Mr Skeptic

There's many suggested sources for the universe. Most of them are not from nothing. But is the suggestion that the universe came from nothing as ridiculous as it seems at first glance? Before and after imply time, without time (which is part of our universe) the law of cause and effect need not necessarily apply. And if you want the law of cause and effect to apply you need time, so that there was something before the universe anyways. So some suggested possibilities: 1) Omnipotent beings, aliens, etc. 2) Collision of multidimensional branes 3) A quantum fluctuation in a different spacetime, with gravitational potential energy as negative energy that balances the mass-energy of our universe so the universe actually has zero energy. 4) A cyclic (eternal) universe 5) others... Option 1 isn't really science though.

Nope, it is God's Holy Spirit that allows believers to correctly interpret scripture. To non-believers, it looks like foolishness. That's why only believers can correctly interpret it.

What scientific evidence points to a singularity?

Yes, we all have instincts (animals and humans). I think learning is an instinct, by the way. Yes, lab conditions can be less complex than the real world. But if you put humans or animals in a lab, they can still react independently. Besides, how could bacteria think? They don't have a nervous system, they have only one cell. Now, I'm not saying that they have zero capacity for thought, but it will have to be close to that. They can probably tell time, for example. It would be interesting to know whether they are capable of pattern recognition.

Necro alert! Things can be infinite and yet have different density. For example, there are as many whole numbers as there are even whole numbers, but the even whole numbers are less densely packed.

I think what he's saying is that, in a sense, it's all wealth redistribution. We allow some forms of wealth redistribution, such as buying an item, and disallow others, such as stealing an item. Every government service, including the military, is wealth redistribution. So why do people get upset when the government takes money from one person and gives it to another, since that is effectively what the government does all the time?

Wasn't that metaphorical, like the rest of the supernatural bits in the Bible?

lol

Fold a piece of paper so it is slightly thick. Use as cushion to not scratch the dime. Now you can use pliers or a vice to flatten out your coin. Your drier does not get hot enough to make a dime bend, much less without burning your pants.

I can say little about tensors, other than that they're the reason I don't understand general relativity.

Well, we're continuously making progress in this field. For example, we can now freeze and defrost mammalian tissue such as mouse ovaries. Doing it with a human is more difficult, largely due to size differences. For example, small things can easily stretch a little as they freeze, whereas a human might crack. Then there is the problem that cryonics are mostly done on humans who are already dead, so that as well as defrosting them they need to be fixed. And even if it could be done right now it would take decades of testing to assess whether there was other damage resulting from the process.

Yes, they react to their environment, but not "on purpose". It is an automatic process, just like for you. Do you monitor and adjust your blood glucose levels, hydration levels, CO2 levels, blood sodium, core temperature, sweat levels, heart rate, blood vessel dilation, ...? Your body does this automatically, although some of these aspects use input from your parasympathetic nervous system. Your cells each maintain their individual homeostasis, and your body as a whole does too. But this isn't what most people mean by "self-awareness". You can consciously do things to affect these variables, but your body and parasympathetic nervous system do a better job in general. When your body has difficulty maintaining homeostasis it will eventually alert your conscious, so that you might put on a sweater, eat, or drink. But bacteria have no consciousness. Furthermore, some of these things demonstrate a lack of self-awareness. Most people don't eat because they are hungry, but due to other factors like the time of day or because they saw something yummy.

Yes, I study cells. They are alive, just like your body. They do not have a complex nervous system like you and so are not conscious beings. Single celled organisms are simultaneously more complex and less complex than multicellular ones. More complex, because they have to deal with a harsher and more variable environment, yet less complex in that the area of teamwork. A multicellular organism is made of cells and yet you could replace all the cells and have the same organism. Meanwhile, an unicellular organism can reproduce and you can't tell which is the "parent" and which the "child".

I think what you are doing now is more disruptive to society than being a homosexual. As for the religion section, it is secondary and for science-minded folks to discuss religion. You cannot post there until you demonstrate some scientific inclination, usually by making about 50 posts without getting yourself banned or restricted. By posting religiousish threads before this you are circumventing that rule. Go participate in a few science threads first.

Yeah, me neither.

Yes, I usually ignore insults directed at me. However, if someone thinks that throwing insults at me (or anyone else) provides support for their argument or absolves them from answering questions, then they will get called on it.

You see this in debates between well-educated and poorly educated, largely because the poorly educated often use logical fallacies to support their arguments. For example, the argument from authority is basically "I'm smart so I must be right", and the ad hominem is the opposite, "You're dumb or immoral so you're wrong". Arguments should be based on their own merits, and the merits of the people discussing them are mostly irrelevant. If the attack was part of the debate, then would it not be exactly what an ad hominem is? The debate is about the subject of the debate, not about the people participating.

Good call. I should do this for myself too. And for biochem I have to memorize all 20 amino acids. I guess I never really thought about putting it somewhere it will be seen every day.

The internet has indeed done wonderful things for the advancement of science. Just not in discussion forums like you expected. Consider the value of Wikipedia for education, we also have online college education (for the people with enough self-discipline to do it), online journals for publishing papers for all to see, also sites like Pub Med where you can look up genome sequences and many other things. Our little niche is mostly basic education, which rather follows from the structure of the site. Were we a forum for advancing scientific research directly, you wouldn't be allowed on it...

Sure. The universe could easily be infinite, and if that were the case then the above (in)probability would become certainty. Now, do you have any scientific reason to believe the universe is finite? That too. "Random" and "naturally" have different meanings.

Well, look at it this way: if you could prove your religion, it wouldn't be a religion.

Are his objections somehow invalid because he belongs to the wrong religion?

Yeah, hence the need for a specific isotope. http://www.hafniumisomer.org/cqeseg3.htm

The problem is that calculators can only display so many digits. Calculators that express answers as exponents will generally have the option to set where that effect occurs, up to the maximum digits it can display.

What do you want to know about human milk? This should tell you a lot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_milk When making cheese, bacteria may be used to isolate many of the proteins in milk from the whey.