Cap'n Refsmmat

Colors can mix together and be perceived differently as well. For example, your computer monitor creates all the colors it displays by mixing together red, green and blue light. However, people experiencing different colors are likely biological differences, like color blindness or differences in their eyes. Or brain, I'm not sure.

Everyone cast your votes! http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50847

Choose your favorite logo of those submitted in the SFN Logo Contest! The winning logo will be used when we make the transition to new forum software in the coming months, and will be featured on upcoming SFN merchandise! Note that these images don't necessarily reflect the final color or layout -- the large images will of course be adjusted to fit in the page, and so on. We may tweak the winning logo to best fit in SFN after it's selected, of course. Choice 1: Biohazard Choice 2: SFN Integral Choice 3: The Brain Choice 4: Exponentially Awesome Choice 5: Supernova (Hope I didn't miss any!)

Here's mine. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=557101&postcount=89

Oh, yes. Click on the images in Wolfram Alpha and it'll give you the Mathematica input that I can use.

I gave you the Mathematica Player link. I'd rather not have to learn how to use Wolfram Alpha to do all this junk, since it doesn't handle it very well.

Right, point me at exactly the correct Mathematica code you'd like me to use, and we can try it on my textbook's example problems. Sound good?

Yes, and that's why your above calculation is wrong for a wire. You say it's for two parallel wires, but it's in fact for two point-like packets of charge. Hence you don't get the same answer.

Okay, so you calculated the magnetic field generated by one coulomb of charge moving at 1m/s. But there can be more than one coulomb in a wire at a given moment; it's just that one coulomb has to pass a given point in one second to make an ampere. In other words, you found the magnetic field from one packet of charge. But there are many identical packets in a wire, at different points in the wire.

It does work. Try it before you jump to conclusions. Remember, Wolfram Alpha is not full Mathematica. It won't handle multiple lines of code.

Hang on, don't get into all the details. The question is whether Dave is God by our standards. He's the one who controls our universe. Also note that he'll be very angry if you say no.

In Dave's universe, supercomputers are quite common. He put it together himself, in his parents' basement.

On a related note, a question my philosophy TA came up with: Suppose we really are living in a computer simulation. Our entire reality is a construct of a supercomputer program in some completely different alien universe. This simulation is programmed by a sweaty computer hacker named Dave. Dave drinks the alien equivalent of Mountain Dew and eats the alien equivalent of Cheetos. He tinkers with the system for fun, and occasionally plays pranks to see what happens. Is Dave god? Does he deserve to be called "God"?

http://www.wolfram.com/products/player/ Download that. Next, download this: http://www.wolfram.com/solutions/interactivedeployment/publish/download.jsp?id=4029150501&filename=ambros+and+ampere.nbp Wolfram Alpha is not just a free Mathematica online -- they sell Mathematica for hundreds of bucks. It's a simplified version modified for web use. With the Player I just linked to, you can see the Mathematica notebook I used. There's several integral expressions in there. I'm not sure how the Mathematica player works; if you can, re-evaluate it line-by-line to be sure the cells have the correct answers. (When I uploaded, the first integral's result was different because I had used it on a different situation. Re-evaluate it and you'll get the correct result.) The second integral is the same thing, but written out. The third integral is for the situation I asked you to work out. Enjoy!

It has been shown to you numerous times. Why do you want to see it again? I even showed you the Mathematica code.

Can you do it the way you solved the equation before, just using the formula? I mean, you didn't integrate it before.

This is part of what he says in his response to question 6, actually. Unfortunately, due to the nature of having a revelatory experience, it's rather hard to acknowledge that other people have had contradictory revelatory experiences that were equally compelling. If yours is compelling, you can't accept every other revelatory experience story that comes along...

I think the idea is that if you don't believe the complete message of the Bible, you're "creating" a different version of God to worship, rather than the true God as revealed in the Bible.

I don't really know. I think it may be from Track Changes marks in the document he sent, or something. I don't see them in the document.

Fair point -- everyone should thank ydoaPs for taking the initiative and emailing Mr. Comfort! Although I think he might disagree on the god part.

The interview is now available online. Enjoy!

