Thursday, February 11, 2010

True or False: The Ancient Greeks did many experiments to show the nature of matter?

true or false?True or False: The Ancient Greeks did many experiments to show the nature of matter?
True


Much of their science was based on observation, hypothesis and experiment.


http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/Plai鈥?/a>True or False: The Ancient Greeks did many experiments to show the nature of matter?
False. They had neither the interest nor necessary technology to conduct experiments.
  • internet security software
  • How many times will or can we born in this world? Is it true or false?

    You really need to change vitamins..........How many times will or can we born in this world? Is it true or false?
    Hopefully I will be reborn with enough sense to ignore questions like this%26gt; or you will come back smart enough to not ask them!How many times will or can we born in this world? Is it true or false?
    It is appointed unto man once to be born...and once to die...believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, read a King James Bible, and you will find the answers you are searching for.
    You make no sense! what will it take for you to go to school you naughty boy?!!
    i thn\ink that u are born as many times neded to have u experiance many diffrent adventures!!
    ';You only live twice'; (Ian Fleming)
    Only one: there is no reincarnation, there is no afterlife.





    The life that you have is the only one that you are going to get. Make the best of it, do not waste it.





    Work hard, to ensure that you can be successful, but still take time to be with your friends and family, and have fun. Enjoy your life.
    You are born once and then you die, so you better make the most of it!
    False, its is said in the bible that on those who died will live with God in other world....or just think of this, if we born again, why do our mind back to zero about the world just like a stranger
    What..... do you want an answer or true or false...make up your damn mind....if Reincarnation exists....maybe next time you will have a brain
    Whether reincarnation is a fact or not has neither been proved not disproved.... therefore it needs to be accepted as a possible theory, just like the Christian theory of afterlife. So it it is not a fact we know about, nor a fiction simply cooked by some author... it is one of the intelligent theories we have evolved regarding what may happen after death.





    If we go by the theory, it states that the soul would have to take as many bodies as necessary until and unless it has completely exhausted 'karma'.... once it has had the totality of the experience required to be able to exhaust 'karma', it would be fully purified and matured to attain 'moksha' which means riddance from repeated births to exhaust 'karma'..... when it attains 'moksha', it would be eligible and inclined to merge with the Supreme Soul that is God.





    The theory is not illogical in any way.... however, no physical proof has ever come our way... all the cases claiming memory of a past birth have not so far been proved to be substantial to scientifically accept the theory. But that is true about all the theories regarding what happens after death.
    Depends on the person and how much the soul has ';matured.';
    According to the latest discovery, you are born and die only once. Enjoy it while it last!
    Only once. We got only one life. Each is unique
    I know someone that was ';born again';


    but they're just as messed up as your question





    as a side note I'd like to add that


    I think they were born again


    because they didn't do it right the first time
    If you are a religious person,please accept my apology before reading.(Totally a WARNING)





    Your life is a part of Science.There is no such thing as Soul/s.So,there is no afterlife.





    I will cut the chase: ONCE
    The beauty of this question is that we don't really know the answer. you will find out that is for sure... The thing I think about is how can we possibly work out all the lessons we have in just one lifetime. There is so much for us to learn, and we only have about 80 to 100 years (if we are lucky to live that long) to learn it all in. Your belief is no different than your faith. We all hope that we don't just turn off like a light switch when we die. Christians believe that we rise to heaven if we accept Christ as our savior. The Hindus believe that we could live and die 10,000 times before we finally attain samadi. Buddhists believe we repeat over and over again until we reach nirvana (or pure Buddha nature). Whatever you feel is OK. Don't let someone else tell you what you should or should not believe. Follow your own path. All paths lead to God. That is if they believe in Love, not hate. Hope you find your answer... Just not too soon... blessings :-)
    Born once physically and born again (spiritually) when you accept Christ as your savior.
    Only one and dont miss it.

