Death_By_Pod

You responded as a right brained person to 9 questions, and you responded as a left brained person to 10 questions. You seemed to be comfortable using strategies for both sides for the brain. Your preference may be situational and apparent mainly when stress in a factor. This does not necessarily mean that you are ambidextrous. However, you are on your way to becoming whole brained and will benefit from using study strategies useful for both sides of the brain. When you read the descriptions, look for new strategies to try. However, your learning style probably has components from both sides. Some of the traits associated with the left and right side of the brain are listed in the table. Not all of the traits will apply to you. I already knew I would get almost an exactly equal score and what it meant before doing the test :D The test is too short and only has yes/no type questions since almost all of mine were an in between response. I guess a lot of people fail to realise there is a significant portion of people that are in-between so you really can't say that people are one side or the other.

# PETA has stated repeatedly that their goal is "total animal liberation." This means no pets, no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no fishing, no leather, and no animal testing for lifesaving medicines. # PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. # PETA funds the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine 3, an animal-rights organization that presents itself as an unbiased source for nutritional information and has links to a violent animal-rights group called SHAC. # PETA has used their contributorsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ tax-exempt donations to fund the North American Earth Liberation front, an FBI-certified ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ådomestic terroristÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia I'm one of the people who think that it is natural (even if you exclusively want young females). But in the case of your friend, they are both young and are never going to be mature (even people in their 20's are not 'mature'). The whole dating someone your own age is a myth but works better in practice because you have more things in common if they are of a similar age. There is nothing wrong with dating young people so long as it is not an too much of an obsession (obsession is generally bad anyway) especially when you are under 20. I think your problem is not age but your relation to your friendÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s girlfriend, you are being overprotective of your sister and you think she is just your young daughter. She is going to be exposed to relationships no matter what so you should be glad it's with a friend and not some scumbag. That way you can monitor what they are doing easier, making sure she isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t doing anything TOO stupid. Other then that if she has started puberty it really inst your business, regardless of what laws say. You should respect family decisions so long as it's not dangerous ('hard' drugs and suicide are examples you should try and prevent) and they are informed of what might happen.

Everything I say is my opinion and is not the truth, but an opinion nevertheless. There isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even absolute truth in what I say even though I try to bring an insight into the truth, we are just going in circles with opinion. Think about this, if you wanted to map the surface of a basket ball (lets also say this is the smallest object possible in the universe). Would it be easier to accurately map the surface of a basket ball by throwing another basketball at it or by throwing peanuts (which can't exist) at it? The obvious answer is by throwing peanuts at it because the peanuts will deflects at a greater variety of angles then the basketball. However the peanut (which is smaller then the smallest object) will not give the best map of the basket ball and you could use atoms (or even better electrons), which are smaller then peanuts and will deflect at more angles. Upon redrawing your map you will find there are little dimples in the basket ball (which you could not tell by throwing basketballs and peanuts). However the problem with using atoms and peanuts are that the smallest object in the universe is a basketball :lol:. This is why I say we can never perfectly measure things, which is one thing that ticks me off (not knowing 100%). If you take a look at the universe, you will see at a small enough level uncertainty becomes too great to accurately measure things. This is a combination of Uncertainty principle and quantum fluctuations. If there was anything much smaller then a quark (the stuff that makes the stuff that makes atoms) then it will be almost impossible to measure to any great accuracy. Therefore if there is no limit on size then it will be practically useless anyway (and will invalidate some scientific ideas that require a fixed minimum length). We estimated the whole framework of physics at one point and most physic teachers discouraged students to carry on physics because it was "complete". Then along came Quantum mechanics and Nuclear physics; Classical physics is useful for solving problems but it is not completely accurate and definitely not absolute truth no matter how much people thought so at the time. The problem is we can never know if the estimation is perfect because you have to stop somewhere and maybe if you went a few decimal places further you would discover an anomaly. This with the combination of the above creates doubt on the absolute in my mind. If the tree has never been observed at all (i.e. has not interacted with anything) and is in an area where tree's are likely then the probability wave of the tree will say it is likely a tree to be there but until it is observed we will not know for sure, It will remain a probability. However the fact that the tree is falling/exists means it has interacted (and as a result been observed) then it will produce a sound. If the tree does not make a sound, it will violate the laws of the conservation of energy. So where does the potential energy of the tree go as it falls/grows/whatever? It will convert to heat and sound, but letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s assume that no sound is made and it all converts to heat. Then the tree can still make a sound but it will be thermal rather then audio since we can detect heat emitted from objects. Since the tree is out of thermal equilibrium it will emit or absorb heat, which can be measured. Well maybe you are keeping your part of the social contract so that you can get along with people and hence find a partner, not murdering people will help you achieve this easier then some who murder's. In the murderer's mind murder is not bad and the body might just be defective in telling him what will get them good mates. According to them (and the ethical theory I've applied) murder is not wrong but it certainly won't help in producing offspring. I think he is a hobo or something now, I don't really know but everyone thought he was annoying. My English teacher just had to come out with the standard, "well it could be right."