Note: if you enjoy this interview, feel free to vote for us on reddit! Well, the questions have been sent, and Mr. Comfort has sent back his answers in record time. Due to the interview's length, and the tendency of Internet audiences to skip over long texts, here's a summarized list of the questions, so you can find what you're interested in. I do encourage you to read the entire interview, however, as it's interesting as a whole. In particular, Mr. Comfort's answers to questions 8, 9 and 10 may surprise you. Why did you feel the need to shift to taking on evolution? What brought about this shift? Before the publication of your edition of On the Origin of Species, were you worried about potential negative press, or did you believe it would be well-received? And how would you characterize the reception since -- positive or negative? Have you achieved your goals with the edition's publication? What do you make of Christians who nevertheless believe in evolution, such the famous biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky? If shared retroviral DNA is not evidence for common ancestry, what is it? Do you ascribe your views to any particular theology, or do you develop your views independently? You've talked about the theory of evolution being like a cloud -- it changes constantly as new evidence is uncovered. Isn't it also true that the basic tenets of Christianity have changed over the past two millenia as views about the Bible and Jesus's preaching changed? Do you feel that science has become a social or moral movement rather than the honest quest for knowledge it is claimed to be? If so, is this a bad thing? What do you believe the proper role of science is, in light of your religious beliefs? Imagine, for a moment, a world where religion never existed, for whatever reason. Its citizens go about their lives having never heard of any religion. In your mind, what would the world be like -- worse, better? Why? My thanks to Ray Comfort for spending his time answering our questions! Let us hope that all of our future interviewees take the time to give such detailed and thoughtful answers. 1. You've published dozens of books and pamphlets over the years, and you made news recently by distributing an edition of On the Origin of Species with your own Special Introduction included -- and this is just one of several books in your recent publications that attacks evolution specifically. Why did you feel the need to shift to taking on evolution? What brought about this shift? This isn’t a new subject for me. There isn’t a “shift.” I wrote a book back in 1990 called God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists that among other things dealt with the subject of evolution. However, I have written more on the subject recently to answer those who think that the Theory of Evolution is scientific, and in doing so throw out Intelligent Design. In 2009, I read, On the Origin of Species (a very dry read), and came to the conclusion that if Darwin was alive today, he would be snapped up by Disney as an imagineer. His imagination was incredibly fertile. He lived in a fantasy world. There is nothing real or scientific about his theory. There were no species-to-species transitional forms in his day to confirm his beliefs (both in the fossil record or in the existing animal kingdom), and 150 years later, there are still no species-to-species transitional forms. Believers who post at “Atheist Central” usually fly off the handle when I say that, mistakenly thinking that I am saying that “there are no transitional forms.” However, I maintain that there are no undisputed species to species transitional forms. No kind of animal has ever evolved into another kind of animal. There are transitions within kinds, but, as the Bible clearly says over and over, every animal brings forth after its own kind. The missing link is still missing. The theory of evolution is just a belief. Yet millions embrace it as gospel truth because they unquestioningly believe what they have been told by others, who, like Darwin have a fertile imagination. Charles Darwin brought forth after his own kind. Again, there was no “shift,” just an increase in my writing on the subject. 2. The publication of a new edition of On the Origin of Species was a controversial one. Before its publication, were you worried about potential negative press, or did you believe it would be well-received? And how would you characterize the reception since -- positive or negative? I wasn’t at all worried about negative press. Anything about Intelligent Design is going to get negative press in contemporary media. If by “press” you are also referring to on-line reaction, I was surprised by the intensity of opposition. So-called freethinkers called for censorship. Atheists posted vicious video clips, one getting well over a million views. I have always believed that the free exchange of ideas is very healthy. Evolution should be discussed. But, as Charles Darwin said in his Foreword to On the Origin of Species, the opposing side should also be presented. Otherwise you will be left with narrow-minded intolerant and unreasonable people who have been brainwashed into thinking that there are no other perspectives. That’s what we found. There are only two perspectives in the issue of human origins. Either we believe (as does Richard Dawkins and many others) that nothing created everything, which is a scientific impossibility, or we believe that something created everything. In The Ancestor's Tale the professor said, “… the fact that life evolved out of literally nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing--is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice” (italics added). Atheists are offended by the thought and try and redefine the definition of “nothing” to save face. But it can’t be redefined. Nothing means nothing. It is nothing, and it can produce nothing. There is nothing more to say on the subject, and for the committed atheist, the alternative is unthinkable, in the truest sense of the word. When we gave 170,000 copies of On the Origin of Species away to 170,000 university students in 100 of the top U.S. universities, and 26,000 to university students in Australia and New Zealand, they we very well received. Most people are reasonable. It’s only a vocal fringe that are intolerant and call for censorship. It has always been my contention that if I am an “idiot,” “a flat-earther,” and “an ignorant fool” as Richard Dawkins has publicly said I am, then he should encourage students to read my ignorant foolishness to strengthen his case. Instead, he encourages students to rip out the 52-page Foreword. I wonder why? 3. Have you achieved your goals with the edition's publication? My goal has never been hidden. It is simply to present the case for Christianity--which is either true or it isn’t. My confidence is that it can be proven to be true but putting John 14:21 into practice. I don’t want to censor people from learning about the theory of evolution. However, when someone comes to know God, the issue of atheism is closed, and with that comes a trust in the authenticity of His Word--the Bible. It super-naturally follows, and so by default evolution is proven to be just another of the many myths as to the origin of mankind. 