Creation Science at its best

[livestrong6]

the skeleton in the book shelf should be a ape like.

[livestrong6]

Controversial German specimen is related to lemurs, not humans, analysis of an Egyptian find suggests.

Rex Dalton
A 37-million-year-old fossil primate from Egypt, described today in Nature1, moves a controversial German fossil known as Ida out of the human lineage.
Teeth and ankle bones of the new Egyptian specimen show that the 47-million-year-old Ida, formally called Darwinius masillae, is not in the lineage of early apes and monkeys (haplorhines), but instead belongs to ancestors (adapiforms) of today's lemurs and lorises.
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=nature&page...=1256307469881


It's interesting that news of Ida's fall from status from normal news sites doesn't say anything about a find in Egypt.

[Rifleguy]

The predictions have not been consistently wrong, evolution has changed with new knowledge just as alll scientific theories do..

All scientific theories are modified as new information becomes available. That is the process of science. As to your Newton example.... modern science has shown that Newton's laws have been superseded by teh theories of General and Special relativity.[/QUOTE]

Time for the BS flag. Once again you liberals screw up science.

Newtonian mechanics has never been superceded by your "General and Special relavity." Newtonian Mechanics has never been superseded by Quantum Mechanics, Einsteinian nor the heavily disputed "Quantum Gravity." There is a reason every engineering, physic and chemistry curriculum REQUIRES a year of NEWTONIAN MECHANICS and its sure isn't because its superseded.

While Newtonian Mechanics suffers dealing with the infintestimally small and large, neither theories have what one would call a perfect working theory.

[Monty Ealerman]

Maybe do a search on "instantaneous gravity".

[BigPat]

Time for the BS flag. Once again you liberals screw up science.

Science isn't "liberal" or "conservative"

Newtonian mechanics has never been superceded by your "General and Special relavity."

Sure it has , at speeds approaching that of light or in situations of strong gravitational fields, Newtonian mechanics does not give correct anwered, relativistic mechanics does.

This has been proven empirically. Newrons equations gave the erong answers concerning the orbit of Mercury and the concering the deflection of starlight by the sun, while Einstein's equations gave teh correct answer.

Newtonian Mechanics has never been superseded by Quantum Mechanics,

If you were describing the behavior of an individual photon or electron then quantum mechanics would apply, not Newtonian mechanics.

Einsteinian nor the heavily disputed "Quantum Gravity."

There is no working theory of quantum gravity yet.

here is a reason every engineering, physic and chemistry curriculum REQUIRES a year of NEWTONIAN MECHANICS and its sure isn't because its superseded.

Yes, there is a very good reason for this. Newtonian mechanics gives an extremely close approximation to the actual value. In most common circumstances (i.e. speeds well under light speed, no extreme gravitational fields) the results will be nearly the same. The equations of Newtonian mechanics are easy to solve and can mostly be done with first year level calculus. Einsteins equations are far more difficult to solve, making it impractical to use relativistic mechanics to solve standard science and engineering problems. Newtonian mechanics gives such a close approximation in most cases that it is unneccesary to use relativistic mechanics.

While Newtonian Mechanics suffers dealing with the infintestimally small and large, neither theories have what one would call a perfect working theory.

Did you read the preceding discussion? My response was tor Ray, when he criticized evolution because it had changed over time. All scientific theories change.

Furthermore, he claimed that "proven theories" are chttp://forums.officer.com/forums/images/confused.giflassified laws, and gave an examole of Newton's laws as "real science". I was simply pointig out that Newton's laws don't make correct predictions in all conditions, and they have been superseded by general and special relativity, which are classified as theories. I never stated that Newton's laws were not good science or taht they had no value.

BTW, I looked at the occupation that you listed in your profile. How do you not know this stuff already??

[Rifleguy]

Science isn't "liberal" or "conservative"

I was referring to you.

Sure it has , at speeds approaching that of light or in situations of strong gravitational fields, Newtonian mechanics does not give correct anwered, relativistic mechanics does.

This has been proven empirically. Newrons equations gave the erong answers concerning the orbit of Mercury and the concering the deflection of starlight by the sun, while Einstein's equations gave teh correct answer.

Newtonian Mechanics has G as a given contant. That constant G, is the gravity of Earth so if you measured using Earth's gravity, the equation will fail for all non earth gravity bodies. There's the problem. Both Einstein and Newton used 7 forces in their theories so its not a force argument unlike Quantum Gravity. If you use Earth's (G) there will be problems but the issue is how does one calculate other gravitional constants given gravities properties is the least understood force in nature.