The Xbox 360 is going to be $300(USD) according to Wal-Mart. http://www.totalvideogames.com/news/Xbox_360_Price_Reported_8119_0_16.htm (First Google) Also the Madden screenshots posted were displayed at E3 for X360 and Resident Evil 5 is coming out for PS2! and X360. The problem with running new games is that they will not run as good on computer as the X360 or PS3. I just got a new 3 GHz computer with a 9600 (after my motherboard blew up) and it barely run's the 720p trailers. Now the X360 can run it fine and will be less then half the cost (closer to a third) of my computer, this is why to many consoles are superior to computers.

There is no such thing as an absolute truth in my opinion; your brain always has some form of bias, conscious or not. All you have to do is repeat a phrase and soon it will get so entrenched in your mind that it will become a truth. I don't see how moral arguments can be absolute truths when they are formed by people within the human population to describe the human population. Sure there are trends in the overall population but there are many exemptions to the trend at the same time. For example I believe in Social Contract Theory but who's to say it works everywhere; evolution might have taken a different turn where reproduction was Asexual and you did not have to compete with each other for resources. There are some exceptions to this theory at the same time, such as the "tough guy" who breaks the law and yet still finds people who will happily be their partner (maybe the partners that are attracted to "tough guys" have faulty Genes, who knows). Even for empirical science that there is no truth since we will never be able to resolve our equipment to the level of perfect accuracy (For example you can not have better resolution then an atom because you need something smaller then the atom to read the atom, which you don't have, available). It is interesting to note that we had a discussion on this when I was in a Year 12 English class at high school (which was for people with intelligence in the top few percent of the state, a selective school for those people in Sydney) and pretty much everyone was on the side of no absolute truth (except for the kid who wanted to be difficult and "different" of course).

There are only 8 planets you know. Pluto isn't a planet, it is only taught in high school as one. It is in fact a Kuiper Belt Object much in the same manner as 2003 UB313. As you can see its eccentricity is too large, orbits around the belt and basically does not fit the current theory on how planets form because its orbit is bent 14 degrees. It has most likely been bumped out of orbit by a large collision.

Another way to do that... 1/3 = .3 repeating 1/3 * 3 = 3/3 .3 repeating * 3 = .9 repeating .9 repeating = 3/3 = 1 :P Nice topic. 2 more solutions: (1 easy, one not so) 1 = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 Covert to decimal 1 = 0.999~ + 0.999~ + 0.999~ and 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009..... 0.999~ is an infinite geometric progression so you can use the following formula (there is a long-ish proof for this that I will not put up here): a / (1 - r) in this equation a is the first term and r is the common multiple (what you multiply the progression each time to get to the next term) so: a is 0.9 and r is 0.1 in this case substituting in you get 0.9 / (1 - 0.1) = 0.9 / 0.9 = 1

All of you 10-20 year old Theists hate the prospect of no God, we know that, you have your reasons. :roll: Wow nice flame a pity no one really took notice. So you can only be an Atheist if you are over twenty, seems pretty arbitrary to me. The same could be said for Theists; maybe you are too immature to accept God if you are under 20 since you are not fully developed mentally and are open to a brainwashing.

