Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


tmaromine last won the day on March 30 2008

tmaromine had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About tmaromine

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Icebergs are a little off topic from the sun, or are we into interesting nature pictures now? Either way, that iceberg is interesting. Never heard or seen of that before. It'd've been nice if the photographer had more than a cellphone though...
  2. Wish I'd paid some attention that day. Oh well. And I have hundreds more photos like that (and at better quality; those'er zoomed it seems). Just never got them onto the netz. I should get my good nature photos out for the world. :naughty:
  3. Guess it could've been smoke, especially since it is as large as the sun. Didn't pay attention to that...
  4. I have pictures from July '07 that I just looked at, and I wonder if I was able to catch a CME from Earth with a normal digital camera? I have three pictures, so I wouldn't imagine it a defect or debris on the lens or something like that.
  5. I've questioned myself whether I have it (started a post once here about it), but I don't know, at least with colour-digits relations. Though with those dots, I did 'hear' the pull/push of them. It was sort of like a pitch change in that high tone due to deafness caused by modern iPod listening / titinus sound (however that word's spelt..). I still insist that letter A is red. And I've wanted to try a new method of piano playing with coloured notes, if only I could sit down and create a scheme.
  6. Just what I was going to say ; How much some thing's decayed over time obviosly changes. But not the rate at which the thing's decayed.
  7. And the weather's ever changing. Most things of the universe are constant, per se. Or better put, they just don't change minutely like weather. Want to get the degree(s) where the sun will be at precisely 15:35:12 local time tomorrow ? Not hard for whomever knows how to do it. Want to see how long some thing's existed by using some isotope-measurement ? Not hard for whomever knows how to do it. "Gravity on Earth will be about 33% below normal tomorrow – get your steel boots out !"
  8. And that is all any scientist, or human for that matter, can do. (You don't imply that scientists should be omniscient and 'just know things', without needing to predict and test ?) Once a result is gotten after a prediction, the prediction is either discarded or kept, if the result is in agreement or disagreement, and the prediction proved or disproved, respectively. And that's why carbon dating methods and their predictions, and results, acknowledged as true, are still around.
  9. It actually becomes less interesting once it's been realised and known for a long time. Ask any scientist or person knowledgeable of science.
  10. I was going to put it in the theology forum, but figured its point was the (non)science of it, not of the theological-based claims. I didn't want to know anything about his religious beliefs, just if all his science was correct. I know probably every point in it was discussed probably numerous times here, but they're simply all unrelated and have nothing to do with this piece by Johnson (unless there's a thread pertaining to it already, which I'll search for.) I'll do some searching, and look up Robert T Pennock. I'll run the HIV!>AIDS past my friend too. It gives us an understandi
  11. I think a good TV show was just created in my mind. I've gotten one of the common messages by a religious friend: a message by some religious fanatic (in this case, the 'father of the ID movement') that never knows what he's talking about. I'm hoping someone will take their time and correctify this. I know there's probably numerous ludicrous claims (it thinks it refutes (macro)evolution, after all), but I'm only a biology student and am so unfortunately less scient than many of you ! So, here's the drama: «Evolution: Fact or Fantasy?» by Philip E Johnson "Evolution is a fact only at
  12. Though, usually those that advocate ID are not credible in the sciences. You got me on the rest...
  13. Though can abiogenesis be compared to ID in more ways than their inferences ? Abiogenesis calls for life from nonliving things, and in the end, that life is still just all atoms, like everything else living and nonliving. The 'cause could be uncaused', but at least all the stuff was there for the result. ID calls for some omniïnteligent being before there was even a universe, as to create the universe. It's pulling something out of nothing, and abiogenesis isn't completely that. Life out of nonliving, yes, but all the materials are there. IDists think an Everything can exist while there's
  14. It doesn't look like it's been said, and I'd say it's the easiest non scientific answer: then the designer needs a designer, ad infinitum. It's possible s/he'll come up with some "caused uncaused" wahteverrubbish, but if so, then just tell them that it's also possible for the universe to 'uncausedly be caused' (whatever the logic is in that phrase, if any...) without a designer. To me, it seems much more realistic that a no-caused universe could come into existence than a no-caused omniscient-being coming into existence. Always trying to pull knowledge out of nothingness they are.
  • Create New...