Cap guns. Baseball cards in bicycle spokes. The crack, as opposed to the ding, of the bat in baseball games.
without clicking on a UID, you have to take a person's word for it. I'm a TWO DIGIT ID poster left on Slashdot.
(So you're still right.)
... you simply have to take someone's word for it, unless you click on his UID [yet another thing that Beta gets wrong].
In or out of hot grits?
1) Measure its acceleration when subjected to a known force.
2) Measure the period of a system where it's part of the inertial loading, and the restoring characteristics are known (or can be decoupled post-experiment).
If I'd just smelled the latest rumor that there are birds in my neighborhood which are NOT animals, I'd be on the lookout for them, too!
Part of me hesitates to comment on these discussions. I do understand evolution and, if there isn't a God who created the world and moved people to write it down, then evolution is the best model to describe the formation of what we have. It has many gaping holes, but it's the best thing excluding God. If, however, there is a God, the evidence fits neatly into the Biblical model also.
I agree that agnosticism is a good scientific place to be and if we could be unbiased we could look for holes in each model and how the evidence fits into each. The Creation/Evolution debate will never be solved because past what we can observe and repeat it is not empirical science and neither side can be proven. Furthermore, both sides have turned to ridiculing the other side to make them seem smarter. While this can be entertaining, it's counterproductive in the debate.
Why do you keep saying "if there isn't a god, then evolution is the best model to explain what we have"? You're saying that God *is* a better explanation? That the hypothesis of a god or gods gives _explanatory_ power? That one can make falsifiable _predictions_ based on the concept of God?
My main point is that evolution happens but there's a difference from a lizard species population separating and forming new species and even a dinosaur becoming a bird.
No, you don't know evolution.
Neither side knows in the scientific proof meaning of the word "know", but both sides "know" in the way I know I love my daughter and the way many "know" that there cannot be a God in control of all of this, which we answer to.
"Which we answer to"? Bizarre.
Unless you define "useful" differently than I do, I find that religion provides very interesting information about the real actions of humans.
Even if you don't believe any of it, there's a reason humans came up with religion and why so much effort has gone into propagating it. Given the amount of effort put into religion, understanding those religions may well have real insights into the way human intelligence works.
Being dismissive of it is fine and all, but it's like reading any fiction and failing to get more out of it than a straight retelling of events. I wouldn't consider myself much of an educated person if I took that view of any fiction, let alone what many consider the most elaborate fictions ever created.
Replace "religion" with "mythology". Grandparent post's point proven.
One certainly shouldn't write "hellish" or "heavenly" with capital letters, though that was perhaps done a few hundred years ago. That'd be hellacious.
Religion, no. Hell, yes. If humans believe in both Heaven and Hell there will be no net effect on the crime rates.
Ha! Suck it fundamentalist deists! You're on the no statistical significance side of the evolution fight this time!
Thanks for properly capitalizing the names of places, even if [the places are] personally and usually considered imaginary or metaphorical. I'll never understand the insistence of those who are hostile towards religion and belief to use incorrect grammar...[is that supposed to be an ellipses?] as though it is a directed insult to the very idea [the "very idea" of religion and "belief"? Those are more than one idea.] itself, which is, of course, an absurd intention.
Ah, the wonderful irony of arguing about grammar on the internet. Fixed a few things for you (and left a few in my response to fix yourself. You're welcome).
Do you have bolts clamping the tyre to your bicycle's rims? I didn't think so.
If you think that tire rim length and deformation energy scale the same way with volume that mass does, then you're not thinking.
Your definition of a "hard physical limit" is suspect. Do you have any idea how energy-intensive it is to desalinate water, not only for drinking but for agriculture? You might not call that a "hard" physical limit, but it sure is a damned important one.
You know that space travel is possible. Fine. Where are the travelers going to go? What do they do once they get there? How many need to leave to give the remaining inhabitants a better life? Not only do you have the problem of water wherever you're going, you have the problem of getting there in any reasonable time, with any reasonable chance of survival. That's a pretty damned important physical limit.
"Remote possibility" does not equal "possible on any necessary volume-scale within the next several hundreds of years".
Maybe he was attacked for that, but that doesn't mean you should fall into the trap of thinking he WAS an atheist. He wasn't a Trinitarian, but was clearly a Christian.
Given that some of the current best cosmological estimates put the total energy content of the universe at zero, a single red photon would have the same capacity. I see, though, where you're going with this (though underestimating by about 5 orders of magnitude from a back-of-the-envelope critical density * volume of observable universe calculation).
I suspect you're thinking of the brachistochrone problem, posed by Johann Bernoulli in 1696, and solved the next day by Newton (also by several other mathematical giants of the time, very quickly).