Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Edge last won the day on November 19 2005

Edge had the most liked content!

About Edge

  • Rank
  • Birthday 12/04/1984


  • Location
    Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
  1. This is by the most confusing topic on science, I think. Because most of us are conditioned or taught to think that time is the same for everyone. Either way, what evidence is there for this being true? To test it you need to have objects traveling at least 5% of light speed, and I mean vehicles and/or ships, to have persons experimenting this... not particle acceleration. And so far, what's the highest speed a traveling object has reached?
  2. I was reading a creationism vs. evolution debate on other forum and one of the creationists' question was: how does evolution add information to organisms? I mean, are there any examples of this being observed?
  3. Which are some good pages about applied science and engineering? I'm looking specifically for pages about hydraulics, thermodynamics, electronics, circuits and physics in general. Because some times I have trouble finding definitions of some things and other kind of info. That's why I ask. So, which sites are good in your opinion for this? Thanks.
  4. Gosh, it's been a long since I last visited. Anyway, I was making a math study the other day on integrals and things like that. You know, you get to the point where you study complex ways of integrating functions... However, I wonder... is there an integral for the function mentioned above... Can we integrate every function no matter how weird is it? I tried integrating that equation: e^(x^2)dx ... and man, that was frustating... you only end up repeating the same process again and again... so, I ask... is there a solution to this one? If not, why not? http://www.physicsforums.com
  5. I actually think that analogies should not be used as evidence. You can make up any analogy to prove whatever... Now, back to topic... I'll reply later, TRoutMac, I have been busy as of lately, sorry for that
  6. Well, yes, you are right. It is information, but it's not useful or descifrable information. Although, the latter may be debatable, but it's doubtful. I see what you are saying, but we gotta be careful with the wording. Information that tells us something valuable? Is true, but the thing is the information should be descifered like, well, any code. Example: You see something on a language you don't know. Obviously, you won't read or understand it. It's not valuable to you; however, we can conclude that it is indeed specified information. Once you learn that language you will be able to desc
  7. I always wondered if emotions are part of a chemical process.
  8. That wouldn't be information, true. However, I don't see how does this relate to DNA. Any molecule, oxygen, potasium, etc. has the same information on that level as DNA.
  9. That's an entire assumption you made there. You are basically saying that just because you see nature laws as totally being created by someone else, then that someone else must exist. Even when we have no evidence for it, just an assumption or a perception. It's like circular logic: Natural laws reflect intelligence. And intelligence must exist because of natural laws. I guess we are getting out of topic here. Yes, I got what kind of intelligence ID people are looking for or referring to. Wait a moment, I say an increase in information, not an ordered increase on it. And it would be litt
  10. Again, I'm not referring to a literal intelligence. What about the physic laws, the laws of nature? Those always tend to an equilibrium. Whether the universe was created by accident or any superior being, etc. the laws would still be there. Not exactly. But on an abstract sense, it could be. Could be... Well, I guess that clears that up, Let's see it that way. The code is 1's and 0's. Binary code. It applies to every filetype. But let's stick to JPEG. I guess that explains it better. Now, we know that on any file transfer, even with floppys, the size of the image would not change
  11. Science is not perfect, it changes to the evidence that it is found over the Universe. Nothing is absolute in science; however, what we have now as "science" is the best explanation we have. Back in the day the conservation of matter and the conservation of energy principles were taken as absolutes... until Einstein showed that they were related with E=mc^2... was that an embarrasing mistake? It may be supporting the Biblical account, but I don't think it does support the literal interpretation of the Biblical account.
  12. Well, Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and Earth. The heavens can be interpreted as well... everything outside the Earth. I mean, the stars, universe, etc. How did god do that? It is still a mistery. Why couldn't god use the Big Bang? Well, fossil records, little mutations over and over, on all time... sounds plausible... at least for me. God reveals to man through his own work (nature and universe), why didn't god use a detailed and a explainable mean? I mean, when you do a masterpiece of art, you just don't do it instantly, you start with some details and then you go fixi
  13. Why is it so hard to see the Big Bang and Evolution as god's tools to create the world and the universe? :cup: And please, refrain from mentioning Intelligent Design and debate "speciation", just answer the question.
  14. Curious question, you answered that ID's intelligence is found in nature. But let me explain, nature always balances itself, or at least it seems to. Natural selection is eliminating what it is no longer needed or what it does not longer fit. ID people accept this. Also, is strange that nature is always finding a way to "fix" itself from the harm we men can do to it. It always equilibrates. Yah, it's not intelligence on the literal way you want to, but it is "intelligence" on a subjective way. (And from ID sites, it also seems that the "intelligence" they find is also subjective) OK.
  15. That's true. If there's indeed no hard evidence that supports speciation. It's true that they have faith that at some time speciation will be, well, totally supported and "proven" (because nothing in science is definite). My point was that I don't consider believing in Evolution a religion. Just like I don't consider believing in time dilation (for the time we could travel at very high speeds [above .3c]) a religion as well.
  • Create New...