    True or False? Coefficients tell the chemist the proportions of the reactants and products in a chemical?

    reaction.True or False? Coefficients tell the chemist the proportions of the reactants and products in a chemical?
    very true.





    say you have a reaction,


    3A+4B -%26gt; 2C





    if you start out with 3 moles A, and 3 moles B, B is the limiting reactant, because you are meant to have more moles B than A in the reaction. using the 3 moles, the coefficient of B is 4. the coefficient of C is half that, 2. so, the moles produced of C will be 1.5 moles if B is the limiting reactant in 3 moles.





    overall, yes, coefficients definitely determine the proportions of reactants/products present.True or False? Coefficients tell the chemist the proportions of the reactants and products in a chemical?
    True true true

    True or False: The best way to pick up a girl is not to try and pick her up at all?

    The guy who shows less desperation is usually the one that shines through the clutter. True or False: The best way to pick up a girl is not to try and pick her up at all?
    Ehh.. sometimes.





    I think the best way for guys to pick up girls is for them to act like themselves.True or False: The best way to pick up a girl is not to try and pick her up at all?
    Absolutely true.


    Always remember that.
    true somewhat, like if youre not obnoxiously trying to get laid. but how will she get to know you if you dont approach her?
    I'm lovin' the new avatar!!





    Unless a guy is right in front of me saying ';I like you'; I don't get the hints.


    So false.



    i like men that don't ';throw'; themselves at my feet. let's make eye contact, have a few conversations and let things happen slowly.
    .. or is completely ignored.
    That is so true
    Hmm...true.
    agreed.


    same goes for girls.

    Why do you think soo many people wrote false Gospels at the time the Gospels were written?

    ....Why do you think soo many people wrote false Gospels at the time the Gospels were written?
    Your question should be broken into two parts.





    Why did so many people wrote false Gospels?





    At what time were the Gospels written?





    The original Gospels were written during the Apostolic age, the false Gospels were written afterward.





    That leaves us with the why. During the time of the Apostles and afterward there was a group called Gnostics. The Gnostics havd a habit of taking existing religions and recreating them in their own image. Taking a popular set of beliefs and stealing the name was a great marketing tool. Others like the religion but wanted to remake in in their own image.Why do you think soo many people wrote false Gospels at the time the Gospels were written?
    I think that they did really. It was more like oral tradition for a while. mark didn't write his until well over 10 years after the Ascension. Probably up to that point, everyone thought Jesus was going to return quicker than that. After the temple was destroyed, any manuscript was probably confiscated, destroyed and the people caught with them were put to death. This went on for 3 or 4 hundred years.





    so there was lots of people who just told the story orally. Some of it may have gotten out of proportion, but sure some are awesomely interesting, and beyond comprehension really. But great things were happening and anything was possible. The dead were raise to life, the ill made better...all kinds of things were still occurring to edify the people.





    Sadly, the gnostic gospels weren't dated to that era, but just shortly afterwards, so the church could not officially authenticate them, and some prudish monk thought them a fabrication of a fevered mind.
    Because the false ';gospels'; were inspired by Satan, who has been a liar and a murderer from the beginning of time.





    EDIT: LOL @ Prometheus ... that's BLATENTLY and DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. We still have manuscripts written by the students of the Apostles, as well as other VERY early manuscripts. These all attest to who wrote the Gospels -- the Apostles Matthew and John, and disciples Mark (who wrote for Peter) and Luke.





    Nice try, but I'm far too educated to be confused by those lies.
    2pe 2:1 But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2pe 2:2 And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of.





    Satan knew he had been defeated by Jesus Christ, so he sowed bad seed in the Lord's fields. He wants to make the truth look bad.
    All gospels are considered to be pseudonymous by biblical scholars, including the four in the canon. They wrote under names which lent some authority to what they were trying to say.
    they were just following the fad :]


    same as why everybody bought an ipod


    and why everybody wears the same brand of clothing times change





    fads adapt.
    Because when they were written, they weren't false until an organized religion and not God passed judgment on them.
    Because they realized that religion is the most effective tool to control a population, and so they tried a bunch of things out before one caught on.
    I don't think they were false, I think people had different perspectives on who Jesus was and what his message was.
    People write things that are false now. Have you ever heard of Kent Hovind?
    It's the Neon Bible... Neon Bible... Not much chance for survival if the Neon bible is right.
    You are too ignorant to know you are mocking God.





