mooeypoo

... okay, I am completely lost. Use an example. Take an equation, and show us.

First off, Johnnny, you need to reference this quote. Which dictionary did you take this from. Link. Second, I was asked - and answered - about MOVEMENT. (source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/movement) As we already went through in this thread multiple times, movement is a change of position of a particle in relation to time. V = dx/dt A = dv/dt Movement is DEPENDENT on time. Now go and read the thread you jumped into before you go against the rules again by claiming questions were not answered while they *WERE*. If this thread continues going in circles, perhaps we should just finish it up now. ~moo

Johnnny, read the rest of this thread. Movement is dependent on time. By definition. Please read the thread before you repeat questions that were already answered (multiple times) in this thread already.

It has physical dynamics in it, and it has time in it, so it is based on both.

Calm down, this isn't a chat room, it's a forum.

I don't know what you're saying. North, I'm not trying to be hard here, I rteally don't get your question. give an example of an equation, maybe? Basically, if an equation is dependant on time, then a change in time will change the result - it will not change the other variables, unless the variables are themselves dependent on time. For example, you can have an equation that has time *and* acceleration in it, but since acceleration itself is dependent on time (a= dv/dt) the variable of acceleration will also change according to time. If you have variables that do not depend on time, they will not change if you change time. It's.. math.. No, the change in the equation *represents* the physical change.

johnnny, go read our rules of conduct, please. The fact you haven't read or learned relativity does not mean it isn't true. I know you haven't learned it, because if you had, you would know it *is* proven, some of it even before Einstein. Other than that, single "pow!" sentences are worthless. You're not in a preacher's forum, you're in a science forum. If you don't have anything useful to contribute to a thread, don't. ~moo

I wasn't the one who made the claim, north did, and as such, he has the obligation to prove his claim. He tried in the past few pages of this thread. Unsuccessfully. johnnny, I think you should refer to our rules of conduct. Welcome to the forum.

If it's wrong, prove it wrong. If you can't prove it wrong, then until you can, you're wrong. It's really that simple.

So what you two are saying is that even though the theory explains reality and makes *accurate* predictions time after time after time, so much so that we rely on it to design machinery, you think it's idiotic. The fact you don't UNDERSTAND a theory, does not make it false. Claiming so just means you are using logical fallacies. Specifically, Argument from Ignorance. Wow. Well. Good for you! Now unless you're willing to fill up the gaps with some mathematics, predictions and logic, your statements are even more irrelevant than the logical fallacy they rely on. ~moo

WHAT!? I can't predict what will happen without knowing more about the tires, the environment, the slope of the hill, or whether or not the slope and environment is consistent. For that matter, if both tires are pushed down an EQUAL SETTINGS, then they will both reach the bottom at the EXACT same time. The problem in reality is that there's no such thing "equal settings" (or at least, it's hard to create/find) and therefore the two tires are likely to not reach the bottom together. HOWEVER -- that *proves* that the differences are dependent on the environment, and have NOTHING to do with time. What are you babbling about? You make no sense. Your question is as logical as me asking "If I push two people down a hole but hold one of them with a rope, is it about time?" What does anything have to do with anything? You're either grapping at straws to insist your theory must be correct, or you seriously need to step back, figure out a way to make sense of your sentences, and post only after they are logical. This is ridiculous. ~moo

fantasylottery, it's your lucky day - I'm a Hebrew speaker. Your lists make no sense, though, and I must ask you (insist, even) that you DO NOT post another list. Instead, you should explain what you mean by ordering this list according to this hebrew order of yours. It is *NOT* in hebrew order. Let me show you an example: Blood in hebrew is pronounced "Dam" (hard 'a'), which is written with a 'Daled'. Bread in hebrew is pronounced "Lekhem" (throaty Kh), which is written with a 'Lamed'. Cement in hebre is either "Devek" (glue) or "Melet" (cement). The first is written with "Daled" and the second with "Mem". All these words appear in the bible, other then Cement, unless you want to give us a quote. In any case, the CORRECT order of letters in hebrew is: Alef, Bet,Gimel, Daled, Heh, Vav, Zayn, Khet, Tet, Yud, Lamed, Mem, Nun, Samech, Ayn, Peh, Tzadik, Kuf, Resh, Shin, Taf. As you can see, your words are NOT all in "c", and they'renot in the right order. Other than that, the rest of your words don't EXIST in hebrew (we borrow them from english, instead, specifically chemical compounds). Poof goes the theory... Lookie that... all you had to do is actually know hebrew. I can, it's a lovely poem supposedly written by King David. I believe you guys read it in funerals ('God is my shephard..'). The ball's in the OP's court. I must warn, however, that if we see here another unexplained list, the ball will go to the Moderator's hand, and the OP will have to answer to the rules of the forum. ~moo

No, we don't.. That would be false dichotomy. There are a bunch of cases where our "simplified" geometry isn't enough, and we are stating that a model is simplified on purpose just to help us understand it. For example, the possible shape of the universe; since we know the universe is more than three dimensions, it cannot be represented by a "simple" geometrical shape. But we are imaginative creatures, and we need analogies, so when we speak about it, we create them on purpose - a "donut shape", for instance - knowing full well that they're not REALLY perfect, they just exist to help us imagine that shape. We're not considering things as "either or", throng. That doesn't mean that the simplified geometry is completely meaningless. It just requires adjustments when you deal with more than three dimensions, where it exists.

