patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

Nope, in science you can't have such a thing. If it's a theory it is not a fact. Newtons mechanics was a theory, we know now it was not a fact. There are possible revisions to Einstein's theory, exactly because it's a scientific theory.

Theory of Evolution constantly claims it's a fact, which exactly makes it a religious belief, not a scientific theory. What's worse, evolution classes are structures like typical cultists indoctrinations. Vulgar Darwinism they preach ignores facts or gives them extremely improbable exlpanations. It has nothing with trying to discover any truth.

So, someone belonging to a different cult has a resonable cause to avoid Evolution worshiping sessions.

Danaseb says

Advocating that God directly created the universe instantly is rejecting basic science.

How come?

What do you mean by "instantly", it makes no sense for God, since He created time the same way He created space, matter, and energy.

His existense simply is not within time.

michaelsch says

Nope, in science you can't have such a thing. If it's a theory it is not a fact

I can't believe after all I've written on this site, I still have to correct scientifically illiterate people about the most basic things, even definitions. These are things you should have learned in high school if not elementary school. But to recap…

When scientist and mathematicians use the word "theory", they don't mean the same thing that Joe Schmo illiterate means. The word theory does not mean "guess" like Joe Schmo uses it. That is a corruption of the word that is not the way it's used in the scientific or mathematical communities. Set Theory is not a guess.

But let's listen to a scientist explain the term. Stephen J. Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory; Discover, May 1981

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

There you have it. Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. Straight from the scientist and science historian's mouth. I hope this once and for all puts to bed the false belief that a scientific theory is just an unproven guess.

If it doesn't, then read the following:
Talk Origins
Not Just a Theory
Is evolution a fact or a theory?
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

michaelsch says

So, someone belonging to a different cult has a resonable cause to avoid Evolution worshiping sessions.

Pray tell, how old is the Earth.

michaelsch says

Funny, did you know medicine as a science was created by muslim and "creationist" doctors?

The oldest known Egyptian remedies go back to 3000 BC. As far back as 2750 BC the Egyptians had performed rudimentary forms of surgery. The Edwin Smith papyrus states the Egyptians dealt with illnesses by examination and doing prognosis. Who Invented Medicine?

Slightly older than Islam. Please get your facts right.

In any case, no one "invented" medicine as medicinal practices predate our species. Even chimps practice herbal medicine. I guess they have souls then.

As for science, the term and the practice in the modern sense didn't come about until the time of Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) and Descartes (1596 – 1650).

michaelsch says

His existense simply is not within time.

Yeah, that's meaningful. And you base that statement on?

michaelsch says

Nope, in science you can't have such a thing. If it's a theory it is not a fact. Newtons mechanics was a theory, we know now it was not a fact.

What do you mean Newtons mechanics is not a fact? All classical mechanics equations developed by Newton still apply on the scale he was observing. His laws are valid with an inertial frame of reference (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_reference_frame)

Newton's second law requires modification if the effects of special relativity are to be taken into account, because at high speeds the approximation that momentum is the product of rest mass and velocity is not accurate. Still, his law is applicable and works very well at low/normal speeds.

Newton's laws were verified by experiment and observation for over 200 years, and they are excellent approximations at the scales and speeds of everyday life. To say his laws are not facts is disingenuous.

michaelsch says

There are possible revisions to Einstein's theory, exactly because it's a scientific theory.

Same with Einstein's relativity theory. There is never a perfect theory in science, which is why there is always a quest for knowledge. Doesn't mean Newton and Einstein have to be treated any less than modern physicists. In fact, without their foundational body of work, modern physics as we know today cannot exist.

michaelsch says

Theory of Evolution constantly claims it's a fact, which exactly makes it a religious belief, not a scientific theory.

In a similar vein, there are still open questions on evolution theory. It doesn't mean that the whole body of work is based on belief. There's overwhelming scientific evidence based on fossils, radiometric dating of fossils and such. Evolution is based on scientific evidence. Dan's original statement that it is both a theory and a fact is correct. Open questions remain on finer questions of evolution, but the underlying premise is true.

michaelsch says

Vulgar Darwinism they preach ignores facts or gives them extremely improbable exlpanations. It has nothing with trying to discover any truth.

Rather than superficially spouting nonsense, I would recommend you understand the meaning of disingenuous, because that's exactly what your statements indicate. And study the subject more deeply before critiquing it. Bring finer points, rather than broad brush attacks that have no substance whatsoever.

