Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 72 (9010 total)
 57 online now: PaulK (1 member, 56 visitors) Newest Member: Burrawang Post Volume: Total: 881,668 Year: 13,416/23,288 Month: 346/795 Week: 47/95 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Education and Creation/Evolution

# My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
Acalepha
Junior Member (Idle past 3337 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 06-08-2011

 Message 46 of 336 (619470) 06-09-2011 10:24 PM Reply to: Message 44 by NoNukes06-09-2011 10:06 PM

Newton's Law of Gravity
Different elements have different atomic masses due to their different mass number. Yes, the more mass an atom has the greater it's ability to attract another atom.

Newton's law of gravity goes like this;

Force of Gravity (J)=Gravitational const x 1st obj mass x 2nd ob mass

divided by the square of the distance between the objects.

mass in kg
distance in metres

kind regards,

Acalepha

 This message is a reply to: Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 10:06 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

 Replies to this message: Message 48 by DBlevins, posted 06-10-2011 1:49 AM Acalepha has responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1955 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006

 Message 47 of 336 (619483) 06-10-2011 1:05 AM Reply to: Message 42 by Acalepha06-09-2011 8:04 PM

Re: Hi Panda
Ok, I'm going to put my serious hat on.

 Acalepha writes:Actually every atom in the universe is attracted to every other atom. The force of this atom depends only on the distance between the two atoms. The more atoms there are in one place, the greater this force is going to be. That is why the planets orbit the sun, because there are a whole lot of atoms that make up the mass of the sun. There simply are not enough atoms in a mountain to attract a rock. There are, however, enough atoms in the earth to attract rocks and other things towards it. (This is the force that we call gravity)

You're sort of right but not really. Try to think of it this way. You have your dad hold you by your hand. You try to walk in a path perpendicular to the direction towards him. He's hand is holding you back, so you end up walking in a circle around him. That's more or less what's happening when you see orbiting bodies. And they're not orbiting each other either. They're orbiting the center of gravity between them. It's pretty cool if you think about it.

 Are you for real? No one can be this stupid. You're kidding right!

Choices, choices.

Choice A: I'm stupid.
Choice B: I'm kidding.

... I think I'll go with choice A.

 Whoa! Are you really a Christian?

Ok, you got me. I'm actually a satan worshiping atheist.

 This message is a reply to: Message 42 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 8:04 PM Acalepha has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 50 by Acalepha, posted 06-10-2011 5:39 AM Taz has not yet responded

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 2439 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003

 Message 48 of 336 (619485) 06-10-2011 1:49 AM Reply to: Message 46 by Acalepha06-09-2011 10:24 PM

Re: Newton's Law of Gravity
Quick quibble.

The atomic mass is NOT due to their atomic number, but rather to the number of neutrons and protons. The atomic number is determined by the number of protons in the element.

Attraction in elements has only a little to do with size. Van der waals forces have a fairly small attractive ability. The loss or gain of electrons is what really holds atoms to each other.

 This message is a reply to: Message 46 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 10:24 PM Acalepha has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 49 by Acalepha, posted 06-10-2011 5:37 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

Acalepha
Junior Member (Idle past 3337 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 06-08-2011

 Message 49 of 336 (619502) 06-10-2011 5:37 AM Reply to: Message 48 by DBlevins06-10-2011 1:49 AM

Re: Newton's Law of Gravity
I am assuming that we are talking about atoms with similar mass numbers. I absolutely agree that atoms with larger atomic masses will exert a higher force of attraction on their neighboring counterparts.

kind regards,

Acalepha

 This message is a reply to: Message 48 by DBlevins, posted 06-10-2011 1:49 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

Acalepha
Junior Member (Idle past 3337 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 06-08-2011

 Message 50 of 336 (619503) 06-10-2011 5:39 AM Reply to: Message 47 by Taz06-10-2011 1:05 AM

Alright, I agree with you..
You are a stupid satan worshipping atheist.

I agree.

kind regards,

Acalepha

 This message is a reply to: Message 47 by Taz, posted 06-10-2011 1:05 AM Taz has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

 Message 51 of 336 (619563) 06-10-2011 12:27 PM Reply to: Message 36 by Acalepha06-09-2011 7:33 PM

Re: Dear Catholic Scientist
 Let us say that I use a "ID" as a explanation for creationism. Am I not substituting a make believe myth for a whole bunch of ethnic one?

Huh?

 What ever way you look at it, you are dismissing the cultural beliefs of all the different ethnic groups that espouse them.

I think I'm following you...

You're saying that if you decide to teach creationism, then picking one particular version and only teaching that is prejudiced. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

As I've explained, one solution to that dilemma is to teach an overarching all-inclusive creationism like ID. But, again: BUT, we would have to have empirical evidence of ID to include it in a science curriculum. Now, if we did have that evidence, then there wouldn't be any problems teaching ID in a science class. You wouldn't be dismissing any cultural belief anymore than the current teaching of evolution does.

Make sense?

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. - St. Thomas Aquinas

 This message is a reply to: Message 36 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 7:33 PM Acalepha has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 53 by Acalepha, posted 06-10-2011 4:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

 Message 52 of 336 (619564) 06-10-2011 12:29 PM Reply to: Message 34 by DBlevins06-09-2011 6:32 PM

Re: Ok,, I understand
 Race, as a classification, has no value.

We should have a new thread on this...

Race, as a classification, has value to Affirmative Action, no?

 This message is a reply to: Message 34 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 6:32 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 54 by Acalepha, posted 06-10-2011 4:02 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded Message 55 by Nuggin, posted 06-10-2011 4:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Acalepha
Junior Member (Idle past 3337 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 06-08-2011

 Message 53 of 336 (619613) 06-10-2011 4:01 PM Reply to: Message 51 by New Cat's Eye06-10-2011 12:27 PM

Re: Dear Catholic Scientist
yup.

do we have empirical evidence of ID?