4. What do you make of Christians who nevertheless believe in evolution, such as the famous biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky? He specifically wrote "I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation." True, Theodosius Dobzhansky believed in God. It’s hard not to in the face of this amazing creation. After all, the most intelligent of us can’t create a grain of sand, a frog, a bird, or the simplest flower, from nothing. We don’t know how to do it. So how intellectually dishonest is it to say that there was no intelligent and eternal Creator? So one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to believe in the existence of God. All we need is good old common sense, and that’s what Professor Dobzhansky had--common sense, and there are plenty of other intelligent people who believe in evolution and in God’s existence. However, those who believe in God and evolution have to throw out Holy Scripture, because the Bible tells us that God created male and female in every kind of animal, and then He gave them the ability to reproduce after their own kind (see Genesis 1). We are told in Scripture that there is one kind of flesh and man, and one kind of flesh of beasts. So the god of evolution and the God of the Bible are incompatible. Evolution didn’t “create” anything. It doesn’t have any genesis, and its explanation as to why there are male and female within every animal is ridiculously nebulous. Those who choose to believe in any other god are guilty of violation of the First and Second of the Ten Commandments--something called “idolatry”--making a god in our own imagination, and that was the professor’s problem. 5. For this to be a proper interview, it seems like I have to ask a direct question about evolution, so I may as well. It turns out that retroviruses insert their genomes into DNA, and these sequences have been identified -- some have been pulled out and turned back into retroviruses in the lab. However, it turns out that humans and other related animals share similar retroviruses, in similar locations in the genome -- but not, say, humans and dogs, or other animals not thought to be related to humans. If this is not evidence for common ancestry, what is it? The idea that retroviruses in similar locations in the genomes of different animals and humans prove common ancestry is a logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. The fallacious belief is as follows: If humans and animals share a common ancestor then we should observe shared retroviruses in their genomes. Shared retroviruses are observed between humans and animals. Therefore, humans and animals share a common ancestor. However, the conclusion of a common ancestor is not the only one possible, so shared retroviruses cannot be used to prove common ancestry. Another possible conclusion is that humans and animals share retroviruses because they were created by the same Creator, who used similar designs in humans and animals. We share many similarities with most of the creatures on our planet, both seen with the microscope and*with the human eye. Similarities simply confirm that God made animals and human beings with the same blueprint--with legs, a mouth, a tongue, eyes, ears, a heart, blood, liver, kidneys, lungs, teeth, and a brain, just to name a few. 6. Now, rather than going on for ages about evolution, I'd actually like to ask some other questions for a moment. Right now, I'm enrolled in a Philosophy of Religion course, and we're discussing Christian theology and so on. Do you ascribe your views to any particular theology, or do you develop your views independently? My theological views are shaped solely by the Bible. However, I wasn’t converted by the Bible.. Early Christians didn’t have a Bible. The New Testament wasn’t complied. There was no such thing as the printing press, most couldn’t read. They heard a message, acted upon it, and were converted by the power of God. That was my experience. When I understood the standard of God, that “Whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already with her in his heart,” I had a revelation of my own sinfulness. I rightly surmised that if God was just, I was heading for Hell, and it was then that I truly understood why Jesus suffered and died on the cross--to take my punishment upon Himself so that I could be pronounced not guilty. I repented and put my trust in the Savior and came to know God. When I then picked up a Bible, it perfectly described my experience. It told me precisely what had happened to me. This ancient “bronze-age” Book proved itself to be the supernatural Word of the Creator. I have been reading it daily for more than 38 years, and haven’t found even one mistake. There are plenty of seeming contradictions, but with a little study, they are easily answered. So, unlike an atheist, I have a foundation for what I believe. I have a clear agenda. I have the unspeakable comfort of a Book filled with immutable promises of God. That Book gives me absolute assurance that what I experienced more than 38 years ago was the power of God in the life of a guilty sinner. Millions, if not billions, have had the same experience, from all walks of life, and from all ethnicities. So my theology isn’t an independent or narrow exclusive sectarian belief. It is mainstream belief in the universality of God’s “Whosever will may come…” 7. You've talked about the theory of evolution being like a cloud -- it changes constantly as new evidence is uncovered. Isn't it also true that the basic tenets of Christianity have changed over the past two millennia as views about the Bible and Jesus’ preaching changed? (For example, the question of whether Jesus was divine was unsettled until several hundred years after his death -- some argued that he was wholly human, others argued that he was not human at all and his suffering was merely an illusion.) When