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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
In this way, evolution, is an objective explanation of why life is the way that it is.
There are, however, many different theories of creation.
Mmm, not quite. They're called hypotheses. Theories totally un tolerated to creationists.
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.
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.
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.