Jump to content

Fuzzwood

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Fuzzwood

  1. Ok, so I know the general math required.

    Apparently you don't. If you did then you would have figured that M stands for moles/liter and that taking half a liter of solution does NOT double the amount of whatever is dissolved.

  2. I used 20J of pressure energy to make a magnet in water gain 100J of gravitational potential energy on reaching the water surface.

    It starts falling down with a kinetic energy of 100J through a wire coil, by the time it has landed down it has produced for me electrical energy of 100J that I store in batteries.

    I threw the ball up with 20J of energy but I now have 100J of electricity stored in my batteries.

    Have I not gone through a complete cycle and still have more energy?

    How is it going to fall down again if you spent 20J to let it rise?

  3. Simple. You can do 2 things to lower the ball's density.

     

    1) Expel mass

     

    2) Increase the radius

     

    Both work against the hydrostatic pressure of the water column above it. So yes, the ball will rise again, but the potential energy gained is equal to the energy expanded to reduce the density. Your idea boils down to blowing up a balloon at the bottom of a swimming pool after waiting for it to drop to the bottom first. Try to blow one up under water if you ever have the opportunity.

  4. "Now why is it that none of this DNA damages is passed down to the offspring when all the DNA in all the cells are getting damaged?"

     

    Aren't they? DNA damage doesn't automatically mean the ensuing enzyme or whatever the damaged part codes for is immediately non-functional. And if it is, well, miscarriages happen quite often.

     

    Also don't forget that DNA is quite capable of repairing itself.

  5. Sure, plenty of ovum and sperm cells that simply don't work. In any case, the DNA of sperm and ovum will differ slightly from that from the parent. If these mutations will be beneficial or detrimental to the new organism is up to the environment, enter evolution.

  6. No offence but the big bang and evolutionary theology are nothing more than a Godless religion (i.e. a cult) with its ignorant and arrogant high priests like Laurence Krause and Richard Dawkins. It is the most stupid, ridiculous, absurd idea ever, the idea that the whole universe mysteriously and magically popped into being out of nothing, for no apparent reason (i.e. have no logic behind it) then start rapidly expanding into the same nothingness that it came out of, its absolute nonsense, it is pseudoscience, magical thinking. And then you have evolutionary theology where as in the same process of mystery and magic a fish, for no apparent reason, jumps out of a pond of primordial soup, starts crawling across the ground then climbs a tree before sprouting wings and flying, all by complete accident. What utter bullshit, I can't want for the second coming of Christ so he can begin teaching the truth about heaven and its blessings, a.k.a. the secret science of religion.

     

    Big bang and evolutionary theology is the mad, crazy, loopy science of the devils satanic, fascist cult that is currently raping mother earth with its superficial beliefs it demands everyone believe and respect while hypocritically applying the complete opposite to others beliefs. What a nasty fundamentalist cult, big bang and evolutionary theology adherents are little devils who think they know it all but in fact know nothing at all.

    That's an opinion, not a fact. Thanks for showing your true colors though. Because the universe magically appearing because of some magical creator for some reason does make sense. (???????)

  7. Not necessarily. The first few bases perhaps; after that, secondary driving forces like hydrogen bridging, van der waals forces, dipole interactions, etc. become a major factor in preferring one base over the other.

  8.  

    So are you saying there is no evidence for Jesus being God?

    Is there? Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god. Offtopic by the way as this is moving the goal posts from discussing ID.

  9. We pass judgements on your comments, not on you. The only judgement I will make now is that you seem unable to separate yourself from whatever point you are trying to put across. As such it might be possible that any attack on your arguments is viewed as a personal attack.

     

    As for your final question. This is a discussion forum, not a soapbox. If you make claims, be prepared for people to attack them.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.