Dan8267 says

In any case, no one "invented" medicine as medicinal practices predate our species. Even chimps practice herbal medicine. I guess they have souls then.

I would add Vedic medicine to the ancient list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Medicine

There's a whole body of work in Susruta Samhita and Charaka Samhita (think of them like encyclopaedia of medicine with various authors) related to ancient medicine. This is about 3 centuries older than Birth of Christ.

michaelsch says

What do you mean by "instantly", it makes no sense for God, since He created time the same way He created space, matter, and energy.

LOL. How do you create "time"? If God is the prima causa for everything in the universe (which is a very lofty claim to begin with), the burden of the proof lies with the person who presents it. Where is the proof?

austrian_man says

LOL.

Does anything these religious people say make sense? Seriously, I wonder what goes on in their minds. I think it's a lot like someone who's high.

Dan8267 says

I kind of suspect that OK is Bap33 under a new account. It was registered today and has only replied to this one thread. Sounds a lot like Bap33.

negative. I had not clicked this topic until this very instant. Patrick may be able to verify, if interested.

When the age of the Earth is listed as 4.6B, at what point in the Earth's evolution did the clock begin?? How long would you say the Earth has been able to support life??

As far as my personal view of Dartwin guesses, as he presented them, .... I say nay. Not a chance.

But, do I suggest to know what God did, how, and why ... nope.

austrian_man says

How do you create "time"?

Both time and space derive from the existence of light. This is shared by modern physics. The prevailing theories of Big Bang and expanding Universe assume they all came to being practically momentarily.

Orthodox Christianity and Islam believe in God the Creator of all, therefore, the Creator of time as well. (and Judaism up to certain extend, even though these things are somehow watered down in modern Judaism.)

Bring finer points, rather than broad brush attacks

- it's a bit boring, since apparently you have very little idea about the evolution of species. I will give you one example only.

One of the problems of Evolution worship is that it supposed to be based on Darwins natural selection. It is based on two principles assumed to work 100% of the time:
1. Constant mutations, some of which are beneficial;
2. Individual that have such a mutation, survive better and over time their descendants completely replace all others. (Survival of the fittest.)

Yet, there are many examples of combinations of independant mutations, which were necessary for a given event in evolution. One such example is the development of speach. There are two changes considered necessary for this development: 1. Brain changes (too long to describe); 2. Anatomic changes of jaws, necessary for handling the variety of sounds in languages, but making human jaws much weaker than of any beast.

The carriers of that second mutation have a huge disadvantage and according to Darwin had to quickly die out. In order to give any advantages these two mutations had to happen not only simultaneously but also to multiple individuals, (because you need more than one to use a language.)

All Evolutionist expalanations of such issues are unlikely and unwarranted phantasies.

Of course, that's not a problem for one who believes in Creator, but that is not my point. My point is that Evolution classes given from kindergarten to colledge all carefully avoid discussing such issues.

In a similar vein, there are still open questions on evolution theory. It doesn't mean that the whole body of work is based on belief.

It would not, would they be openly discussed in these evolution classes. The problem is that they are designed as indoctrination session, rather than science classes.

austrian_man says

michaelsch says

What do you mean by "instantly", it makes no sense for God, since He created time the same way He created space, matter, and energy.

LOL. How do you create "time"? If God is the prima causa for everything in the universe (which is a very lofty claim to begin with), the burden of the proof lies with the person who presents it. Where is the proof?

"TIME" just like everything else, in this case a dimension, had to be created. God created time first, "IN THE BEGINING". THen God created "DISTANCE" and "MATTER" second, "God created the Heavens and Earth". That makes the three dimensions required to have "energy". Accelerating matter over a distance in a measured amount of time creates energy. God accelerates matter, hangs the electrons of each atom in perfect orbit with super gravity, and energy results.

Dan8267 says

Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

One must be a Protestant fundamentalist (or similar fanatic) to argue against this. However, one must be an Evolutionist fundamentalist to claim that this creation of humans from ape-like ancestors can't be a part of Creator's plan.

Problems with those Evolution classes is that this is exactly what they teach, while existance on non-existance of the Creator belongs to completely different discussions.

Frankly, I don't like fundamentalism in any form or shape, be it Atheist, Christian, or Evolutionist, but it is far more dangerous in science than in churches.

Sure in Physics you have Quants theory and Waves theory. They seam to contradict one another, but coexist. Each one provides a model useful within its own range of problems, likewise there is a theory of Evolution useful within its own range, but Evolution in mass religion the way you confess it is nothing like this.

