brad89

I personally believe (no proof) that time is just energy. Just as matter corresponds to space, energy corresponds to time. Since you cannot have matter without energy, or energy without matter, it is just like space-time concepts, and the two are inseperable.

while I am all for evolution, I do not understand a few things about it, my biggest problem is how something as complicated as "the valves in our veins" originated so that blood would flow forward.

Boondocks has a TV show now, too. And damn, it is LOADED with racism. However, the point of it is comedy, and as long as it isn't blatently advertising racism, it isn't doing anything wrong. It is often mistranslated as advertising racism, but that isn't the case in any episode I have seen.

Perhaps rather than incorrect wiring, it has to do with the subconscious interfering with the conscious directly? Not to mention, people also claim things out of adrenaline and they sort of 'want' to hear and see things.

Wow. I never would have thought it possible to find out how many boards could be made.

I suppose legally, it should be out of their jurisdiction to suspend him. But, as the staff is made of human beings, they should also naturally make some kind of statement about the incident. Perhaps if they were able to make the student confess to the statement, then they could get him in trouble. That is a tough one to judge. After school, if you aren't on school property, then you do have a freedom to do what you want. Personally, I think it was out of their jurisdiction.

I suppose that is true, but that would be damn annoying on my part to ask about every little symbol that comes as second nature to most of you guys (and girls), so I figure I may as well learn it now, otherwise I will just get on the forums nerves. Thanks though. You too, RJ and Cosine.

Perhaps tell them that science is not evil, as they need to use it to prove their religious beliefs. "Religion without science is blind." They follow their beliefs in ID for a logical reason. Science is logic. However, the logic does become flawed. So now we need to find a new logic. Science is not evil. Science is done by people when they don't realize it. If you ask a question and strive to find an answer, that is science. Maybe it isn't always done in the orthodox method, but it qualifies as science. The people who claim science is evil use it every day. ie. hypothesis- if I put bread in a toaster, and turn the toaster on, then at a later time relative to now, I will have toasted bread. Conclusion- yep, that is definitely what happens. Predictive ability- yeah, if I do that later all the same way, I will have toast again. I agree wholeheartedly. Teaching creationism in school is like begging for death. Death to logic. ID lacks predictability because it claims there are forces outside of the laws of physics that can interfere, create exceptions in them, which means that it is unpredictable. We cannot come to any conclusion on such a theory. It needs to be stopped now before it gets any bigger. Actually, I still disagree with this thought. I don't disagree with what you said, because that is a common thought that even I believe. I mean the logic this statement contains. Even if ID were a correct theory, that isn't an excuse to just sit on it. There still needs to be thinking on the subject. You need to ask questions either way, otherwise society becomes raw gullibility. Personally, I believe that humans are naturally gullible towards many thoughts, but such natural thought is no excuse to not question things.

Anyway, relating to the prediction of the next movement, silkworm, here is my prediction. People will stop being so agressive and start trying to figure out which theory is correct. I will admit, I feel a bit like a hypocrit, on repeated accounts I have poked fun at creationism, and now I feel oh so horrible and am sorry. Good, settled. Anyway, my real prediction is that people will stop thinking alongside things and just come to open space. Try to test each one and see which one is right. It will be tough to do, but given time and effort it will probably work. Personally, I see the best evidence towards evolution is the fact that two species divided, put under certain conditions, then reunited again as two different species has happened on repeated accounts. In a nutshell, stop looking at one idea as wrong and one as right, and looking as 'well, they are both credible, lets just figure out which one is right'. In other words, not pointing fingers, finding out which fingers point the right direction. I am sick and tired of religion pointing fingers at other religion because of a book!

Thank god! When I talked with some pastor, he told me evolution was disproven by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I didn't believe it at first, but I knew that I had heard it before, so I didn't know what to think. As long as that doesn't disprove evolution, I am glad as hell! Oh yeah, while I am at it, I may as well also ask about Carbon dating being proven wrong. He used such an argument trying to prove genesis. Ignorance...

Thanks. Hopefully I can finally grasp half the things on this forum.

Hey, I am having trouble with almost all of the things on this forum because I don't know some advanced math types, such as trig or calculus. I am trying to learn them now on my own, but am having little luck. I have gone through books, tore apart the search engines, but found nothing that works right. Is there any good math websites that cover everything from the ground up and are free?

Thank god! That is one of the best things that has ever been said in a courtroom, as it put creationism in its place. A theology class. Yahoo has a link on the home page if you prefer to try that. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051221/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate

Is there any type of equation that would represent the total possible amount of sudoku games there are possible to make?

