It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ok creationists answer me this please

page: 11
2
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
 


Absolute zero and absolute vacuum are completely different concepts.


If i have to use math to prove that a frequency is a dimension. Ain't that proof enough that it would be a dimension?


No. Just show the math.


Generally if someone is right about a subject they wouldn't have a problem proving they are right. If they have to give an excuse, then it's safe to say they don't know what they are talking about.

Stop using absolute zero to justify your point. It has to deal with temperature plain and simple; nothing more, nothing less. You can't use it to rationalize any other concept.


Hey, He asked me this question before. I just asked it again. But a bit differently. So that he would understand where he vent wrong.




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
 


Absolute zero and absolute vacuum are completely different concepts.


If i have to use math to prove that a frequency is a dimension. Ain't that proof enough that it would be a dimension?


No. Just show the math.


No, they are not. I knew you didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

Absolute Zero has everything to do with what a absolute vacuum is. Its basically the same thing. Its just that we can't create or observe a absolute vacuum. With no matter, energy, time, temperature. The absolute zero is the nearest to a absolute vacuum we have observed.

Have a nice day teen. You are done wasting my time. LoL



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
OK, i really didn't feel like reading all the comments so i don't know if this has been said. I don't really believe in evolution so here is my question to you guys. Bugs, lets take caterpillars. There great big maggots and they go into cocoons, two weeks later they are butterfly's. How is this possible, you must agree there is a greater force behind this then that they just disintegrate and all the particles link back together and become butterfly's? Can you? Also, Can you take the fossils of giraffes and line them up from there first form to the one that exists today?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xinziex
OK, i really didn't feel like reading all the comments so i don't know if this has been said. I don't really believe in evolution so here is my question to you guys. Bugs, lets take caterpillars. There great big maggots and they go into cocoons, two weeks later they are butterfly's. How is this possible, you must agree there is a greater force behind this then that they just disintegrate and all the particles link back together and become butterfly's? Can you? Also, Can you take the fossils of giraffes and line them up from there first form to the one that exists today?

catepillars huh? they are interesting no doubt
but why is it so hard to believe they trn into butterflys all by themselves? its in their genetics i dont know much about them but i imagine their ancestors found a way to change no go needed.
as for the giraffe, you wont be able to line up an ancient giraffes fossil to make a matach because you wont have an ancient giraffe
you wil have the animal it evolved from though, and you will find similarities
does that answer your questions?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


why cant we make an absolute vaccum? all you need is a bag and take all theair out of it poof vaccum
or are you taking about something else? i havnt really been following this thread as much as i should



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashanu90
reply to post by spy66
 


why cant we make an absolute vaccum? all you need is a bag and take all theair out of it poof vaccum
or are you taking about something else? i havnt really been following this thread as much as i should


To be able to create a absolute vacuum, you would need a force greater or = to the absolute vacuum it self. And what would that be?

And you would need a bag (lol) that is stronger than the forces of a absolute vacuum, to be able to create the space of a absolute vacuum.

A bag would just crumble = to the vacuum force applied. Because the bag would replace the air taken out. Because the bag ain't strong enough to sustain the vacuum force inside the bag.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
 


Absolute zero and absolute vacuum are completely different concepts.


If i have to use math to prove that a frequency is a dimension. Ain't that proof enough that it would be a dimension?


No. Just show the math.


No, they are not. I knew you didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

Absolute Zero has everything to do with what a absolute vacuum is. Its basically the same thing. Its just that we can't create or observe a absolute vacuum. With no matter, energy, time, temperature. The absolute zero is the nearest to a absolute vacuum we have observed.

Have a nice day teen. You are done wasting my time. LoL


I haven't found anything to suggest the notion of an absolute vacuum. There is a perfect vacuum that you are trying to describe which is, in my opinion, the same as absolute zero just in reference to the vacuum of 'space'. Absolute zero, in and of itself, is only a reference to temperature. Please don't confuse the two. If you want to say absolute vacuum at least be aware that the correct term is perfect vacuum. Sorry, if I seem nit picky it's because sometimes its the small things that matter.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashanu90