The speed of light depends on the material in which it is measured but it sure as hell is not "slowing down" http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkconseq.html from the same site as you first post discusses the claim and pretty much invalidate it. Here are some highlights from it. "Three of these Norman and Setterfield quantities found to be truly fixed constants, namely e, R, and G. These constants are either independent of time or independent of atomic processes. The other five quantities, which are related to atomic phenomena and which involve time in their units of measurement, were found to trend, with the exception of the quantum Hall resistance." - They could not find any data to show Hall resistance is changing yet all other's are? What makes this time dependent variable so special to go against the trend of the other variable's changing value, an admitted contradiction? " If the universe had its maximum diameter at the end of creation week and had since shrunk somewhat, then the Big Bang theory of an expanding universe is incorrect." - Blames the Doppler shifts on changing speed of light. Does not provide any calculations which show the large red shift can be related to such a small decrease in c (It appears the answer to one of my test questions using a Doppler shift on a star receding at the rate of 0.2c is wrong. It seems IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve been living in a world full of lies. :roll:). "Some additional published information by Setterfield is available by mail from Australia (Reference 1), but most Setterfield's later work is awaiting final peer review for journal publication as of this writing." -Not peer reviewed; hence inaccuracies may be in work. After all when do you get things correct the first time? "However, once a radio-wave leaves the source, or a photon departs from its parent atom, energy and momentum are apparently both conserved. Also the product (hc) is a true constant which does not vary with time." -Seems like if this model were true then it would violate conservation of energy since most of light we see from stars were from millions of years ago it would in fact be a time capsule for measuring the speed of light. You measure the speed of light from a star far away and compare it to the speed of light from our sun. "This is why, if the redshift signified cosmological expansion even the very atoms making up the matter in the universe would also have to expand." -I don't see how he can compare the expansion of space (non-physical) to something like atoms (physical). Maybe there are such things called nuclear forces which stop the atom from expanding. Come off it he doesn't appear to know what he is talking about here. Finally he talks about Fred Hoyle who is known for his "steady state" theory, which was famously disproved by Hawking. He practically aligns himself with scientists that wish to preserve the idea that the Earth is young. Which contradict all kinds of laws of physics. Just to let you know the speed of light is normally measured in a vacuum; on most data sheet's the material is specified (and most give the vacuum measurement). The second link states that light does not slow down but refraction slows down the speed of light through absorption when moving between materials. Nothing to do with the claim that light slows down over time. The third link is related to the first link but I should point out this article is 3 years old. Even if this amazing discovery was true don't you think the news would have been plastered everywhere in the 3 years since discovery. Actually this guy has been claiming light is slowing down since 1987, ample time for any peer checks and further study to verify the claim. But what's that, ask any physicist if the speed of light is a constant and they will say it sure is. The tale of the speed of light slowing down is a myth made by a Creation scientist to help prove the Universe (hence Earth) is young and the bible is true.

I wanted an idea of what to and not post since you obviously got annoyed at me explaining variation and selection. I can make these assumptions because it is mostly true for these boards. Most people here are teens and hence would not have a complete education on the topic or itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s more basic concepts (I for one have little education in biology and geology for example but still retain a good idea about the basics). You could have easily of said IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not a teen and I would have just took it at face value without an assumption for your level of education. Just take a look at all the people who just post links to other websites without ANY explanation. If you wanted to know I had parents who were non-religious and not too crash hot on evolution so IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m in the same situation. I have yet to counter on any specifics due to the fact IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m already spending ample time lately on the subject (probably 6 hours a day for the past few days) as you can see from my lack of editing. ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅBiasÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Why can you not see my scepticism of creationist websites/ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åresearch centres?ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Radioactive Decay Calculations of Radioactive decay are statistical. For something to be statistically relevant you must have a large sample size. Surveys with 10 people are not going to be as accurate as surveys with a trillion people. The formula used for decay requires a trillion people for its predicting power to be accurate. This is why when we get to a small number of radioactive atoms they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t tend to decay in line with the function. Wikipedia seems to agree: ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅThis function represents exponential decay. It is only an approximate solution, for two reasons. Firstly, the exponential function is continuous, but the physical quantity N can only take positive integer values. Secondly, because it describes a random process, it is only statistically true. However, in most common cases, N is a very large number and the function is a good approximation.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Evolution vs. Abiogenesis While I will admit abiogenesis is put next to evolution as a solution for origins and it is a relatively new science and an under funded one but it is still a science. It deals with creating life from non matter. Currently we have nothing on life but we do know that organic matter can arise from elements how much and how it can form we just donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know. Abiogenesis is the beginning or how it starts; after it starts you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t use abiogenesis to describe what happens. The process is then described by evolution. You donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t hear people say the big bang can predict what made the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâbangÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢; it only describes the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâbangÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢. However this topic is about evolution so using insufficient evidence in the area of abiogenesis can not be used to disprove evolution since they are two different things. The two are linked by nature but they are separate things. If we were on the moon and I gave you a recipe for a cake and showed you a cake and told you to make it, then how would you know what flour is or what eggs are? Yet I clearly gave you a recipe and a cake it must be possible but we lack the understanding of flour and egg because it does not occur on the moon. Holes in evolution do not disprove evolution. The presence of holes (which I of course admit) does not show evolution is wrong, after all the conditions for fossilisation is less then perfect and therefore it misses a lot of species in the process. The thing that does destroy evolution would be a contradiction in the theory and so far none have really been put forward. Evolution still has a lot of explaining to do much in the same way NewtonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s theory of gravity could not describe all situations (It was later replaced by EinsteinÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s laws). Evolution will have extensions, deletions and additions but the concept is strong and shows. The nitty gritty detail is yet to be finalised (nothing ever gets finalised it just get refined). http://www.grisda.org/teachers/faq.htm provided by you, states a lot is actually missing from the creationist theory.