Dan8267 says

michaelsch says

So, someone belonging to a different cult has a resonable cause to avoid Evolution worshiping sessions.

Pray tell, how old is the Earth.

why?
I think estimates keep changing like between 3 and 6 billions years, don't remember what is the most common today.

michaelsch says

One of the problems of Evolution worship is

One of the problems of Evolution worship is that it does not exist. Nobody, and I mean nobody, worships evolution. We don't even capitalize it unless it's the first word of a sentence.

We do, however, heavily exploit evolution for commercial gain. It's hard to exploit something that does not exist unless you're in the financial industry.

Bap33 says

When the age of the Earth is listed as 4.6B, at what point in the Earth's evolution did the clock begin??

What clock?

Bap33 says

How long would you say the Earth has been able to support life??

3.8 billion years

By the way, it's not important that I say this. It's important that the scientific community considers this the best estimate for the origins of life. And this figure has been accepted, more or less unchanged, for the past 20-some years.

michaelsch says

one must be an Evolutionist fundamentalist

What the hell is an evolutionist fundamentalist? I accept the Theory of Evolution because

1. The plethora of evidence supporting it from genetics to fossils to carbon dating.

2. The real-time observations of evolution in bacteria, viruses, and other life forms with very short generations.

3. The commercial manipulation of the evolution to great new, useful organisms like bacteria that can act as batteries or clean pollution such as oil spills.

4. The observed evolution of humans in things like resistance to AIDs and the production of high density cholesterol, which prevents heart attacks and extends life. Google these things -- I'm tired of doing everyone's research.

5. The fact that genetic code mathematically mandates the process we call evolution. And genetic code is legally accepted evidence in every court of law in the United States and most, if not all, other western nations.

So does that make me an evolution fundamentalist? Am I a round-world fundamentalist too because I believe in all those pictures of a round Earth and the existence of GPS satellites in geostationary orbits?

Bap33 says

"TIME" just like everything else, in this case a dimension, had to be created.

The word "create" implies the a prior existence of time. In order for entity A to create entity B, entity A has to exist at some time before B exists and then cause B to exist later. As such, it is meaningless to say something created time.

There comes a point in advance physics where you have to stop talking in English and start talking in mathematics. You have passed that point.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

When the age of the Earth is listed as 4.6B, at what point in the Earth's evolution did the clock begin??

What clock?

Bap33 says

How long would you say the Earth has been able to support life??

3.8 billion years

The Earth age you give, of 4.6B, when in the Earth's evolution of coming into being does the clock start? Like, when the first two iron molecules began to rotate the Sun, or after the mantel was done froming, or whatever. How done was the Earth on day 1, 4.6B years ago? Was it cooled off yet?

When you say life showed up 1B years later, was the Earth cool yet? Was there atmosphere and water vapor and oceans and photosenthisis ... or what? Serious question.

michaelsch says

Both time and space derive from the existence of light. This is shared by modern physics.

Where is the proof for that statement? Light is simply a form of energy, electromagnetic radiation. Energy pervades the entire universe, so if you say time and space are derived from energy, why should it just be energy?. There's matter too.

michaelsch says

The prevailing theories of Big Bang and expanding Universe assume they all came to being practically momentarily.

Orthodox Christianity and Islam believe in God the Creator of all, therefore, the Creator of time as well.

The prevailing theories of Big Bang state nothing about what happened prior to the Big Bang. No momentary assumptions, it is an unanswered question. The quest is still on to answer it. M-theory is a possibility, there's the Cyclical model proposed by Roger Penrose. Contrast that to blind faith.

Orthodox Christianity and Islam is pretty ridiculous then, right? There is no proof, just blind belief. This is the complete opposite of science.

michaelsch says

1. Brain changes (too long to describe); 2. Anatomic changes of jaws, necessary for handling the variety of sounds in languages, but making human jaws much weaker than of any beast.

The carriers of that second mutation have a huge disadvantage and according to Darwin had to quickly die out. In order to give any advantages these two mutations had to happen not only simultaneously but also to multiple individuals, (because you need more than one to use a language.)

To consider what you just said, you say that human jaws becoming weaker means that humans had to die out. That is again disingenuous because you have to consider the totality of changes in any species that leads to its strength/weakness. Humans have the most advanced brains of all species, which means that we're smarter than any other animal on earth. We can outsmart the predators with our brain-power and the usage/building of tools that can help us.

