DJBruce

You are welcome. I was glad to see you posting again.

Standard printer paper is approximately .1mm thick. For paper with a basis weight of 20 lbs, which is what I use in my printer, has a thickness of .097 mm. So you are right the Cha Cha answer does appear to be way off the mark. For fun, I did a quick check. I measured a ream of unopened paper to have a height of about 4.6 cm. The ream contains 500 sheets of paper with a paper wrapping on the top and the bottom. Lets assume the paper wrapping in the same thickness as the actual printer paper. This would mean the ream has 502 sheets of paper in it. At a height of 4.6 cm or 46 mm, this would mean each piece of paper has a height of .0916 mm. Which for seems close enough to the wikipedia value for me to accept them both.

Here is a nice, and relatively short, video that gives a nice overview of the theory of evolution: <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> Here is an online copy of Charles Darwin's famous On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. This text will not give you an understanding of the modern parts of the theory of evolution, and I would not recommend you use it to learn about evolution for the first time, but it is incredibly interesting and will provide a great understanding of the basic principles and historical background of the theory of evolution. As a suggestion to the staff. Maybe it would be a good idea to create a "What is Evolution" resource that could be pinned. That way when people have a misconception or question about evolution they would have a place to turn, instead of starting another debate about how evolution is wrong.

I would hold that statement for just a bit. The ruling is being appealed, and my guess is that the case will work its way up to the Supreme Court so this is by no far the final ruling. If the case does reach the Supreme Court I think its virtually a toss up with Kennedy probably being the swing vote. So I would hold you "I told you so" until the case is completely settled. I found it interesting that the Judge made no mention of the Supreme Court's ruling in Baker v. Nelson. Since in it the Supreme Court found that there was no "federal question" on a state banning same sex marriage, this setting precedent. As the basis for Judge Walker's decision, ie: the equal protection clause and due process, was found not to be in conflict with same sex marriage by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson. Regardless, in the next few years we will probably see what the Supreme Court thinks of Judge Walker's decision and Prop 8.

No, I don't think it does predict global warming. If you look at Revelation 16:9, It seems like the increase in temperature was more dramatic than that seen by global warming. Since as far as I know know has been seared by the sun due to global warming. Like Ydoaps said Revelations can be interpreted as social commentary in which case any type of prediction really would not make sense.

8.1) You, your wife, your teenage daughter, and your teenage son are returning from a nice vacation in China. While waiting at the Chinese airport a drug dog begins to sniff your suitcases. It quickly moves past yours, your wife's, and your daughters, but when it gets to your son the dog seems to notice something. Your son is generally a good kid staying out of trouble, however, you know that your son has smoked marijuana a few times. The security guard opens your son's suitcase, and discovers a small bag of marijuana. You are horrified knowing that the Chinese Government often executes people for drug offenses. The security guard now asks you who's bag this is. Do you tell them the truth that it is your son's and risk him being executed or do you lie take and save your son by sacrificing yourself? 8.2) You are a doctor who has just done an STD screening on a man you just came in. Sadly the test comes back positive for HIV. As you walk the man out you notice he is with a girl it appears he is about to take on a date. Do you break you oath as a doctor and make a tell the women about the mans HIV?

Yes, in those countries people were legally executed under those countries laws. However, it should be made clear that the question at hand is whether the death penalty is ethical, not whether the legal system of the Soviet Union and Afghanistan is ethical. To mix the two discussions detracts from the initial debate. The term "Mass Murderers" is more of a layperson term rather than a legal one. So really in a legal sense a government cannot be dubbed a mass murder. This would make your point that one must either admit a state can murder or denounce the atrocities of certain governments moot. Also the delima you propose does not revolve around whether the death penalty itself is ethical, but whether or not the justice systems of a certain country are considered ethical.

Is it unethical to not tell an adopted child that they are adopted? Yes, either you are withholding the information from your child, or you are lying to them about their heritage. Regardless of what the parents might think the fact the child is adopted is part of that child's life, and to distort it by not telling them they are adopted is wrong and unethical. That being said I do think the conversation on being adopted must be broached at the proper time and place. However, in my opinion the correct time to explain to a child that they are adopted is as soon as they are capable of comprehend what is going on. This way the child and parents can move beyond this and create the strong bonds of love and trust that children form with their parents at an early age. The problem with waiting till a child is older is that by they time child finds out they have already begun to create an identity of who they are, and by breaking the news that they are adopted it makes them feel as if the part of their life has been a lie. My cousin was adopted and my Aunt and Uncle informed her at a very young age of this. This has allowed them to move beyond the issue of her adoption. In fact the day she was adopted has become a sort of second birthday were they celebrate the day my cousin came into my family, and how important she is to us.

Here are Apophis' statistics according to NASA: Mass: 27,000,000,000 kg Impact Velocity: 12.59 km/s Impact Energy: 510 MT Here's the most important one's, "Impact Probability: .0000076% and Torino Scale (max): 0". So although interesting to discuss I do not think anyone should lose any sleep over Apophis.

I feel like there are far to many different situations and extenuating circumstances to say definitively say crime A deserves the death sentence, while crime B does not. I would say the death penalty is suitable for any criminal who has shown a lack of respect for human life and decency and does not appear to show signs of being reformed.

