there may or may not be purpose, who is to say for sure? the point i am making is that the why questions can quickly end up outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

Well...as I understand it ( and forgive me if this is inaccurate as i am not a physicist) Physics has moved on since Newton was writing. He has provided some of the basics....but it didnt all just end there.

Originally posted by beavis
Good. That's what I was advocating. The Why question is outside the realm of scientific inquiry

I suspect that creationists who "accept microevolution but deny macroevolution" still haven't gotten over the idea that life has been around on the Earth for more than ~6000 years.

"" from sciencenet.org
Einstein went on to show that light would bend in a gravitational field.

Since light had no mass Newton’s theory could not explain this bending. Einstein’s great contribution was to show that spacetime actually curved due to mass. Like a bowling ball sitting on a rubber sheet, space would curve near the mass but remain reasonably flat farther away. Only if light passed close to the large mass would its path be appreciably deviated. Experiments have now been performed which show that light really does bend near a mass due to the curvature of spacetime.

But this is not the final answer to what gravity is. General relativity cannot be reconciled with quantum mechanics and there is a lot of ongoing research in this field. Gravity is only one of four fundamental forces which are all equally mysterious. The four forces are gravitation, related to mass, electromagnetic, related to the charge of a particle, the strong force and the weak force which are both related to properties of particles in the nucleus. The reason why these forces are linked to certain particles properties is not very well understood. The most promising theory is superstring theory. But until a full theory a quantum gravity is devised the question “what is gravity?’” will remain unanswered."

Fair enough. We dont know ultimately what gravity is.

i lost track of this thread, and have not yet taken the time to catch up, but.....

i wanted to drop this little gem into the pot:

I heard an argument for creationism that trumps all arguments against it:

when god created the heavens and the earth, and all of space and time, he created it complete with already ancient fossils and extinct creatures. Even if faced with irrefutable proof of evolution, their faith muscle is so strong, that their grip on their belief will not waver.

i can only express my frustration with it, because they have every right to believe in Genesis. And obviously nothing I say can change their minds.

whatever.

Yet another reason for me not to be a Christian. C'mon, a deity that plants red herrings, and then fucks you over if you buy his little diversions?

Let's look at this objectively...if you met a person who needed constant praise, someone who would, say, let some poor fucker all but kill his own son in order to prove his loyalty and obedience;someone who would, in fact, procreate, knowing full well that his progeny would be tortured to death; someone who believes that freedom of choice only includes two possible ultimate choices; someone who insists that you do not like anyone better than them...

Wouldn't you avoid this person like the plague because they were *FUCKING INSANE??!!*

Questions for Evoutionists. (I don't expect an answer to these, this is rhetorical.)

What's your point?

oh and Itself

If they're rhetorical, then why post them and direct them at Evolutionists?

Good question Syc! ......Or was that rhetorical?:blunt:

Well, you're going to get one anyway.

Nobody knows. NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.

I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.

Nobody knows. NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.

I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.

Nobody knows. NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.

I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.

1) You are presupposing that there is a desire on the part of the plant as well as the ability to judge its own survival needs.

2) Nobody knows. NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.

I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.

It creates improved varieties by producing a variant member of the species with traits that differ from the norm. In theory, beneficial traits improve the survivablility of the variants with the mutation.

As to the letter analogy, that variation is only applicable within a species (or language). Those mutations may give us new words that are more useful. Mutation will not turn a dog into a cat.

Possible? Yes, but there is no evidence of any sort to point to that.

Which raises another question. Why does everyone presume a christian creation myth. Wouldn't it make more sense that an older religion would have more accurate information about creation since it was closer?

Similarities brought about by environmental needs at least make sense.

Change occurs over time, mutation as well as evolution. As mutations occur, benign or malign, complexity increases. If a malign mutation occurs, evolution may occur to compensate, increasing complexity. As the environment changes, evolution occurs to compensate, increasing complexity.

Nobody knows. NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.

I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.

Nobody knows. NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.

I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.

Nobody knows. NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.

I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.

All that being said, no one espousing a religious first cause for anything cannot say so with any authority at all, other than what they derive from inside themselves.

Without evidence of any sort it is simply fiction.

Edit: fixed a typo

I have no problem reconciling evolution with creationism. If Deity wants to create the world through evolution, who's to say S/He can't? Seems logical to me. Stir up the soup and see what happens. A science project on the cosmic scale.

Evolution is proven, and in fact, we see it happening even now. I don't believe in all that Six Days of Creation BS. How long is six days to Deity? 60 million years?

We can't prove that Deity exists, but neither can we prove that deity does not exist. We CAN prove evolution, despite the Fundies.


Sidhe

Agreed