Mr Skeptic

Well, I described a situation where within the confines of the experiment there is no protein with a certain important function, and the function evolves. So it would seem that the algorithm generated information. You objected on the grounds that, in my example, the same information existed outside of the experiment and so no information was created. But, that is entirely irrelevant, unless the algorithm keeps track of all information everywhere, which would make it omniscient. So either your objection is irrelevant, or you are claiming the algorithm is omniscient. Or maybe it is a matter of scale. I'm saying that the algorithm created this new function within the confines of the experiment where it didn't exist before, not that the function itself is somehow new. It is irrelevant whether the function exists elsewhere since it does not take part in the experiment. While I agree that in this example, the universe's content of information need not increase, that really says nothing about the algorithm's capability to generate information since the algorithm does not have as part of it the universe's information, only that within the experiment.

What you actually need help with is with understanding current theory, which is usually a prerequisite for replacing with a better theory. What is rotating in your second experiment is not the cylinders individually, but the whole system. First, find any spot you wish, label it the axis of rotation. This can be anywhere, like 5 miles away if you wish. For every mass, draw a line from the mass to your axis of rotation. If you are doing this in 2D it is easier, and I'm only explaining for 2D. Break up the motion of the mass into two components: that parallel to the line you drew, and that perpendicular to it. The momentum parallel to the line is the translational momentum, the product of the perpendicular and the distance to the axis of rotation is the rotational momentum with respect to that axis. The rotational momentum with respect to that axis cannot change, although you can change it by changing the axis you measure it from. Also, a simpler design would be to replace your rods with point masses connected by a massless rod.

Calculate it with E=mc^2, and then convert to megatons TNT.

What about the potential for artificial kidneys? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100902161253.htm

Ah, so algorithms are omniscient, and will only do as described if the information exists elsewhere? But if algorithms are omniscient, how can you question that they can create design? What a tangled web you weave. In my opinion, algorithms are not omniscient and anything outside the algorithm is irrelevant to it. Ah, so animals can do it too. So, people and animals are possibly our Creator, or even algorithms -- but not anything else, since nothing else has been observed to make design. Back to the omniscient algorithms I see. I don't know any algorithm that behaves differently depending on how that algorithm came to be, nor any mechanism by which it could do so. Algorithms work regardless, so any designer for them is irrelevant. Also, there's nothing to suggest evolution was designed.

You can use any of the correct units. Newton is a unit of force, not of energy. For mass you can use stones, pounds-mass, grams, kg, ounces, etc. For energy you can use Joules, ergs, foot-pound, etc. Some units Google calculator does not know, but many it does. Eg like so: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=1+kg+*+c^2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CGN-YKYCCTMW4Iae-zgSht9GLBQAAAKoEBU_QkE0w&fp=e2c546720953fc59 or http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=1+stone+*+c^2&aq=f&aqi=h1&aql=&oq=1+stone+*+c^2&gs_rfai=&fp=e2c546720953fc59 And for great fun: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=c+in+furlongs+per+fortnight&aq=1&aqi=h1g1&aql=&oq=c+in+furlong&gs_rfai=&fp=e2c546720953fc59

It is easier to die for your beliefs, than to actually live them day by day.

You agree then with what I said above? Since your response seems irrelevant to my point, there's no need for me to reply. 1) There is no existing function and therefore the function is new. Per your definition, the non-functional gene has zero information. 2) Good, then you agree that evolution is consistent with information theory. (Incidentally, there is no step off -- the algorithm is improving on a pattern, in this case of human-made design). You are glossing over the point: if as you say only humans have been observed to create design, it is a leap of faith to think that anything other than a human could, deity or no. But as I have shown, an algorithm can create design as well, so algorithms like evolution are also a valid source for design.

Zero.

My point still stands. Care to give an example of these so-called evidences and indicators? Well I can fit an infinite into a finite size. I guess that makes me more powerful than your god then. Also, the expansion of the universe says nothing of its size -- expansion works just as well in a finite and infinite universe, even if you have trouble understanding it both ways. Also, there is no evidence that the current universe is finite, so that's yet another way you are wrong. Right, I disagree with all of this. Genesis is just a parable, and trying to find scientific truth form it cannot be done unless you already know the scientific truth you wish to find in it. However, this may amuse you: but only if you understand physics.

