancestry (much like the implication that a car driving north on Highway 101 started in L.A. several days ago).
A construction worker building two houses in different months will likely use the same brand of tools and the same types of bricks for both jobs (much like how all life forms on earth use the same basic chemicals) and therefore the evolution argument for genetic variation-- while compelling and perhaps possible to be true-- is not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt, for the doubt is offered by the advocates of Intelligent Design who use the argument that such similarities in the frequency of gene pools points to a common creator instead of a common ancestor. Such an argument is not backed up by empirical evidence because it can’t be, but that does not make it any less of a POSSIBILITY.
Sincerely,
Servant
P.S. gas prices are staggering!

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Sylas, posted 05-14-2004 8:04 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-14-2004 10:18 PM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2004 12:52 AM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 138 by AdminSylas, posted 05-15-2004 1:09 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 152 (108302)
05-14-2004 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Servant2thecause
05-14-2004 10:07 PM


Re: Trying to catch up on a busy schedule (sorry about the delays)
Lo and behold, DNA and genetics was discovered and then the amazing similarity of the morphological tree of life with the genetic tree of life was revealed.
What is the Creationist explanation of this? Why would the morphlogical and genetic trees of life show the evolution of less-complex life to more complex life, with matching branch points between the two trees, etc., if Biblical creation is true?
Interesting point. However, this point raises a questionable suspicion in my mind. After all, new discoveries in science are constantly altering our previous perceptions of the workings of the universe and life, right? Well then, why would the scientists' construction of the genetic tree of life fit so perfectly well with the morphological tree of life without any contradiction. By mathematical probability and statistically, there surely should have been some type of contradictions or conflicts between the morphological tree of life and the genetic one. The idea that the two fitted so perfectly well with one another poses the question of, did the geneticists constructing the tree of life have any evidence of how evolution occurred beside the morphological tree of life, or did their conjecture of the tree of life originate based upon pre-concieved ideas regarding evolution? If one or the other were true, or if neo-Darwinism as a WHOLE is true, one would expect that the scientists' construction of the genetic and morphological tree of life to show some sort of conflicts with one another BEYOND the typical margin of error, otherwise I would suspect a bias was used in determing the "genetic tree of life" and how it fits in with the morphological one.
Okay, I must be gone,
Sincerely,
Servant

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-14-2004 10:07 PM Servant2thecause has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by NosyNed, posted 05-14-2004 10:23 PM Servant2thecause has replied
 Message 134 by Coragyps, posted 05-14-2004 10:48 PM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2004 12:55 AM Servant2thecause has replied
 Message 144 by nator, posted 05-15-2004 1:08 PM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 132 of 152 (108304)
05-14-2004 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Servant2thecause
05-14-2004 10:18 PM


What are you suggesting?
The idea that the two fitted so perfectly well with one another poses the question of, did the geneticists constructing the tree of life have any evidence of how evolution occurred beside the morphological tree of life, or did their conjecture of the tree of life originate based upon pre-concieved ideas regarding evolution?
This suggests that there was dishonesty involved. If that is your only explanation for the corrolation you haven't a leg to stand on. Where is the analysis of the published data by your creation so-called scientists that demonstrates the problem? I'll tell you there isn't one.
The facts are that the two line up very well (not perfectly as I understand it be very, very well indeed). You have no explanation for this. Just one of the reasons why creationism is dead in the water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-14-2004 10:18 PM Servant2thecause has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-14-2004 10:46 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 152 (108309)
05-14-2004 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by NosyNed
05-14-2004 10:23 PM


Re: What are you suggesting?
This suggests that there was dishonesty involved. If that is your only explanation for the corrolation you haven't a leg to stand on. Where is the analysis of the published data by your creation so-called scientists that demonstrates the problem? I'll tell you there isn't one.
So you're telling me that, because I cannot PROVE something then therefore it's not even a possibility? Hmm, let me know when you run for president.
The mere fact that the two line up so well indeed implies ONE of two possibilities:
1) The scientists were very fortunate to find such a striking coincidence in the idea of how evolution took place from a genetic and morphological perspective, beyond mathematical probability and the statistical likelihood, OR
2) The scientists who built the genetic tree of life allowed the pre-concieved morphological tree of life to influence their judgement in the creating of the genetic tree of life.
Forgive me for throwing possibility (2) out there, but if I didn't then I ran the danger of people using the correlation-argument between the two as evidence for their theory.
If you are going to criticize my judgment only on behalf of the fact that I gave you a possible creation-compatible answer as to why we see a correlation in the morphological and genetic tree of life, then you are acting as the naive one in this case.

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by NosyNed, posted 05-14-2004 10:23 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by NosyNed, posted 05-15-2004 12:21 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 134 of 152 (108311)
05-14-2004 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Servant2thecause
05-14-2004 10:18 PM


Re: Trying to catch up on a busy schedule (sorry about the delays)
Well then, why would the scientists' construction of the genetic tree of life fit so perfectly well with the morphological tree of life without any contradiction. By mathematical probability and statistically, there surely should have been some type of contradictions or conflicts between the morphological tree of life and the genetic one.
They don't fit "without any contradiction." There is even a recent case where some nasty-looking little sea creature that was thought to be a mullosc, I think it was, but turns out on the basis of DNA to be more like an acorn worm or suchlike, and possibly a new phylum of its own. Bats have turned out to belong to two seperate Classes instead of one, as morphology once had it figured. So no, the fit isn't perfect. But of course, the surprises are what make news, and the "we already knew that"s don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-14-2004 10:18 PM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 135 of 152 (108318)
05-15-2004 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Servant2thecause
05-14-2004 10:46 PM


the match
2) The scientists who built the genetic tree of life allowed the pre-concieved morphological tree of life to influence their judgement in the creating of the genetic tree of life.
As I understand it, but I'm not in the field, the matching is done by computer algorithms. If there is anything warping the results there you now telling me that the ICR folks aren't all over it? You do understand that these things are published with considerable detail.
Care to show where the genetic sequences have been analyzed incorrectly?
And I am also saying the if you make such accusations you do have to have proof. If you published such things you are subject to the libel laws and need to back up what you are saying.
It comes back down to you only being able to say that the results are NOT as published. You have no reason, you have no evidence. You have no other way of explaining the results. This is why creationism deserves it's treatment in the science classroom and the courts.
Your first "choice" is worded incorrectly. It isn't good luck it is because the evolutionary process did unfold as had been predicted decades before all the data was in. There isn't any luck involved in that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Servant2thecause, posted 05-14-2004 10:46 PM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024