So to sum it up, I really don't see how Evolution is a worship here. You're making lofty claims such as "Jesus created time" for which there is no proof whatsoever and the fact is -- you can never prove it. You can only ask me to blindly believe it. But Evolution doesn't ask you to blindly accept anything. It is a theory, well established with a body of scientific evidence of which there is no doubt. The scientific evidence are all factual, gathered meticulously by analyzing fossil samples, geological structures etc. Evolution does not claim to explain everything.

Why do you religious fanatics need everything explained out of every theory emerging from science? Science does not blindly believe anything, whereas you do. That's a mountain of a difference.

michaelsch says

It would not, would they be openly discussed in these evolution classes. The problem is that they are designed as indoctrination session, rather than science classes.

You simply have a problem accepting the body of evidence because Evolution doesn't explain "everything under the sun". It doesn't and the portion of biological evolution that it does explain, there's evidence to support it.

michaelsch says

Of course, that's not a problem for one who believes in Creator, but that is not my point.

That has been your point all along and that is PRETTY MUCH THE PROBLEM with religion. You can explain away anything with just blind belief. There's no need for any proof.

Bap33 says

"TIME" just like everything else, in this case a dimension, had to be created. God created time first, "IN THE BEGINING". THen God created "DISTANCE" and "MATTER" second, "God created the Heavens and Earth". That makes the three dimensions required to have "energy". Accelerating matter over a distance in a measured amount of time creates energy. God accelerates matter, hangs the electrons of each atom in perfect orbit with super gravity, and energy results.

These statements are so ridiculous, pulled out of thin air with no proof that I don't even know where to begin. God created time, distance and matter and then energy. He mixed it up and then gave us the earth. Brilliant. Where is the proof?

Why should there be an existence of God for all these? Why can't matter and energy simply just exist? Why should there be a Creator?

Oh why bother - when you won't even ask these basic questions? Continue your blind faith.

Bap33 says

when in the Earth's evolution of coming into being does the clock start?

What clock? You can trace all the way to Big Bang. Our Milky Way Galaxy is one among billions of galaxies that are there in the universe.

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field

It is the deepest image taken of our universe.

Earth is not all that big or special, you know?

Here's a great scientist, explaining about the Pale Blue Dot.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/wupToqz1e2g

Bap33 says

How done was the Earth on day 1, 4.6B years ago? Was it cooled off yet?

When you say life showed up 1B years later, was the Earth cool yet? Was there atmosphere and water vapor and oceans and photosenthisis ... or what? Serious question.

There are lots of theories, such as primordial soup theory wherein the organic compounds (proteins, amino acids) that are required for basic life to sustain, formed first.

then, prokaryotes (simple cells) and so on.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

There are questions asked about origin of water as well.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Earth

In either case, none of these require some external Creator to perform these things. Anybody claiming there is an external Creator gets the burden of proof. Not the one who claims "I don't know". Science's answer to the questions it cannot adequately answer is "I don't know".

hey hey, smart guy, I asked questions. Go check. See, I asked questions, I didn't give you God as the only answer.

So, lets recap. I asked how far along Earth was in it's own evolution at 4.6B years ago.

ANd then I asked when did life first show up.

ANd then I asked what the state of Earth was at that exact time.

I just don't see much God in my questions. You seem a bit jumpy about that part, huh?

The only part you are really wrong about is that whole "burden of proof". You have the burden of proving how something comes from nothing, and how nothing in the middle of nowhere made everything all at once, with no reason or purpose or plan, exploding in mass chaos, resulting in perfect balance.... yea ... that'll happen. I am not thusly burdened, as I know God did it.

You are just as blind to grasp a science book and "know" that all there is to know about anything is in there. Science gets to use the word "theroy". Believers in God use the word "faith". You may be well served to realize that much of science is "best guess". Always has been. The good scientists made sure to shape their words to leave an out.

THe one part that really is cool is how everthing is laid out in a flat plane in our solor system and galaxy ... rotating ... around nothing. That flat plane design was key to many things, huh? Gravity ... the kind that hold electrons in orbit .... where did that come from? You can't get that from chaos, even in science, can you?

Bap33 says

The Earth age you give, of 4.6B, when in the Earth's evolution of coming into being does the clock start? Like, when the first two iron molecules began to rotate the Sun, or after the mantel was done froming, or whatever. How done was the Earth on day 1, 4.6B years ago? Was it cooled off yet?