Do you mean evolutionary sources? That would make more sense to your overall argument. It should have read: ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅIf you would kindly give me a link to some articles which you think are a good creationist explanation that will disprove evolution (I.e. without resorting to just Bible quoteÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s. Examples such as the giraffe has a long neck or Irreducible complexity which are in fact both easy to explain) OR bad talk-origin.org articles (with an explanation why it is bad source) that I have previously used to explain things. Then I see youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re in no situation to talk until we have some ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâfactsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ that are in conflict with each other.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Yes you may be right with a lack of evidence for spontaneous generation and you should be pleased to know that abiogenesis is not part of Evolution at all. Evolution deals with the change over time, not origins. I think this sums it up nicely which is the intro to the evolution section at Wikipedia. "In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next. In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time." Wow look at that origins are not covered at all, so you god started evolution people are actually evolutionists without it actually infringing on your beliefs of God (unless you believe in the intelligent design aspect of creationism). It not evolutions fault that this spontaneous generation theory is taught next to evolution, it compliments evolution much in the same way you teach addition before subtraction. Maybe you should complain about not having clear headings instead of a direct attack on evolution. I guess most people mistake common ancestor with origins but this common ancestor is really just an arbitrary starting point to talk about the change of our species over time. It is no species of animal called common ancestor; it is just a catch all term we use. However if you want to talk about where did the first common ancestor came from then you could use anything you like such as God, spontaneous generation, parallel worlds or whatever; it does not concern evolution. I hope this has cleared things up for the people reading.

