Now I'm scared No Christian Left Behind
#46
Posted 27 November 2004 - 01:16 AM
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
#47
Posted 27 November 2004 - 08:48 PM
Bravo. You summed up the argument perfectly and that was a really funny way of doing so.
Yeah, that's one of the best lines I've heard on here. Beautiful.
#48
Posted 29 November 2004 - 08:36 PM
Darwinisim's theories have all been proven false, not by creationisits, but by evolutionists. He grossly simpified the processes and came to an inconclusive finish with "I hope people find what I did not".
Madam Corvax - Is heat enthalpy or not?
This post has been edited by Jordan: 29 November 2004 - 08:37 PM
#49
Posted 29 November 2004 - 11:05 PM
Quote
#50
Posted 29 November 2004 - 11:58 PM
And from memory, Jordan, enthalpy is a measure of free energy, and is different from entropy, which is a measure of disorder.
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
#52
Posted 30 November 2004 - 01:23 AM
Ya, and in highschool they taught us that it was bullshit. That molecules don't follow Bohr's model. However, darwinsim is taught as if it's a true model. There is not even the slightest engagement into the idea of it being total shit.
#53
Posted 30 November 2004 - 01:27 AM
Sorry, Jordan, didn't realise you were actually asking me. But here is the explanation.
Enthalpy, or HEAT CONTENT is the measure of the internal energy of a system. Internal energy of the system is the sum of the energy of all molecules in the system.
"Enthalpy is defined by the following equation:
H=U+PV
where
H is the enthalpy, measured in joules
U is the internal energy, measured in joules
P is the pressure of the system, measured in pascals
V is the volume, measured in cubic metres."
So it is just a measure, a quantity in Joules.
Heat, on the other hand is a CHANGE in the internal energy, so it is not the same. Heat and internal energy are often confused, but heat, although it is in the same units, refers to the change: the amount of energy transferred is the amount of heat exchanged.
It is like ENERGY and WORK - it is not the same, even thought the units are the same - energy refers to a state, work is a change of energy.
#54
Posted 30 November 2004 - 01:39 AM
Or, failing that, you need to address how Evolution has been reduced to Darwinism, or how Genetics is all completely limited to that one cheated experiment of Mendel's, or whatever.
I remember high school, and I remember being taught that Darwin was the FATHER of modern evolutionary science. I don't remember anyone saying "there is no more to learn on this topic, so anyone planning on getting a degree in Biology, just forget about it. Of course, I do remember having to read that stupid Shirley Jackson story about the poeple who throw rocks at that kid. So if you're saying high school education is in decline, then too true, too true.
And while we're talking about the death of evolutionary theory, are you going to present the standard false dichotomy, Evolution or Creationism, with no other possibility, particularly no other separate evolutionary theory that is not the "total shit" discovered by Darwin?
I have yet to meet a person opposed to Evolution who was not religious. The "gay marriage" argument of the pure sciences, it's tied to Religion 100%
#55
Posted 30 November 2004 - 02:08 AM
Civ- I agree, there's a lot of other theories around but all of the scientific ones seem to trace to Darwin. The argument for creationism just falls apart when looked at logically because no matter what you say it's because of God.
Why are there fossils that look like ancient versions of modern animals underground?
God.
Why do successful animals go on to pass on their traits to the next generation while unsuccessful ones don't?
God.
Why do the animals with malignant traits die and not get to reproduce?
God.
If everything was perfect when god made it why are life forms still changing?
BURN THE HERETIC! BURN THE HERETIC!
Quote
#56
Posted 30 November 2004 - 02:37 AM
That really annoys me that my teachers are so loose with terms. I'm sure we were taught what you just mentioned, but in time and in other related courses heat is used for both. I feel like an idiot now
I don't even remember what Euclidean geometry is, but Newtonian physics is not BS. HS taught us how forces and accelerations work under uniform conditions. No friction, no change in mass, no complex loadings etc... The principles are still the same beyond that, just more math -thanks to things changing and other factors like multiple stresses. Of course I'm not taking raw physics any more. So maybe I'm wrong. But I doubt that. Statics and Dynamics are the backbone of my study.
And while we're talking about the death of evolutionary theory, are you going to present the standard false dichotomy, Evolution or Creationism, with no other possibility, particularly no other separate evolutionary theory that is not the "total shit" discovered by Darwin?
I got some good material on it. It will take me hours to read and put in my own writing. Likewise it will take hours to just type it word for word. I'll do it though. Give me time.
#57
Posted 30 November 2004 - 03:17 AM
Jordan – I am sorry, buddy, but I have a feeling that you mix things again. Are you saying that Newtonian physics was a crap because the guys at that time didn’t know what friction is and did not take it into account?
That’s not how it was.
Look, everyone from experience knows that there is a friction. If you roll a ball, it eventually stops. All people knew that. It was everyday knowledge.
The genius of guys like Galileo and Newton was that they actually though “hang on, but what would be if there is no friction”. Hence the Galileo’s transformations and Newton’s Laws.
They are applicable in special conditions and they work very well in those conditions. But sometimes they don’t.
There were some ballistic experts, in WWII, I think, who could not understand why the missiles did not hit the calculated spot. They didn’t, because Newtonian’s Laws and Galileo’s Transformation worked well for smaller velocities. When the velocity increases, relativity factors are to be taken into account.
That is where Lorenz’s Transformations are applicable. If you look them up, you’ll see that for velocities much smaller than the light speed some elements in the equations are negligible and become Newton’s transformation.
I was taught that in secondary school. I sort of “gasped” when it dawned on me how it works. You should really brush up your physics. It is quite sad that for engineering courses they think it is enough to give you simplified versions.
#58
Posted 30 November 2004 - 03:21 AM
I think that is precisely the problem. Teachers do not have the time to devote to getting people (who will never use the stuff) to understand overly advanced and complicated ideas. Only a basic understanding of evolution is required for most people. Darwinism provides that. When one desires to become a biologist they can get into advanced genetics, geneology, and things of that sort.
I for one am glad that more advanced theories of evolution are not taught in high school, or if they are, that they're optional. I do not think that geometry, trigonomics and advanced evolution, or many other things, should be required learning.
Quote
#60
Posted 30 November 2004 - 05:51 AM
Civ- I agree, there's a lot of other theories around but all of the scientific ones seem to trace to Darwin. The argument for creationism just falls apart when looked at logically because no matter what you say it's because of God.
Why are there fossils that look like ancient versions of modern animals underground?
God.
Why do successful animals go on to pass on their traits to the next generation while unsuccessful ones don't?
God.
Why do the animals with malignant traits die and not get to reproduce?
God.
If everything was perfect when god made it why are life forms still changing?
BURN THE HERETIC! BURN THE HERETIC!
I mentioned it before, but I'll put it here again. If you read Strata, Terry Pratchet shows a form of creationism that is easily scientific.
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?