your a funny-boy..steven...[on a lighter-note....if you ever/seen them virgins..you would know..why they are still virgin..

but..thanks/for the redirection..BUT..[it dosnt bring..back to life/..a single of the 50 million/american babies/..murderd since nixon...nor the 25 million xtians/..murded by the bolchovics[northern/semites]..

but then again/where is the sting of death..
if we can joke..about it..eh

oliver..
In one second,
..a 100 watt light bulb/emits 1000 million ergs of energy.

One watt..is equal to 10 million ergs/..per second.

One watt..is also equal to 1 Joule
per second of power,..

or 1 Joule/per second of energy consumption..or dissipation.

Einstein's/equation..states that/..the amount of energy..you have..
is equal to the mass involved..times..the square of/the speed of light.

as we can see/
it gives nice big numbers...lol

they of course..neednt be that huge..
[we could use jules...or watts..[or even horse/power...

but then/..we wouldnt look as clever..now
would we


<<Energy in ergs = 1 gram x( 30,000,000,000.0 cm/sec) x (30,000,000,000.0 cm/sec).

This equals 900,000,000,000,000,000,000.0 ergs of energy.

to convert this..into other physical units is a bit awkward>>>lol

but it fools/the fools quite nicely
and is a handy re=direction/mechanism

<<this means that a 100 watt bulb..running for 30,000 years produces as much energy..as 1 gram of matter/converted into energy.>>>something science hasnt managed yet

Or you can think of it/as 30,000 hundred-watt bulbs..burning for one year/the output from a small town lighting system.

There are other physical units..you could use as well.

If you don't like watts,you could use horse power....1 HP = 745 watts,/so 1 gram of matter converted into energy equals 1 HP expended for about 30,000/7.45 = 3500 years.

If you don't like grams,/you could use pounds...
1 pound = 453 grams..so 1 pound converted to energy gives you 453 x ( 900,000,000,000,000,000,000.0 )ergs.

If you like BTUs,..however,..1 BTU = 1055 Joules or 10.55 billion ergs per second over one second of time.

1 BTU = 100 watts( 100 joules/sec) x 10.55 seconds.

1 gram converted to energy..would then equal an expenditure of 1 BTU for:

900,000,000,000.0 / 10.55 = 9,000,000,000.0 seconds or about 300 years.>>

SO THIS/..RELATES TO rebutting..ID...HOW EGSACTLY

Grim,
Symbiotic relationships should also be taken into consideration, but don’t seem to be covered by the theory of evolution.

Evolution is normally defined as a genetic change (and a genetic change only) that enables a species to better survive and reproduce in its environment.

Change for the sake of it can lead to a waste of resources and energy for an organism, which is why a cell attempts to control genetic variation and limits mutations.

Much of what a cell actually does is in direct conflict with the theory of evolution.

Oliver,
If you are referring to electron valence shells, then carbon contans 4 valence electrons, it seeks 4 more, which means it can readily form covalent bonds, creating straight line, branched and benzene ring type arrangements etc.

Some have also proposed that other elements or compounds (eg even ammonia) could theoretically form the basis for living things, but various systems have been used to define a living thing, (eg ability to reproduce, has a metabolism, carries out homeostasis, can sense and respond to stimuli etc). So a piece of graphite is not defined as a living thing.

Certainly a mass spectrometer analysis of an organism such as a cell would show its basic atomic structure, but the analysis does not show why the cell wants to grow, survive and finally reproduce.

Even an organism with no neurons seems to know that it has a limited life span and must reproduce to continue its species, something the theory of evolution does not delve into much.

The theory of evolution tends to avoid such issues (too many deep and meaningfulls I suppose).

Davif f,
It is interesting that so many are in denial of ID.
Breeding hybrid plants and animals is ID.
Genetically modified food is ID
Genetic engineering is ID

There are even people currently employed by their governments to research possible ways of carrying out terraformation.

I can imagine if terraformation is actually carried out in the future. No one back on earth can be told, because so many have been made to believe that ID doesn’t exist.

Dear OUG,

"Energy in ergs = 1 gram x( 30,000,000,000.0 cm/sec) x (30,000,000,000.0 cm/sec). This equals 900,000,000,000,000,000,000.0 ergs of energy." -OUG

Yes, enormous energy from just one gram of matter. Herein, Vanna doesn't seem realise this fact and introduced E=MC2, where it was not relevant.

True, it is possible to convert between units of measurement. However, the "erg" is measurement physicists use with E=MC2.

Do you think runner believes the Earth is younger than you think?

Thanks for the data.

Vanna,

The levels of energy OUG and I are citing are many, many times greater than atoms switching electrons.

runner,

I believe that the Earth is at least as old as the oldest tree.

Now your turn' Is the Earth older than one milion years?

Hello David f,

I think we will find is some OLO posters do take the Bible literally. But, I do not wish, on this thread at least, to have a drawn-out debate on Genesis with these folk.

Dear Vanna,

There has been extensive work done on the role of symbiosis in evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory tells of the work Lynn Margulis has done in this area.

Two notable examples of symbiosis in evolution are the eucariote call and the lichen.

The organelles in the eucariote cell are similar to various procariote cells. It is supposed that the eucariote cell started as a symbiotic relationship of procariote cells that developed into a permanent union.

The same process took place with lichen where a symbiotic realtionship between algae and fungi became a permanent union.

ONE UNDER GOD wrote:

"your a funny-boy..steven..."

I'm not being funny at all. I think you will find many soul mates in Muslim Village.

Your new name could be:

&#1584;&#1575;&#1578; &#1587;&#1601;&#1604;&#1610; &#1575;&#1604;&#1582;&#1575;&#1604;&#1602;

Dear David,
sounds like a fascinating project and hopefully you'll put the odd article up on OLO about it (btw, I thought you were to be hosting a thread on Ethics?)

I'm also researching (Western) Enlightenment, it's effects on culture, and enjoying, among others, Raymond Williams's important book "Culture and Society: 1780-1950". While there can be no dispute over humanity's technological progress, it's social, psychological and cultural progress that seems so problematic, and which science fails to address, practically or existentially. A great many early Enlightenment thinkers believed in the perfectibility of the human spirit/mind through the spread of reason and culture, though such thinking was naively universalist. Detractors like Hume and Mendelssohn and Rousseau certainly did not believe in a technological march to human perfection--which, in any case, seems little different from the Christian doctrine of providence purging profane spaces.
And this is the problem, for me, with positivism; it's progress for its own sake, and/or its practical applications are prosthetically adapted to mundane utility, without provision (apart from diversion) for the individual or his/her irrational needs and existential horrors. Thus Freud despaired of ever exorcising humanity's demons. Even supposing technology could turn us all into Vulcans (castration would be a step in the right direction, I hear), what then would be the point in continuing?
It does seem that Enlightenment would ultimately consist then in a way to order humanity in a benevolent and sustainable manner that provides the optimal conditions for individual transcendence and social growth. That is why, for me, the current system has to be radically altered; because rather than cultivating security and positive attributes, it harnesses and exacerbates negative drives such as self-interest.
Religion at least gives a name to human 'evil' and chastises it (however ineffectually).
The ongoing age of reason does not cater for our Jekyll and Hyde personalities. Enlightenment elides Hyde, and religion represses him; it's a moot point which system is more dangerous or ineffectual.
Religion needs reason, or positivism needs ethics!
The problem is such that one does contemplate ID--"Iniquitous Design".