AtlanticBlue99

and lemon, water is not a conductor of electricity. aquatic solutions are but pur H2O is not. water does go under self-ionization but does not create enough energy to conduct electricity. however mix water with an acid such as HCl (hydrochloric acid) and you will get H3O+ and Cl- and the hydronium and chloride ions will conduct an electric current. :blah

__________________
"Smokey Mountains"

OUZBnd

You seem pretty knowledgeable, but you should realize that water expands when it freezes due to the crystaline structure. When water freezes it cause the HCP cystals to become rigidly held together, leaving spaces between the molucules. Whereas in a liguid form they move freely and slide past each other, break, reform etc. All of these phenomenoms are based around hydrogen bonding

karma279

Over thinking. Mere over thinking. You are mixing hard scientific fact with theory. You stated factual information (with obvious intelligence)... and then threw in "because of the creators wish for life." That is opinion.... which is exactly what Schroeder does. It appears to me that you are reading way to far into it. I will not debate with anyone as to if there is a god or not. It is up to one to decide; and determine belief for himself. My thoughts are, If you truly believe something in your soul... then it is true (for you). Who am I to tell you that you are wrong in your belief structure? But my beliefs are just as valid as yours.

"Gripped by fear men go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines." ~Buddha

But back to the original topic... I'm not sure I am comfortable with the teaching of ID in public schools. Now if they would stick to the true theory of ID... and not turn it into their own back-door for creationism; then teach away. There will be some who would teach the proper ideals, then some who would run away with it.

"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness." ~Dalai Lama

__________________
"Support the Fine Arts: Shoot a rapper."

AtlanticBlue99

i agree with you and have respect for you too... and i think id would be taken advantage of y many teachers and turned into religious propaganda. my current teachers already try to pull those stunts but i shut them out, not b/c i am not religious (which i dont feel like going into right now) but b/c they are abusing their powers with mind-manipulating tactics on growing brains of adolescent teens.

__________________
"Smokey Mountains"

lemon

i dont exactly memorize all the molecules that naturally occur in 2s, so i may be wrong on that point, but still, the law of conservation of mass still applies

polarity = electrical charges, so it conducts electricity in some form
if ionized into H3O+ and OH-, those molecules have an electric charge which would act upon each other to produce some form of movement, which would escalate....

how much energy did it take for that matter to get to the speed of light? alot... which if two matters are moving at the sol, then what happens when they collide? what happens to that energy they both had? simplify it more, and line up two guns face to face, approximately 100 feet apart, and pull both triggers at the same time... what happens to the bullets?

so what is it?

AtlanticBlue99

1) hydronium and hydroxide in self-induced ionization of 2 water molecules is extremely rare and theory at best

2) polarity doesnt mean conduct electricity- it just "acts" as an ion by setting protons on one side of the molecule (classic water example of HOH) on about a 35 degree apart....

3) now what are the odds (statistically now) that 2 bullets shot form 100 feet away would hit each other? it is not naturally possible. the bullets must be guided, just as the creation process must have been guided by a creator

4) an act of a "creator". it is statistically impossible for spontaneous production of any sort.

sooo. basically- you are about as wrong as fat filippino in a tight white thong.

__________________
"Smokey Mountains"

lemon

:barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf :barf

AtlanticBlue99

now back on topic...

who htinks that teachers would NOT abuse the teaching of "ID" and carry out their own religious agendas in class on the students?

i think it is impossible to fairly teach ID in the classes of the public school system.. whatcha think?

__________________
"Smokey Mountains"

AtlanticBlue99

and negatives (electrons) dont go on one side- they are in the electron cloud. and protons are in the nucleus.. but what happens is positively charged ions such as H+ and H+ assemble about 35 degrees apart form each other on the same side of the -2 charged O ion.

looks like this:

.............................O-2
..........................H+..H+

sorry, but it would irritate me if i didnt clarify.

and your example of a computer frying is poor and false:

1st off, it isnt spontaneous. someBODY created an electrical current too strong for your computer to handle- overload... it isnt spontaneous bro

__________________
"Smokey Mountains"

lemon

what does spontaneous mean then? from what i understand, it = not expected

AtlanticBlue99

spontaneous means:
spon·ta·ne·ous, adj.

1. Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated.
2. Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint.


so spontaneous production basically means that nothing began something. which is theoretically impossible.

__________________
"Smokey Mountains"

lemon

who said anything was made from nothing.. unless you take for literal what some teachings say, ie: genesis: god creates the world out of a void...

i was merely using the law of conservation of mass(which is accepted by all science to be true)to show that the universe always existed....just different from what we know it to be from today

AtlanticBlue99

why are you even trying. are you insane?!?!

you were advocating the big bang on the first page, now you are using my point to make yourself seem right.

:wtf

__________________
"Smokey Mountains"

artisan00

wow, im really late in this thread, but might as well jump in - -

one thing i just wanted to make more clear, is that atlantic was right about electricity. polarity has nothing (directly) to do with current. having a positive charge and negative charge does not create magnetic 'effects' either. it creates an electric field. (not = current)
what does create magnetic fields, is CHANGING electirc fields, and vice versa. tahts how a generator works (changing magnetic fields creating an electric field, which in a conductor like copper, induces a current.

i may have moxed that up a bit, but atlantic can back me up there (i hope)

as far as something from nothing? well, its a concept, true. its a pretty valid one at that as well - based on the world we live in. but, the laws of physics are all properties of the universe itself. you have no way to prove if those laws are valid outside of this univer (not saying by what), it is not necessarily true to say that the rules we observe in this world were imposed on that action.
simple example - thought experiment - take a plastic jar. put stuff in jar, whataver you want. seal the jar (talking about matter in a simple sense here, to keep the example basic). that matter is not able to leave the jar, and nothing can go in the jar. that system is closed. the 'people' inside the jar would live thier lives every day, thinking that they 'know' that nothing can be created or destroyed completely. little do they know that i could open the jar, and dump in more shit on a whim. see my point? I, as the person who closed the jar, am not bound by the rules i imposed on my little jar world. in the same way, the process of teh begining of a universe cannot be assumed to be bound to the rules in the universe itself.

someone mentioned that the whole dating thing was easily disprovable. also not 100% right - the reason is that they were not saying anything about the stuff that happened in between 15Billion years ago and now.. just stuff that happened AT 15billion years ago. they are saying that if you look at somethig that hapened at the begining, right now, it will look as if it is 15billion years old. howeever 1 year from now, it will look 15billion plus 1. the reason i can say that is becasue for the most part the expansion is a LOT slower than it was in the begining. meaning that now it can be assumed linear in our perspective. and on the same line of reasoning. 1 year ago will not look like 500 days (in the example that OUZ presented) becasue of the same logic. 1 year ago, time was not much differient than it is now (*as far as time dilation is concernerd). so it will look fine.


whew. time to go. ill be back...

__________________

AtlanticBlue99

thanks a lot art- it felt like i was the only one who understood the points i made b/c i had to repeat them a few times. and you are exactly correct on the generator thing...

and the time perception thing as well...

but no matter what you believe in the creation of the universe.. religion must stay out of public schools. i feel it is currently impossible for teachers to not convert teaching of "id" into a faith supporter to create their own religious propagandas. hell- teachers at ym school use their powers to try and influence our developing political beliefs. it is perfectly fine for a teacher to say w/e he or she wants when "off the clock" or official school hours are over, but when conducting class- religion needs to be an internal belief.

__________________
"Smokey Mountains"