I have been thinking. Just wonder what you might think as well. Not to mention, I don't have much thought behind it other than the fact that it doesn't make sense. But why is matter allowed to 'touch' other matter? I have no idea where this came from. I just had an idea about taking a microscope and zooming in infinitely at an atom. It appears together, like a particle is a sphere. But I just tried to zoom in even closer on this imaginary atom. And what I thought was that we can't zoom to a point where matter is 'smooth' and lacks any sort of hole or bump or anything. Here is another thought to go along with it that I thought could act as some sort of proof. Imagine a perfect sphere. Then imagine touching this perfect sphere to another one. I think that the point in which they touch would be 0 dimensional, one you could pass a line through. I equated this to not touching at all. I brought this up to a geometry teacher, and she told me that she agreed on the spheres touching at a 0 D point, but she also told me that she still believed they were touching. Then this thought led to my final thought, matter compressed to a point. Picture this. A hollow cube. Now take two spheres and place them inside the cube. They touch the sides of the cube and each other. Observe the cube with the spheres. There is still room inside the cube everywhere the spheres aren't touching. I realized that you could jam pack it full of spheres. You could pack these spots full of spheres, and as long as the spheres keep getting smaller, you could pack the spot infinitely! Keep on going forever. If there are only spheres, then there will always be empty room on the outside of them. You can pack this room with smaller spheres, then pack that room with smaller spheres so on and so on. This means that lengths of matter stretches infinitely beyond the size of atoms! I am sure this has been thought of, but what I wonder is if this presents a solution to singularities.

I suppose it is possible, but I don't believe necesarily THAT would happen. I just think the brain is overanalysed as an organ. Not everything we see is always real, as our mind can often play tricks on us (ghosts), but we think thinking is so complex because we can think about it! Maybe it isn't as complex as we imagine. Maybe we just overthink it. Oh god, I have to think!

Personally, I think we overanylized thinking to confuse it. If a million tiny electrical signals travel between neurons in certain patterns, we can identify them as thoughts. Our brain just made sense of them. Also, perhaps certain chemical agents or hormones affect certain cells of the brain and it causes strange attractions of atoms within the brain. It may be sort of small, but it is very complex, and we can understand it by analyzing it and its reactions toward certain chemicals and other variables. One time, I heard that a brain surgeon poked someones brain and they claimed to hear polka music. It is amazing, but that one story gives me hope not to turn to other ideas about how the brain works, including theological and mythological, as well as astrological. Also, the brain isn't the only thing that runs our body. Don't forget other factors, such as the adrenal glands, testosterone, and certain other hormones. Quoting ryan jones, one cell isn't much, but it is when we include all the billions that surround it. Maybe that is where intelligence derives.

Creativity is only judged by a human, there is no mathematic calculating method involved. Who is to say that if a machine developed a theory based on credible evidence that it isn't creative?

Huh. Never saw Brave New World, or heard of it for that matter. Anyway, why would we get rid of genetic engineering just because some people feel discriminated. Gattaca was a movie. Not much more than that. It had a creative story that just happened to involve a potentially real science, but it was greatly exagerated. The stuff in it was way to dramatic, the real world wouldn't be that way. This rules out the anti-progress.

Also, how does his theory account for the bursts of X-rays used to detect them in the first place? I don't know if he is smart or stupid, but if he doesn't act fast then he may be swallowed up by the black hole of anti-proof he is about to hit with!

You know, it does have a hint toward creationism. Seems like an alongside to ID if I ever saw one.

That is true but I always wondered why cells 'don't like to be hot' so to speak. Or for that matter, 'to be cold'. The reason is the fact that the sun doesn't hate being hot, same as a ice crystal doesn't hate being cold. But cells do. I wonder myself why I hate being cold or hot, when I know that hot and cold are just levels of energy as kinetic energy or heat. I suppose that is due to nerves, but the thing is they ONLY follow chemical reactions. I still can't phrase it right. I guess the best thing to ask is how they communicate through hormones. If you have any links or could sum it up, I would appreciate it, since I googled related searches and found nothing. thanks for replying

I often wonder about one perticular problem with evolution. I think that it might end up being a bit better when the brain is developed, but the only problem I have is before the brain there were only cells. And the cells were following chemical reactions because that is all they can follow. I wonder why these cells seemed to become intelligent and develop to better survive the conditions because cells don't become 'better' at surviving, only follow reactions. And that is what I wonder. Cells are only made of atoms, and these atoms are following reactions. Why do these reactions change for the better of the cell? This was a hard one to phrase. If you get my meaning at all, please reply. If not, I'll try again to phrase it later.

I do agree with Kyle. It wasn't a warning that the future will indeed be that way, it was meant to be a movie. But the portrayal wasn't all too exagerated, or didn't seem like it to me. Say that this was a test of life insurance. Is it discriminating somebody to say that because they have a heart defect or oncogene that they aren't able to purchase insurance, or need a much higher rate? It is a possibility. There was much exageration though. You couldn't base an ENTIRE application on somebody's DNA. And you couldn't learn all that much from someones DNA if you were able to screen it. That was the stuff that was just drama. But the scientific and moral point of view on things such as insurance of many sorts or certain jobs in astronomy and cosmology, for the least part, was true. You could tell whether they will have bad eyesight or are suseptible to certain pathogens and viruses. How do people feel about things like this? If you were trying to buy insurance and couldn't because your DNA placed you in a high risk group, you would feel discriminated. However, you can't blame the insurance company. They have a responsibility to rate according to risk assessment. Who do you think is being unfairly treated?