My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

Different elements have different atomic masses due to their different mass number. Yes, the more mass an atom has the greater it's ability to attract another atom.Newton's law of gravity goes like this;Force of Gravity (J)=Gravitational const x 1st obj mass x 2nd ob massdivided by the square of the distance between the objects.mass in kg
distance in metreskind regards,Acalepha

Ok, I'm going to put my serious hat on. You're sort of right but not really. Try to think of it this way. You have your dad hold you by your hand. You try to walk in a path perpendicular to the direction towards him. He's hand is holding you back, so you end up walking in a circle around him. That's more or less what's happening when you see orbiting bodies. And they're not orbiting each other either. They're orbiting the center of gravity between them. It's pretty cool if you think about it. Choices, choices.Choice A: I'm stupid.
Choice B: I'm kidding.... I think I'll go with choice A. Ok, you got me. I'm actually a satan worshiping atheist.

Quick quibble.The atomic mass is NOT due to their atomic number, but rather to the number of neutrons and protons. The atomic number is determined by the number of protons in the element.Attraction in elements has only a little to do with size. Van der waals forces have a fairly small attractive ability. The loss or gain of electrons is what really holds atoms to each other.

I am assuming that we are talking about atoms with similar mass numbers. I absolutely agree that atoms with larger atomic masses will exert a higher force of attraction on their neighboring counterparts.kind regards,Acalepha

You are a stupid satan worshipping atheist.I agree.kind regards,Acalepha

Huh? I think I'm following you...You're saying that if you decide to teach creationism, then picking one particular version and only teaching that is prejudiced. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.As I've explained, one solution to that dilemma is to teach an overarching all-inclusive creationism like ID. But, again: BUT, we would have to have empirical evidence of ID to include it in a science curriculum. Now, if we did have that evidence, then there wouldn't be any problems teaching ID in a science class. You wouldn't be dismissing any cultural belief anymore than the current teaching of evolution does.Make sense?

---

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. - St. Thomas Aquinas

We should have a new thread on this...Race, as a classification, has value to Affirmative Action, no?

yup.do we have empirical evidence of ID?

I am black.I completely disagree with helping others according to racial profiling. We should help others based on their needs.

I say no.
The problem with race in America is that we haven't adequately defined it.We're still working off the Reconstruction South's definition of "black". One drop of black blood.A 100% African immigrant is black.
So is someone who's 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/8 or 1/16 or 1/32.Basically if you declare yourself "black", who's gonna question it.The same deal isn't working for 1/16th Latino. Or 1/16th Asian.Now couple that with the fact that America is a melting pot, and you're hard pressed to find anyone who is 100% one thing or another. So, then we've got the problem of determining if Tiger Woods is black or Asian. Should he get scholarships from two different programs? Does he have to declare that he's one thing or another.The whole system is a complete mess.

If you try and determine who is what ethnic group (which is impossible because all people are a mixture of all the different ethnic groups) but if you decided to do it anyways, your society would quickly become a racist apartheid state like Israel for example.Now I think that America is the land of freedom. For America to ignore her constitution that enshrines the freedoms and rights we all share would be a tremendous mistake.

Since you didn't bother reading my post, I will respond in kind.

I must admit that I'm guilty of imagining everyone on here to be white. The only non-white person I was aware of before you came along was that comedian guy Onifre.

Hi Acadelphia. Welcome! You mean like alleged observation of the process of emerging primordial soup into the simplest life thingy which through a gazillion intricate natural non-intelligent processes to intelligent complex humans, etc, disorder and chaos, all the way to the order and complexity observed today? Who observed all of this?Who observed the BB singularity event, having no space to have existed, no time into which have happened and no outside of in which to have expanded? Who has observed all of those multi verses.Obviously above boastings became observed by dreamy delusional mindsets on desks in popular prestigious peer paper pages.And you reject intelligently designed creationist planned disorder & chaos into things complex and orderly. ID creationism is what is observed in reality; clay to bricks to houses, etc. No? Yes, Acadelpha, Obviously un-objectively abstract. Mmm, not quite. They're called hypotheses. Theories totally un tolerated to creationists. The first Biblical historical accounts attributed to creationist context. The first, the foremost, the finest. That seems to depend on whether the teacher is black or white. Both often teach various deviations from the oldest accounts. Edited by Buzsaw, : added "un" to objectively.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

You read it here. folks! Buz endorses the Sumerian creation story!