bonanova

I find 13 solutions.

OP says "three successive days" It's solvable, just stay with it. Hint: It can't be either Saturday or Sunday.

Re: 6. - In rhythms, y is counted as a vowel. Re: 16. - I made a mistake in the OP. You found the 33-letter example. Can you find a shorter one?

I have posted some thoughts on this in Others > Interested in Proof of Macroevolution. Post #7 Scroll down to the 2nd half of that post.

I pose a question, close to the OP and then comment what I know. At the end I'll say something about what I believe. Question: Is macro evolution consistent [or not] with Biblical creation? Examine the creation accounts given in Genesis [KJV used] The text uses two verbs, chiefly, to describe the world's origin. Gen. 2:3 he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Examine what is "created" and what is "made". Three passages use the verb create. Create [ex nihilo - make something from nothing] Gen 1:1. God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:21. God created ... living creature ... Gen 1:27. God created man in his own image. elaborating, Gen 2:7. God ... breathed into [man] ... the breath of life More often the verb made is used. Make [fashion - from something that exists] Gen 1:7. God made the firmament ... Gen 1:16. God made two great lights ... Gen 1:16. ... he made the stars also. Gen 2:9. ... out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree .. Gen 1:25. God made the beast of the earth after his kind ... Gen 2:22 And from the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman Gen 3:1 ... the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. Gen 3:7 ... and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Other passages use the verb Let [allow or permit] Things that are said to have appeared by use of the verb Let, as with Made, came from existing stuff: light, firmament, dry ground, grass, sun, moon, stars. Genesis asserts three things were created by God from nothing: [1] The physical universe: matter. [2] Life. [3] Man [in the image of God; energized by the spirit [breath] of God]. Apart from these, other things [both inert and living] were made Examine scientific knowledge on these three points. 1(a) Big Bang - Time Zero. 1(b) God created the heaven and the earth. Evidence continues to mount that the Big Bang [bB] occurred 15-20 billion years ago: chiefly, the red shift of receding stars [optical Doppler effect]. Hubble's law that states the furthest stars are receding at the greatest velocities. Second, the distribution of chemical elements in the galaxy. Big Bang theories predict that hydrogen atoms collided to form helium roughly in a ratio of 25% helium to 75% hydrogen, and we observe that ratio in our galaxy. Third, radioactive decay. Carbon-14 [half life about 5000 years] and Uranium 238 [half life about 4 billion years] date the oldest earth and moon rocks at 4-5 billion years, the approximate age of the solar system, and by inference from stars whose evolution is well studied, we date our galaxy about 10 billion years. Last, we observe a cosmic echo of the Big Bang. By theory, 300,000 years or so after BB, the universe cooled enough to begin radiating according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and, the frequency [energy] of this radiation decreased with time by known principles to the microwave range consistent with 3 degrees Kelvin, the current temperature of interstellar space. As we trace the physical evolution of the universe backwards, we are stopped at a cosmic age of about 10-47 seconds. Previous to that, the temperature and density of the universe are so great all our theories and equations break down. Our first picture of the universe is a perfectly symmetrical, 10-dimensional space-time. The four known forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear were unified by the super-string. Ten dimensions soon became four, as six of them collapsed. the universe was an opaque ionic soup for about 300,000 years. Then matter condensed into atoms and molecules. Stars and galaxies formed, and things became something resemblant to what we see today. Genesis says In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Science knows nothing before 10-47 seconds. We have no theory - descriptive or causal - for the beginning. There is no inconsistency between two points of view, one of which does not exist. 2(a) Life itself evolved from primordial soup 2(b) God created ... living creatures There is an understandable difference between an elephant gun and an elephant. The elephant possesses something the gun does not - although in the hands of a marksman the gun can remove that difference - namely life. Darwin taught that living beings could defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics - that disorder must follow order - through the process of natural selection. While the overall disorder increases, as the carcasses of the non-survivors decay, more developed species - those better suited to the environment - could come into existence through favorable mutation. And so evolution can take one understandably from an amoeba to a homo sapiens. With plants thrown in for good measure. But Darwin does not describe the origin of the amoeba. To get the amoeba, we need something called primordial soup. And a bolt of lightning. Or maybe cosmic radiation. Something. Anything. In the laboratory, elemental carbon has been coaxed into hydrocarbon rings - the building blocks of life. But so far, that's it. Genesis says God created life itself. Science has made a hydrocarbon but not made something living from something inert. Darwin does not address origins of life. There is no inconsistency between two points of view on the origin of life. Only one exists. There is no inconsistency between Genesis' "made" and Darwin's "evolved." 