Greg H.

Yes, it's impossible. Thermodynamics sees to that for you.

And the entropy argument only applies in a closed system anyway, which life on Earth is not.

By this definition, I am member of multiple religions, including the Church of HO Scale Railroading, The First Assembly of Lego, and The Friends Who Do Woodworking Gathering.

And a friend who can keep a secret.

I hacked two goats and made a giraffe,

On a more serious note, no, it's a single craggy rock. And now, it's time for Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock.

The Great and Powerful Google says: http://www.loadstarsensors.com/punch-force-measurement-boxer-training-boxing.html

We are made of star stuff - the ashes of dead stars.

Having kids is like herding cats. Big cats. Think trying to convince a group of tigers to go where you want using nothing but your bare hands and some cheerios. That's what raising kids is like. And there's no really good answer. My rule of thumb is that if they're old enough to ask to question they're probably old enough to get an answer, but that may not always be the case. All children are different and they all mature at different rates. And everything we do imprints on the children around us. We teach them a good deal more with what we do and how we act than in what we actually say to them. As for hampering their critical thinking skills - some adults I know still don't have these, so I really doubt a story about a fish in heaven is going to have much impact one way or another.

Just remember that WD-40 does not lubricate, so you'll need to apply a separate lubricant after you're done.

My daughter had to do this experiment in science class last year. We wrapped her egg in a thick cushion of large size bubble wrap and then put the whole kit in a bucket of packing peanuts. It survived, for whatever that's worth. Although I too would pay money to see the porridge and/or custard bucket tried.

One school of thought posits the idea that it's alright to lie if lying will prevent a greater harm from being inflicted. If a child is too emotionally immature to handle the concept of death, for example, lying to them about the presence of a goldfish in heaven may offer them the comfort they seek while delaying the need for them to emotionally come to grips with the idea of the permanence of death until such a time that they are capable of dealing with it.

Guilty as charged -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/AT d-(d+) s+:+ a+ C++++ UA++++ P+++ L+ !E W N? o? !K w !O M+ V? PS+ PE V+ PGP++ t+ 5++ X+ R+ tv+ b* DI++++ D+ G++ e+++ h---- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Also, you know you're a geek when you understand the difference between a geek and a nerd and understand why it's important.

If you have general questions about the language or programming, feel free to ask them here. If you have questions regarding specific homework projects you are doing, post them in the Homework Help forum, and make sure to obey the rules of that specific forum.

Perpetual motion in a closed system is impossible. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a liar or a crank (or both). There are always losses in converting energy from one form to another.

You know you are a geek when you see the characters on the Big Bang Theory having that debate and want to point out why one of them is wrong.

Scientific evidence on a science forum? Your heathen logic has no place here. Begone questioner of unsubstantiated twaddle. BEGONE I SAY! And never darken our fair nonsensical ramblings again! Disclaimer: The above was meant to be funny. If you did not find it funny, please feel free to laugh anyway.

No problem. Have you taken a look at http://forum.thinkpads.com? They might be able to offer you more insight into the issue.

Your consent is unnecessary for them to be happy, healthy, and committed to one another.

It's possible one of the color chips in the lcd went bad. That happens, and when it does, you get some interesting color effects. Looking at google, it appears the T410 has some common display issues anyway. You might try a thinkpad specific forum - you'd probably get someone who's seen the issue more readily than here.

Isn't this just a rehash of the previous Relativity is wrong because the planets orbit crap from rbwinn's last thread? You're still not showing your work, and are, most likely, still doing the math wrong.

To paraphrase Henry Ford, your list of 11 "facts" is bunk. It's a morality piece that boils down to one real statement: Sex before marriage is BAD. That's all. The rest of it is just window dressing to try and get you to fall for the primary message. It's a man with an interest in controlling the morality of the people around him and making sure it meshes with his own. All that aside, sex before marriage is a lot of fun, and it can help you determine if you and your potential partner are compatible. In that regard, sex before marriage can be responsible for breakups. But then again, being a pompous religious zealot can have the same effect. Virgins take too much energy. I want to enjoy myself, not fulfill someone's daddy issues. I'd know they have a compulsive need to call complete strangers and self-declare their lack of religious affiliation.

I am having a very hard time maintaining my composure and not trolling this thread so hard, the forum server quakes in fear. Will someone please put this thread where it belongs?

Unfortunately, that's not how science, or this forum, works. Also, stop with the insults and the snide remarks. They fail to do anything but make you look childish. Numerous members of the forums have provided reasoned arguments, backed up with experimental evidence, illustrating why you're wrong. They have also called for evidence on your part, which you are obliged to provide by the rules of the speculations forum. Please provide the calculations as requested, along with clear illuminations of what your variables are supposed to represent, and for the love of God lose the belligerent "Science is against me" tone of your posts.

Hello and welcome to the forums! The problem, most often, isn't that everyone comes with their own set of assumptions; it's that a lot of people refuse to change their assumptions when presented with evidence that counter them. As long as you have an open mind, and are willing to consider arguments on the merit of the evidence at hand, you'll do just fine - not only here but more generally in life as well. The simple fact is, we just don't know how the universe started. And contrary to the popular "there was nothing and it exploded" explanation of the big bang, the theory really doesn't say anything about how it may have formed. We have some ideas, but we lack the physics and the technology to adequately test them (I hope I'm getting this correct - if not, some physicist here on the site will come along and chastise me). Asking "What was the universe like before the big bang?" is like asking "What happens at the middle of a black hole?". The answers given by our current understanding of physics are meaningless (in that they often involve things like infinity which don't offer much insight into an actual answer). What the big bang does explain is what happens after that initial instant when our physics breaks down. How do the four fundamental forces act, and how would we expect the universe to evolve given what we know? What we find is that the BB theory is remarkably predictive in terms of what we actually observe, and this is the true test of any scientific theory - does it hold up to reality? As it says in my signature - if your theory and reality disagree, it is not reality that's wrong. Also, you can't really discuss conservation of energy as it applies to the whole universe because we just don't know if the universe is a closed system or not. Finally, make sure you understand the difference between what a scientist means when he says "theory" and what a layperson means when he uses the same word. In science, theory has a very specific meaning - what most lay people (of which I am one) call theories are more properly labelled as "hypotheses" or "vague ideas I had in the shower". I am going to stop here and reiterate what several other people have already said - educate yourself on the science of evolution - specifically what is sometimes called macro-evolution by creationists (which is the part they most often deny). A good starting point would be talkorigins.org 29+ Evidences for Macro-evolution (which also has rebuttals and responses to the rebuttals, IIRC). Again, welcome to the forums!