JaKiri

No, it does not.

That's not true. A scientific law is a postulate that can be expressed in a single statement, and has been empirically proven to be true. A theory is just as true as a law (in some comparisons, probably more so), it's just it's made up of more statements. Eh? There are no theorems in science. There are scientific laws and there are Theories (commented upon above), but both of those (in a scientific context) is something that has been observed to be true. If there is definite significant evidence that contradicts the known theories, then the theories are discarded or changed. A theorem or mathematical law are things which are true given the axioms of the system - and cannot be disproven under those conditions.

That's true of theorems as well, you know.

That is indeed true. But I don't think we need to mention all of Resident Evil's immense number of gaffs or plotholes. Except one. The entire reason the "plot" happens is because the hazchem lab is on the same ventilation system as the rest of the base.

Just use a damn repeating crossbow.

Not just light. All the exchange particles travel at the speed of light (well, maybe except gravitons, but that hardly counts).

Actually, it's much hotter than at the center of the sun - because you can't simulate the same amount of pressure, you have to up the heat.

I don't see how the repurcussions of random events can be said to be a "plan", so I say no.

What exactly is "Creation Science"?

Mathematics is a language, and philosophical relitavism has little to do with S/GR.

You're standing by a lift door on the 6th floor of a building. I'm in the lift' date=' travelling upwards, and I pass by the 6th floor. Even though we are in close physical proximity, the distance from me to the sun will be different from the distance from you to the sun, because I'm travelling at a different relative velocity, and the ratio between them will be SQRT(1-v^2/c^2). That is, as far as we can gather, [b']true[/b]. However, it disagrees with your assertion that there is an absolute distance from the earth to the sun. Therefore, your assertion is incorrect. Can you please stop posting self-contradictory ("It's an absolute distance, if you measure it relative to other things!") guff, especially when you're trying to argue with what may be the most supported theory in the history of science?

I fairly obviously know how to find out who voted for what.

Scientists should do a lot of things, however, studying something which if true will probably be utterly incomprehensable isn't really one of them, as there are a limited number of scientists.

Given that we haven no empirical data to go on and no actual evidence that this took place, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be doing here.

It's this, in this instance. http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3451/image6iz.jpg

If you scaled an ant to the size of a human, then it would die pretty quickly. If you compare an ant to an elephant (for example, no pun intended) then you'll see that an elephant has many adaptations to allow it to live at that size - the thickness of the legs for example. The legs of an ant of the same size would just snap instantly, because they wouldn't be strong enough to hold the same weight. This is because the mass of an object is proportional to its volume, whereas the strength of a leg is proportional to its area - x^3 is obviously going to increase faster than x^2. It's not really a trivial question at all, because it shows us a lot about how different creatures have adapted to the problems of living at different scales - and, indeed, that there are different requirements at different scales.

It's an interesting enough diversion, and, of course, you wouldn't be saying this had something come out of it. "View Poll results". Of course, it either has to be turned on (or you to be a moderator) for that to work.

I'd first find out if it was true. If it was, I'd bring empiricism to bear. If the phenomenon was at odds with what we currently hold to be true, then we'd change what we'd hold to be true. Of course, if you're asking us to try to explain how this is consistent with current science, then I'd have to say it isn't, and ask for independent proof of the event.

Yeah, I had forgotten about Galilean relativity, although I'm not sure he actually talked about anything than the concept. Have you got any information on the Ancient Greeks because, as far as I can remember, Galilean Relativity was an attempt to challenge the Absolute Motion of Aristotle.

This is fairly obviously true. What percentage of footballers have won the world cup? What percentage of lottery players have won the jackpot? I'm not sure what this refers to. I'm equally unsure what this refers to.

Of course other people were engaged in a similar endeavour. I don't see why we should care about them if they didn't succeed.

Please, explain why it is relevent that Newton used known science. To simply change the name of the scientist, and the discovery: Me: Einstein was the first to come up with General Relativity You: You can't prove that someone didn't come up with it first. Me: That doesn't mean we should assume that they did. You: Einstein did it with the existing knowledge base of science and mathematics. Me:

You appear to have the memory of a goldfish. Either that or you're being deliberately obtuse.