    Bites to be you.
    why can't we read them all?

    True or false All standard scientific evidence shows that there is no requirement for a God for the life?

    what do you think about this its true or false


    All standard scientific evidence shows that there is no requirement for a God for the life and world we live in.True or false All standard scientific evidence shows that there is no requirement for a God for the life?
    True - All scientific evidence so far shows that there is no requirement for God for life or the world.





    Any scientific evidence showing that God would be needed would be classed as evidence for Gods existence. As no one who says this statement is false can name this evidence, this shows that God is not needed.





    There are many people who do not understand the scientific theories, but just because they do not understand it, does not mean that it must be Gods doing.True or false All standard scientific evidence shows that there is no requirement for a God for the life?
    False. Science observes objects, makes predicitions, gathers empirical evidence to support theories surrounding those predicitions. It does this very well.





    Spiritual traditions are concerned with a felt sense that each individual has that is different from any other. The concept of and symbol of God is a structure that helps a person understand that unique felt sense they have within that science has no tools to address.





    Science and spiritual traditions do not conflict, they complement each other like object and subject respectively. It is people that create conflicts between the two.
    False. Even the study of abiogenesis proves nothing. People don't consider the fact that when attempting to prove abiogenesis, scientists are physically combining elements already in existence, and stimulating them directly. It only proves that humans are smart. It doesn't prove that a God wasn't involved with life existing. Would the amino acids formed by the experiments have existed, if the scientists hadn't made it so?





    It reminds me of that joke where some scientists tell God they can create humans from dirt too, and when they go to do so, God tells them to create their own dirt.





    Abiogenesis is such that it can't be proven, because it involves a scientist's influence.





    So again, false.
    Evidence often suggests that there _is_ a god, goddess, or gods, or some other force at work.





    There is no evidence that supports life being generated spontaneously, only unproven (and untestable) hypothesized ideas (which do not meet the requirements of empirical science).





    (A)Biogenesis is a neat idea, but unproven*. All testing has failed, simply because we do not know the process.





    Additionally, it is not implausible that God uses the same principles that we attempt to explain (as theories) in His works.





    There is no good argument against God, just as there is no way that empirical science can prove there is no God.





    It is all a matter of perspective and opinion.





    *Unproven in the sense that the life created could sustain itself and evolve... The ';life force'; was lacking.
    True.





    Although questions have been raised scientifically such as how the universe began, it is not standard science to say that a higher metaphysical being must have created it. Everything that happens has an explanation or at least a theory which does not include any god.
    I have to disagree with the wording of your statement.





    It is not the job of Science to prove or disprove the ';requirement for a God.'; If Science is not looking for such a requirement, the fact that such a requirement has not been found proves nothing.





    If I am not looking for a missing sock, does the fact that I haven't found it necessarily mean that the sock doesn't exist?
    Science [Scientific Evidence] cannot show whether a God is necessary for life or the world we live in. It is not a Scientific question.


    Science starts with the premise [quite a good one, too, for what it is] that we can observe, analyze, and learn how things work.


    This is, of course, true, up to a point.
    False. Science cannot get around the fact that the universe needs a beginning. But something had to get it started. But they come up with all kinds of reasons and hypotheses to reason God out. But all fail. Some, like Steven Hawking even lie in their theories. But the truth always bears out. And one day science will have to recant most of their notions.
    That is false. Actually the opposite is true. Science is showing that there had to be a life giver, first cause, intelligent designer or what ever you want to call it. We call Him the Almighty Creator, Living God, Maker of the universe. If you want a name this scripture will help.


    (Psalm 83:18) 18聽That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.
    scientific data with science, and faith with spiritual belief are mutually exclusive.





