Cap'n Refsmmat

There's no need to repeat what has been said to him so many times before. If Farsight is serious about submitting this paper, he will get plenty of feedback (good or bad) from real experts. You haven't even seen it, so I'd hold your judgment a little.

Surely the matter and antimatter would annihilate?

You're talking about electrostatic charges, like you get with static electricity (where your hair raises up). Magnetism is somewhat different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism

Sandwich rights abuse?

Hydrogen and helium are both s. In general, groups 1 and 2 have s-orbitals, 3-12 d-orbitals, and 13-18 p-orbitals. The lanthanide and actinide series have f-orbitals. This means that, for example, boron has two s-orbitals full (from periods 1 and two) and 1 electron in a p-orbital.

No you're not. Your answer is wrong and Fswd and I agree on that. Stop trying to redefine basic mathematical concepts.

Fswd is right, your answer is 8m too long. If you want to be able to relate the ratio an angle and its opposite side to the ratio of a separate angle and its opposite side, you use the law of sines, not what you're doing. In any case, we don't even need the law of sines, because 100tan(52) gives the correct answer.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Trigonometry.html And get off the God topic. This thread is about math.

Although a quick check reveals that "the other way" gives the wrong answer. Remember that trigonometric functions are the ratios between sides. There is no way to avoid using them in this problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_function

Indeed. [math]\tan(45^{\circ}) = 1[/math] That's what the trig functions say. But if the angle is 52 degrees, the ratio between the two sides is 1.28.

They've reversed their position, apparently.

The ratios do not stay the same with a right triangle. That's why you have to use trig functions.

MrSandman, you have consistently ignored our references to evidence and clarification. You have ignored my posts instructing you to stop ignoring my posts. A few points: If your Bible does not differ at all from the Hebrew Bible, you are probably Jewish. A theory generally has significant amounts of evidence supporting it. There are few ideas in science regarded as facts, solely because it is almost impossible to test an idea in every situation applicable. The theory of evolution is limited by the data we have available -- namely, the fossil record. Evolution has been observed. Please see the links I have pointed out to you. In science, you cannot support your position by "thinking for yourself." Sure, it's great to think for yourself when you are developing a new idea, but when you are supporting a theory, it's all about evidence. And I think you'd rather I don't make up evidence as I go. When you read the links suggested and reread our posts, you may start a new thread on this subject. Please don't try discussing evolution until you have learned more about it. This thread will remain closed until you have done so.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Read that and get back to us. Continue ignoring our points and find this thread closed. I find it especially ironic that you ignored my post telling you to stop ignoring the link and read it. This is your last warning.

MrSandman, I have told you before that one factual passage in the Bible does not make the whole thing factual. I have also given you a link to a website which, in detail, describes the evidence for evolution. This argument will not be allowed to continue if you consistently ignore what we say.

I've never heard of fire-breathing brontosauruses. And some strata are dated via carbon-dating, not by the fossils within them. Prove it. Actually, don't. The Bible is largely irrelevant. What we are worried about here is the theory of evolution, and evidence pertaining to it.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize I'd have to explain concepts as simple as the meaning of the word "theory" to you before we could go on with the argument. Evolution is a model that helps explain the findings in our fossil record and in experiments. It is well-supported by evidence. You will similarly find that the theory of relativity, which is supported by more evidence than nearly any other "theory" on the planet, is still called a theory. Why? Because there's no way to test every single possibility in physics. Similarly, we don't have a time machine to go back and watch species evolving. We have to use the data available to us. And Charles Darwin lived two hundred years ago. I don't care what he thought about evolution. The theory has changed since then. And Isiaiah is just one part of the whole Bible. It does not encompass all of the "accounts of the bible." He wasn't afraid of believing in it. He was afraid of publishing his book explaining his theory because he knew he could face trouble from the Church.

I asked you to give me a quote supporting the round/spherical Earth thoery, and you have me one supporting the flat Earth theory. Now you tell me that the "rest of the bible" supports the Earth being round. You can't find a quote that actually says "the Earth is round"? Oh, and if the wording there might have been lost in translation, what about the wording of the rest of the Bible? Might some of it have been altered accidentally by translators and transcribers throughout the centuries?

Excuse me, I have a link for you. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ And I'd also like to point out that "provened" is not a word.

DNA does not need motor functions. DNA is a molecule -- deoxyribonucleic acid. I suppose you're referring to cellular reproduction, and all you need then is the right chemicals in the right places. That passoge "may reasonably be interpreted as referring to a flat circular earth," says your own post.

The reaction doesn't even produce hydrogen gas -- see ShadowAcct's post. And he's not filling his balloon with water, either.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2922483-2350357?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190925139&sr=8-1 I suggest you find a reference for that claim, or read the book I just linked to. I might also point out that the Dead Sea scrolls only contain the Hebrew Bible, and not the complete Christian Bible with the New Testament and all that jazz. The theory of evolution says allele frequencies change over time. It does not say that life came from goo or anything of the sort. In fact, it has nothing to say about the origins of life. At all. That's called abiogenesis, and it's a completely different field of science. Gone with the Wind depicts the siege of Atlanta, which did occur. Does that mean that everything in the story actually occurred? No, it's a fictional story. You cannot prove the veracity of a claim in the Bible by pointing us to another claim that has been proven previously. Quote that part of the Bible, please. Why? Why can't DNA emerge from simple self-replicating molecules that eventually produce RNA and then DNA? What's wrong with that scenario?

He doesn't intend to fill the balloon with liquid oxygen. When it is released as a gas it takes up much more volume.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html Nobody said the protons "go into each other." Recall that atoms are almost entirely composed of empty space. Remove the empty space and you can get an incredibly dense ball of protons. Now, I also suggest you brush up on your distinction between evolution and cosmology. You are now arguing cosmology. What you have said so far has no bearing on evolutionary theory whatsoever.

MrSandman, many perfectly absurd things have happened before. You need to prove not that something is perfectly absurd, but that it is patently impossible. I also challenge you to produce evidence supporting your claim that the Sun is shrinking and/or getting farther away from us. Any sources for this information?