Originally posted by Xinziex
OK, i really didn't feel like reading all the comments so i don't know if this has been said. I don't really believe in evolution so here is my question to you guys. Bugs, lets take caterpillars. There great big maggots and they go into cocoons, two weeks later they are butterfly's. How is this possible, you must agree there is a greater force behind this then that they just disintegrate and all the particles link back together and become butterfly's? Can you? Also, Can you take the fossils of giraffes and line them up from there first form to the one that exists today?

catepillars huh? they are interesting no doubt
but why is it so hard to believe they trn into butterflys all by themselves? its in their genetics i dont know much about them but i imagine their ancestors found a way to change no go needed.
as for the giraffe, you wont be able to line up an ancient giraffes fossil to make a matach because you wont have an ancient giraffe
you wil have the animal it evolved from though, and you will find similarities
does that answer your questions?


What did a giraffe evolve from? Similarities doesn't signify a common ancestor. We are similar to mice genetically but they aren't our common ancestor.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
 


Absolute zero and absolute vacuum are completely different concepts.


If i have to use math to prove that a frequency is a dimension. Ain't that proof enough that it would be a dimension?


No. Just show the math.


No, they are not. I knew you didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

Absolute Zero has everything to do with what a absolute vacuum is. Its basically the same thing. Its just that we can't create or observe a absolute vacuum. With no matter, energy, time, temperature. The absolute zero is the nearest to a absolute vacuum we have observed.

Have a nice day teen. You are done wasting my time. LoL


I haven't found anything to suggest the notion of an absolute vacuum. There is a perfect vacuum that you are trying to describe which is, in my opinion, the same as absolute zero just in reference to the vacuum of 'space'. Absolute zero, in and of itself, is only a reference to temperature. Please don't confuse the two. If you want to say absolute vacuum at least be aware that the correct term is perfect vacuum. Sorry, if I seem nit picky it's because sometimes its the small things that matter.


Well ok, i will give you that one. Absolute and perfect are two different words that could never describe the same state i guess. Ok my bad.

PS. But honestly do you think it would make a difference. If he has as much knowledge as he claims he has, he should be able to understand anyways. To understand the tiny details, you also have to understand the big picture.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by FearNoEvil


Where did you get the idea they were sexless?

Good question, I don't know.

But, if they do have sex organs, who are they intended to use them on?


YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW!!!



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Actually you are completely wrong. Absolute zero can exist with matter. So little child please learn something.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I guess you don't know how artificial vacuums are created.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
 


I guess you don't know how artificial vacuums are created.


What! can we create a artificial vacuum. Jesse's i didn't know that. Thanks for the Intel. I will look into it.

Google Google Google lol.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
 


Actually you are completely wrong. Absolute zero can exist with matter. So little child please learn something.


Where have i said anything different? Jesse's, Lear to understand what you read. No wonder you screw up all the time.

PS. since we are down on the level where you are used to arguing on. I am out. You have nothing that interests me.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Reading and comprehension doesn't seem to be in your skill. To repeat. You do not understand how artificial vacuums are created.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I see you bowed out on the math since you are completely unable to do anything in that regards.

I would suggest dropping the childish ad hominem attacks. I am more interested in the OP that your childish behavior.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 


That's a good question - the origin of the giraffe. I'll look into it. I've look at other evolutionary paths, but not the giraffe.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
 


I see you bowed out on the math since you are completely unable to do anything in that regards.

I would suggest dropping the childish ad hominem attacks. I am more interested in the OP that your childish behavior.


I am not afraid to do the math. Just bring it on. Do what every you like. I will take you apart. As i have been doing all along.

Prove to me that a frequency ain't a dimension mathematically. As you have claimed. And i will prove to you, that you don't understand math.

How does that suit your ego!

I don't know how you are going to pool this of mathematically. So i am eager to see this.

I can say this right of the bat. What ever equation you bring in. Will prove you wrong. So think about it.

You might want to read about what a equation represents before you make a claim that a frequency ain't a dimension.

PS: Now your more interested in the OPs post. Yeah well you budded into a discussion you had no knowledge about in the first place. And than you start talking about things you your self have no knowledge about. So yeah, I think you should go back to what the OP is discussing. It sounds more like your turf.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



I am not afraid to do the math.

Thanks for finally getting to the point. Show the math.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
 



I am not afraid to do the math.

Thanks for finally getting to the point. Show the math.


LoL. Ok

What do you want to know?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join