Archaeologica.org

http://www.venganza.org/

It's just a joke! Don't get all bent outa shape.

Frank Harrist wrote:http://www.venganza.org/

It's just a joke! Don't get all bent outa shape.

It makes as much sense as any of the others, Frank.

The graph displaying Global Average Temperature vs. Number Of Pirates is especially insightful!

Aaaarrrggggg! I likes me some pirate stuff, matey! Shiver me timbers, ye scurvy dog!

so if you all are so smart here is another puzzle for you to avoid:

without using W= F x D (the work function), as its limitations do not correctly encompass the problem nor explain it, explain how evolution was able to conjure up both gravity and magnetism.

seeing that they are both constant forces with no energy supply, how does evolution explain their existence and sustaining power? How does it explain their conception? if evolution (or the big bang theory, et al) being a non-thinking, non-feeling process how could it conceive of the need for these forces and then intialize them to being apparantly self-sustaining?

sophomoric responses are not allowed as i don't want you to make fools of yourselves. also declaring something foolish or moot does not constitute an answer but further weakens the credibility and viability of, if not destroys, the theory.

[quote="archaeologist"]so if you all are so smart here is another puzzle for you to avoid:

without using W= F x D (the work function), as its limitations do not correctly encompass the problem nor explain it, explain how evolution was able to conjure up both gravity and magnetism.

seeing that they are both constant forces with no energy supply, how does evolution explain their existence and sustaining power? How does it explain their conception? if evolution (or the big bang theory, et al) being a non-thinking, non-feeling process how could it conceive of the need for these forces and then intialize them to being apparantly self-sustaining?

sophomoric responses are not allowed as i don't want you to make fools of yourselves. also declaring something foolish or moot does not constitute an answer but further weakens the credibility and viability of, if not destroys, the theory.[/quote]

First of all, evolution has to do with organic matter. Plants and animals as in order to evolve you must first be able to reproduce, that is what enables change. If neither gravity nor magnatism reproduce therefore how can they change? Reminds me of a preacher who removed his wristwatch, placed it on the podium and made an asinine statement to the effect that in a million years from now the watch will still be a watch not a grandfather clock. People laughed like they thought it was funny, guess they didn't understand the stupidity of what he said or maybe they were just really that dumb. Only through reproduction will anything evolve.

guess they didn't understand the stupidity of what he said or maybe they were just really that dumb. Only through reproduction will anything evolve.

i guess you missed the part that mentioned the big bang theory. it is not stupid as evolutionists claim credit for many things, they might as well take credit for gravity and magnetism.

First of all, evolution has to do with organic matter

Study that part of Leona's post for a while. Then, we can move on to other things.

Arch This I do understand hence my monniker

Magnets exert forces on one another; similar to electric charges, like poles will repel each other and unlike poles will attract. When a magnet, that is, an object conventionally described as having a north and a south pole, is cut in half across the axis joining those "poles", the resulting pieces are two normal (albeit smaller) magnets each with its own north pole and south pole, rather than two separate north-only and south-only pieces.

The modern understanding of magnetism posits that all magnetic effects are actually due to the motion of charged particles; that is, all magnets are in fact electromagnets. The magnetic force is actually due to the finite speed a disturbance of the electric field, the speed of light, which gives rise to forces that appear to be acting along a line at right angles to the charges. In effect, the magnetic force is the portion of the electric force directed to where the charge used to be.

Even atoms have a tiny field. In the toy model of an atom the electrons orbit the nucleus, and thus have a charge in motion giving rise to a magnetic field. Permanent magnets have a measurable magnetic field because the atoms (and molecules) are arranged in a way that their individual tiny fields are aligned to add up.
We could continue with eddy currents field effects etc but unless you are also a Tech I would be wasting my time .

Gravity is a force of attraction that acts between bodies that have mass. It is a physical phenomenon of fundamental importance, profoundly affecting the workings of the world around us and the universe beyond. Most familiarly, it is the gravitational attraction of the earth that endows objects with weight and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. In fact, gravity is also the reason for the very existence of the earth, the sun and other celestial bodies; without it matter would not have coalesced into these bodies and life as we know it would not exist. Gravity is also responsible for keeping the earth and the other planets in their orbits around the sun, the moon in its orbit around the earth, for the tides, and for various other natural phenomena that we observe.

In common usage "gravity" and "gravitation" are either used interchangeably, or the distinction is sometimes made that "gravity" is specifically the attractive force of the earth, while "gravitation" is the general property of mutual attraction between bodies of matter. In technical usage, "gravitation" is the tendency of bodies to accelerate towards one another . Basicaly Einstiens theory of relativity , and I doubt you have the intelligence to out think that mind.

Any more technical questions ?

Basicaly Einstiens theory of relativity , and I doubt you have the intelligence to out think that mind.

i wouldn't assume when it comes to me. i know his theory and i also know that while it improves on the newton law of gravity, there are some holes in it. such as the difference between the speed of light and the speed of gravity.

on the explanation of gravity , you only told me what i already knew but you did not address the part about it being a constant without any energy source. if we take the evolutionist time frame of approx. 4 billion years, how is it that gravity has not expended all its energy and wound down?

why does it not need replenishment, like other producers of energy?

as for the magneticism, you basically gave the elementery position and i will think on what you have said but this one sentence bothers me:

The magnetic force is actually due to the finite speed a disturbance of the electric field

if the speed is finite, that would indicate that the energy supply is limited, and expendable, yet we rarely see that magnetic field wane. maybe in amount of speed you were thinking but still since the speed of light may be the limit, what is the longevity? why is that a constant and never seems to diminish?

some good news, my schedule has now gotten busier so i must limit my appearances here and only to the weekends, if that.

archaeologist wrote:[...] some good news, my schedule has now gotten busier so i must limit my appearances here and only to the weekends, if that.

No lo contendere

Hey, Arch is leaving? And I just got here. Dang!

on the explanation of gravity , you only told me what i already knew but you did not address the part about it being a constant without any energy source. if we take the evolutionist time frame of approx. 4 billion years, how is it that gravity has not expended all its energy and wound down?

Because God has gravity plugged into His battery recharger?

Don't worry. Another bible thumper will show up soon as a replacement.

There are far too many of them.

Minimalist wrote:Don't worry. Another bible thumper will show up soon as a replacement. [...]

Yeah, they've learnt from the Roman phalanxes...

Study that part of Leona's post for a while. Then, we can move on to other things.

then again, if 'evolution' is making people 'better' why do they have to dumb things down in public school? as a teacher, i already know this is happening in north america. kind of undermines the thesis a bit.