 This message is a reply to: Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2011 12:27 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Acalepha
Junior Member (Idle past 3337 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 06-08-2011

 Message 54 of 336 (619614) 06-10-2011 4:02 PM Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye06-10-2011 12:29 PM

Re: Ok,, I understand
I am black.

I completely disagree with helping others according to racial profiling. We should help others based on their needs.

 This message is a reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2011 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 58 by Taz, posted 06-10-2011 6:59 PM Acalepha has not yet responded Message 75 by NoNukes, posted 06-11-2011 9:50 AM Acalepha has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1156 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

 Message 55 of 336 (619619) 06-10-2011 4:28 PM Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye06-10-2011 12:29 PM

Re: Ok,, I understand
 Race, as a classification, has value to Affirmative Action, no?

I say no.
The problem with race in America is that we haven't adequately defined it.

We're still working off the Reconstruction South's definition of "black". One drop of black blood.

A 100% African immigrant is black.
So is someone who's 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/8 or 1/16 or 1/32.

Basically if you declare yourself "black", who's gonna question it.

The same deal isn't working for 1/16th Latino. Or 1/16th Asian.

Now couple that with the fact that America is a melting pot, and you're hard pressed to find anyone who is 100% one thing or another. So, then we've got the problem of determining if Tiger Woods is black or Asian. Should he get scholarships from two different programs? Does he have to declare that he's one thing or another.

The whole system is a complete mess.

 This message is a reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2011 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 56 by Acalepha, posted 06-10-2011 5:10 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Acalepha
Junior Member (Idle past 3337 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 06-08-2011

 Message 56 of 336 (619627) 06-10-2011 5:10 PM Reply to: Message 55 by Nuggin06-10-2011 4:28 PM

the problem with your line of thought
If you try and determine who is what ethnic group (which is impossible because all people are a mixture of all the different ethnic groups) but if you decided to do it anyways, your society would quickly become a racist apartheid state like Israel for example.

Now I think that America is the land of freedom. For America to ignore her constitution that enshrines the freedoms and rights we all share would be a tremendous mistake.

 This message is a reply to: Message 55 by Nuggin, posted 06-10-2011 4:28 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 2376 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010

 Message 57 of 336 (619636) 06-10-2011 5:47 PM Reply to: Message 16 by Acalepha06-09-2011 2:12 PM

Re: Hi Panda
 Acalepha writes:Well put.

Since you didn't bother reading my post, I will respond in kind.

 This message is a reply to: Message 16 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 2:12 PM Acalepha has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1955 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006

 Message 58 of 336 (619639) 06-10-2011 6:59 PM Reply to: Message 54 by Acalepha06-10-2011 4:02 PM

Re: Ok,, I understand
 Acalepha writes:I am black.

I must admit that I'm guilty of imagining everyone on here to be white. The only non-white person I was aware of before you came along was that comedian guy Onifre.

 This message is a reply to: Message 54 by Acalepha, posted 06-10-2011 4:02 PM Acalepha has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member

 Message 59 of 336 (619642) 06-10-2011 8:10 PM Reply to: Message 1 by Acalepha06-08-2011 12:49 PM

Who Observed What?
 Acalepha writes:Hi All!The theory of evolution is based entirely on empirical observation.

Hi Acadelphia. Welcome! You mean like alleged observation of the process of emerging primordial soup into the simplest life thingy which through a gazillion intricate natural non-intelligent processes to intelligent complex humans, etc, disorder and chaos, all the way to the order and complexity observed today? Who observed all of this?

Who observed the BB singularity event, having no space to have existed, no time into which have happened and no outside of in which to have expanded? Who has observed all of those multi verses.

Obviously above boastings became observed by dreamy delusional mindsets on desks in popular prestigious peer paper pages.

And you reject intelligently designed creationist planned disorder & chaos into things complex and orderly. ID creationism is what is observed in reality; clay to bricks to houses, etc. No?

 Acadelpha writes:In this way, evolution, is an objective explanation of why life is the way that it is.

 Acadelpha writes:There are, however, many different theories of creation.

Mmm, not quite. They're called hypotheses. Theories totally un tolerated to creationists.

 Acadelpha writes:The Christian religion has their belief which is different from the Muslim belief which is different from the North American First Nation's beliefs and so on and so on.

The first Biblical historical accounts attributed to creationist context.

 Acadelpha writes:If creation is to be taught in the education system, whose version of creation should be taught? You certainly cannot teach ALL the thousands of different versions as truth. The very nature of teaching creation implies that there is only one version of creation.

The first, the foremost, the finest.

 Acadelpha writes:If you teach one version of creation over a different version of creation, is this not racist? Who decides whose culture is valid and whose is invalid?

That seems to depend on whether the teacher is black or white. Both often teach various deviations from the oldest accounts.

Edited by Buzsaw, : added "un" to objectively.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by Acalepha, posted 06-08-2011 12:49 PM Acalepha has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 60 by Coragyps, posted 06-10-2011 9:05 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded Message 63 by Panda, posted 06-11-2011 6:43 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5548
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.9

 Message 60 of 336 (619648) 06-10-2011 9:05 PM Reply to: Message 59 by Buzsaw06-10-2011 8:10 PM

Re: Who Observed What?
 The first, the foremost, the finest.

You read it here. folks! Buz endorses the Sumerian creation story!

 This message is a reply to: Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 06-10-2011 8:10 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 61 by jar, posted 06-10-2011 9:09 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)