It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Science Guy’ Bill Nye vs. Creationist Ken Ham: Who Will Win the Big Debate?

page: 12
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 





I am talking about the physical laws which govern the matter which life is thought to be entirely composed of. If you tweaked the gravity by even a minor percentage then most species could not reproduce.

Don't you dare try to bring up growing plants on the ISS to counter that as it is a total BS argument in that the ISS is in FREE FALL and is still experiencing over 90% of the Earth's gravitational pull.


Yes the ISS is in freefall. My question to you is if a 200 pound man stood on a scale in the ISS what would he weigh? How much pressure is exerted on that mans body from gravity in the ISS? Another question is how much gravity does the earth experience from the sun or moon from the earth?




posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   


Pat Robertson weighs into the debate, attacks YEC as "..a joke"




“Let’s face it, there was a bishop [Ussher] who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years,” Robertson said. “There ain’t no way that’s possible. To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible.”


HOLY Sh#t, And a whole slew of other savory spicy words!
I never thought I would see Pat Robertson saying something that I even remotely agree upon.
I am in shock! WOW.. lol
Pat Robertson, using reasonable logic to understand that our Earth is older than 6,000 years. Even he is not that brain dead to want to jump on that band wagon.
But I have to wonder, what Pats Agenda is for saying what he said. He is a snake in the grass, and there is an agenda behind every thing the man says, or does.

Thanks for sharing that!

When Pat Robertson is telling them to be more reasonable.. LOL Hell has frozen over!!! Or something like that.


Even Ole Pat realizes the facts and simple logic that is coming down from all this.
I am just shocked.. As this is the first time I have ever heard anything remotely sane coming from that mans lips.
Wow just wow..
I still am not to keen on the man, but hey. When true mortal foes can agree upon something. Then there must be some truth to it all.

edit on 3614320725 by zysin5 because: fix2



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ritzthecracker
 


Actualy evolution is very far from bring proven,

When you say "far from being proven", are you talking about the phenomenon of evolution or the scientific theory that seeks to explain the phenomenon? If you're talking about the observable phenomenon of evolution, I'd argue that any observable phenomenon, in this case the change in allele frequency within a given population over successive generations, is "proven" in that it can be said to exist on an objective level. If you're talking about the theory of evolution that seeks to explain our observations about the phenomenon, then it's safe to say that no scientific theory is ever proven. This includes, but is not limited to: cell theory, germ theory, atomic theory, molecular orbital theory, circuit theory, plate tectonics, and the theory of gravity. All theories, none proven, but rather accepted because they are the best explanations that currently exist for the phenomena they seek to explain.


so No he will not have any more facts that pertain to the actual theory.

Interestingly, and I can't tell if this is by accident or by design (pun intended), Ken Ham set out the topic of the debate as "Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?" This placed the burden of proof, inasmuch as proof can be presented in this kind of format, on Ken Ham to show that the YEC model of creationism he subscribes to is "good science". He then went on to provide no evidence to support that argument other than his literalist interpretation of the Bible. In general, all he offered up was a series of statements in an attempt to create a false dilemma -- here are what we perceive to be problems with the way evolution is understood, interpreted, and presented therefore... creationism must be true.


They will be disguised as prudent to the theory but will not directly relate.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Can you explain more?



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 




And finally... You know things are bad for a creationist when even Pat Robertson is calling them a joke.

The televangelist responded to a debate between creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye "The Science Guy," and said, "Let's be real, let's not make a joke of ourselves."

While Pat obviously believes in the story of creation, he does not believe that the world is only 6,000 years old. He said, "There ain't no way that's possible. To say that is all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense, and I think it's time we come off of that stuff and say this isn't possible." It's great to see that Pat's finally embracing science. Perhaps now he'll rethink that whole "gay marriage causes hurricanes" thing.



www.truth-out.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   

benrl
You know what I'd rather have?

A debate from a theologically trained biblical scholar ,

And a fundy.

You can't argue with someone when they don't understand some very basic concepts of their own professed faith.

Much akin to how scientist wouldn't want bill nye giving credence to it by debating it, I feel the same as an educated theist he is arguing with someone with flawed understanding giving credence to already fallacious views stacked on ignorance.


A Jesuit would wipe the floor with both of them (and then probably be excommunitcated for it).



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
With my end thoughts here and wrapping this up, so I can move on with my nightly reading.

Both sides can learn much from each other.

And neither one of them really know.
However Bill did say that truth many times. While Canned Ham, kept up with his, Magic GOD rant.

I would even be willing to give the whole "God" thing a chance, if they would say.. Well the 6days where in truth, sections of time.
So 1 day to God, would be Billions of "human" days.

So if they want to say it was all created in 7 days. Maybe they are not speaking about Mortal days.
Still a bit of a stretch for me.. But its more reasonable than the ladder of what is being offered.

I try not to claim I have any answers. As I DO NOT! LOL

All I am, is one person, who comes onto this web forum and offers up a few of my own personal thoughts.
Take um or leave um.

