Death_By_Pod

Your life sounds reasonable good. You're 16, this isn't going to be the only time something bad happens. Count yourself lucky that it isn't something irreversible like getting into a car accident. What the hell is with these topics lately, perhaps they should stay in a sticky thread; like what happened with the girlfriend topic invasion.

and Locke is Ghost_Ranger. Wasn't that self evident? Of course if you ignore the posting history and style of Locke. I agree with the circle jerking though. :siren: Warning your computer is broadcasting an IP address :siren:

I guess pushing my face into a wall while my back was turned an I was bent over now means no intention of harm. Yes, I know, reading that the first time with a dirty mind might seem funny, but it isn't. Ever consider that he was only shoving you and that getting pushed into a wall, was an accident? Next time control your anger better.

Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monatomic_gas to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_the_ ... aracter%29 and then you get things like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_shea ... h_equation which looks like someone just copied their class notes without bothering to explain them. Many pages like the one above, aren't written in the style of an article. I just clutters up the site with pointless fragments. Wikipedia might be good for things like Sonic, but if you want to get anything detailed beyond a high school level, it's extremely hit and miss. I usually have more success using a search engine which digs up course notes from university websites. It's a good idea in theory, but it attracts the wrong kind of content contributors, you get what you pay for. Don't even get me started on user pages and other stupid e-peen stuff. Except the microbiologists and nutritionists are too busy with their real lives to contribute, and even then they need to cite sources for everything they say. The only experts you find are anime or video game fans, or autistic people who have to write very detailed pages about the must mundane topics (like light bulbs).

You need to do high school maths before even attempting university calculus. Its recommended at my university to take the advance maths course but the standard maths is definitely a pre-requisite; they even have a maths centre for people who do standard maths to help them up to standard. I think the best thing you can do is apply for a related course, or a course that allows you to take maths/science classes. You can treat the degree as if you were doing a science degree, and if you like university and get decent marks you can transfer into the degree you want with all the credits from the first degree. The hardest part of university is getting in, transferring is much easier if you have a decent record.

That's very Freudian, I guess these categories need to be named for diagnostic purposes, I suppose. What's up with all the "I'm doing a psychology course" posts lately? You're making the assumption that we can study psychology empirically and is quantifiable in diagnostic manuals. I find it rather odd that you can categorise the human mind so simply.

Not necessarily, the processes behind QM are deterministic. However I think he was theoretically speaking and not seriously proposing anything. Non-linear systems can be modelled, you just need to be very careful with how you measure any starting variables. The mechanisms for things like convection are deterministic. Chaos is just really another way of saying extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. The sensitivity is probably why people believe that free will exists.

I live in Australia, so I guess the culture of drinking is radically different to America's culture. The problem with America's alcohol laws, isn't so much the age of purchase but the consumption of alcohol by people under 21. Being allowed to gradually introduce minors to alcohol would do a lot to cut down on idiots going off their heads. If you can't even provide a drink with a meal then what do you expect when they acquire alcohol being their parents back. But then again I doubt you'll find many parents that are willing to responsibly teach their kids anything. It would be similar percent if you replaced pub with shop. Violence happens in populated areas, I wonder what the percentage of violence involves someone who has has alcohol.

Now what happens when you run on a treadmill, holding a hair dryer pointed to your face? Wind, amazing. You do know that the turbines are powered right, they aren't like windmills. Better tell scientists that VTOL planes (harrier jump jet) don't work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring). The question is ambiguous and there are plenty of ways in which a 747 hull can launch off a treadmill, to say that it is impossible is short sighted.

Theoretically speaking, however it's practically and physically impossible. Saying you have free will over your choices is fallacious, any choice you have arises from a combination of causal chains. For example the choice to eat a hamburger needs the following causal chains to occur: you are hungry, the store is open, the weather is good, your taste buds react positively to hamburgers, you had good experiences with hamburgers, you have enough money etc. It's not as free as you think. Your brain is made up of the same stuff as everything else in the universe, so it be reasonable that it follows the same laws. It's not a quantum physical concept, it's a motivational video sugar coated to appear as science. Of course if you are continually striving for something, you are more likely to achieve it; that's common sense. The secret is 'hard work and dedication,' which really isn't a secret at all.

If the jet engines can provide enough air flow over the wings (probably need to increase angle of attack to increase vertical velocity and hence lift), it will lift off the ground, whether it is stable enough to remain in the air is another question. Aeroplanes require a pressure differential across the wings (which jet engines provide), they have nothing to do with wheel speed or engine thrust (acceleration relative to the ground). It's a really stupid question, it's physically infeasible (can a treadmill even physically compensate any changes in speed of an aeroplane) and has a lot of hidden assumptions; so any answer is ambiguous.

It's not going to get any more replies because people who [cabbage] on macro evolution move on to new topics so they don't have to defend their claims.

