MrSandman

My one comment brought this back to attention, but it got deleted, crap. Yeah, imagine all the web designers like me who would have to deal with all new sorts of crap. It's bad enough having to program in html.

I think we all realize what the problem is. Maybe we should take semiautos for protection or better yet a rocket lancher, so the owner doesn't have to bury their dog is it is a nasty pouch.

Hey think of all the fun you could have. However, i don't think we want a copy of your tennis shoes. Microevolution is very important for understanding genes, I take that back. However, we already can seperate genes. We could see how they could work if we put into animal with more functions then bacteria. Both are good ideas, but lets see if when do both. Yes, I'm the fearless leader, but I got a lot of people confused about what I was trying to get across. I could talk to you personally and you could see my side in about a week or seven years, but lets not go there.

Ummmm, yeah I guess you can call it a human, but the prolife people don't define all. Just like albert doesn't define all genuises.

You are quite accomplished. Hope I can get there.

All is what I find out in my studies. I love how microevolution works. I still have faith in creation. How it started I'm not sure, maybe some sort of evolution. That's what makes me questionable about macroevolution. I don't just accept. Imagined if all our scienctists always accepted what was supposibly fact. A lot of things wouldn't be understood. Like heliocentrism for instance. I think everyone should question theories. It is in my book part of science.

What is the defining point? The defining point is that one is magnetic and the other is electrical. Metal won't be attracted to electrical current. Unless you have the combination that is how it works. Run a open electrical current and try to have a paper clip stick to it. It doesn't work. That's why there is a combination called a electromagnet. I see that they are very similiar, but not exactly the same, or there wouldn't be a difference in names probably, even if the react in the same ways. When you look at a magnet you don't call the field an electric field you call it a magnetic. The are however very symmetrical. I'm sorry about asking about the formula. I sorry you took it as an attack. I didn't relize what it was. Thanx for the link. I'm only a college algebra student. If there are the same thing then tell me why they aren't the same name. I like to be corrected that is what my professor like about me. However, they like how I don't settle for a "This is how it is." response. Please, explain. I came to this forum to learn, not just to say, "Your wrong". You use the word transform. That means they're are different right?

Definitions of theory on the Web: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory" hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices" a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales" Atomic theory is still more set than MacroEvolution, because with chemistry it has been provened time and time again. Microevolution is very evident, but to say there has to be a connection isn't necessiarly true. Therefore I think that it shouldn't be dwelt on as much as Atomic theory and other actual scienctific facts. I often imagine what new things could have already been figured out if our scientists stop dwelling on the argument between creation and evolution. I think that they are not all that important for understanding how to munipulate nature. Sure it could explain how it happened way back then, but that really doesn't help us now, does it? Noctice that there is several different deffinitions for theory.

One thing you have to consider is that electrical currents aren't always magnetic currents. But maybe maybe the opposite is true. When electrons flow through a metal I call that electrical current not magnetic. There is a defining point and it isn't just a perspective. Will other magnetic material be attracted to the electrical current going through the wire? No. That is why you got the two different names. Then there is the combination of the two electromagnets. yourdadonapogos, please tell me what you are trying to prove by the formula. Like stating what the formula is for. I see that your a scientist, but I think I have a point. Mr Skeptic could probably explain better. Thanks for the refresher course on magnets. It was what I remembered, but I wasn't sure.

Yeah, if they knew alot they would study other areas that need more attention. I know a lot more about evolution than your average creationist. My belief in creation is something I would never want taught in a science classroom. Not because I don't think it is valid, but because it can never be provened valid. MacroEvolution will probably never be observed. Sure there is evidence for it, but not enough. Same with the bible. Which is a book that can be interpret many ways. The problem is not enough is known about either. Just ask Cpt. Refrsmt. I had a conversation with him. He sort of sees my view. That is why I think macroevolution should kept from the science classroom. You can bring it up, but don't dwell on it, unless your class is just about it. This is one of the best ways I could put. I think there was confussion because I didn't specify that I meant MacroEvolution when I said evolution. An honest mistake.