3(a) Man is evolution's highest achievement - the most complex of all species 3(b) Man, uniquely, bears the image of God and lives by the spirit [breath] of God. For the secularist who has gotten past the origin of matter and the origin of life, it's the simplest of processes to get to homo sapiens. Time plus chance. Oodles of time to be sure, and the most favorable of chances. But the chances don't have to be so terribly favorable, if they're provided with say trillions of years to play out. Here the comparison of two views is the most subjective. On the one hand, neither point of view sports compelling evidence: creationists have two or three verses in Genesis to support their belief; science has no experimental evidence to dispute it. More so than with the first two creative acts, belief here seems to be personal choice. =================== Some personal notes. Having said some things with the motivation of framing debate on what is claimed by Christians to be the acts of ex-nihilo creation vs what parts of evolutionary thought may not be inconsistent with Biblical text -- having said these things, I share some personal thoughts, for what they may be worth. You won't be more a friend if you agree, nor less a friend if you disagree. I won't say you're wrong; and I anticipate you won't feel driven to point out weaknesses you see in the following. I am a Christian. I take the Bible as a rule of practice in my personal life. I believe that the God described in the Bible exists and did and does and will do the things written therein. I have an experiential acquaintance with God. That experience is intrinsically personal, and I cannot transfer it to another. I have experienced enough of God to trust God - and I do trust God - for the things I do not know. And they are many. I am a scientist. I have a PhD in Engineering with a minor in mathematics. I am not a recluse from the physical world. Most of my career was spent pursuing basic research. I believe with Einstein that there is truth in simplicity. I strive to find answers that have the fewest assumptions and the fewest arbitrary parameters. I believe that the parameters that can't be squeezed out of a theory are the keys to understanding the fundamental nature of things. That said, I'll write briefly about the third comparison above. I had a dog once who amazed me with his sixth sense. On moving day, I planned to drive him to friends who own a farm since I could not take him along with me. Until that moment, the jingle of car keys sent him running for the car - he loved to ride. But on that day, he hid. I coaxed him into the car, but two blocks from the house he jumped out and ran, into a field. I parked and went to him and talked with him for half an hour. Then he got in the car, and we finished the trip. I don't know, between the two of us, for whom the trip was harder. I've read research on animals that have primitive forms of speech. The evidence of human-like traits in other species is large and growing. Nevertheless: if I discount evolutionary teaching and discount religious teaching altogether, and test my personal experience, I come down on the side that says man is fundamentally different from -- not just more complex than -- every other species. If I were to list the ways that I see the difference I fear it would sound like an attempt to persuade, and that is not my intent. So I'll just say that to me it is manifestly evident that when and how homo sapiens originated, it was different - different in a way that can be experienced and understood - from other species. On the other two points, I once believed there were six days of creation and that creation occurred about 4004 B.C. First because Genesis speaks of six days, and second because Bishop Usher used the Genesis-named ancestors of people dateable by secular history to arrive at 4004 BC. I no longer believe either. Rather that Genesis correctly tells us what was capable of our understanding: the nature and action of a pre-existent, creating God. The essential knowledge of God that leads to a life lived in accord with the character of God does not rely upon cosmological detail. Neither could a human without knowledge of physics, mathematics or cosmological theory have understood those details or have recorded them to advantage for his readers. What is said of God in Genesis is corroborated by later biblical writers. When Job later argued with God over his plight, God responded with a question: Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. [Job 38:4] Genesis does not stand in a biblical vacuum. The point is made that God is the creator, and Job is the creature. Quarks, leptons and super-strings do not cast additional light on that relationship. Personally, even as a scientist, I cannot grasp the idea of life. As a schoolboy I saw a dog run into the street and be struck dead by a car. I looked long as his lifeless body, unable to understand how, only a moment before, he was a healthy animal, no doubt loved by a human family. Now he was motionless. Same appearance, same color, same molecules. Still warm. But fundamentally and forever changed. I still marvel at life. Primordial soup and lightning bolts don't do it for me. As for the Big Bang. It looks compellingly probable. If there's eternity [double-ended infinity of time] and a pre-existent God, then what or who was there, before the Big Bang? Scientifically, it seems certain that we can't go back beyond that first 10-47 seconds of time. And probably there is nothing like what we experience as time that precedes the Big Bang. If that's true, then time is single ended - everlasting - but having the BB as a starting point. Which leaves me with the amazing notion -- that if God is eternal [doubly ended infinite time] and the Big Bang was but a single creative word uttered by God, then God is awesome beyond comprehension.

