thedarkshade

Any truly rational scientist, whose conclusions are derived from the critical analysis of evidence but also based on logic, would far more agree with evolution as a method through which all the diversity of life that we have today came in. To tell you the truth I find ID quite a silly story and it's a fact that this 'theory' (because it's not a theory at all) doesn't have any (not even a single) evidence. All they have is books and stories about a supernatural being who seems to have mastered all the branches of science and whose will has made possible all today's diversity. I tell you that is crap! All IDists are always trying to stick behind something real complex and then declare that this is the proof since science cannot completely explain it. Of course that will last until they get knocked down again, like they always do. They're always looking for gaps of science. A thing that needs to be understood is that science doesn't completely explain anything! No matter how advanced the explanation and the understanding is there still is a dose of uncertainty. Science never proclaims that it knows everything or anything in the complete way! But on the other side IDists do have a complete knowledge about everything. They say it's designed, created to be that way, and that's it!

Well I say that anyone smart enough can tell the difference between the two!

 

ID is just the wonderful place for people whose naivety is way too large to grasp the truths of science!

Sulfuric acid is one of the most important substances in chemical industry and it's produced through quite sophisticated mechanism, although simple in principles, so if you're thinking of "home-making" some, then I'd say you won't really do it. Of course, unless you have a lab.

 

and BTW, there is a search engine here!

What are they? Is it really that important in Chemistry? How many are there? Did you memorise them? How long did it take?

Knowing some oxidation numbers would help. If you know what oxidation number can a certain element have, then finding the oxidation number of any polyatomic ion would be just way easy!

I'd go with option be, though it seems like a pretty rough approximation to me, but yet a more rational option.

 

You can very easily find out the Lorentz factor and using that you could quite accurately calculate how much time would take you to do the whole trip.

 

i.e. when you travel at 0.99c Lorentz factor has a value of 7 (7.1). So that means that if you want to travel to a star thats 7 light years away and you're traveling at 0.99c, then you'd actually get there in a year!

Congratulations to the staff!

 

It is the wonderful place around here that has influenced in having this huge number of posts, of course compared to the number of regular posters.

Science is wide. I mean it, quite wide. Molecular biologists are scientists too, but I bet they wouldn't be able to remake the ferrari again. You have to be more specific and clearer in your question in order to get a proper answer.

Of course, you would fall all the way through and just come out the other side before falling back in again.

Perhaps going through the thread again might be helpful.

Supposing that you know the frequency, then I assume the question would lie in:

 

[math]I=U\omega C[/math] which is derived from

 

[math]I=\frac{U}{R_C}[/math]

 

[math]I=\frac{U}{\frac{1}{\omega C}}[/math]

Haven't been around for a while but from what I remember, here I go:

 

1.iNow

2.ajb

3.pioneer

4.iNow

5.

6.

Things don't pop into existence just because you look at them.

If 'looking' in this case doesn't have a metaphorical meaning, then how can you look at non-existence?

As it's pointed out, energy is a characteristic of physical objects, therefore it exists along with the object. If by pure energy you are thinking just energy on 'its own', I believe that you can clearly see that it makes no sense.

Practical use. This is the biggest reason why so much focused in science. Taken generally, there is a impression that all what science is are a bunch of fancy equations and playing around with math. Well perhaps a part of it might indeed be that way, but what people don't really realize is that there is science all around them. I mean, there isn't a single thing that there is not science in it. Everything in our houses is a product of science. We often take all our gadgets for granted and never realize that there actually are a direct product of science. What science does, except the theoretical part (which I think is the desert), is improve our live. This is the main reason why science should be taught.

My main weakness is selfishness. I can be really really selfish and this has brought me a lot of trouble so far. And I have no patience at all. But taken generally, I manage to survive:D

ROFL:D:D ... this reminds me of one of the funniest and most stupid things that ever happened to me. It was one of those philosophy classes, quiet and everyone was reading when suddenly the professor turned to me (as the class president) "Do you believe that the image you see of me is really me?" I was shocked and scared from this question and answered back "wtf?". Of course, I got detention for that!

thank you. i completely agree, although i doubt any of us shall ever truly understan the ways of the universe, as much as we would love to.

That is the good part of it. What would there be interesting in life (for physicist and curious people) if we knew how everything worked?! This is perhaps the best gift mankind can offer theirselves.

We're having quite a discussion about the same subject in another thread.

(and I'd be anumsed to see what thedarkside thinks you could do with it in this case)

Assuming that this is done per one mole, you could easily find the mass in grams and then substitute the grams in volume and then put the numbers in the equation (though I haven't tried)

 

and it's darkshade for heaven's sake!

Just took a shot. You can clearly see how "game-addicted" am I:embarass:

YT, lovely tie dude:-)

so it is possible that the parents do not have the disease, but their children will get it? like a recessive recessive?

IIRC something like that would be possible if the genotype of parents is heterozygote. Suppose that a certain disease is shown up only with to recessive alleles (aa) . So if the parents are both Aa after combining them we'd get

 

(p) Aa Aa

(f) AA Aa aA aa

 

 

but remember that this is only the dominant-recessive type

WHY is Religion such a target all the time??????

I'm pretty sure that your opinion on what religion really is, and what is it about differs from a typical believer, no matter what religion. You cannot imagine how naive can people be when it come to God. I have been even physically attacked in such discussions. There is such a strong strong feeling, which is nothing but a feeling of fear, that makes then feel like they have the right to defend God instead of God defending him/her self. I don't want to start anything here, but the general point of view of what God is capable of doing or not, it just way way to naive for a rational person to grasp. Its like choosing the metaphysical instead of physical, choosing the irrational instead of rational.

 

I am sure that the way you believe is not quite ordinary, not as the 'conventional' method of believing. I have seen through you endless posts that you are a rational person, and that your beliefs are not as naive as the beliefs of a priest for example. You can draw a line between what is worth to be believed and not, and by this meaning I have nothing against (how could I?) your beliefs, nor I have the right. But I also am quite sure that you really do know why there is so much criticism toward religion, but don't think that anybody can draw reasonable lines between rational and irrational belief like you do. People can be very very naive!

The solubility of oxygen in water decreases with the increase in temperature. This also affects water's ability of auto-purification.

so you agree that being a Christian and also a Scientist is indeed an Arbitrary connection.

No, not at all. You can be a great scientist and a christian at the same time.

so it `s My turn to ask for some Evidence, show me why I cannot be Both and how it makes me a Lesser scientist as a result.

Who says it makes you a lesser scientist. No one is saying that just not believing makes you a bit more science-y than you are. In science you are judged by what you are able to do and how good are you at what you do, and completely ignoring your beliefs. Those are personal beliefs and opinions and have nothing to do with a professional science job. No one is saying that religious scientists are bad scientists. Whether you are or not a good scientist is all shown from the results of your scientific work.

I'd suggest using:

 

[math]PV=nRT[/math] where [math]R=8.314 Jmol^{-1}K^{-1}[/math]