When I talk about credible sources I don't take sides on pro or against. I may appear bias against creationist sources but that is due to the fact that most of them openly lie. An example would be http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php (This was posted in another thread which was locked but there are other links to this site in this thread) LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s look at it: 1. It looks like a published book (however any git can self publish, or better yet use a Christian one to help spread the word) which is decently referenced. I would be automatically suspicious because the 5th question has no reference AT all. I wouldn't mind if it was based of a study of any kind but it seems it's just pulled from nowhere. 2. Looking at references he is lacking any use of the terms: ibid, op. cit and loc. cit. He is rewriting all his references to help fatten up the relatively small list. It would be ok but when you include something from a magazine from 1955! ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s just pushing it; do you really think we havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t refined our research in 50 years (not just evolution but anything)?!?! 3. While looking at the references one stuck out my mind #20. It comes from a credible source and implies evolution is wrong. With a bit of further research it appears that more current research (2005) suggests it is impossible to tell if it is bipedal (stands on two feet) as they only have a skull and lack anything else. The positioning of the spinal cord hole leaves the head unbalanced and without the rest of the body it is hard to really make a conclusion. Hence the source here is rather weak and not really that damning against evolution but it is very interesting none the less. 4. I would automatically dismiss anything that claims that 'Evolution is theory not fact' but an quick dictionary lookup on the word theory. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory Very First Entry: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Is evolution a set of statements, check. Used to explain phenomena, check. repeatedly tested, check. Can be used to make predictions, check. Hmm sounds like a theory according to this definition; you can even replace this with anything like physics, chemistry or math. 5. The forth question is a direct attack on people who do not support creationism practically calling them godless and communists by stating that Darwinists believe in 'dialectical materialism' (matter comes before thought and that things act together to produce a whole) which was used by the soviet union. This is not even an argument but a personal attack :roll: . This is only a brief analysis of the first page and I can already call this highly suspect if not completely a load of garbage. If you would kindly give me a link to some articles which you think are good creationist sources that disprove or bad talk origin articles (with an explanation why of course) that I have previously used then I see your in no situation to talk. EDIT: I see you have used a creationist website for Carbon-14 dating information. This area is actually an area where I have SOME (read: not all) knowledge in (radiation) compared to biology so Ill try and share some inconsistencies to you. See how the 'references' section to "how carbon dating works," it only gives some further explanation and is missing any reference to the physics book or site used. Also you mentioned that there are other dating methods which I like to stress since carbon dating is not the only thing used. 1. When you carbon date things although the half-life is 5,730 years you can not say conclusively that something will be 50% after 5,730 years after all each object will have slight randomness to it. This only matters to really young things such as years old so it's not really valid here. However you can say a similar thing about really old things. If you have 2 half lifeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s it only has a quater left, after 3 you will only have 1/8 left. After about 9 or 10 half lifeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s it will have such a small reading it would be THEORETICALLY impossible to date something older then 50000 years. Example: If you take a small sample (lets pretend it contains a billion "carbon/nitrogen 14 atom" mix) lets say for convenience sakes that its 5.73 million years old (which is plausible considering the age of some of these fossils) then it would have undergone 1000 half lifeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s. Let's consider the size of the object lets say a skull of 3 kg (in reality it will be a lot less but lets use a large size), now for the math (you can skip the parts between the lines if you trust my math): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We say a half life is decided the time it take for half to decay and thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s about 5730 years so for a 5.73 million year old object it would occur 1000 times. In short hand this is 0.5^1000 To work out the number of atoms you need to know a little chemistry. There are 6.02 * 10^23 atoms for a mole of substance, the weight of carbon 14 are approximately 14 so 3000/14 is about 214. 214 * 6.02 is about 1288 * 10^23. Now lets combine the number of atoms with the percentage of atoms that should have not have decayed (the number of carbon 14 atoms to expect left in the skull to test with). I unfortunately don't have an expensive math program with me and IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m forced to rely on the standard calculator so first I will work out what 0.5^1000 is first and multiply it by the number of atoms. According to the Microsoft calculator's answer is 9.3 * 10^-302 so we multiply this answer with 1288 * 10^23 and we get 11978 * 10^-279 or ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.2 * 10^-276 of Carbon 14 atoms will be left after 5.73 million years, which for all intensive purposes is 0! It is smaller then the smallest unit of length in the fabric of the universe! Light can not travel this incredibly small distance as the laws of the universe do not allow it! You see the problems with 'ideal' physics it just never exists! There will always be a small ratio of carbon 14 and when you guess the amount of carbon in the air you are bound to get strange numbers when you go back millions of years. Whoops, I just explained something already on their website so I'm going to say that carbon dating isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the end all solution but only to be taken as a guide along with other dating methods but just because Carbon 14 exists after 50000 years doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean that it breaks the laws of physics. 2. They say atomic bombs made the atmosphere contain more CO2, well thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s fine. All carbon-14 dating is done relative to the atmosphere of the time of the sample not today. 3. Carbon can be calibrated with other things of the era (i.e. in the same rock layer) so you can get an idea of the age but then the article goes on to say other dating methods are used? Is your source saying that there are other methods used in determining age? Great then consider this argument finished but I will go on a little more. 4. The strength of the magnetic field has little to do with the ability to deflect cosmic rays. The magnetic field strength is tiny, a brain scanning machine (MRI) is 60000 times more powerful and we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even feel a thing. Since cosmic rays are just a simple term for anything energetic, it does not state anything about the charge of the atom. Statistically you can say with the high number of cosmic rays coming that are coming you are bound to get an overall neutral charge (electrons and protons cancel and all neutral elements are of cause neutral). Changing strength will have little impact with the date since dates are not correct the same year (or even thousands). 5. The genesis flood would not have an impact since the flood occurred everywhere at once affecting all locations. If this were true then there would be a very large anomaly in the dating of objects before and after the flood. If this were a significant effect then why havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t we seen any evidence of this moving between the different layers of rock? Between which of these rocks do we see a jump between 50000 years and 5 million (or any other significant number)? 6. They do not mention anything about Carbon Dating for the Sun. Why is that, the sun has no carbon so how do we know its date? There are many factors that affect the exact date but I can be done through the tried and tested laws of physics. WouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t this alone invalidate a young earth after all the Earth was made up of left over elements from the Sun, unless the Earth magically appeared 50000 years ago of course! In conclusion they say Carbon dating is bad (the articles focus) they then admit there are other methods. They pick out a couple of methods which can give false readings such as air bubbles in magma giving false readings (what do you know, I would consider this a form of contamination) which have nothing to do with fossils. They argue that dating methods don't match which again is to be expected if methods are approximate and some methods can be contaminated easily. They fail to mention that theoretical framework does not work 100% in real life. There will always be Carbon-14 in objects no matter how old it is since you can not divide atoms up much in the same way we think space is a perfect vacuum, but it's not. In the case of the perfect vacuum there are many stray particles that exist so if you travelled from one side of the universe to the other you would slow down slightly. Lastly I would like to say that more creationist sites would be bad due to the fact that they have something to lose and evolutionists don't. The World will not magically disappear if evolution is wrong. If creation is wrong then SOME of Gods word is also wrong and for many Christians this is unacceptable. This is why Creationist websites furiously defend their theory even resorting to lies. On the other hand Evolutionists will not gain from lying since it destroys the whole idea of Science. Do Evolutionists worship some god of Darwin? I know I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t so therefore I have no reason to lie to preserve it. I support the practice of science not the practice of Darwinian Evolution. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not Science yet some Christians promote it as if it were. This is unacceptable and I will die fighting this cause or until Creationism can become testable (which is never).