There were not simply a first or first two "iron molecules". A massive amount of iron atoms and other heavy elements were blow off into interstellar space by a supernova. When this supernova exploded we don't know as that star has long since moved away from us.

Some of the ejected material coalesced into a slowly spinning disc. As the disc condensed and became more well-formed, the angular momentum was preserved by increasing the spin like an ice-skater spinning faster as she draws in her arms.

At the center of the disc, the sun began to form. At other parts further from the center, various small planetoids began to form. This happened approximately 4.6 billion years ago. While the sun began fusing hydrogen atoms together to form helium and releasing photons (light) as a result, the various small planetoids were crashing into each other forming larger structures which eventually became the familiar eight planets. [Pluto is still undergoing this process in the Kuiper Belt, which is why it is no longer considered a planet.]

The earliest known life on Earth appeared about 3.8 billion years ago. Life may have existed earlier than that, but we don't have any evidence yet. Even so, the Earth had about half a billion years to cool and form oceans and continents before life even began. And that life all existed in the ocean. Land was only conquered much later.

If you are interested in learning more about this subject, which I personally find fascinating, I suggest viewing a television series called The Universe. Strangely, this program is on The History Channel rather than The Science Channel, but it is nonetheless an excellent series that is easily understood by someone not familiar with physics or astronomy. It is also visually breathtaking. The series has been going on for years, and season one went over the formation of our solar system in great detail. I believe you can watch episodes online at the above website.

This

Bap33 says

See, I asked questions, I didn't give you God as the only answer.

completely, blatantly, contradicts with this.

Bap33 says

I am not thusly burdened, as I know God did it.

you have made an implicit assumption based on nothing but BLIND FAITH that God did it. Religion is an awesome way of ignoring the burden of proof, through blind faith. You are ignoring the burden, not removing it.

Bap33 says

with no reason or purpose or plan, exploding in mass chaos, resulting in perfect balance.... yea ... that'll happen

Yeah of course that could happen. For you, it is just all too much to not have a Father figure. For most of the scientists, not so much.

Bap33 says

THe one part that really is cool is how everthing is laid out in a flat plane in our solor system and galaxy ... rotating ... around nothing.

What flat plane? Where did that come from? Do you think the Earth is a flat disc? LOL.

According to M-theory, there could be up to 11 dimensions (10 space + 1 time). Space-time curvature is the basis of theory of relativity. LOL, what's the point when you have "faith" to answer all questions!

Bap33 says

You can't get that from chaos, even in science, can you?

let's see here. Science has massive evidence up to a very short duration after the Big Bang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer

COBE mission actually proved that the Big Bang Theory is the closest we can get to the truth about the earliest stage of the universe.

Science does not know the answer to the state of universe prior to the Big Bang. So the best answer is there are speculations, but no definitive answer. On the other hand, blindly believing that a Father figure just waved a wand and started the Big Bang makes perfect sense - except that can never be proved. Nice.

um, yea, reduce caffine intake, pal. You are going to throw a rod at that RPM. By "flat plane", I mean the system is all on the same plane ... flat ,,, the orbits of each planet are not all over the place on different planes around the sun .... like, electrons around an atom are commonly shown in art, going around on different planes. Geeeze, you took extra arguement powder today I see.

@Dan,
I enjoy the subject alot too. Neil DeGrasse(sp) has some really good programs I watch on youtube.

Bap33 says

pal. You are going to throw a rod at that RPM. By "flat plane", I mean the system is all on the same plane ... flat ,,, the orbits of each planet are not all over the place on different planes around the sun ....

makes no sense whatsoever. Gravity actually curves space and time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

All planets are not in the same plane, they all revolve around the sun but definitely not on the same plane.

Orbits are geodesics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

No problem for you, there's always faith to answer all questions!

austrian_man says

Science does not know the answer to the state of universe prior to the Big Bang.

Science is a process, so we really shouldn't make statements like "science does not know" when what we really mean is "mankind does not know, at least yet".

As a process, science is the best idea that mankind has ever, ever had. Period. There is absolutely no disputing this. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that unites all of mankind. A physicist from Kenya can talk to a physicist from California using the same equations. That's beautiful in itself.

Furthermore, science has accomplish things that religion quite frankly never could both in terms of explaining the nature of the universe and allowing us to create technologies that enhances our quality of life and our lifespans. And that is why one should respect science.

Dan8267 says

Science is a process, so we really shouldn't make statements like "science does not know" when what we really mean is "mankind does not know, at least yet".

