Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
theLimmitt
Junior Member (Idle past 5917 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 121 of 301 (435734)
11-22-2007 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by crashfrog
11-22-2007 3:26 PM


True, but I saw this almost 5 years ago and then I just said fuck it what does it matter how I was made as long as I'm here so I'm way behind on recent facts and all that jazz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2007 3:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2007 3:34 PM theLimmitt has replied

theLimmitt
Junior Member (Idle past 5917 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 122 of 301 (435735)
11-22-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Chiroptera
11-22-2007 3:30 PM


Well I do belive you, I want information. I don't really get this that's why I brought it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Chiroptera, posted 11-22-2007 3:30 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Chiroptera, posted 11-22-2007 3:39 PM theLimmitt has replied

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


Message 123 of 301 (435736)
11-22-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by theLimmitt
11-22-2007 3:28 PM


But they didn't jump off they got flung off because the speed was to much for them to handle.
What's the difference? They don't spin; they continue in straightline motion tangential to the point where they were no longer connected to the merry-go-round.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by theLimmitt, posted 11-22-2007 3:28 PM theLimmitt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by theLimmitt, posted 11-22-2007 3:34 PM crashfrog has replied

theLimmitt
Junior Member (Idle past 5917 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 124 of 301 (435737)
11-22-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by crashfrog
11-22-2007 3:30 PM


Explain, I don't understand what you're trying to tell me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2007 3:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

theLimmitt
Junior Member (Idle past 5917 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 125 of 301 (435738)
11-22-2007 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by crashfrog
11-22-2007 3:32 PM


I see your point and I think that I'm starting to understand now, but I get confuesed easly so use small words for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2007 3:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2007 3:43 PM theLimmitt has replied

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


Message 126 of 301 (435739)
11-22-2007 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by theLimmitt
11-22-2007 3:30 PM


True, but I saw this almost 5 years ago and then I just said fuck it what does it matter how I was made as long as I'm here so I'm way behind on recent facts and all that jazz.
Nothing recent about centrifugal force, friend. Newton figured this stuff out. Hovind would have known better if he had simply observed reality, but then, if he did that, he wouldn't be a creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by theLimmitt, posted 11-22-2007 3:30 PM theLimmitt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by theLimmitt, posted 11-22-2007 3:37 PM crashfrog has replied

theLimmitt
Junior Member (Idle past 5917 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 127 of 301 (435740)
11-22-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by crashfrog
11-22-2007 3:34 PM


Why wouldn't he have been a creationist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2007 3:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2007 3:49 PM theLimmitt has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 301 (435741)
11-22-2007 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by theLimmitt
11-22-2007 3:32 PM


I don't really get this....
There really is nothing to "get". The way the universe began has nothing to do with the way the planets spin today. Why would it?

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by theLimmitt, posted 11-22-2007 3:32 PM theLimmitt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by theLimmitt, posted 11-22-2007 3:40 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 163 by Aquilegia753, posted 12-22-2007 4:03 PM Chiroptera has replied

theLimmitt
Junior Member (Idle past 5917 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 129 of 301 (435742)
11-22-2007 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Chiroptera
11-22-2007 3:39 PM


Very true, things change over time. They never stay constant for long.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Chiroptera, posted 11-22-2007 3:39 PM Chiroptera has not replied

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


Message 130 of 301 (435744)
11-22-2007 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by theLimmitt
11-22-2007 3:34 PM


I see your point and I think that I'm starting to understand now, but I get confuesed easly so use small words for me.
Let me try something different.
See? You can fill a bucket with water and swing it around your head; it doesn't fall out because centrifugal force is pushing it out towards the bottom of the bucket, holding it in place.
That's because objects inside other rotating objects want to continue in a straight line; that's why you feel a force pushing you against the outside of the car when you make a turn. Your body wants to keep going in a straight line but the car is turning underneath you.
We wouldn't experience those effects without the tendency of objects to go in straightline motion when released from spinning objects. If they wanted to spin instead, we'd observe different effects.
If you've ever thrown a ball, you've used centrifugal force. If objects simply spun, instead, throwing a ball would be impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by theLimmitt, posted 11-22-2007 3:34 PM theLimmitt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by theLimmitt, posted 11-22-2007 3:44 PM crashfrog has not replied

theLimmitt
Junior Member (Idle past 5917 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 131 of 301 (435746)
11-22-2007 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
11-22-2007 3:43 PM