    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200鈥?/a>





    No one would even touch this debate. Except people who dont understand science, and people are arent secure in thier faith.
    There has yet to be discovered any law of nature or fact of life requiring the existence of supernatural creators or other magical entities. So that would be ';true';.
    True. But there is no proof AGAINST one. That's what faith is about. Belief, even without evidence.





    I am atheist, however. But I respect others choice of religion.
    False. Science is the study of the natural universe in natural terms. Science can make no valid statements one way of the other about anything supernatural.
    Science has no idea what created life, so scientific stands shows that no logical explanation can explain life so God is the plausible explanation at this time.
    True; there is no requirement, just as there is no preclusion.
    That has been obvious for a long time to the most intelligent, educated and objective people who do not allow emotions to rule them.
    No one has ever found evidence that life couldn't possibly come about through natural processes.
    True. Miller-Urey experiment showed that.
    true? Lol i hope you're not one of those crazy religious people who think we do need god for science. Even if we haven't explained everything, we certainly will.
    Its false, Creation is at the start of every process, and in order to Create one needs a Creator..
    absolutely true
    Correct!
    It is 100% true and people have known that for a LONG time. It's not new.
    Is this news to ANYONE?





    Wow.
    Totally false!!!





    If our earth and universe was millions or billions of years old, at the rate that our sun is using up it's fuel, it would have gone out long ago.





    Intelligence cannot come from non-intellegence. Everything that was ever make came about through creation by one that is more Intelligent than the thing being created.





    The reason that there are so many missing links is because they were never there to begin with.





    I think it is very revealing when evolutionary scientists admit that evolution is an unprovable theory, but they don' like the alternative.
    This is false because even Richard Dawkins stated that if ';aliens'; or ';extraterrestrials'; were to come to earth they would probably be viewed as ';God'; or ';gods.'; Many scientist think in this manner.





    Just because your a scientist doesn't mean your anti god. Most scientist just want the hard evidence. They are mostly like agnostics.
    we are humans, there are things we cannot control, like when a parent finds out his child has cancer,he needs a god,he needs to feel that there is hope, that there is a power that might help his child live, thats all.. god is a figment of imagination. like a teddy bear that a child holds onto, or a safety blanket.





    god is nothing but hope,its ur inner strength,ur belief .
    False.


    I thought so . . . as if they have answered all life's questions . . .an they haven't, I think you know that. But look at those who would think that science has come that far!





    With those who would say science knows this; they cannot really be that into science. Maybe the word ';science';, but no where near the information about what they know, and what they don't know.
    False, science is based off of Theories (Educated Opinion) until they are prove to be factual. There are many things in this universe that as humans we do not comprehend or understand.
    false





    there is no evidence for evolution





    its made up theories with no factual evidence
    absolutely FALSE

    WHat do you think of people who lead false accusations that someone is a racist just to get a whoel group to?

    hate them?WHat do you think of people who lead false accusations that someone is a racist just to get a whoel group to?
    boy who cried wolf.......someday they will find someone racist and no one will beleive them cuz they lied so may times...





    kind of like the feminists who said, ';all men are wolves'; and no one wants to listen to them anymoreWHat do you think of people who lead false accusations that someone is a racist just to get a whoel group to?
    Sounds like a Liberal,All minority group activists use this to intimadate others to do their will because they can't rely on their merits.They forget what Martin Luther King said about about the content of their mind not the color of their skin.It justifies their failers,And gives them someone else to blame for them.
    did you ever stop and consider that the someone who did something ';racist'; actually is the source of some of this misunderstanding?


    What if the person did do or say something ';racist'; when you were not looking?





    OR--now please don't misunderstand--or maybe the person interpreting the action misunderstood the intention and you think the purpose was to create animosity.





    Most people want to be loved, not hated. Maybe you need a fresh perspective and I hope you find one here...
    I don't think much of them. Why bother asking a question that you already know the answer to?
    i think that a small number of people who play the race card can make a hole group look bad. if i was in a minority and heard someone do something like that i would be very mad.
  • internet security software
  •