That is what I did here.
I took the best of What Bill had to offer, and I took the best Canned Ham had to say, and I left the rest behind and not to fret over things I will not be able to fathom.

But that bothers me.. To think that this man, thinks he knows what God is, or even what God spoke.
God to me is sooo outside of our box, and our logic that I do not think its wise to put God in a box. God is outside the box, and so far beyond our arrogant understanding of this universe, that when man speaks of Gods word, and the book like God wrote it verbatim is troubling to say the least.

I can't tell you what God is. But I can tell you what God is not.

And God is not some magical Genie who grants wishes, and likes to trick mortals into things, as God is portrayed in many parts of the bible.
And Why is it, God is always referred to him all the time. Now and then I will hear God referred to as her. Yet that bothers me too. What would God need with a gender? Really think about that, and ask yourself why God would have to be a man or woman. If I would be so bold. If God had a gender. God would have both male and female sexual parts. Heck, God could have all sexual organs from all life everywhere in the universe! Shlems, Helmshe. Hermaphrodite. But that is besides the point here.. So that ends my reply to this thread..
Thanks for sharing! And found it rather interesting to watch!



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 



I am talking about the physical laws which govern the matter which life is thought to be entirely composed of. If you tweaked the gravity by even a minor percentage then most species could not reproduce.

Don't you dare try to bring up growing plants on the ISS to counter that as it is a total BS argument in that the ISS is in FREE FALL and is still experiencing over 90% of the Earth's gravitational pull.

Yes the ISS is in freefall. My question to you is if a 200 pound man stood on a scale in the ISS what would he weigh? How much pressure is exerted on that mans body from gravity in the ISS? Another question is how much gravity does the earth experience from the sun or moon from the earth?


A scale only works because of the normal force exerted by scale against the man, this is an expression of pair forces. Being in free fall has nothing to do with how much you "weigh."

The man is exerting the same amount of force on the ISS as the ISS would be exerting on the man . . .

In regards to the Sun or Moon you simple insert the masses of either and then express their effect, which is essentially a constant radius in relation to the man. The radius is in the denominator and due to the extremely large radii we are talking about Earth's gravity is too large to keep the man from flying off in either direction.

Or are you asking me to do the math and write up some nice code or link you to a video that demonstrates this?

I think you are confusing the gravitational constant with gravity in regards to my comment. But either way if you somehow manage to get far enough away to essentially nullify the gravity your cells are going to start acting very strange.

-FBB



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 





A scale only works because of the normal force exerted by scale against the man, this is an expression of pair forces. Being in free fall has nothing to do with how much you "weigh."

The man is exerting the same amount of force on the ISS as the ISS would be exerting on the man . . .


This part is fine.

You say the same force is being exerted on the man yet you say a scale only works because of force being exerted on the scale.

Seperate but same question how man Gs are they experiencing on the ISS?



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 



A scale only works because of the normal force exerted by scale against the man, this is an expression of pair forces. Being in free fall has nothing to do with how much you "weigh."
The man is exerting the same amount of force on the ISS as the ISS would be exerting on the man . . .

This part is fine.
You say the same force is being exerted on the man yet you say a scale only works because of force being exerted on the scale.
Seperate but same question how man Gs are they experiencing on the ISS?


Gravity (or "g's") is an expression of centripetal acceleration which is always toward the center.

Force = mass * acceleration


The normal force is as strong as it needs to be to balance the forces . . .


The scale works because there is "contact," in reality it has nothing to do with weight.

Here is a visual explanation of what you are asking about;


-FBB
edit on 6-2-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


I don't need an explanation for G's I asked how many G's they are they experiencing on the ISS.

I just want to see your answer.
edit on 6-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by zysin5
 


Actually it is said god created everything in 6 days

On the 7th he rested

Which is why we haven't seen him in thousands of years

Has got his feet up watching the show here on earth

While having a smoke and a beer and possibly other consciousNess altering substances

That why he sent his son to deal with us

( i have no clue if my nonsense is right... but it sounds better than Hams nonsense)

What do you think of that explanation grim?


edit on pm220142808America/ChicagoThu, 06 Feb 2014 20:01:04 -0600_2u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


I don't need an explanation for G's I asked how many G's they are they experiencing on the ISS.
I just want to see your answer.
edit on 6-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


g= (M1*M2)G/(r^2) = ~8.83m/s^2 acceleration due to gravity

G= gravitational constant
M1= Mass Earth = 5.97219 × 10^24 kg
M2= Mass ISS = 450,000 kg 4.5 x 10^5 kg
r = radius between the center of the two = ~426 km
(I will use point masses to keep the formula as simple as possible here)

physics.stackexchange.com...

Acceleration of Gravity
faculty.wwu.edu...

it comes out to about 89% at its furthest distance from the center of the Earth and a little over 90% at its closest approach.

So slightly less than 1g . . .

-FBB
edit on 6-2-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101

edit on 6-2-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 202



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


I just want to be clear you are saying the inhabitants of ISS are experiencing .89 Gs being exerted on them?



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


I just want to be clear you are saying the inhabitants of ISS are experiencing .89 Gs being exerted on them?