What about the other questions that I asked, and show your theory to be bunk?

No, science is about explanation of reality, and the rigorous pursuit for evidence is a way of making sure that theories explain what's real, and not what's imagined. Your theory is bunk without evidence, and it's useless without better evidence than the current one.

Doesn't that oppose Relativity? Seeing as relativity is a working, well evidenced, mathematically based, and repeatedly successful in predictions theory, I am awaiting something a bit more substantial than a wishywashy explanation with no evidence and no math. In other words: if you want us to abandon a working theory for this one, you need to supply equal or better evidence for the alternative theory. ~moo

No.

Moved to HW Help.

Assuming he has the guts to open an article not given to him by his pastor.

It can't. But then, we never claimed that, did we? Evolution does not claim that either. That claim is a TWISTED VERSION of what we said about mutations. You either didn't read, didn't understand, or you're doing it on purpose. Which is it? Strawmanning a theory and twisting it to make it easy to disprove is intellectual dishonesty, as well as extremely unhelpful for your points. For the gazilionth time, MustKnow, if you don't know about evolution and refuse to learn, the discussion is moot. ~moo

.. what are you basing this thought on? Again you show you did not read the material about evolution. First off, not all mutations are considered "corruptions". Some might not even be noticeable and therefore not fixed. In fact, no duplication is 100% accurate and the chance of mutation is quite big, considering the amount of information in a DNA strand. It is the accumulation of certain mutations that may produce visible changes through the course of generations. The changes that evolution is speaking of do not occur within a generation, and not even two. Your conclusion to your thought process, therefore, is flawed. You're considering too little of a time. I recommend you watch Richard Dawkins lecture "Climbing Mount Improbable". It is a brilliant demonstration of Evolutionary theory and answers most of the usual "tough questions" that "evolution debunkers" pretend to find no answer for. In fact, I have a feeling it will answer 95% of your questions. If you ever choose to watch it. JW1rVGgFzWU It's part 1 of 8. I suggest you watch them all, they are very informative and thought provoking, and very interesting to watch. ~moo

If it was measured and found that there's no change, would that prove that a sould does not exist, or that a soul has no detectable presence? If it's the first, then we can start finding experiments done (and there were experiments). If it's the second, the it's not a scientific hypothesis, it's a tautological statement that can never be disproved, much like the invisible pink unicorn, the magnificent invisible elephant and the awesome invisible Sasquatch.

First off, please try to avoid changing your posts in such a manner, it's confusing to people who put the time to answer. If you want to post something other than what you posted, just use another post. Specially after someone already replied. That said, you are again ignoring our sources, and nitpicking your own. Do you see that this is not going to further this debate? I am going to take the chance and try to answer your question, though I am not lacking experience as to not recognize a trap question when I see one. In any case -- Not seeing this movie I can't really know what it said. Trusting your word for it, thought, it sounds like one of the examples for evolution via Natural Selection, indeed, though - again - without knowing what, exactly, it was talking about I can't really venture any guesses as to why the colors of the frogs changed. One of the most known first examples of Evolution (used by Darwin in his book) is the galapagos island. The birds that were similar, and yet different in each of the island - and sometimes parts of the same island. He showed clearly that it was due to different settings and environment, and that all these different birds originated from the same type of bird. Does that answer your question?

Evolutionary programming uses some principles from biological evolution, but they are by far NOT the same. They are not simulating evolution, really, they just use principles from the theory in their routines. ~moo

Okay, you're not starting over, your reiterating the soundbites that COUNTLESS of so called "evolution debunkers" say. MustKnow, if you're too afraid to actually read what we posted, and are too afraid to actually learn about the theory you are so quick to dismiss, then you have absolutely NOTHING to do here. I understand that it's easier to take those counter-claims from the "debunker" sites, but we've heard them all before - which is why there *ARE* answers for them in the FAQ and other sites. You just insist on not reading them. This isn't a practice ground for you to stomp your feet on the ground with your hands on your ears and see if you can convince the unbelievers despite counter evidence. This is a science forums, which demands scientific rigor. You're obviously not open minded enough to get over your own fear and read more than just your own one-sided set of "debunking" sites, and you seem to have no desire to even CONSIDER the other side. What, then, are you trying to do here? Tire us to admission? You're not the first to try, and you're not the first to fail. Evolution is too strong of a theory, proven by too many evidence and corroborating facts for you to do that. Good luck, though. ~moo