What you're missing is the fact Einstein actually developed two theories: special relativity and general relativity. Einstein's general relativity was meant to unite his special relativity theory with Newton's gravitational theory. Why? Because he couldn't get away from Newton. And until some one has answer for Gravity, you will see patchwork theories with regards to Newton's gravitional theories.

There is no working theory of quantum gravity yet.

Define working. Surefire way to start a war in any science field.

Yes, there is a very good reason for this. Newtonian mechanics gives an extremely close approximation to the actual value.

And what is approximate? And Einstein gives us how much deviation? Thats another way to get into a war. How about something say 3 ten thousanths of an inch?

In most common circumstances (i.e. speeds well under light speed, no extreme gravitational fields) the results will be nearly the same. The equations of Newtonian mechanics are easy to solve and can mostly be done with first year level calculus. Einsteins equations are far more difficult to solve, making it impractical to use relativistic mechanics to solve standard science and engineering problems. Newtonian mechanics gives such a close approximation in most cases that it is unneccesary to use relativistic mechanics.[/

Being easy to solve has nothing to do with viability nor does it prove a theory correctly. So you're telling me that Newtonian equation is used because it gives an answer of "close enough?" Uh no not at all. Actually first year Calulus ( 1 and 2) will get you through Einsteinian equations.

BTW, I looked at the occupation that you listed in your profile. How do you not know this stuff already??

I do. My attitude problem is everytime something regarding science pops up, I constantly see liberals bashing conservatives when in fact they are no better at all.

[Rifleguy]

double post

[JasperST]

I do. My attitude problem is everytime something regarding science pops up, I constantly see liberals bashing conservatives when in fact they are no better at all.

They do it to try to silence their opposition. "If you can't d***le them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull****".

[Rifleguy]

They do it to try to silence their opposition. "If you can't d***le them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull****".

I like all the 'approximate' talk. It shows how they never actually had to work a single problem before.

[livestrong6]

What you're missing is the fact Einstein actually developed two theories: special relativity and general relativity. Einstein's general relativity was meant to unite his special relativity theory with Newton's gravitational theory. Why? Because he couldn't get away from Newton. And until some one has answer for Gravity, you will see patchwork theories with regards to Newton's gravitional theories..

Just one thing, It's not a very large issue. It's Newton's Law of universal gravitation, not Newton's gravitional theory!

[Monty Ealerman]

...
Newtonian Mechanics has G as a given contant. That constant G, is the gravity of Earth so if you measured using Earth's gravity, the equation will fail for all non earth gravity bodies. There's the problem. Both Einstein and Newton used 7 forces in their theories so its not a force argument unlike Quantum Gravity. If you use Earth's (G) there will be problems but the issue is how does one calculate other gravitional constants given gravities properties is the least understood force in nature.
...

You're apparently confusing "Big G", the universal gravitational constant, with "little g", the accelerational force of the local gravitational field.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, both make reference to "Big G", which is the cube of the Planck Length divided by the Planck Mass and by the square of the Planck Time.

I don't like the practice of naming physical phenomena or principles after the people who discover and articulate them, but it does apparently incent some persons to aspire to greater discovery and articulation, and it's often easier to look things up when they're tagged with the name of someone.

[JPR]

They do it to try to silence their opposition. "If you can't d***le them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull****".

I haven't heard that term since the early eighties. It's a great term. Explains a lot. Thanks for reminding me of it.

Speaking of fertilizer, it is funny to hear some of the liberals impersonate scientists. They work so hard at using technical jargon and phrases to sound professorial but make basic mistakes. Even a business major that took only enough science classes to satisfy the GE requirement can see things that show they don't know what they are talking about.

[livestrong6]

I haven't heard that term since the early eighties. It's a great term. Explains a lot. Thanks for reminding me of it.

Speaking of fertilizer, it is funny to hear some of the liberals impersonate scientists. They work so hard at using technical jargon and phrases to sound professorial but make basic mistakes. Even a business major that took only enough science classes to satisfy the GE requirement can see things that show they don't know what they are talking about.

speak for yourself rock star!

[ray8285]

, It's not a very large issue. It's Newton's Law of universal gravitation, not Newton's gravitional theory!

Thank you

[livestrong6]

Thank you

I think every physics teacher/professor would be happy with that correction.