61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 09:42 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Who or what put together this guiding intelligence and then before that and before that? Why does it think according to your specifications?


An intelligent being to share an idea, it has to think of an idea, turn the idea into words, and turn the words into things so other intelligent beings can physically experience creative idea.

Is there any other way to create and share information?

Plus, the "who" has to be able to do that but, he has to be able to do it for all the information in the universe that was needed to establish a platform for the next intelligent being "us" to exist so that the first intelligent being has somebody to share the idea with.

So now we know some of the characteristics or, required capabilities, of the "who or what" that is sharing all this information with "us" and "everyone else" with intelligence who is watching.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 10:46 am
@brianjakub,
It has no intelligent "thing" that controls nature. No specs, no thinking, no guiding intelligence. Just plain old nature.
You need to drop your god-thing which doesn't exist. Your god was created by men just 2000 years ago. Planet earth is over 4.5 billions years old. It evolved to what it is today. Read this article. You might learn something important on how our planet evolved. https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/big-questions/how-did-life-begin-and-evolve-earth-and-has-it-evolved-elsewhere-solar-system
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 11:54 am
@brianjakub,
brianjakub wrote:
(Which is impossible because matter has to exist before gravity can exist.)

That is incorrect. Where do you get ideas like this?
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 12:52 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:

Re: brianjakub (Post 6661370)
brianjakub wrote:
(Which is impossible because matter has to exist before gravity can exist.)

That is incorrect. Where do you get ideas like this?


Anything smaller than a hydrogen atom or a neutron is incapable of warping the space time continuum. A particle must be larger than a higgs boson to disorder the space time continuum enough to cause gravity (because gravity is an entropic force). In other words the higgs field is a matrix of entangle higgs bosons and a disruption in this field must be large enough to warp the space time continuum. Only neutrons and atoms are capable of doing this. Any assumption that an individual electron or photon can do this is just an unfounded assumption. Photons have zero mass and electrons must be interact with the higgs field through the higgs mechanism. It is this interaction through the higgs mechanism that allows matter to distort the higgs field and thus creating disorder in the higgs field making gravity an emergent entropic force.

This was suggested by Erik Verlinde and some version of it will be proven true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

wiki
Quote:
Entropic gravity, also known as emergent gravity, is a theory in modern physics that describes gravity as an entropic force—a force with macro-scale homogeneity but which is subject to quantum-level disorder—and not a fundamental interaction. The theory, based on string theory, black hole physics, and quantum information theory, describes gravity as an emergent phenomenon that springs from the quantum entanglement of small bits of spacetime information. As such, entropic gravity is said to abide by the second law of thermodynamics under which the entropy of a physical system tends to increase over time.

At its simplest, the theory holds that when gravity becomes vanishingly weak—levels seen only at interstellar distances—it diverges from its classically understood nature and its strength begins to decay linearly with distance from a mass.

Entropic gravity provides the underlying framework to explain Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND, which holds that at a gravitational acceleration threshold of approximately 1.2×10−10 m/s², gravitational strength begins to vary inversely (linearly) with distance from a mass rather than the normal inverse-square law of the distance. This is an exceedingly low threshold, measuring only 12 trillionths gravity’s strength at earth’s surface; an object dropped from a height of one meter would fall for 36 hours were earth’s gravity this weak. It is also 3,000 times less than exists at the point where Voyager 1 crossed our solar system’s heliopause and entered interstellar space.

The theory claims to be consistent with both the macro-level observations of Newtonian gravity as well as Einstein's theory of general relativity and its gravitational distortion of spacetime. Importantly, the theory also explains (without invoking the existence of dark matter and its accompanying math featuring new free parameters that are tweaked to obtain the desired outcome) why galactic rotation curves differ from the profile expected with visible matter[citation needed].

The theory of entropic gravity posits that what has been interpreted as unobserved dark matter is actually the product of quantum effects that can be regarded as a form of positive dark energy that lifts the vacuum energy of space from its ground state value. A central tenet of the theory is that the positive dark energy leads to a thermal-volume law contribution to entropy that overtakes the area law of anti-de Sitter space precisely at the cosmological horizon.

