The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

[diablodelmar]

I'll give it another shot:

How old (approx) is the earth (+ or - 1 billion years?) according to evolution?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

The thing is - the speed of light is too slow. Look at the parametric curve I mentioned again:
x = sin t
y = cos t
If A is orbiting B, then A will begin tugging at B, only B won't be tugged towards A but rather where A was a few minutes ago (in Earth's case, 8), so as time goes, the orbit will become more and more erratic, and eventually either the two bodies will make contact, or they'll approach an infinite distance from each other.

You can try it in a mathematical modeling program. If you put in a delay in gravity's propagation speed larger than the program's rounding error, and tell the program to make one body orbit another, you can accelerate it and see how the gravity lag disrupts the orbit. There are no stable values for distance, speed, weight, what have you. The orbiting body (A) will move in orbit and tug at B so that B gets displaced, thus making A's orbit erratic in a feedback loop.

[What's wrong with this? Certainly the bodies we know of are stable in orbit...]

I'll give it another shot:

How old (approx) is the earth (+ or - 1 billion years?) according to evolution?

Evolution does not concern itself with the Earth's age, except with regard to the absolute minimum bound determined by the earliest reproductive age of a given animal multiplied by the known number of past generations of that animal.

No dice. This isn't our argument. Run it by someone else.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Erik's just messing with diablodelmar's brain.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'll give it another shot:

How old (approx) is the earth (+ or - 1 billion years?) according to evolution?

Evolutionary biology, for reasons that really shouldn't have be be explained, doesn't provide an answer for that. Geology and astronomy tells us the planet has been around for about 4.5 Ga, however.

 

[betazed]

That's what I thought.

Are Erik's arguments too sophisticated for me?

The part that is incorrect is

If gravity moves slower than that, every single orbiting body would fall out of orbit because of lag. For a circular orbit, the force applied to the orbiting body has to be exactly perpendicular to the direction of travel in order to keep it in orbit. You can check this for yourself with a parametric curve modeled by
x = sin t
y = cos t
Then take the derivative and second derivative of x and y to get the direction of travel and the direction of acceleration.
A similar proof exists for elliptical orbits, but this is sufficient to show that circular orbits cannot exist unless God keeps the planets in motion.

The circular or elliptical nature of the orbit depends on inverse square law of gravity and has nothing to do with speed of propagation of gravity. Newton assumed instantaneous propagation of action at a distance. Now we know that the propagation is not instantenous but at a finite speed. The orbits are still elliptical. Changing the speed to more or less than c does not change the shape.

In any case, Erik is just having fun I guess.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Looks like betazed is catching up to me, but I still have a few distractions to throw out.

The circular or elliptical nature of the orbit depends on inverse square law of gravity and has nothing to do with speed of propagation of gravity. Newton assumed instantaneous propagation of action at a distance. Now we know that the propagation is not instantenous but at a finite speed. The orbits are still elliptical. Changing the speed to more or less than c does not change the shape.

On the contrary. The larger ("orbitee"?) body would be pulled out of position under your assumptions, thus the smaller body would begin orbiting a moving object, and couldn't possibly hold a circular orbit. Now will you admit that circular orbits can't exist?

 

[diablodelmar]

Are we picking teams? Quasar and Classical Hero believe in creation and have brought forward much better evidence than you that evolution is wrong. Funnily enough, they seem to copy from the same sources, but ignore our refutations.

There are other people here who believe in Jesus (and are Christians) who don't believe that Creationism occured. They believe in Jesus, not things written by Jews about Moses.

Better arguements? I havent even started yet, right now I'm just probing around getting a feel for the focus of these arguements (conclusion: its whos bias is the correct bias with which to be biased and also on proving why you know what you know and how many hotshots like Dawkins side with you). The DVD and book I am reading are going to give me arguements with which I will demolish any opposition.

 

[diablodelmar]

Erik's just messing with diablodelmar's brain.

????!!??????///!!???//slash?/!!11one1!??

i.e. yes he is...

 

[diablodelmar]

[uncomperhendable drivel]The thing is - the speed of light is too slow. Look at the parametric curve I mentioned again:
x = sin t
y = cos t
If A is orbiting B, then A will begin tugging at B, only B won't be tugged towards A but rather where A was a few minutes ago (in Earth's case, 8), so as time goes, the orbit will become more and more erratic, and eventually either the two bodies will make contact, or they'll approach an infinite distance from each other.

You can try it in a mathematical modeling program. If you put in a delay in gravity's propagation speed larger than the program's rounding error, and tell the program to make one body orbit another, you can accelerate it and see how the gravity lag disrupts the orbit. There are no stable values for distance, speed, weight, what have you. The orbiting body (A) will move in orbit and tug at B so that B gets displaced, thus making A's orbit erratic in a feedback loop.