Let's say it is true that something created us because we are here. It doesn't necessarily mean it is God, you fact implied nothing about what created you. Who says something can not come from nothing? YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re applying our laws of physics to other things, like applying American law in England. You are explicitly saying the matter came from inside the universe which created the universe. There are a billion different theories people have which explain how the matter came to being but it's impossible to tell due to the speed limit on light and the lack of interactivity of stuff outside the universe hence we could be talking about the same thing. Your god could be my colliding membranes, alternate world, Sprouting universe, Black hole universe etc. So long as the effects described are the same then the language is irrelevant. Do you think aliens will describe physics and what created the universe exactly the same way? They will have a different language, a different set of unit measures and a different mathematical framework. So this business of violating thermodynamics and what created is moot. We are talking about animals adapting and changing over time verses the crafting of each species by an outside force.

Can you please provide any evidence of this, why has this not been on the news and why is the big bang still being taught in textbooks? Your whole post is just insane but I'll answer the scientific ones: Giraffes - Giraffes are famous for their long necks which allow them to browse on the leaves of trees, and elongated forelegs (which are much longer than the hind legs). The bony structure of the neck is essentially unchanged from that of other mammals: there are no extra vertebrae, but each of the seven bones is greatly enlarged. Bone constitutes the bud-like horns called ossicorns, which are covered with the giraffe's skin like the rest of the skull. Bombardier Beetles - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html describes this evolution it would be too much room to paste here. It's basically an evolution from other bugs who use chemicals for no defense purposes. Woodpecker - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html same as above. Put quite simply talkorigins.org is a very good collection of well researched articles that explain things without resorting to lying. They all come with huge reference lists which shows they have actually spent the time to research these things and a place for you to find further information. NASA and the extra day - http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.htm this is just an urban legend nothing more.

Actually you don't know much about fossils do you here is a page about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossilisation or check out any other site about it. Much like the document says it is rare because you need specific environments for fossilisation to occur.

It was just a quick thought i had. Im not sure if its correct that time stand still at 0 degrees kelvin, seems logical to me tho since the lack of energy would prevent any events of any kind. Time are just an human invention. A scientist would most likely tell you 'time' is just another dimension you can move in. But since i have no concept of 4d objects i cant really argue about it :oops: Well it seems like you can sum up any theory about the creation of the universe to absolute nothingness ( whether there is a 'void' or not ) strives to become everything, how and why are questions i dont think mankind will ever get answers to. Its fun arguing about tho :wink: No your right, as the universe slowly cools information takes longer to travel hence when you approach absolute zero (as you can never get there) you at the same time approach no transfer of information. You donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need to understand 4D objects properly to see that time is an extra dimension. Imagine a line attached to every point in space and this line represents time. The point on this line will determine at what period of time you are in, simple. Finally let's assume our universe is slowing down (turning into a void) due to the laws of thermodynamics. It is harder to move about because everything around you is a similar temperature, it is not impossible but it is hard so this take a rather long time to move. At the same time you have these quantum fluctuations occurring which can cause a lot of random events which spring in and out of existence. It could take you millions of years to say hello or to walk a mile. If it takes longer to do things then is it more likely or less likely to see these quantum fluctuations? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation According to the equation we are more likely to see more energy in shorter time spans, maybe there will be an event with so much energy is causes a new universe to come into existence. We have not observed this because we havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t been around long enough, maybe in the void this could become a common practice.