What I mean by "Science does not know" is that Science hasn't answered the question yet. It is not to demean science as a process itself, it is by far the best we got.

The true answer to the moment prior to the Big Bang (at least so far) is "we don't know but we have speculative theories". But that is far more smarter than blindly believing anything.

In fact I would say "Science does not know" is a humble, modest statement on the part of scientists to accept their limitations in answering questions that are notoriously difficult. Rather than claiming some spooky father figure who created the universe, but actually doesn't give a sh*t.

austrian_man says

What I mean by "Science does not know" is that Science hasn't answered the question yet. It is not to demean science as a process itself, it is by far the best we got.

I understand that and you understand that. However, I think the wording is confusing bap. Religious people tend to personify everything.

@austrian man
RE: flat plane of our planets' orbit around Sun:
I just looked to make double sure. Only Pluto, that is not a planet, has an orbit that is a bit off the same plane as the other planets. I just put "orbit of planets" and clicked "images", and there it is. I can't figure why you suggest they are not on the same plane. Could you explane? Without the smartassed anti-God venom? Dan can, and does, express information without the crap, take a clue.

What have we seen of space due north or due south of our solor system?

@Dan,
Thanks.

Bap33 says

That flat plane design was key to many things, huh? Gravity ... the kind that hold electrons in orbit .... where did that come from?

Bap33 says

can't figure why you suggest they are not on the same plane.

Bap, there's a lot of stuff in the math and science that you don't understand. And unfortunately, you have a lot of misconceptions about how things work. Explaining each incorrect fact probably isn't the best approach -- although I will try to straighten you out on some things. However, I strongly advice taking a free online course in high school physics or introductory to physics.

Start with this video course from MIT. Don't let the fact that it's MIT scare you. The content is the same as you would find in a high school physics class. I haven't checked to see if it ever uses Calculus, but even if it does, you can get a lot out of it using only algebra and arithmetic.

Now about some of the misconceptions you have.

A flat plane is a mathematical model. As it is a 2D construct, it doesn't actually exist in the real universe. Things approximate a flat plane, but nothing ever is a perfectly flat plane. The planetary disk had thickness, but it was small compared to the major and minor radii of the disk.

Similarly, planets do not orbit in circles as true circles never exist. Our planetary orbit is close to being a circle, but not a perfect circle. Our planet's orbit is even closer to be a slightly elongated ellipse, but it is not a perfect ellipse because every object affects our orbit including the other planets, asteroids, etc.

Electrons are not held in orbit around an atomic nucleus by gravity. Electrons weigh practically nothing. Even atomic nucleus produce incredibly little gravity. Furthermore, electrons do not orbit nucleus in ellipses like objects orbiting due to gravity do. Electrons orbit erratically.

What holds electrons in orbit is the electro-magnetic force, not gravity. Electrons are electrically charged, that attracts them to the nucleus which has positively charged protons. However, a moving electric charge produces a magnetic field and a magnetic field exerts a force on electric charges. As a result, electrons zip around in very complex and unpredictable motion around the nucleus, but the motion is spread statistically evenly along the surface of an imaginary sphere determined by the orbit type and whether or not the electron is "excited".

To start out with physics, you will learn to measure four quantities: distance, time intervals, mass, and charge. Then you will see how to define other ideas using these terms. Finally, you will see how these ideas relate to each other and imply new things using mathematics. Here's a quick start.

Mass is a body's resistance to change in its motion. Although related to weight, mass is not weight. Mass is measured in kg.

Distance is measured in meters (m). Distance means what you conventionally think of as distance.

Time is measured in seconds (s). Time means what you conventionally think of as time.

Charge is measured in coulombs, but you won't have to deal with that for a while.

One more point on measurements. There are two common types of measurements: scalars and vectors. Scalars have only magnitude. For example, time, money, temperature are scalar measurements.

Vectors have a magnitude and a direction. Distance is a vector. 1 mile north is different from 1 mile east. If you go 3 miles east and then 4 miles north you have not traveled 7 miles, but rather only 5 miles from your point of origin. Vectors are added using the Pythagorean Theorem: a^2 + b^2 = c^2. For example, 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2.

Now that we have time, distance, and mass defined, we can define new terms.