[What's wrong with this? Certainly the bodies we know of are stable in orbit...] [/uncomprehendable drivel]

Evolution does not concern itself with the Earth's age, except with regard to the absolute minimum bound determined by the earliest reproductive age of a given animal multiplied by the known number of past generations of that animal.

No dice. This isn't our argument. Run it by someone else.

FROTFFLMMFAFO!!!!!! veeeery funny. You are simply trying to avoid the inevitable trap. It does concern you - half the evolutionist arguement is "it takes billions and billions of billions of billions of years and a bit of luck to evolve" (charles Dawkins, PhD, Oxford university bla bla bla).

Snap out of it and tell me...

 

[Erik Mesoy]

diablodelmar: It looks as though I can prove gravity incorrect, as an analogue of your proving evolution incorrect. Advocatus diaboli, of course, but both of them are rigorously tested scientific theories.

 

[betazed]

Looks like betazed is catching up to me, but I still have a few distractions to throw out.
On the contrary. The larger ("orbitee"?) body would be pulled out of position under your assumptions, thus the smaller body would begin orbiting a moving object, and couldn't possibly hold a circular orbit. Now will you admit that circular orbits can't exist?

lol, words are imprecise (which is the reason I am not following what kind of distractions you are trying to throw out).

Just write out the equations of the orbits unders newton's laws or Eintein's equations. In neither of them the equation depends on the speed of gravity (whatever it is). Simple. So what are we discussing, again?

 

[diablodelmar]

Evolutionary biology, for reasons that really shouldn't have be be explained, doesn't provide an answer for that. Geology and astronomy tells us the planet has been around for about 4.5 Ga, however.

4.5Ga? Forgive me...I don't speak that lingo. Please could you tell me in Billions of years.

 

[diablodelmar]

lol, words are imprecise (which is the reason I am not following what kind of distractions you are trying to throw out).

Just write out the equations of the orbits unders newton's laws or Eintein's equations. In none of them the equation depends on the speed of gravity (whatever it is). Simple. So what are we discussing, again?

this seems like a fun arguement to participate in - what science is this? Physics?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

@betazed:
Riiight - just because lots of clever people believe those equations doesn't make them correct. Somebody wrote them once - they never went and checked, did they?

It's easy to see when you look at gravity without bias. Those equations don't take into account the fact that body being orbited also moves - so they can't be true.

[OOC: This is more fun than a barrel of monkeys!]

 

[diablodelmar]

diablodelmar: It looks as though I can prove gravity incorrect, as an analogue of your proving evolution incorrect. Advocatus diaboli, of course, but both of them are rigorously tested scientific theories.

You know what? I am totally confused.

Can you pass a more comprehendable source onto me?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Sorry. 1 Ga = 1 billion years.

 

[warpus]

You know what? I am totally confused.

Can you pass a more comprehendable source onto me?

Yes, yes you are.

Evolution makes no claims regarding the age of the Earth. It would take hundreds of millions of years for organisms such as ourselves to evolve, but the Theory of Evolution by itself makes no claims regarding the age of the Earth.

 

[diablodelmar]

Yes, yes you are.

Evolution makes no claims regarding the age of the Earth. It would take hundreds of millions of years for organisms such as ourselves to evolve, but the Theory of Evolution by itself makes no claims regarding the age of the Earth.

What I'm asking for is the mininum age of the earth not an exact figure.

 

[ironduck]

I just can't wait for all the evolutionary evidence to be smashed to smithereens once diablodelmar gets around to watching his dvd

 

[Erik Mesoy]

You know what? I am totally confused.

Somehow that tends to happen when I talk with people for too long at once.

Okay, tell me if I get anything wrong in this synopsis:

You said that evolution was false.
I said that gravity was false.
You said that gravity had been proved.
I said that evolution had been proved.
You said evolution was "Bull **** mate".
I said that gravity was "Bull **** mate".
You posted a bunch of arguments against evolution.
Everybody else in the thread disagreed.
I posted a bunch of arguments against gravity.
Everybody else in the thread disagreed. (Well, some of them just didn't understand, but that's because this is a creationism/evolution thread, not a physics thread.)
I suppose you're fairly convinced that gravity exists despite my arguments?
Well, we're fairly convinced that evolution happened despite your arguments.

So the point is that gravity and evolution have about equal scientific support. I've tried to demonstrate this by arguing against gravity the way you argue against evolution.

If you think gravity is obvious, do you now understand why we think evolution is obvious?

(BTW, betazed: Would you care to start a "betazed KOs theopushionism thread"? Title would refer to my theory that God pushes the planets around because gravity doesn't explain how they move.)