I bet if you took an introduction course in car engine repairs, an aeroplane engine would look complex too. With what I know in physics and a little bit of biochemistry, that video doesn't look too mystical. You need to remember that the video is a slowed down version of what happens in about a second. The chemicals are attracted to each other electrically, they don't magically drift towards the correct place. The same thing goes with the folding of proteins from their primary structure. Darwin considered things like the cell complex because he couldn't see anything shown in that video. It looked like the cell ran by magic, rather then moving chains of chemicals and proteins. But the percentage of shared DNA isn't important, all things need blueprints for proteins and organs. What's important are the genetic markers placed randomly by viruses in an ancestor and found in species split off from it. And it's 1 636 738 191 football fields to the sun, imagine how many football fields it would take to get to another star. 6.5 million football fields is insignificant.

Uhh, that equation is purely scalar. Maybe you've mistaken it for: F = ma Looks like you got pwned, you are obviously just a 3rd grader who is trying to impress looking at your other brother's high school physics exam. :P Engineering has nothing to do with physics? :lol: (hint: You engineer things out of matter. Matter has physical properties which are explained by QM.) You are seriously arguing over a non-issue.

So why quote him in the first place? The quote an video have nothing to do with belief in God. It's just another failed attempt at trolling biological science. Oh video looks complex, therefore Darwin is dumb and God done it.

Short of dissociating from reality, you will always have some interest in what others say. You can learn different ways of dealing with it. For example you can analyse your worries, what is the worst thing that could possibly happen and then ask how relevant it would be in a day, week, month and year.

Darwin isn't an expert on contemporary biology, he didn't even know what DNA was. Why do people keep bringing this up like if it's meant to refute anything. All it shows is that Darwin didn't have very good foresight.

Oh hey I'm going to create another religious thread because the people in the last one trolled me and I cried until mummy locked it. To answer your question a pastor once told me that I'm going to hell because I'm a 'homosexual'-enabler. That's racist. That's racist.

So long as it has an even number of chromosomes, it doesn't matter. It's the same way how some hybrids can bear offspring and some can't. You need an even number of chromosomes so that it can evenly divide during meiosis. The problem is the incompatibility between different species isn't the number of chromosomes but other factors such as basal temperatures and the distribution of vital genetic code across chromosomes. In order to get these variables right you need very similar species, which usually means a very close (or exactly the same) number of chromosomes. If a population is sufficiently small there is no reason why such a change in chromosome number unsustainable. The problem normally is that if a population is large enough, any abnormalities would get bred out before they spread too far. A method of creating new chromosomes is known polyploidy. Basically chromosomes are duplicated, creating new species. This is most common in plants, but there are also cases in animals (and fungi) as well. Chromosome fusion can also occur, which fuses together two chromosomes to form one; this is the reason why humans have one less pair of chromosomes then other great apes. What's the point in having to defend macroevolution if any other possible viewpoint contradicts observation. If you have another view, it should at least be consistent with current observations. As far as anyone is aware, theories of creationism fail to be consistent with observation. Except speciation isn't normally associated with producing hybrids or a change in chromosome count. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy Straw man for the lose. Can we stop with all this hybrid talk when it has nothing to do with speciation.

Punching someone isn't defending a woman, it's just being a hoon. What does it achieve? Your honour as a man? Couldn't his girlfriend handle the situation herself? It's male hedonistic violence, not defending anything. Stepping in and detaining the person until the cops come is perfectly acceptable. What the poster did was went and bashed some guy after the event occurred, instead of doing the right thing and reporting it the police. He wasn't standing there letting it happen, he just wanted personal revenge. The person he hit didn't deserve it either. Vigilante action isn't justifiable no matter how right you think it is.

I think this makes you sexist. Instead of letting your girlfriend deal with the problem like any normal person (reporting it to the police), you play out the stereotypical strong, male hero who is protecting the weak, feminine woman. If you were so concerned about the situation, you would have made sure that she reported the sexual assault to the police and made sure they took action, instead of committing a similar crime. But hey justice is served :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases I wouldn't call this 'tiny detail'.

It is not individuals that evolve but populations. A population evolves by gradual changes in gene frequency until it becomes a distinct species that is no longer capable of interbreeding with similar populations that shared a common ancestor. All of the individuals within the population can mate successfully with each other so there is no problem with "hybrids". There are quite a few examples of different populations of the same species which have trouble interbreeding, in other words the hybrids are not viable. These populations are evolving and may become separate species. It is a common mistake to assume that a new species begins when an individual "mutates" or "evolves" in a single step - this is simply not how evolution works. Mules can't interbreed because they have an odd number of chromosomes, not because because it is a hybrid. Galapagos Finches are an example of a species which regularly produce fertile hybrids. Also if you disagree with macroevolution, you have to explain all this away first. But like most people you'll just ignore anything you don't want to understand. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ That's the problem, people defending macroevolution are just as ignorant as the people who don't understand it. If you want to answer a question at least take the time to research a correct answer. It's not hard with so many online resources these days.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... troviruses http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Is this for real? How do our cells know if a mutation is beneficial? That's like saying how does light know that it's the colour orange? We call orange light, orange out of convenience, not because it is intrinsically orange. Mutations aren't beneficial or non-beneficial, they are just labels given to mutations. People with non-beneficial mutations tend not to pass down their genes, by the definition of what we mean by a non-beneficial gene. An analogy would be the difference between being fatally wounded and wounded. The people who are fatally wounded die by the definition of the term, yet both are intrinsically wounds. Don't post any more until you get the basics down.