Thankyou I think I understand now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2007 3:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 11-22-2007 5:59 PM theLimmitt has not replied
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 11-23-2007 7:26 AM theLimmitt has not replied

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


Message 132 of 301 (435749)
11-22-2007 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by theLimmitt
11-22-2007 3:37 PM


Why wouldn't he have been a creationist?
People who have used observation of the natural world to arrive at the best explanation for the origin of life are evolutionists, by definition. Creationism is the "explanation" you arrive at when start with creationism, because you want to believe in it, and then you simply ignore everything that might contradict you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by theLimmitt, posted 11-22-2007 3:37 PM theLimmitt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Aquilegia753, posted 12-22-2007 4:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 133 of 301 (435750)
11-22-2007 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by theLimmitt
11-22-2007 3:12 PM


theLimmitt writes:
If you get 10 of 12 grade schoolers on a mary-go-round and have the highschool foot ball team spinning them around when they stop they will fly off and will all be spinning in the original direction of the mary-go-round.
I've done the experiment many times - both as the victim and as the perpetrator. The children fly off in a staight line until they hit something. They don't spin unless they were spinning when they were on the merry-go-round.
But, since the planets didn't exist at the Big Bang, they couldn't have had any initial spin - so Hovind's idea is irrelevant anyway.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by theLimmitt, posted 11-22-2007 3:12 PM theLimmitt has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 134 of 301 (435758)
11-22-2007 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by theLimmitt
11-22-2007 3:17 PM


Well that dosn't really make sence does it. It has the same amount of energy but it's just being broken up into diffrent peices, so if the big bang is correct then wouldn't all the planets be spinning the same way?
You seem to be mixing up the Big Bang with the formation of the Solar System, which happened billions of years later.
I think the creationist argument that you're mangling (or that Kent Hovind has mangled for you) is this one.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by theLimmitt, posted 11-22-2007 3:17 PM theLimmitt has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 135 of 301 (435759)
11-22-2007 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by theLimmitt
11-22-2007 3:17 PM


It has the same amount of energy but it's just being broken up into diffrent peices, ...
Correct, but the conservation of energy, linear momentum and angular momentum is the total of the system.
Angular momentum - Wikipedia
quote:
Definition
Angular momentum of a particle about some origin is defined as:
L = r X p
where:
L is the angular momentum of the particle,
r is the position of the particle expressed as a displacement vector from the origin,
p is the linear momentum of the particle, and
X is the vector cross product.

When each child is thrown from the merry-go-round the values of r and p do not change for that child, and the total of momentum about the origin is the same as before.
What we are familiar with, and remember from experience, is the spin sometimes induced in the child from holding onto the handle and then losing grip in such a way that it induces a spin in the child based on the linear momentum of the child and the arm length (literally) of the child, and which ALSO results in a loss of angular momentum of the remaining merry-go-round (it slows down, having been pulled back), plus the effect of being dizzy.
Try placing a ball on the merry-go-round on a ring (so that it resists some rotational speed) and when you speed it up enough that it rolls off, it will roll without spinning about the vertical axis.
Message 112
Dr.Hovind has a great example of ...
... how creationists LIE about science, regularly. Doesn't matter WHAT the science is, their objective is misinformation, misrepresentation and denial of reality.
If creationism had a shred of truth, why would creationists need to LIE about reality?
Even after they have been told that what they said is false.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by theLimmitt, posted 11-22-2007 3:17 PM theLimmitt 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