swansont

Turns out someone tried to do this last year. The bill died in committee. http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2009/R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=HJR1009

If you can just barely escape, what is your final (i.e. leftover) kinetic energy?

I just happened to notice it twice recently, in citing something from the US code (subpart c) and in a relativity thread and was a tad annoyed I couldn.t make it go away. I can do copyright using "option g" on my mac ©. I imagine there's a similar option in other OSs

One can also make the observation that animals reproducing after their own kind is a biblical argument, and the implication that speciation or hybridization does not occur or always results in an inferior result is not in accordance with evolution. So if this is supposed to be an argument based on evolution, Adolf did as well as an unsuccessful art student with no biology training could be expected to do. He failed. The whole argument is fatally flawed. Evolution has its roots in other ideas and observations that predate it, so other arguments that use the same precursors are not necessarily based on evolution. And even if they were, it wouldn't matter. The application of the theory is incorrect and merely used as justification. As I have pointed out before, Archimedes' principle does not justify drowning and gravity does not justify pushing someone off of a cliff. However, my insistence on having cypress answer the questions were not based solely on pointing this out. It was to underscore the pattern of dodging questions only to repeat the same talking points, because the actual answers are inconvenient to the argument. No, Darwin is not actually mentioned in the book, so the connection to evolution is tenuous. And no, computers do not operate on magic and people are not held down by invisible pink fairies, but to actually admit that would undercut the argument that the so-called "commitment to materialism" is a limitation of science. People don't waste their time trying to build computers based on magic, they build them based on quantum mechanics and E&M. But if cypress's contention is correct, it seems reasonable to ask why this is the case, and why biology is being singled out for exception to the precept about supernatural influence on nature.

I've noticed that a c in parentheses is automatically turned into a copyright symbol ©, even with the noparse command. Any way to customize this, or turn it off? Punctuation near parentheses is turned into smilies but that can be defeated with noparse The registered symbol is a problem, too ®

We were talking about the analogy.

Really? That book discusses the operation of a computer? I had no idea. And if it confirms that Darwin is mentioned in Mein Kampf, why don't you just say so, instead of all these charades? Do you really think that was the part of your statement to which I objected? That's not what you claimed, so this is moving the goalposts. You contended that people who say evolution is a fact are wrong. And the rest of the claim seems to rest on what counts as an observation, and on artificially narrowing what constitutes evidence. How does one objectively tell the difference between planned and something that just happened?

People have been trying to explain that your question makes no sense, though that is not your fault. But it is vaguely similar to asking, "What's the difference between a duck?"

The Bible is optional and a decision up to the individual, as is the addendum "so help me God." You could be sworn in with your hand on a copy of Penthouse. The decision not to is one of politics rather than a government mandate — they are not part of the Constitutional requirement of swearing the oath or affirming, the latter being included so one did not have to swear an oath to (or before) God.

I'm not sure what you mean by "many refuted it." Some have attempted to refute relativity, but nobody has been successful.

Fails to live up to the predictions? Are you actually claiming it wouldn't work?

Electrons do not get "used up." Charge and lepton number are conserved, so in chemical reactions the number of electrons in a system is constant. Ionization is typically followed by recombination after a very short interval. Current flow, as described in the article, requires a closed loop. One electron out, one electron back in.

I don't think you can say there is any "most basic" form of energy.

Still dodging, and there were two questions. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, and what you propose isn't science. 1. Evolution has been observed, thus it is a fact. 2. Define "design"

Sorry. All I know about David Hume is that he could could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

The Arkansas provision, and any others like it, are unconstitutional and unenforceable under Torcaso v. Watkins

I can't help but note that you didn't actually answer the questions I asked.

How about a link?

I'm not sure it's even that. More toward the equivocation-like argument, when in spoken discourse, someone draws a distinction between 1. separation of church and state is not in the constitution and 2. "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution but without noting that they are using the stealth quote marks. It's a convenient backtrack for spin, as when Christine O'Donnell did it recently, but I think that it's disingenuous.

Depends on where the power source is, because its mass will be reduced by (at least) that amount.

You have to do the data copying, and do the "import music" option on the new computer with the external HD hooked up, so it will copy the files into iTunes. I think the extra info is stored in the music library xml file, and that is what gets updated when you import, and also tells the program what music is there. If you copy it as music, from a playlist, your only option AFAIK is to burn a music CD

! Moderator Note No need for multiple threads http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52720-irrational-hatred-of-science/

A single RF or microwave photon isn't usually going to ionize an atom or molecule unless it's already in a highly excited state. What happens here is more classical — you get a bunch of photons in the same place, and their electric fields add, and you get field ionization of the molecules. There are a lot of photons when you have several hundred Watts of the radiation bouncing around.

In the case of the sun, they are an example of radiant heat, since they are emitted from a blackbody source — the reason they exists is because of a temperature differential. But as Fuzzwood says, photons are not the same as heat. Plenty of photons are created from processes that are not due to a temperature differential, and you can get energy to transfer in convection and conduction. Also, heat is not an object or substance.

There have been some recent stories on how this works, or at least how it manifests itself (I wish I had links to the stories, but I don't). You are more likely to question the science if you have an ideological disagreement with the implications; ideology drives what can and can't be true in your worldview. If you believe in Biblical creation, you are susceptible to accept shoddy arguments against evolution. If you believe in reducing government regulation, then global warming has to be wrong. The quality of the science doesn't matter so much.