Wait, there's more ... Grrrr! and Shhhh!

In the familiar Land of Knights and Knaves [LKK], Knights could be always counted on to tell the truth, and Knaves would reliably lie. That's how it was. But then a careless tourist, infected with the rare averitas flu virus, visited LKK to solve a puzzle; and some of the inhabitants were hit. Immediately their behavior was reversed: Sick Knights found themselves incapable of truth, and infected Knaves could no longer lie! As it turns out, the AFV vaccine is very costly, and only those verified to be sick can be given shots. You have been assigned by FEMA to determine those who truly need shots and, if possible, to sort out the Knights from the Knaves. To start things off, a group of six LKK citizens is brought to your office, and they venture the following information: A: Exactly three of the others are sick. B is not to be trusted. B: Exactly three of the others are Knaves. You can trust C. C: Exactly three of the others are well. D lies through his teeth. D: Exactly three of the others are lying. E is one of them. E: Exactly three of the others are Knights. F can be trusted. F: Unintelligible. [An emergency helicopter drowns out F's voice.] How many shots do you give, and to whom? And who are the Knaves?

Answer this question and you'll understand the puzzle: How can equal-length cylinders go [completely] through unequal-diameter spheres? Hint: It's possible to drill a 6-inch-long hole through the earth.

This is a clue, not the solution.

And a final 10-letter QWERTY word, one that will last forever: Perpetuity

A frog doesn't get a free pass back to his original position. He can get back, but only by undoing all the jumps that got him to a new spot. The point I made a few posts ago is that all jumps are reversible, and that might help you find the answer.

I think that's still an essay question. And his answer can still be: one of the two answers a commoner can give is neither yes nor no. or equivalently, neither of the two answers he can give is yes or no. or, one of the two answers he can give is not either yes or no. In other words, you can invite him to choose from the two words yes and no, but he can decline to do so. The statements above are responsive to the question, and are lies, and so they qualify as knave responses. I think a yes/no question has the form: Is it true that _____ ? In other words the yes/no answer affirms or denies the truth of a proposition. A question like: what kind of an answer could a ___ give to such and such a question? asks for a statement or a phrase.

Assuming you know the coordinates of X, the length L and its angle a, here are the points. If instead you're given X and Y, then simply calculate L and a from them. Don't bet anything significant on this, there could be a typo or two [physical or mental]. A = -.5[cos a+sin a+x1, cos a-sin a+x2] D = -.5[sin a-cos a+x1, cos a+sin a+x2] B = [-cos a+(L+1)*sin a+x1, sin a+(L+1)*cos a+x2] C = [ cos a+(L+1)*sin a+x1, -sin a+(L+1)*cos a+x2]

It's tempting to think they're four-letter words, but I'm guessing not. They're mostly years that have passed - all except 2106, 2305, 2105, 2304. Several pairs of consecutive numbers. Something to think about ... Nice one.

I'll bet Aunt Minta is probably a sista.

I think the Knave is able to answer the question. Here are two comments. but even tho it's not a Yes/No question, the knave still has a knavish answer: Hello Mr Knave, I have a question for you: What COULD a commoner say if I were to ask him if 1+1=2? The correct answer is: The commoner could answer with either a Yes or a No. Mr. Knave would answer: The commoner could not answer with either a Yes or a No. You want it to be a Yes/No question, but I think neither Yes nor No could be called the correct answer. The tersest version of the correct answer I can think of is: Yes or No. And that still gives Mr. Knave an answer: Neither Yes nor No.

So it seems you're posing this problem: [1] There is a Yes/No question Q1 whose known answer does not depend on the reply given when it's asked. [2] There is a Yes/No question Q2 whose known answer does not depend on the reply given when it's asked. [3] If you ask a Knave Q1, he cannot answer it. [4] If you ask a Knight Q2, he cannot answer it. [5] What are Q1 and Q2? What we know about Knaves and Knights tells us that If a Knave knows Q1's answer is Yes [No], he will say No [Yes]. If a Knight knows Q2's answer is Yes [No], he will say Yes [No]. I confess I don't see any room for a riddle here, and wait with interest to hear the answer.

Why would you change directions? Your compass stop working or something? Starting from any point on earth other than the NP or SP, you can walk as far as you wish in a westerly direction. The circular route in the answer is a path of constant latitude.