Bantmof:
Disagree all you like. Planes can indeed fly upside down. The ailerons need to be adjusted to overcome the Bernoulli principle.
In this case it is the air pushing down on the ailerons which forces the planes nose to point upwards, maintaining level flight. Note that it doesn’t necessarily fly very well like this.
As you say there are other forces at work, so let’s leave it at that.
Scylla - all I can say is that this is a well understood science, and the popular conception (resulting from bad explanations in elementary physics texts) that airplanes are sucked upwards by low pressure is, while not total falsehood per se, a serious mischaracterization of what really is happening. There is absolutely no doubt that airplanes push a mass of air downwards sufficient to, by Newton’s laws, counteract their weight. They could not fly if this did not happen. The evidence for this is simply overwhelming. Want me to start a thread for it? I can point to some good resources on the subject.
–
peas on earth
SingleDad wrote:
I hate to sound like I’m agreeing with a Creation Scientist here <shudder>, but in this one case, he’s right. The stars in the galactic halo, or in very distant galaxies, are indeed metal-poor – but to my knowledge, no stars have yet been discovered that are completely devoid of elements heavier than helium. This is what is meant by the nonexitence of “Population III” stars.
However, I believe the Big Bang would have produced a few traces of elements heavier than helium. Carbon, for example, is relatively easy to form out of helium under very high temperatures and pressures, via the triple-alpha process. If this is the case, we should never see a star whose spectrum shows no trans-helium elements whatsoever, and thus the lack of Pop. III stars is exactly what we’d expect.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled episode of “I didn’t evolve from a chimpanzee.”
[/quote]
No stars have yet been discovered that are completely devoid of elements heavier than helium.
[/quote]
This is true. Normal stellar fusion produces elements up to, IIRC, carbon (my astrophysics is not fresh). Elements up to lead are produced in the later fusion stages (when the star exhausts the lighter elements and heats up enough to fuse the next heavier. The heaviest elements (after lead up to uranium) are produced in actual supernova explosions.
IIRC, no detectable trace of anything heavier than lithium was produced immediately after the Big Bang due to esoteric atomic physics which I didn’t understand even when I was reading it.
Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!
Ok, I started another thread called “how do airplanes fly?”, so we don’t disrupt this one.
–
peas on earth
We have a winner. Please send $29.95 tou Sweepstakes Central to insure prompt delivery of your GALA PRIZE PACKAGE.
Agisofia asked:
To get an absolute answer, you’d have to ask them. But let me answer from my experience.
If you don’t believe in the literal word of the Bible, then you’re not a real Christian.
Sound simple and straw-mannish? Alas, it’s neither.
I’ve seen them say things like, “Well, if we say Genesis isn’t literally true, where do we stop? Next thing, you’ll be saying Jesus isn’t our savior.”
Because many of them tend to see things in black and white. Either the Bible is literally true or it’s not. You can’t have it part way.
And I’ll say it along with you. But there are some people who will never listen.
“Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is, to my mind, the most beautiful in all of science.”
– Susan Blackmore, The Meme Machine
That’s another thing that steams me up about the fundies. I have many serious, committed Christians in my family. These people adhere to the real injunction of the Bible: To live as Christ. Although I’m an atheist myself, I have tremendous respect for their views and the way they live their life. I have tried to emulate at least their ethical and moral standards.
Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!
Don’t you know that hating science, homosexuals, other religions, atheists, etc. are all part of being a real Christian?
Jeez…
The problem is Creationists decide the answer before they look at the problem. All Creationists are first religious then try and prove their faith in the physical world. If I decided the sky was purple and I based it on faith, I could then use anything I wanted to prove that it used to be. “See!” I would say, “There are purple flowers, they must have come from the sky!” Or…“There is purple ink, and it must have come when rain came from the purple sky.”
“Clatu, Verrata…nector?..neck-tie?”
Maybe the IPU is really the invisible purple unicorn. Hmm. I have the feeling there might be two IPU-worshiper sects here.
Anyway, I agree with what David said, and also I wonder if there might be some effect just of wanting to cling to the ideas you already have. The more you invest in a belief (both time and emotion), the harder it is to let it go. This is something few if any of us are immune to. I’ve noticed it in myself; if I’ve believed something for a long time, it’s pretty unpleasant to stumble upon evidence that I was wrong all that time. Sometimes instead of changing beliefs, it’s emotionally easier to rationalize away any contrary evidence. So you can invent elaborate systems of lies to avoid having to face up to things.
I’ve been there and done that.
–
peas on earth
Elleon: I just went to that pathlights encyclopedia website you suggested.
Wow.
If this is where you are getting your information, well, I don't really know what to say, except that I recommend this site highly to any "enlightened creationists" who wonder why many who support evolution consider creation "scientists" to be either stupid, ignorant, or dishonest.
I'm serious, guys. The guy who wrote this stuff really doesn't have a clue. If I were to pose as a Creation scientist and put up a website to discredit Creationist arguments, I couldn't have done a better job.
Seek Truth AlwaysFrom the Reasons To Believe site
Back to the OP.
Are creationists dishonest?
Not all of them are knowingly dishonest.
Of those who are sincere creationists, the vast majority are fools.
Of those who are intelligent creationists, the vast majority are frauds.
The second category use the first for authoritarian purposes.
The remainder - sincere, intelligent creationists - were brainwashed young. Cognitive dissonance reduction is a strong force. We should be patient with the last category. The second category are many and should be feared. The first should be crushed. It is unfortunately not always easy to tell which is which.
Cheap Bastid:
I tried that same logic with the fundies over at LBMB. They didn’t seem to care much though, that they were turning people OFF to what they preached…
Excuse me, but I need to look for some noses, since they all seemed to have been severed to spite their faces…
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
Still not smoking, but away from my meter!
Satan -
In re-reading the quote I posted, I realize that while it speaks to the heart of the frustration many feel with Creation ‘Science’ it also is a call to arms to the Fundies to ‘prove’ the bible.
A double edged sword that cuts deeply…
Answer to the OP:
No, creationists are not ‘dishonest.’ Scientists, however, like Sagan’s ‘rotifers in flatland’ simply do not have all the facts. An honest scientist will admit that more is unknown than is known.
The majority of the posters on this board who lay claim to ‘science’ have no comprehension of real science. Rather they enjoy the self-aggrandizement of riding on the coattails of science.
::
I would imagine, CalifBoomer, that is could be considered worse to believe something with no evidence whatsoever (I can fly, I’m the King of the World, the Jews are out to get me) than to believe something about which some information is unknown (My phone is ringing, it must be the matress company’s hit men sent to kill me for tearing off tags, The universe was created in a “big bang”)
IT . . . IT could be construed. Damnit. > 
CalifBoomer said:
Well, some are. You’re living proof of that.