general relativity

redwolf I have never met anyone with quite this level of non-understanding of a subject.In two paragraphs you have displayed a most remarkable lack of cognizance concerning what evolution is all about.Either you are terribly ill-educated or you are incredibly biased to some philosophical point of view that you struggle to defend.Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one.???Could you please tell me how the bloody blue blazes this is even remotely connected to evolution? Do you seriously think that evolution involves some kind of instantaneous change from one creature into another? Whoever fed you this garbage has their head so far up their ass a Klein bottle would be envious.Seriously mate you have got to get at least a semester or two in biology under your belt and then come back and bring out some actual arguement that has a decent chance of being taken seriously.Until then sir I sincerely and with all due respect contend that you are without a clue.

---

You see a book lying on a table. You know there's a force due to gravity acting on that book. If you take that force (on the book and due to gravity) as the "action," what then is the "reaction" as required by Newton's third law?

redwolfP.S. what the hell does this have to do with the original post on this topic?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have this question on my homework, and i dont know the answer...im hoping someone here can help me out
What explanation does general relativity provide for gravity?
1. Gravity is inversely proportional to radius.
2. Gravity is directly proportional to mass.
3. Gravity is a result of curved spacetime.
4. All of the above

RAZDIgnorance is certainly no crime but argueing passionately without an understanding of what you are talking about is intellectual suicide. Allowing such drivel to continue without confrontation does nothing but enforce in a person than they are being attacked due to their stance being the correct one. I took care to be polite while also being blunt. I in no way have a problem with the man but the nature of his approach to understanding of what actually constitutes a field of knowledge where he is duly lacking is something I would not tolerate of my own children much less a stranger.I have been guilty of the same lack of understanding as he is at a point in my life. I learned and continue to do so that the rigor of scientific investigation is not breached by hand waving antics made with empty claims of knowledge.Anyone who truly wishes to make a contribution or point out a new way of thinking about how the world operates in a given field of endevour needs to attain the same level of dedication and expertise as those who have spent their lives at it.It would be the equivalent of telling a structural engineer that his stress calculation are based on wrong data that was meticulously arrived at through huge amounts of effort and testing.I think that Dawkins is too kind to some people especially those who present one hand in friendship while their other is holding a knife.