The acceleration due to gravity of occupants on the ISS is approx .89-.92 the magnitude of that people experience on the surface of the earth. G's is not g's is not Force . . . . .

The weight you are talking about is an "illusion" resulting from the normal force . . . .

-FBB
edit on 6-2-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Why does it seem like you are avoiding the question?

I am sure you understand what I am asking.

If you want me to stop asking the same question I will.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 

Why does it seem like you are avoiding the question?
I am sure you understand what I am asking.
If you want me to stop asking the same question I will.


What question have I avoided?

You keep asking the same thing over and over again and I keep giving you an answer . . . .

EDIT
This is intro level physics, it really seems like you are just trying to find some way that I am possibly wrong.

I have linked you to videos and academic sources corroborating the math I have showed you, as well as the answer to your question.
/EDIT

-FBB
edit on 6-2-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


I think you left out that the ISS station itself is simultaneously accelerating downward at 0.89g. So my question has been what is the G force being exerted on the inhabitants of ISS? What are they experiencing.


Standing on the earth we experience 1 G.
edit on 6-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 

I think you left out that the ISS station itself is simultaneously accelerating downward at 0.89g. So my question has been what is the G force being exerted on the inhabitants of ISS?


The "G's" of the occupants relative to the Earth is the same as the ISS . . . frame of reference . . . This is the same as when you are sitting in a moving car or on a moving train.

Does this help?

If you are asking about the gravity on the occupants from the station itself . . . well it is incredibly small and essentially negligible.

-FBB



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Fine I will just answer it myself, near zero G is what the occupants experience.

It is a Micro-g environment.


The picture of the cat in my avatar is experiencing more Gs than the inhabitants of the ISS due to the resistance of the atmosphere.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 

Fine I will just answer it myself, near zero G is what the occupants experience.
It is a Micro-g environment.
The picture of the cat in my avatar is experiencing more Gs than the inhabitants of the ISS due to the resistance of the atmosphere.

EDIT
You didn't ask what they were "perceiving" you asked what the force of gravity was that they were under and experiencing. This is different then the free fall you are talking about. The cat's "g's" is a result of the normal force from the air . . .
/EDIT

I said they were in free fall . . . . in the first post . . .and from your source;



Free fall

What remains is a micro-g environment moving in free fall, i.e. there are no forces other than gravity acting on the people or objects in this environment. To prevent air drag making the free fall less perfect, objects and people can free-fall in a capsule that itself, while not necessarily itself in free fall, is accelerated as in free fall[citation needed]. This can be done by applying a force to compensate for air drag. Alternatively free fall can be carried out in space, or in a vacuum tower or shaft.


They are still experiencing gravity . . . the "g's" that you are talking about are the result of the normal force being experienced by the object.

Seriously go ask Phage or your local science club if you do not believe me.

Weight
en.wikipedia.org...


In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity.[1][2] Its magnitude (a scalar quantity), often denoted by an italic letter W, is the product of the mass m of the object and the magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration g;[3] thus: W = mg. The unit of measurement for weight is that of force, which in the International System of Units (SI) is the newton. For example, an object with a mass of one kilogram has a weight of about 9.8 newtons on the surface of the Earth, and about one-sixth as much on the Moon. In this sense of weight, a body can be weightless only if it is far away from any gravitating mass.

The term weight and mass are often confused with each other in everyday discourse but they are distinct quantities.[4] There is also a rival tradition within Newtonian physics and engineering which sees weight as that which is measured when one uses scales. There the weight is a measure of the magnitude of the reaction force exerted on a body. Typically, in measuring someone's weight, the person is placed on scales at rest with respect to the earth but the definition can be extended to other states of motion. Thus in a state of free fall, the weight would be zero. In this second sense of weight, terrestrial objects can be weightless. Ignoring air resistance, the famous apple on its way to meet Newton's head is weightless.


The experience is FREE FALL, the REALITY IS THE GRAVITY IS STILL EXERTING A PULL ON THE OCCUPANTS. Free Fall does not mean zero gravity. It does nothing to change the magnitude of the force being exerted . . . .

I don't think you really understand what you are talking about . . .

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
www.physicsclassroom.com...

Normal force
en.wikipedia.org...


Real-world applications

For a person standing in an elevator either stationary or moving at constant velocity, the normal force on the person's feet balances the person's weight. In an elevator that is accelerating upward, the normal force is greater than the person's ground weight and so the person's perceived weight increases (making the person feel heavier). In an elevator that is accelerating downward, the normal force is less than the person's ground weight and so a passenger's perceived weight decreases. If a passenger were to stand on a "weighing scale", such as a conventional bathroom scale, while riding the elevator, the scale will be reading the normal force it delivers to the passenger's feet, and will be different than the person's ground weight if the elevator cab is accelerating up or down. The weighing scale measures normal force (which varies as the elevator cab accelerates), not gravitational force (which does not vary as the cab accelerates). It is impossible to measure true gravitational force without knowledge of the motion of one's immediate environment.



The "experience" you are talking about is an illusion.

-FBB
edit on 6-2-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101

edit on 6-2-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join