Hey, you just broke my rose-tinted glasses! Now I'll have to go get a new pair.

The frequency of a photon determines its energy. Photons of the same frequency are pretty much the same, although they may have a different polarization, phase, or be moving in different directions. They'll still be the same "color" though, even if that "color" is gamma ray.

Or if you put it into Google Calculator, it will know the value of c and of c^2.

But that means that which are literal and which are figurative changes over time. The Catholic Church has made mistakes and changed its mind. See, for example, Galileo. Ah, but they must have made a bunch of mistakes, since later God sent an angel to deliver a more accurate understanding, to Joseph Smith Jr. So we should really ask the Mormons to interpret it. Besides, it's pretty much only Catholics who think Jesus founded them as an authority of any kind.

Other universes are a prediction from various theories that seek to explain our universe. Also, the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics is an interpretation which means there will never be any evidence for nor against said worlds. So it is nothing more than a matter of taste to believe in many worlds or not, as far as this interpretation goes, and there will never be any evidence in either direction. The same is not true for other theories, but what remains true is that we currently cannot tell the difference. There is neither any real evidence that the universe is just one, nor many.

If it were proven there would be just the one theory.

First you would have to extract the potassium (hint: just buy some potassium or potassium salt). Then you would have to do essentially the same thing as is done to separate uranium 235 from uranium 238. A simple process, but not easy.

The laser only hits 1 spot. This is not a laser beam, it is a beam focused onto one spot. If you are far from that spot even directly behind it, you only get hit by a harmless bit of light. Think of how you can survive sunlight just fine but then you can use it and a magnifying glass to burn ants.

Yes and no. Things can be validated through theory, so that is a perfectly good way to validate things until such time as they are tested. For example I could design a computer using nothing but theory, and it should work fine when built. Universe creation theories are based off of other theories, and also off speculation. It is the speculation that is the problem, combined with the fact that these theories can't at the moment predict any experimental results (they are very complicated and we need more math skillz). We and the things in our universe are bound to this spacetime. There could be a separate spacetime elsewhere, completely inaccessible to us. There could also be a different spacetime almost inaccessible to us. It is quite possible for the energy in our universe to have come from a different spacetime.

Yes, but there is also the moral concept of fairness. The government provides services, some of which by necessity benefit everyone. These services cost money, and someone needs to pay for it. Because of our greed, we can't count on the people who benefit from these services paying for them if they have the choice. As you said, this is a failure of group cooperation. Taking the concept of fairness even further, some people have more wealth due to chance (eg who their parents are) rather than anything they have done. This also translates to extra ability to generate or acquire wealth. Wealth is indeed finite, and furthermore one person's wealth may affect the ability of another person to generate or acquire wealth. But this sort of unfairness can only be fixed by violating people's right to personal property. So it comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils, and which choice it is depends on which people value more.

Well, it's too bad you think that, because you are wrong. Density is a mathematical concept, and mathematical concepts can be proven using just math. I disproved you by example. Nope, today's mind must agree that we don't know whether the universe is finite or infinite, which is a scary thought for creationists who feel a need to be absolutely sure of things that are not true. There is no evidence that the universe is finite.

Remember you only need to keep M3 stationary. A hint: what is the tension in the string holding M3? What is the tension in the string holding M1 and M2?

It doesn't work that way. For example, given a pressure differential, you can use that pressure differential to create electricity. Since pressure depends on depth, this means that if you connect the surface to the bottom of the sea, you can generate lots of electricity due to the huge pressure difference, right? The trouble of course is that your connection will have the inverse effect.

Actually, increasing the amount of CO2 will help you sleep. Unless you have trouble breathing, a little extra CO2 won't hurt you. People release much more CO2 than any houseplant anyways.

Yes, but it only works if you are a believer, and even then only if you are the correct brand of believer You heathens don't have the Holy Spirit so you can't do it Oh, wait, I think that makes the answer a "no".