The average velocity is simply the distance traveled divided by the time taken to travel the distance. v = (x2 - x1) / t

A little more advance, the instantaneous velocity at any given time is the instantaneous change in displacement with respect to time. This is done using derivatives (part of Calculus).

dx is the instantaneous change in displacement
dt is the instantaneous change in time

v = dx/dt

OK, now with velocity defined, we can define acceleration. Acceleration is the derivative of velocity with respect to time.

a = dv/dt

Since a = dv/dt and v = dx/dt, we know a = d^2x / d^2t. That is, acceleration is the second derivative of displacement with respect to time.

We can also add units to our understanding.
x is measured in m.
t is measured in s.
v is measured in m/s.
a is measured in m/s/s or m/s^2.

So far we have just defined commonly understood terms. Let's do our first bit of physics by introducing a law. An object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. An object in motion stays in its motion unless acted upon by an outside force. So what's a force? A force is the acceleration of a mass. We define force as

F = ma
Force = mass times acceleration

How much force does it take to accelerate a 10 kg mass by 5 m/s^2?

F = 10 kg * 5 m/s^2
F = 50 kg m / s^2

We give the expression (kg m / s^2) a special name since it is commonly used. We call it a Newton or N for short.

F = 50N

The equation F=ma is the most important concept in classical physics. If you understand this equation, you can pretty much derive everything else in mechanics, which is most of what you learn in physics 101 until you get to electricity and magnetism.

Using F=ma, we derive an important law of conservation. x is displacement.
F = ma
F*x = m * a * x
F*x = m * d^2x/dt^2 * x (Technically, I'd use an integral here, but I'll keep it simple.)
F*x = m * dx/dt
F*x = m*v
Fx = mv
impulse = momentum

This equation says that if you apply a constant force on an object for a given distance you will impart a specific momentum on that object. As momentum is conserved (never created or destroyed), this is a very important law that explains many things in the universe including planetary formation. The equation Fx = mv refers to linear momentum, which is conserved. But there is also an equation for angular momentum, which is also conserved.

The fact that momentum is conserved means that if two people are on wet ice (i.e., a frictionless surface), they start at rest, and they push against each other, their net momentum is zero or
m1 * v1 = m2 * v2

So if one person is twice as massive as the other, he will be moving at only half the speed when they part.

Next we define Kinetic Energy (KE) as

KE = (1/2) mv^2

Let's calculate the kinetic energy of the two people we mentioned. Remember m2 = 1/2 * m1 and v2 = 2 * v1.
KE1 = (1/2) m1 * v1^2
KE2 = (1/2) m2v2^2
KE2 = (1/2) (1/2 * m1) * (2 * v1)^2
KE2 = (1/4) m1 * 4 v1^2
KE2 = m1 * v1^2

So, the kinetic energy of the smaller person is twice that of the larger person. Most of the energy when to the smaller person.

Energy is measured in kg m^2 / s^2 or Nm (Newton-meters) which is given the name Joule (J). Energy is also conserved in classical physics. In modern physics, mass-energy is conserved by that other famous equation E = mc^2.

And that is how physics works. Known fact or definition + math = new known fact or definition. And this is the process that got us to the moon.

cool.

heres a pic of the planet orbits.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=planet+orbits&view=detail&id=59279445EE37AE313A300CB0F9E1D418A080CD0B&first=0&qpvt=planet+orbits&FORM=IDFRIR

Bap33 says

I can't figure why you suggest they are not on the same plane. Could you explane?

Sure, Space in reality is not flat (flat is just 2-dimensions). Space has at least 3 dimensions (for e.g., a cube). Time is also a dimension according to Theory of relativity.

See this image for e.g.,

The image is a Two-dimensional analogy of spacetime distortion. Matter changes the geometry of spacetime, this (curved) geometry being interpreted as gravity.

So there is no such thing as "flat", the space/time dimensions are warped and curved.

Bap33 says

Without the smartassed anti-God venom?

Sure, if you want to learn more: head over to http://www.khanacademy.org/#physics

They have a lot of videos that cover a range of topics.

Dan has done a decent job of demonstrating some basic physics, if you're interested there's TONS of online resources that you can use.

Apologies -- I thought you knew more on high-school or freshman physics.

austrian_man says

So there is no such thing as "flat", the space/time dimensions are warped and curved.

Flat like "ellipse" is mathematical perfection. As such, the Universe likely only approximates it.

Lobachevskian Geometry is often used in quantum mechanics while Riemannian Geometry is used for the Universe on the very large scale (many lightyears). Now, technically, space is quantized but the Planck Length is so small, 10^-35 m, even when dealing with quantum mechanics that you can for the most part treat space as continuous and differentiable.

