Jump to content

evansste

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-1 Poor

About evansste

  • Rank
    Quark

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.BoolEngine.com

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    physics and electronics
  1. I'm interested in performing a mitochondrial DNA test on a bone sample, but am having trouble finding labs that actually perform this type of test. I want to perform a test on the sample in order to see whether or not the sample belongs to my mother. So, technically, this would be a paternity test. If you perform an Internet search on paternity testing, you'll get a ton of hits that give facilities that will perform swab DNA tests. These are the types of tests that most people use in order to identify a baby's father. We have no shortage of those facilities. But when it comes to mtDN
  2. 1st Corinthians 1:10-31 says: "By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ I appeal to all of you, my brothers, to agree in what you say, so that there will be no divisions among you. Be completely united, with only one thought and one purpose. For some people from Chloe's family have told me quite plainly, my brothers, that there are quarrels among you. Let me put it this way: each one of you says something different. One says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos', another, 'I follow Peter'; and another, 'I follow Christ.' Christ has been divided*(a) into groups! Was it Paul who
  3. @Phi for All, you said "Any 'documents and evidence that would support that [your] beliefs are true' would be from the Bible, which has been shown by many historians (including many religious historians) to be flawed, often misinterpreted, often contradictory and to a great extent untrustworthy. Circular arguments like that are irrational and based on fallacious logic." Not all evidence that supports the Bible comes directly from the Bible. Seven day weeks, a five day work week, the fact that humans cook food before eating it, the concept of marriage, and the fact that nearly all of humanity
  4. @Phi for All, when I talk about the similarities between my faith concerning my own age and Isaac Newton, and my faith about God, I'm focusing on the fact that my trust in all of them exist without verification. When I first learned of my birthday and Isaac Newton, I never questioned whether or not these facts are true. I was told and believed. I had, and have, no doubt about them. I could find documents and evidence that would support that my beliefs are true. But such evidence isn't the basis of my faith. My faith came first. That is to say -- When I was told of Isaac Newton, I didn't
  5. @Phi for All, you asked "Since no one alive today has ever seen a god, why do you choose that to have faith in?" The reason is very similar to why I believe my own birth date, or why I believe that Isaac Newton existed. It's just as I said in an earlier post -- It's a similar faith. When I was young, I was taught these things. Just as you were told about Isaac Newton, and Abraham Lincoln, so was I. I was also told about the Bible and Jesus, and just like the other truths that I was told, I believe it to be true. I didn't sit down and determine for myself what "truth" would best suit m
  6. @Phi for All, if someone asked you your birthdate, I doubt you'd say "I think I was born on ___", or "I believe I was born on ___". It also wouldn't surprise me if you've never even seen your own birth certificate. Many people haven't. Most people were told that their birthday is a certain date. Most were told by their parents, years ago -- probably so long ago that they don't even remember being told. They now live their lives, knowing their own age and the date of their own birth -- and not being wrong about it. If they started to doubt their own age, because of having engaged in a con
  7. @Phi for All, "faith" often becomes a dirty word among analytical thinkers, as well as many scientists. At first glance, it seems to have no place in science because how can anyone be certain about anything, right? But the truth is that all of us, without exception, possess faith. That's what I like about the "personal age" example that I mentioned earlier. If any person is honest with him/herself they would agree that, at this very moment, they are certain about their own age. I can see how a person would try to argue this faith by claiming that they doubt their own age, but if we're all
  8. I'm a Christian who loves science, especially physical science. Unlike a lot of people that I've met, I don't believe that science contradicts my Christian beliefs. But then again, I have a very basic view of what science is, fundamentally. For me, science is simply trying to understand things by observing, questioning, experimenting, hyphothesizing, and then theorizing. I don't feel that true science should try to explain things while attempting to make sure that God doesn't enter into the picture. For me, true science tries to answer questions, and if God happens to be a part of th
  9. Mathematics is a language that is used to describe quantities. It's as simple as that. Most of the confusion, and "math attacks" that are taking place on this thread really seem to boil down to definitions. For instance, all apples don't have to be identical in order for us to describe a quantity of apples. This is because of how we choose to define what an apple is. It usually has nothing to do with weight or size. So when I say "I'm going to give you two apples.", no one will have a difficult time understanding what that means because we are typically on the same page when it comes to
  10. evansste

    Current?

    @Enthalpy, it seems as if you're talking about valence electrons -- electrons that can easily move from the orbit of one atom to the orbit of another atom. I think that the difference between our responses is a matter of perspective when describing electrical models. I speak in terms of atoms because an elemental electrical conductor, such as copper or aluminum, could theoretically be cut into smaller and smaller pieces until you have individual atoms. Each of these atoms would have their own valence electrons. When these atoms are put together to make a larger conducting material, the ele
  11. I considered, for a moment, that it could have been a result of some form of inducted current (eddy currents). After all, I was moving the sheet, which technically provides a situation of a moving charge (current) in a magnetic field. But then I dismissed this idea because I figured that the direction that I was moving the sheet would have caused the force to push the sheet sideways, and not feel as if it was grabbing it. This is because the field from the magnet is pointing vertically, and I was moving it horizontally, which would cause it to move in the other orthogonal direction (from on
  12. I agree with @Phi for All. If the pot was a "perfect" conductor of heat, then both the water and the pot would always be the same temperature. This is because the pot would relay its heat just as quickly as it obtained it. But in reality, the pot must get hot before the water on the other side gets hot. Therefore, the pot would be at a higher temperature. Once the burner is turned off, it makes sense that both the water and the pot would eventually equalize and become the same temperature. It helps to remember that the temperature of an object is really just a macroscopic, or collecti
  13. evansste

    Current?

    My understanding is "yes", the electrons that are in the outer orbits of one atom, move to the outer orbit of a neighboring atom. However, the reason electricity moves so fast is because it's a domino effect. If you have a wire, one electron that starts on one end, doesn't physically travel to the other end near the speed of light. Instead, it simply jumps to the orbit of the neighboring atom, which causes an electron from that atom to jump to the next atom, and so on. It's this rapid "cause and affect" phenomenon that makes electrons appear to be moving near the speed of light. As electr
  14. I have learned that copper is supposed to be diamagnetic. So the results of an experiment that I recently performed, confuses me. I took a small piece of aluminum foil and quickly moved it near the surface of a really strong neodymium iron boron magnet. Because aluminum is paramagnetic, the foil reacted to the magnetic field. It was as if it had "run into" interference. I could visibly notice the field tug on the foil. So then I took a thin, copper-coated board that I have. These are phenolic boards and are about one sixteenth of an inch thick. They have a layer of copper on on
  15. I have to agree most with @darkenlighten. Just as Newton's gravitational law describes the relationship between two massive objects and the force between them, Maxwell's equations explains the relationship between electricity, magnetism and light. It's a fundamentally observed phenomenon. To me, your question is like asking "why does matter have mass?" or "why does one plus one equal two?". Both have fundamental, yet simple answers. If I were to answer any of these questions, I'd simply say that it's because that's how God designed his universe, and mathematics is how we precisely describ
×
×
  • 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.