The problem lies in that good science relies on very precise and clear language. So when a post like the OP's is made it is really hard to decent the true scientific ideas being discussed. Aside from that it also makes it very very difficult to read. I've spent probably 30 minutes trying to decipher the post, and still haven't made it a quarter of the way through it. Aside from the comprehension issues a post like the OP's causes it is generally held that the more words in all caps in a post the more likely the post is pseudoscience. This brings me to the part of your post where you said, "it still is science as its motives are clear." Science does not depend on ones motives. Science depends on one applying the scientific method to a problem. So just because the OP wants to understand the universe does not make his theory scientific. If he wants his theory to be considered science he will need to support his position with empirical evidence, verifiable predictions, and peer reviewed sources.

I could be wrong, but wasn't part of the reason Jesus' was able to forgive our sins was that he descended into hell for three days? Or is the harrowing of hell and the forgiveness of sin unrelated?

With the quantity of milk sold and drank everyday if people were becoming violently ill or milk was posing massive health hazards I would assume that people would stop drinking it and there would be a massive uproar and recall. I mean with the mass media today a thing as prevalent as milk would be a huge news story if it was causing sickness. Since there has been none of this I think its fairly safe to assume that for the most part milk is not making people sick.

So I spend more time going through your theory and here are more points/questions for you to consider: - There are not photons inside of atoms. - A rock is definitely a solid. The definition of solid, liquid, gas relies on how fast the particles of a substance are moving. It has nothing to do with the fact that a majority of space is empty. - Atoms are not held together strictly by magnetism. The bonds atoms form together are examples of the electromagnetic force. -Are you saying the Big Bang can be understood using only thermodynamics? -The mass-energy equivalence does not state that energy is king, it simply shows that energy and mass are two sides of the same coin. I still have not made it through your entire post so I'll try and post more question and comments later.

Based on the fact that the person on the left appears to have a reaping hook in his hand. I would guess the field is a grain like wheat not corn. Also corn fields are green not yellowish, which is how that field is depicted, that along with the fact that the ancient Egyptians did not have corn makes me believe the field is more the likely wheat or a similar grain, but definitely not corn.

No I do not want you to solve a 5000 year old mystery I have asked you to post the solution you claimed to have had for a few years. If you post saying you have a solution to some remarkable problem that has never been solved, people are not going to sit there and say let me solve it as well they will wanna look at the solution you claim to have. What you are doing is like me posting saying I've proven the Riemann Hypothesis, but I won't show you my proof until you prove it first. You can expect people to do it. I am sorry but you never told us were the answer could be found. You stated and I quote, " We see the first instance of this unique pre-pyramid age Icon on p 14 of Gay Robins & Charles Shute's The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus ISBN 0 7141 0944 4" No mention of the existence of a solutution in the book. As an aside is there an online version of that book? I do not own it, and do not feel like spending the money to buy it, and my local library does not carry a copy. So is it available online?

Worst case scenario the asteroid hits Earth landing in a city with high population density. Causing massive death instantly. The asteroid is estimated to not be nearly as big as the Chicxlub impact however it would still have a massive global impact and possibly cause an impact winter. Actually this is a horrible horrible idea. All nuking an asteroid would do would be turn one asteroid into a bunch of slightly smaller asteroids coming at earth. Its analogous to being shot with a shotgun instead of a rifle. As both are going to do a lot of damage. Solar sails are a cool idea. I also like the idea of focusing solar radiation at the asteroid so that it vaporizes small amount of the asteroid throwing it off its path. A mass driver approach would also be cool, however, I doubt very practical at the current time.

I am having a hard time getting exactly what you point is at times, but here is a few questions and points: -Do you realize that things like relativity and creativity are not objective measurable units in physics? -Energy does not so much generate heat, as one form of energy is converted to thermal energy. -In Kelvin, the SI unit for temperature you cannot have negative temperatures. So when you refer to negative temperatures what units are you using? -It is generally considered that most of the heavier elements were formed after the big bang in the center of stars through nuclear fusion. -Do you have an empirical evidence or any scientific studies to back up anything you have said? Without this your ideas are just that speculative ideas and not science. Also could you please use a few less capital letters, and make your posts slightly more legible. It would make responding to them much easier.

I am simply asking you to show us your solution to this mystery. I do not have any expertise in this field, and do not claim to. However, I would be interested in looking over you solution, and seeing if I could make sense of it.

Umm, its gonna be really hard to have an internet free discussion on an internet forum. B) SFN is a discussion forum. You need to have a topic to discuss, which is really hard when you make a claim to have some secret solution to a problem, but are unwilling to show it. Instead choosing to talk about how you want a good conversation.

So would you suggest shortening the length of med students undergraduate degree? Since I would venture to guess that most doctors would tell you their schooling last long enough, and is almost impossible to afford without going into massive quantities of debt so adding more schooling might not be practical. The competition for medical school, and the tough pre-med requirements insures that the people who get into medical school are some of the best and brightest. So I really see nothing wrong with the competition and curriculum, actually I find it comforting knowing that my doctor is one of the brightest people around. Also if a person cannot handle the stress of the competition for getting into medical school do you think they will be able to handle the stress of holding the life of numerous people in their hands everyday?

Care to enlighten us, or are you just trying to brag?

Do you think the people arguing that President Obama should be striped of his citizenship, also think Theodore Roosevelt should be striped of his citizenship posthumously since he in fact won the Nobel Peace Prize too?

Personally, I would prefer that my doctor understand the chemical and biological reactions and pathways that are causing my particular condition, or that are being altered by the medication they are prescribing. I would think the ability to interact with patients would come through experience.