So, if you have a space that is differentiable and it goes from having negative Gaussian curvature to positive Gaussian curvature, it must at some point have zero Gaussian curvature, i.e. it must be flat at that point.

For example, a torus (doughnut shape) has all three geometries. The topmost and bottommost horizontal cross-sections are circles in which Euclidean geometry applies. Note that you calculate Gaussian curvature by multiplying the max and min differentials at a point on a surface.

Dan, Bap had asked:

why you suggest they are not on the same plane. Could you explane?

This is a meaningful question. The answers yet were that each single orbit is (slightly) 3 dimential. Yet they are still very close to be an ellipse in the "plane" of their orbit.
Now, Bap's question is: when depicted all these planes are usually places in the same "plane" (which has a very small third dimension comparing to two other dimensions).

Dan8267 says

1. The plethora of evidence supporting it from genetics to fossils to carbon dating.

2. The real-time observations of evolution in bacteria, viruses, and other life forms with very short generations.

3. The commercial manipulation of the evolution to great new, useful organisms like bacteria that can act as batteries or clean pollution such as oil spills.

4. The observed evolution of humans in things like resistance to AIDs and the production of high density cholesterol, which prevents heart attacks and extends life. Google these things -- I'm tired of doing everyone's research.
5. The fact that genetic code mathematically mandates the process we call evolution. And genetic code is legally accepted evidence in every court of law in the United States and most, if not all, other western nations.

So does that make me an evolution fundamentalist?

It does not as long as you are open to discuss these. I would appreciate if you explane how genetic code mathematically mandates the process we call evolution.

Also, the process you call evolution is apparently different form what austrian_man calls Evolution, since he obviously does not understand how the process works:
"To consider what you just said, you say that human jaws becoming weaker means that humans had to die out. That is again disingenuous because you have to consider the totality of changes in any species that leads to its strength/weakness. Humans have the most advanced brains of all species, which means that we're smarter than any other animal on earth. We can outsmart the predators with our brain-power and the usage/building of tools that can help us."

So, would you be so kind to:
1. describe the process you call evolution;
2. show how genetic code mathematically mandates it.

I understand, I ask for quite a lot, but you did excelent jobs with your terse description of high school physics, i think i ask for much less than that.

michaelsch says

Also, the process you call evolution is apparently different form what austrian_man calls Evolution, since he obviously does not understand how the process works:

LOL, prove why I don't understand how the process works, rather than just making a blind assertion. Explain where I am wrong in understanding how evolution works.

Here's my definition: Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. The biodiversity of life evolves by means of mutations, genetic drift and natural selection.

Dr. Brian Alters' comment is very relevant here, as michaelsch seems to be of the camp of creationism.

The key issue revolves around misunderstanding the nature of science, particularly that modern science does not entertain supernatural causation. Modern creationism involves the belief that a supernatural power intervened in the natural processes of the development of life on Earth. Proponents want this taught in science classrooms as science and oppose parts or all of biological evolution

Note that science does not entertain supernatural causation, not because science is arrogant or anything like that. Science is based on observation and experimental/empirical evidence. That is the best way we got to get closer to the truth in whatever natural process we study.

I think I get what Dan means by "how genetic code mathematically mandates evolution", so I'll give it a shot.

Here's a quote by Dr. Eric Green, a Genomics scientist.

Evolutionary changes that allow a species to adapt and survive now help scientists identify functional sequences in the genome. Nonfunctional sequences tend to undergo change more readily than functional areas

So Genetic drift and mutation play a role in evolutionary changes and therefore they are an important factor in understanding the process. If there are changes in the genetic code/structure, we have changes in function (observed over long periods of time). This is what I think Dan means, when he says it is mathematically mandated. Meaning that evolution is an inevitable process.

michaelsch says

Dan, Bap had asked:

why you suggest they are not on the same plane. Could you explane?

This is a meaningful question.

I though I in effect addressed this. Planes, circles, ellipses are all mathematical ideals. Real motion approximates these ideals imperfectly because there is a crap load of stuff in the universe all affecting everything else. So you never have a situation simple enough to produce a perfect ellipse.

But yes, the eight major planets are all coplanar in practical terms because they where form by the same planetary disk. Pluto's orbit is inclined about 17.1 degrees from this plane because Pluto formed in the Kuiper Belt, which is a an area between two imaginary spheres just past the orbit of Uranus. The Kuiper Belt formed from the nebula that existed around our sun at the time it was forming. That nebula no longer exists, at least not in its original form.