Evolution, global warming . . . now relativity

[pirana 0]

Quote

What a bunch of fuckin' luddites. I swear we're going back to the stone age.

No. These idiots have always been out there. They just have a better way of getting their message out now that there is an internet.

The same point was made in the 9/11 truther thread recently.

Some of them are so convinced that evolution doesn't happen. I gotta admit that many of them seem to prove that Darwin was wrong.

Yep. Before the internet existed they were relegated to answering each others ads in the back of The National Enquirer.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[skipbelt 0]

concerning evolution is that still a theory ?
or has it been proven to be scientific fact ?
concerning global warming same two questions !
anyone read christopher horner ?
just asking !

[quade 3]

Quote

concerning evolution is that still a theory ?
or has it been proven to be scientific fact ?
concerning global warming same two questions !
anyone read christopher horner ?
just asking !

Would you know the difference between "fact" and "theory"?

For instance, both gravity and electricity are, in terms of science, theory. Jump out of an airplane or stick your finger in a light socket recently?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Quote

concerning evolution is that still a theory ?
or has it been proven to be scientific fact ?
concerning global warming same two questions !
anyone read christopher horner ?
just asking !

Would you know the difference between "fact" and "theory"?
For instance, both gravity and electricity are, in terms of science, theory. Jump out of an airplane or stick your finger in a light socket recently?

a distinction without a difference

[billvon 2,436]

>concerning evolution is that still a theory ? or has it been proven to be
>scientific fact ?

It is a scientific theory, one that has been observed in action in living organisms, observed via paleontological research, molecular biology, genetics, physiology and comparative anatomy.

BTW the idea that you had a great-great-grandfather is only a theory, too - as is the theory of gravity. But I have a feeling you'll still use a parachute next time you jump!

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

a distinction without a difference

Absolutely not. A fact is an observed thing. A theory is an explanation of a fact or group of facts.

Evolution (like gravity) is both a fact and a theory. Evolution happens, we evolved, this is fact. The explanation of how evolution happens is the Theory of Evolution.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Skwrl 56]

***

Quote

You should go back and read what Carl Segan had written about souls and quantum Mech.

Quote

Indeed - Sagan exhorted us to be sceptical thinkers.

Quote

I agree, but he also was of the mind set that there might just be design behind it all. He mentioned that there were just too many variables to fathom that they all had to be in exactly the right place at the right time for it all to work.

Two thoughts arise as I read this. I'm not sure the particular work of Carl's that you're citing (I've read all of his books, and while I'm not saying he didn't say that, I don't recall it), but he also said "we should keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out".

He also one wrote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence..." and "Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Quote

a distinction without a difference

Absolutely not. A fact is an observed thing. A theory is an explanation of a fact or group of facts.
Evolution (like gravity) is both a fact and a theory. Evolution happens, we evolved, this is fact. The explanation of how evolution happens is the Theory of Evolution.

a fact is a measurable quantifiable truth. it is able to be observed , experimented upon , and consistently verifiable in laboratory conditions . gravity , electricity fit this mold. evolution does not. whereas evolution might be true it is by no means a fact !

[billvon 2,436]

>gravity , electricity fit this mold. evolution does not.

Gravity can be observed in the lab. We cannot duplicate it or manipulate it. We cannot simulate it. We do not understand how it works.

Evolution can be observed in the lab and in the wild. We can duplicate it. We can force it to work for us (chihuahuas used to be wolves, after all.) We understand how it works.

So using your standards, evolution is a fact; gravity, not so much.

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

>gravity , electricity fit this mold. evolution does not.
Gravity can be observed in the lab. We cannot duplicate it or manipulate it. We cannot simulate it. We do not understand how it works.
Evolution can be observed in the lab and in the wild. We can duplicate it. We can force it to work for us (chihuahuas used to be wolves, after all.) We understand how it works.
So using your standards, evolution is a fact; gravity, not so much.

thank you for proving my point by twisting my standards !

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

>gravity , electricity fit this mold. evolution does not.

Gravity can be observed in the lab. We cannot duplicate it or manipulate it. We cannot simulate it. We do not understand how it works.

Evolution can be observed in the lab and in the wild. We can duplicate it. We can force it to work for us (chihuahuas used to be wolves, after all.) We understand how it works.

So using your standards, evolution is a fact; gravity, not so much.

thank you for proving my point by twisting my standards !

Lame response of the week.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>gravity , electricity fit this mold. evolution does not.
Gravity can be observed in the lab. We cannot duplicate it or manipulate it. We cannot simulate it. We do not understand how it works.
Evolution can be observed in the lab and in the wild. We can duplicate it. We can force it to work for us (chihuahuas used to be wolves, after all.) We understand how it works.
So using your standards, evolution is a fact; gravity, not so much.

thank you for proving my point by twisting my standards !