you say “For example, the question of whether Jesus was divine was unsettled until several hundred years after his death -- some argued that he was wholly human, others argued that he was not human at all and his suffering was merely an illusion,” how do you know that? How do you know that is true? Isn’t it because you believe history books? You have no way of substantiation. There is no question (nor has there ever been a question as to the divinity of Jesus) for those who believe Scripture. For example: “In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1-3, 14). Or “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” ( 1 Timothy 3:16). Notice the words “without controversy.” These are only two verses of many that speak of Jesus being the Creator, manifest in human form. To say that Jesus of Nazareth was merely a man leaves us with a dilemma that he was unquestionably a con-man or a mad-man. If He was just a man, He suffered from the ultimate delusions of grandeur. He believed and said again and again that He was God in human form. He spoke of His preexistence, His power over death, that all humanity would be resurrected from their graves at the sound of His voice, that He was the very source of life itself, that those who ate of His flesh (a spiritual not literal--as some believe) would live forever. He said that if we thirsted, we were to come to Him and drink, that He was exclusively the only way to God and eternal life. If he was a mad-man, then we have to attribute such incredible wonderful and wise words spoken in the Sermon of the Mount to someone else. Insane people don’t say the things He said. Who then said them? If it wasn’t Jesus, then we should fall at the feet of whoever it was and call Him “Lord.” My challenge to those who profess to be open to truth, is to humbly read--without presuppositions, Matthew chapters 5-7, and objectively look at the words of the Savior. Or read the Gospel of John. You will no doubt conclude (along with the temple guards the Pharisees sent to arrest Him)--“Never a man spoke like this Man.” 8. Do you feel that science has become a social or moral movement rather than the honest quest for knowledge it is claimed to be? If so, is this a bad thing? I think that science has been forced that become a social movement at times in history. The scientific community should have spoken out when the Roman Catholic church arrested Galileo. When religion hinders the progress of true science, scientists must lift a voice, or knowledge will be hindered by small minds. This is no doubt why so many evolutionists are so out-spoken. They think Intelligent Design hinders the progress of science. However, evolution is not science. There is nothing scientific about it. The two should only be in the same sentence when one is referring to science fiction. So it’s a good thing when true scientists speak out publicly, as did Einstein, when so many German scientists turned their honorable profession into a means of killing human beings. 9. On a similar note, many Renaissance thinkers believed that the role of science was to explore God's creation, while perhaps many modern-day scientists leave out the "God" in that proposition. What do you believe the proper role of science is, in light of your religious beliefs? True, many famous scientists believed in the existence of God: Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Einstein (who didn’t believe in a personal God, nevertheless Einstein called God “Him” and “He”) weren’t fly-by-nights. These were brilliant men who saw no contradiction or anything intellectually demeaning about believing that that which was made had a Maker. In fact, to believe the alternative is intellectually suicide. Non-life cannot produce life. So I agree with Albert Einstein, when he said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind," and I’m confident that he was referring to an intellectual belief in God’s existence when he used the word “religion,” rather than a reference to the established traditional church. Any scientist who denies that we live in a “creation” or that nature has been “made” or “built” isn’t a scientist, in the truest sense of the word. The redefining of these words to fit one’s philosophy shows the desperate measures needed to believe atheism. To leave God out of science (“knowledge”) is to leave the ‘wet” out of water. It is nonsensical, or to quote Einstein, “lame.” 10. Imagine, for a moment, a world where religion never existed, for whatever reason. Its citizens go about their lives having never heard of any religion. In your mind, what would the world be like -- worse, better? Why? I think that a world without religion would be a much better world. Imagine no 911. Imagine no terror-threats from Islam. No suicide bombs. Imagine no pedophile priests or money-hungry televangelists. Imagine no Roman Catholic Crusades against innocent people or torturous Inquisitions against those who denied their religion. Imagine no religious nuts carrying signs at soldiers funerals saying that it’s good that they died or that “God hates fags.” Imagine no religious hypocrisy, and no trail of human blood down through history through the mass of religious wars. No witch burnings, no hindrances to science . . . imagine. Man has always used religion for his own political or economic gain. Hitler did it. America does it. Iran does it. The Pharisees in the time of Christ did it. Religion is a very grimy and murky bathwater, and those who don’t look carefully can easily miss the baby. A world without religion…how wonderful that would be. May God hasten the day. Again, thanks to Ray Comfort for taking the time to answer our questions! You can use this thread to post your comments and thoughts. Please, however -- as I pointed out in the interview, going back and forth about evolution gets tiresome. If you have evolution-related questions, you can post them in the appropriate forum here on SFN. Let's save this discussion for talking specifically about Mr. Comfort's opinions in the interview.

Both. I've solved the problem using the same equation. I just want to see how you do it. Incidentally, I've changed your mind. Please give the exact value through the formula.

No, don't worry about it, as I have it all calculated out. I'm just curious to see what ambros has. Let's keep this as simple as possible for the moment.

I'm not too worried about precision; it's the method that matters. Try just a square or something simple. And please, everyone else, let's wait to see what ambros does before jumping in with comments on how to do it.