Your getting into opinions not fact Severian.

Try using algebra. I think it might work. I'm not sure. Try using what you have put it in the formula. Then see if you have anything left. i'll try doing it later, but I have to go.

Yeah, what he said. Magnets have to do with domains too. Mr Skeptic? Can you tell about domains? It has been too long.

Looks more like pothagerean thorem with different letters, however you get twice the product. Maybe he should explain more. Maybe its for trying to find the length of a side that is in creased by 100% from the orginal shape. Any number of possibilities here.

I believe that electric charge has nothing to do with magnetism. There is no electricity in magnets. However, if your talking about the polarity both have it just in a diffent way. I had this in my freshmen year, so I don't remember much. Just thought I'd reply since no one else was.

You just keep thinking that we will be extinct. However, I think that both areas can be covered. I agree totally with Mr Skeptic. In fact I like his name. Experimenting is how we learn.

Ummmm, did you read my post or not? However, since you want to stay on this subject. Let me ask you a question. If someone says "your wrong" don't you want to prove otherwise? I know I do. I don't know much about the subject I'm just hypothesizing. That's is why I made the thread in the first place. Maybe It would be better that I state that you are WRONG unless you give me substancial proof that it is RIGHT. It helps me learn and the people who post, and that is what the forum is about. I'm not just going to accept something tells me. I would be a fool if I did. Now, please keep with the topic.

Remember not to stereotype. I'm a christian that learns things things about evolution, but I'm quite sceptical. I help people analyze what they have been told.

They should get anyomous donors of sperm and eggs and then combine them in a test tube. Out of the blue I know, but that way they can make the stem cell without them calling it human. I'm prolife by the way.

I don't care about understanding evolution. I want the scientists to get going with the studies of DNA. Obvisiously your against animal testing? Here is a novel idea. Why don't they try both at the same time. I'll be happy and you'll be semi-happy. You know that mice are quite plentiful. They breed like rabbits only worse.

I was seeing if I could get more responses that way.

I've been attacked by a golden retriever! Should they be banned? I think they should have people take their dogs in for tests. If the Dog is too violent they should, prescribe solutions such as muzzles. I love rottweilers, I don't own one, but they are usually quite friendly pouches. I think the reason people fear rottweilers, because of what Hollywood has portrayed them as. Pittbulls, can be great for killing things if you want them as a guard dog. Really come to how you raise the dog. I want to punt our caryn terrier, because it is so mean and stupid. I didn't raise it, my sisters did. My dog that I raised when I was 4 is docile. He loves anybody he will give him attention. Will he attack you? Only if you present a threat (Liking kicking him, but most likely he'll just walk off after a snarl). Could he be lethal, you bet in his younger days he could tear your face off. He's a medium size dog, but he has a short strong mouth that can be lethal. Should all dogs with potential to be lethal be banned? No, if your a dog lover you can see my point. If your not, you can't really see how much dogs mean to their owners. It doesn't matter what breed they are. Someone probably has a pittbull, and they probably treat it real nice and it is more docile than a poodle. Should you take their dog away?

See this thread anyone who can explain what happens, clearly, gets an A. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28744 It's cool but weren't we suppose to find something like this about a half-century ago?? I'm mean you don't even need a lab to reproduce this experiment. I want more input on this. Thoughts are welcomed.

You don't always need a goal you can try just discovering something. Like rutherford didn't ever expect to find the nucleus of an atom. He did an experiment with what he tought would have a set result. It didn't do what he thought it would. When I was 8 I took water and oil. I knew what they would do, so I took sugar and poured it in to the combination. I thought that the sugar molecules would just stay a the top or just sink through it in little bits. It didn't. Try doing it. I still think it looks cool. I'm just saying use a little knowledge and try it on a few mice. See what happens. Unless your the type that are against animal testing entirely. If you are there is a discussion for that.

Don't make it harder. Try to visualize the questions being asked. If your not sure about which answer to put in look it up in the dictionary.