A COMMON, UNDER EDUCATED MIS CONCEPTION: University Physics with Modern Physics is a book. University Physics with Modern Physics is not a book. why do you see different names infront of passages? because it is from a different book OF University Physics with Modern Physics. there are 2 books within University Physics with Modern Physics, both from different time periods, only a small amount written by the same people, the majority coming from different sources, but they all center around the same set of Physics. they decided to take both of the books that had been reproduced for teaching, and gather them together into one collection so that all knowledge and Good Word could be together conveniently, this didn't happen til hundreds of years after Sciences' first coming. University Physics with Modern Physics was not written, many different books were written, it was decided to gather all the scientific writings and teachings together to educate the masses. University Physics with Modern Physics was not distributed to the public until around the late Second millenium, i think the 1990's. Let's take a look at my physics book: Just because it is a collection of thoughts does not make it more or less important see above for my physics book which fits your description perfectly.[/img]

You just said it there; Closed System. What if the universe is not a closed system and it existed in some sort of universe container. Then the universe is not a closed system such in the same way as Earth is not a closed system because of the sun giving us energy (and all the other stars around us). I've started a physics major and just done a whole section of work on thermodynamics and I still think the word 'closed system' is too convenient for this kind of discussion as you can't rule that our universe in fact a 'closed system'. Where is the object that done work on the universe (the system) in order to the change it's internal energy (I.E where did the big bang)? If you say that the universe is a closed system then you can pretty much exclude God from creating the universe since he is not part of the closed system (In fact he created the universe). Pretty much showing that creationism and a closed universe does not work together. The universe may close to become a closed system but this doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t automatically exclude other universes from being in existent (infinite amounts), many in which life does not exist.

I really have to disagree with this point; if we can't question things we havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t studied then we would all be ignorant sheep (The same reason why an English translation of the bible, King James Version was ordered. So people could read, understand and question it). Hey you can't tell a politician your thoughts because youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re not a politician. You can't tell a doctor what you might think is wrong with you because your not a doctor. Your can't tell a business man that risking 1 million dollars to gain 1 million at 50% odds is bad because hey your not a business man. You could go on forever with this. I devote a lot of my time to these sorts of things and I just don't have enough time to fit reading a bible in. What's more I don't really things it's relevant to read the bible since it's the people of the religion that make the religion (without people what's the use of the religion). If I really need anything then I should ask a scholar or read a scholarly text. We do this all the time, do we ask our parents about [subject] problems or do we consult the textbook; the textbook, why because it's a scholarly text. I don't think the bible is a text book much in the same way we don't go on excursions to the rainforest to talk about logging; we usually refer to a report or some such. Anyway my opinion on this subject as an agnostic is that evidence EITHER way I would automatically dismiss it as a delusion. If someone claimed to be God and performed miracles I would think I'm crazy and if some claimed to have a theory that claimed to disprove God I would think they are crazy. I mean I would think these things are interesting but I just can't accept them for fact much in the same way people can't accept scientific theories as fact (see big bang, evolution, gravity, the world is round et al.); after all the definition of a theory is that it's a fact. I think it's irrelevant to discuss these things; I'm here now enjoying myself and there is nothing that an invisible person can do to change it (since by their definition they canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t interact with our world). What is God's stance on people who donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t deny his word but are just overly cautious?

If you consider the surface of a sphere our universe then you will see that there are no edges. When the universe expands the only thing that will happen is that everything in between each other will seem to move apart, much similar our own universe. I guess you could say what happens when you step off the sphere's surface but that like asking what is it like to have 4 dimensions of movement. Another interesting point about this surface is that there is no centre; everywhere looks like it could be the middle of the universe. So finally I guess I could say that I believe the end of the universe is also the start of the universe (that it wraps around itself).