Lame response of the week.

darnit , just got dialed in on billvon , now kallend !

[pirana 0]

Quote

The explanation of how evolution happens is the Theory of Evolution.

I think the explanation for evolution is the theory of natural selection. Just what I've read.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Would you know the difference between "fact" and "theory"?

a distinction without a difference

[metalslug 31]

Quote

Gravity can be observed in the lab. We cannot duplicate it or manipulate it. We cannot simulate it. We do not understand how it works.

How would one define 'simulate' in this context ?
Can we not 'simulate' gravity in space using centrifugal motion, in as much as we simulate weightlessness on earth using a parabolic flight path?

You might say that we would be simulating the force of gravity and not gravity itself. If so; what defines gravity other than as a force ?

By comparison; I've seen flight 'simulators' offer a poorer simulation of flight than the two examples above, so what do you regard as a simulation in this context?

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Gravity can be observed in the lab. We cannot duplicate it or manipulate it. We cannot simulate it. We do not understand how it works.

How would one define 'simulate' in this context ?
Can we not 'simulate' gravity in space using centrifugal motion, in as much as we simulate weightlessness on earth using a parabolic flight path?

You might say that we would be simulating the force of gravity and not gravity itself. If so; what defines gravity other than as a force ?

By comparison; I've seen flight 'simulators' offer a poorer simulation of flight than the two examples above, so what do you regard as a simulation in this context?

Can you not chemically simulate the Holy Spirit?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,436]

>Can we not 'simulate' gravity in space using centrifugal motion, in as
>much as we simulate weightlessness on earth using a parabolic flight path?

To a degree, yes. Both are just motions within a given gravity field. Heck, the gravity in low Earth orbit isn't much different than it is here - but astronauts and satellites cleverly fall at a speed at which they never actually hit the Earth.

Additionally, those same astronauts could fire up a rocket and accelerate towards the earth - and feel a 1G force pushing them _upwards_ within the confines of the rocket.

But all those cases are cases of inertia acting on a body in motion or at rest.

Every other force we know about in the universe is carried by bosons. The electromagnetic force is carried by photons; W and Z bosons carry weak nuclear force and gluons carry strong nuclear force. We can produce photons at will (fortunately, or we'd have trouble seeing at night.) We can observe and manipulate the other two kinds of bosons in particle accelerators.

But no one has ever seen a Higgs boson (which may give particles mass) or a graviton (which might serve as the force mediator for gravity.) We don't know how to detect them. We don't know how to make them. We don't understand how gravitons (if they exist) work. We can't block them, focus them, amplify them or attenuate them.

We can simulate the _effects_ of gravity through acceleration. But we haven't yet learned how to create, observe or manipulate the basic force.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

We can simulate the _effects_ of gravity through acceleration. But we haven't yet learned how to create, observe or manipulate the basic force.

Same goes with God

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,436]

>Same goes with God

Very true. Some people get the same effect with drugs and alcohol; others through nationalism or political party membership.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

>Same goes with God

Very true. Some people get the same effect with drugs and alcohol; others through nationalism or political party membership.

Yeah . . . Pretty intense watching that happen to a liberal.

Even funnier watching it happen to an extreme conservative!

But to the point - both can be proven the exact same amount.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

But to the point - both can be proven the exact same amount.

The existence of gravity and the existance of an actual god? I think you've been taking too many of those 'simulants'.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 3]

Quote

But to the point - both can be proven the exact same amount.

Tell ya what, we'll take you up in a plane with no parachute, toss you out and see if gravity exists or not. On the way down, you can pray for god to save you and see if he exists or not.

Somehow I think it's far easier to prove gravity exists than god.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

But to the point - both can be proven the exact same amount.

The existence of gravity and the existance of an actual god? I think you've been taking too many of those 'simulants'.

Nope.

He stated that gravity cannot be proven, but it is obvious. You can simulate it, and you can show it working, but you cannot show how it works or what makes it work.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

But to the point - both can be proven the exact same amount.

Tell ya what, we'll take you up in a plane with no parachute, toss you out and see if gravity exists or not. On the way down, you can pray for god to save you and see if he exists or not.

"We" would be a necessity - how many do you think it will take?
By "we" - you mean whom?

Somehow I think it's far easier to prove gravity exists than god.

Just because it is easier to demonstrate doesn't make it more or less provable.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,436]

>But to the point - both can be proven the exact same amount.

The existence of God can be proven not at all. The existence of gravity can be proven to a great many decimal places. So unless you believe 0 = .9999, your statement doesn't work.