Radical Edward

yeah, but it is not low quality enough to be 1337. you actually used shapes and proper text. nice to see you appreciate Gordon at last. (Gordon Freeman. In the flesh.)

you don't have to learn all of chemistry in physics for chemistry to be a subset. For example. I started doing physics, where I learned a bit of optics. now I have specialised in optics, but optics is still physics, just a subset of it - you cannot say that physics is a subset of optics, since physics includes mechanics too, for example. The same is true for chemistry.

consider two sets, one set A is the set of all the things you can do using physics. the other set B is the set of all the things you can do using chemistry. B is a subset of A, since all the things you can do in B, you can also do in A. However A is not a subset of B, since there are things you can do in A, that you cannot do in B.

tesla coils C&C stylee.

nope. There are whole forests like this, even multilayered ones, such as the forests of upright fossils found in yellowstone that do indeed sometimes extand through multiple layers. The thing is, that the creationists simply assume that geologists think it takes millions of years to form a layer, when it does not. many layers form very rapidly, for example think about how quickly a slab on the beach is covered by windblown sand. Also trees can remain partially buried and continue to grow, and there are many examples of these in areas after earthquakes, and in lakes and so on, where part of the trunk has been buried. Another example is in marshes, where the tree sinks, or the marsh rises, and the tree is slowly buried, while still remaining alive. Other possibilities are petrification, where calcites dissolved in the water enter and crystallise in the cells of the organism. these effectively form a rock, which can stand for some time. Many of these polystrate fossils, such as the one outlined above are actually rooted in, so you can see clearly that the roots descend into a lower strata. The Yellowstone example is a particularly fine one, since the numerous layers have overlapping rooted in trees, and there is no explanation for these other than the whole system took a long time to form. IIRC, there are 30 layers of trees, all rooted in. so give a growth tome of 20 years for each tree, and assume the shortest possible growth period for this structure, and you get 600 years. There are many other mechanisms by which these structures can form, but I am not going into them here for brevity, but suffice as to say, they are all well understood, and in fact contradict all known creationist hypotheses, such as fossil deposition in a global catastrophic flood.

good good. well we are clearing problems up. Just another 4999 chemicals to test

arr, he be diggin' up the dead mateys.

ok, that seems to be one idea out of the way. I just had the thought though that the water in the dilute sugar solution might dissolve the remaoning copper sulphate away though. I am not sure how you could check that though, other than comparing copper -> cigarette to copper -> sugar solution -> cigarette

well be careful there I don't want your epitaph to read anything like: Poor YT twenty ninety five, shall experiment no more, for what he thought was CH2O, was CUSO4

so do most people with noses.

well if the government are willingto fund my research, who am I to say no. I can imagine submitting a proposal which includes a large cigarette budget which reminds me. The best PhD funding idea I ever had was to get in touch with a major internet porn supplier and get them to fund a project on fibre optics, on the basis that porn movies and pictures require large amounts of bandwidth.

well if it is an enhancing effect on the sugar, rather than a reaction that causes sugar, wouldn't the thing to do be to try testing the strength of taste of a very weak sugar solution before, and after swilling your mouth out with copper sulphate soln? I would suggest that you try to make sure that it is the same sugar as the sugar found in cigarettes, just to avoid complications.

I had better take up smoking so I can participate in this thread.

my abysmally small bank account, having rejected a job in the city for the pursuit of knowledge.

whoever got the coffee machines first would win.

from what I gather, it is the same time, no underlying time required. Ekpyrotic is an M-Theory thing though, so it is pretty new: http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

for more on Kent Hovind, his website is http://www.drdino.com for a good analysis of his seminars: http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html

polystrate fossils are well understood. They have been for over a hundred years, I suggest you go and look up the literature on them. ok, so let us analyse some claims made by Hovind: "The "ancient horse" (hyracotherium) is not a horse, but is just like the hyrax still alive in turkey and east africa today" (do a google search) "[…..] a change of only three [DNA] nucleotides is fatal to an animal. There is no possibility of change." blatantly false. "I did not even know what being a humanist meant. I was only sixteen, and the brain doesn't even start developing until about twenty. " apparently his still hasn't. "Therefore, there may not be any other stars in the solar system that have planets around them. " no shit sherlock. (about pangaea)"In order to make that map you saw in the textbook, Africa was shrunk by 40% to make it fit. Didn't tell you about that did they? They took Mexico and central America out to make it fit. " heh, wrong. I guess he was using a big square map. "Mammoths do not have any sweat glands. They were not designed for cold climates." wtf? "We see a red shift from quite a few of the stars. That is interpreted to be the star is moving away. It may be true, I don't know. It could be the star is moving sideways. I don't think you can tell the angle of the stars movement - or even if the star is moving from the red shift." wtf? "If you are traveling down the highway at sixty miles an hour, and turn your headlights on, how fast is the light going from your headlights? Compared to you, it is going at the speed of light. Compared to someone on the sidewalk it is going at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour." wrong. "I have a Ph.d." HAHAHA, have you heard about his thesis? "Well, in 1972 after they had been to the moon several times, they revised the calculation of how much dust there should be so that it would fit the evolution theory." wrong. "I think it would be difficult to prove that vaccines have cured any diseases. I think you will find that cleaning up sanitation laws, inspection of cattle and stuff like that, getting rid of diseased creatures and diseased crops is really what has done the job. Now there may be a coincidence they happened at the same time. Like when they started, you know, vaccinating for one thing and at the same time had better sanitation laws and inspections. It may look like the vaccine cured the disease when actually something else cured the disease." "Clams don't climb mountains very good." (referring to the seashells found in the rock on mountains.) "One example of technology is the UPC, or bar code. IBM developed the bar code in 1972. The black and white lines stand for numbers and letters in binary code. By the way, the two skinny lines at the beginning, middle, and end of every barcode are the same as "6" in binary code: 666." oh, and my favourite: "This is call the Conservation of Angular Momentum. One of the laws says in a frictionless environment, if pieces fly off a spinning object they tend to spin the same direction, because the outer part is already spinning faster than the inner part."

aren't US cellphones crap?

that is ok. Chemists deserve to be belittled. They are chemists you see.

creationists are just a dilute form of abecedarians.

I agree with MrL. All science a subset of Physics. Physics is in turn a subset of maths, namely the mathematical models that correlate with what we can empirically measure, with a few extra axioms and the like thrown in for measure.

clothes are too expensive food is too expensive living is too expensive transport is too expensive communication is too expensive.

that is because it is. yes it is. things evolve. fact. so? thank goodness. that is because all the evidence says they did. you do know that pascal's wager is horrifically flawed logic, right?

Numerous literal interpretations have been disproved, however.