The theory has been controversial within the physics community but has sparked research and experiments to test its validity.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 01:05 pm
@rosborne979,
http://idahoptv.org/sciencetrek/topics/gravity/facts.cfm
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 01:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,

Please tell me that you didn't just provide me with a cartoon link to a grade school explanation of Gravity.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 01:37 pm
@brianjakub,
brianjakub wrote:

This was suggested by Erik Verlinde and some version of it will be proven true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity


You are not qualified to say what will be proven true.

Here's a little sentence from the article you quoted...
Quote:

The theory has been controversial within the physics community but has sparked research and experiments to test its validity.


In General Relativity gravitation is just the curvature of space-time, and cannot be separated from space-time.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 01:41 pm
@rosborne979,
Gravity explained in a very simple way will be understood by most. That you're so smart about this topic is none of my concern.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 02:12 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
You are not qualified to say that it will be proven true.


Gravity has to be entropic because it has to be a change is energy density of the false vacuum. It cannot physically be anything else. Anything else would have to be a nonphysical thing (like a figment of our collective imagination) and that is not part of naturalism.

Gravity is a thre dimensional curvature of space time which is really a change in spatial energy density of the false vacuum.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 05:16 pm
@brianjakub,
gravity has been calculated to begin in planck time . F=Ma (or E=mc^2) whqtever, the argument about who came first is kinda mooted by the first drop of time . (Dark energy actually translates to DARK GRAVITY)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 05:17 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Gravity has to be entropic
BS that too is a planck time construct.Entropic to what???
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 07:13 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:


Please tell me that you didn't just provide me with a cartoon link to a grade school explanation of Gravity.

Been trying to get him to stop with those juvenile links for literally years.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 07:19 pm
@Leadfoot,
why, so you can post drek from "the Institute"????? HMMmmmmm??



Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 07:40 pm
@farmerman,
Don’t be juvenile.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 08:02 pm
@Leadfoot,
Many of us are not as "smart" as you are about science. My background is Accounting, Management, and Investments.
Helloandgoodbye
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 09:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You don’t need a background in science to know the truth. To be able to discern what is solid evidence or not.
Take this article you posted earlier. It provides nothing but the religious beliefs of evolutionism. A ‘fairytale’ kinda storyline.
https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/big-questions/how-did-life-begin-and-evolve-earth-and-has-it-evolved-elsewhere-solar-system

Sure, The first sentence or two state some well-known observable facts like bacteria living in harsh conditions.
But then it goes into fairytale mode about how these lifeforms (highly engineered microscopic machinery) could magically come into existence in an oceanvent ‘chemical soup.....’ Really?!

Who wrote this article? Someone with a PhD in evolutionism probably. NASA scientists who embrace evolutionism and the ‘time and chance God’ as there religious position.
It is pure religious belief, altogether illogical(does not happen in reality), and unsupported by scientific facts.

There are billions of smart ppl in the world who embrace ‘false gods’ or creation stories....NASA scientists, yourself, farmerman are no different you see?
It takes great faith to believe life can created by chemical soups, or just anything unintelligent.

Helloandgoodbye
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 09:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The challenge to evolutionism still stands regarding morality.

I asked farmerman, (and now yourself too cause he dodged the question)

If all there is is ‘plain ol nature’ as you quoted, then should we treat ppl like modified fish, and eat up?!
Should we treat ppl like modified bacteria or a disease? Just as evolutionism teaches.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 09:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Our planet is most likely somewhere between a few hundred thousand and a few million years old but not tens or hundreds of millions and certainly not billions.

http://bearfabrique.org/Misc/Earths_Age.pdf
Helloandgoodbye
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 09:48 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
Are you familiar with
Bloodhound gang, ‘you and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals so let’s do it like they do on the discovery channel’?
https://ca.search.yahoo.com/search?p=you+and+me+baby+ain%27t+nothing+but+mammals&fr=yfp-hrmob-s&fr2=p%3Afp%2Cm%3Asa&.tsrc=yfp-hrmob-s&fp=1&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
The morality of evolutionism.
When God goes, anything goes.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 10:09 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
Quote:
You don’t need a background in science to know the truth. To be able to discern what is solid evidence or not
Once Again, youre dead wrong and dont even know what the correct questions are.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 11/21/2024 at 09:49:05