You can convert the electricity to heat but the electrons themselves are not heat. You must go again to school and learn the real physics.

"I believe that all mathematical physicists should be hanged
from the highest trees and telephone poles available.

If the laws forbid this, or it messes up the landscape,
then we should institutionalize the whole lot of them.
But keep in mind that there aren't enough funny farms to hold so many idiots.

I'm so upset that relativists hold the reins of power that I think that I'll
just go and read the newspaper to cool off..."

"Bill Gaede"

Source: http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/

None actually, aids can't survive long without human body..

The Laws of Thermodynamics are the Laws of "Heat Power." Magnetism and electricity are not heat processes. A magnet can create force from nothing.

i would just buy a bunch of safe stocks.

wow that's a really nice book! If I had the know how (and the money) I would definitely want to collect some books with that kind of romantic natural history. What kind of prints are those?


I used to have a few art nouveau styled books with nice illustrations from early 20th century, nothing like your books but still fun to look at. No idea what happened to them though..  

This response provides an alternative view to the typically-proposed false dichotomy of Evolution vs. God:

I've always been fascinated by interpretations of data associated with evolution.  Accordingly, I have two main points I'd like to add, one of which focuses on the data itself, and the other focuses on a priori philosophical knowledge, i.e. knowledge that is evident independent of any evidence.  An example of such knowledge is the law of identity, i.e. x = x.  Because of this knowledge, we know right off the bat that we don't need to go searching for something that is not itself because we know a priori that it's a logical impossibility.

1) In consideration of the overwhelming body of evidence collected in support of Modern Evolutionary Theory, I'd like to point out that there exists other, equally-plausible interpretations of the same data set that lead to different theoretical conclusions.   For example, it is valid to conclude that the data suggest that the evolution of conscious states leads to evolved physical states; in contrast, modern evolutionary theory concludes that evolved physical states lead to evolved conscious states.

These are what we call "mathematically uncertain" theories because it is uncertain which theory is 'more correct.'  Mathematically uncertain theories are constantly overlooked as the vast majority of people -- even those with advanced educations -- lack the awareness that mathematically uncertain theories exist.  To this end, we must either find new evidence to help distinguish between multiple equally-valid theories, or find flaws in either our methodology for interpreting and explaining the data.  This brings me to my second point...

2) As mentioned previously, a priori knowledge -- which is real and should not be outright discredited because it does not rely on empirical observation -- helps us to know certain things in advance so that we don't waste our time exploring ideas that are logically impossible.  If it weren't for this sort of knowledge, it would be impossible to devise the scientific method in the first place.  Right from the get go, science carries certain assumptions based upon a priori knowledge. A fundamental example would be the knowledge that observation must be the basis for any and all empirical study; we did not need any empirical study or evidence to reach this conclusion.

Accordingly, we can look to see what types of a priori knowledge might be useful in helping to guide our interpretation of the evolutionary data set.  In my opinion, one of the most fundamental logical principles is the sameness-in-difference principle, which simply put is the idea that differences necessarily arise from similarities.  Put in more complex terms, it means that any two relational entities A and B must share a common, relational medium.  Therefore, it is impossible for any entity to be absolutely different from any other; to state that A and B are absolutely different is to reinforce their similarities by binding them together such that, at the very least, they share a common medium of absolute difference .  If two things actually could be absolutely different from each other, then it would be impossible talk about them in the same sentence.  Descartes, though obviously an intelligent fellow, overlooked this error when proposing his idea of Cartesian Dualism.  He attempted to place an insurmountable barrier between physical and mental reality, thereby violating the sameness-in-difference principle of logic.  Science abides by this split since it assumes a Positivistic Universe does not, will not, and can never be influenced by observation itself to any significant degree.  

The implications of such a principle are vast as they speak to the core nature of all entities. Perhaps most notably, it points to a shared relationship between mental and physical reality.  This is important because it allows room for talk about things such as Universal Consciousness (God?) and an inherently meaningful Universe.  

I'd also point out that there is a case to be made for a Universe that relies more on the abstract rather than the physical.  Observation by itself employs a metric (a standard of measurement) which allows us to distinguish between the things we want to study and examine through empiricism.  Without this metric, it would be impossible to define *any*thing.  Scientists talk about the Universe as if it could be described if all conscious agents were removed from it.  Unfortunately, they forget that without any conscious agents it would be impossible to define the Universe and all entities contained therein.  Accordingly, anybody who tries to tell you anything about what the Universe would or could be like if all conscious agents were removed is wasting their time; it's simply impossible to say *any*thing about such a Universe.

My pubes are not that long...

Why? I rarely, if ever, get head.

Then you will have your wish.  You will be separated from Him for eternity.  He respects your wishes.  

As for God refusing to prove Himself.  Have you asked Him to?  That is a prayer He usually answers from what I have observed.

God gives everything that is good in this life.  God is love, joy, peace and every good and perfect gift comes from Him.  Even sex is a gift from God (misused and abused often).  Even wealth is a blessing from God (also misused).  The things that are not from God are hate, death, sickness, murder, basically all sin. These things came when sin entered the world.  Eternity without God is a world without love, joy, peace, kindness.  Personally, I am forever grateful that God loved me enough to give me not only good gifts on this earth but a hope of heaven even though I don't deserve it (and no one deserves heaven because we have all sinned and fallen short of God's laws).  

Hellenistic religion may still be regarded as polytheistic, but with strong monistic components, and monotheism finally emerges from Hellenistic traditions in Late Antiquity in the form of Neoplatonism and Christian theology.

On the contrary, we think this is the only chance we have so why would we want to screw it up?

I have no problem with science!  In fact, observable science confirms that there was intelligent design in every living thing to the smallest of atoms.  What I have a problem with is what is masquerading as science today, theories of how the earth supposedly came to be and now being taught as fact.  That is a huge problem.  

I call bs on this.

I bet you are nervous as a kitten when she drives and you hate every minute ... lol.  You hate every scratch and dent she's put on your baby but you are too " ...... whipped" to say anything. LOL