John Cuthber

OK, I left a 1 KG weight on a shelf a year ago. According to you, it now has (or has used) 52 times more energy than a 1kg weight I put on the same shelf a week ago. Do you have any idea how little sense that makes?

It's not so much that pigs have more parasites. Pigs are more similar to us and thus their parasites are more likely to be pathogenic in humans than those of other animals.

If you have a sheet of coloured plastic and shine a bright enough light at it you excite all the dye molecules into some higher state. That excited state won't be the same colour as the original dye and it will allow some colours of light through that it previously blocked. The amount of light you need for this is likely to make it impossible, except on a very small scale

Once I have finished cooking them, none.

Dyslexics of the world untie! That's probably enough dyslexics jokes (though I still wonder why the word's so hard to spell.

In the right conditions, this is very fast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturable_absorption

It is certainly possible to have the same mass and yet be a different compound. That's easy if the materials are isomers and still possible, even if they aren''t. NMR or IR would help Ironically, if you have an authentic sample then melting point will give you a very clear indication of purity. (of course, many compounds decompose without melting, in which case it won't work)

It seems this thread is the result of a "troll and run" attack. The premise is plain silly, and the OP hasn't replied. Perhaps we should just let it die.

Or you can just heat copper in air.

When you have finished, metallic iron will still reduce ferric to ferrous. Also, re In the real world, iron (II) is oxidised to iron(III) much more quickly in alkaline conditions- If you want to stabilise Fe(II) you add acid. You seem to be trying to say it's the other way round.

If that was true- and I doubt many people would say it was, then it could still happen without a God. It would be sufficient that most people had an agreed code of conduct. In fact, you don't even need people. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150625112010.htm

One which the Christian church resisted. Raider may well mean that, and Christians may well believe it. But it is clearly not true. If you need a God to tell you right from wrong, you have a problem. You seem to overlook the fact that morality exists just fine without being "God given".

Two points; Firstly, your equation " Fe(0) + 2 Fe(lll)-ComplexA = 3 Fe(ll)-ComplexB " is the same as my assertion "Iron (metal) will rapidly reduce Fe(III) ions in solution." So, your paper actually confirms what I said and Secondly I have done the reaction, and reality doesn't agree with your bizarre opinion. (Incidentally, it's at least as likely to be an aquo complex as a sulphato one -though I have also done the reaction with ferric chloride- where chloro complexes probabaly dominate.)

Not relevant (and not really true- we intern people who we consider to be "dangerous" for being dangerous- regardless of where they were born.) We don't jail children just because their parents were thieves.

We don't imprison people because they were "which they begat in your land: " That would be evil and it's analogous to what the Book says we should do.

My point is that the slaves also don't want to be slaves (and their children did nothing to deserve that fate) So it's wrong to keep slaves. So a book that tells you how to do it is wrong And a book that tells you to do the wrong thing is not a source of moral s. I know. It's a figure of speech.

Leviticus must have got his bit of the Bible wrong then Leviticus 25:45 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

You can if they are children of slaves. But that's hardly the point. Since slavery is unequivocally wrong, guidance about keeping them is evil. So, cut to the chase; would you want to be a slave?

If you list those incorrect assumptions here then we can look at them.

It may conceivably be God, but it certainly can't be through the Bible. The Bible tells you where to get your slaves from, and how to keep them. Do you believe that slavery is acceptable? There's nothing in the Bible which specifically indicates otherwise. So, if your only guide to right and wrong is the Bible, you must think slavery is OK.

I think it doesn't mention self preservation. He's allowed to choose not to debate something irrelevant. You, on the other hand are sailing rather close to the wind regarding hijacking a thread. I think the best response to the OP's debating partner is that any assertion put forward without evidence can be dismissed in teh same way.

That PDF seems substantially irrelevant to the issue.

I considered it. Do you have some sort of point to make, or question to ask?

I hold no relevant qualifications, except for my ability to state the bleeding obvious. I don't understand what he means by "Persons of Color are more genetically disposed to sanction on the side of self preservation. Ergo, mass shootings where escape is not really important isn't appealing to most of them." Are you able to clarify his position? (It hardly matters. the burden of proof falls on him. He says there's a difference. It's his job to prove it.

Well, you could try that. Or you could use a biscuit tin- which would work (at least for your mobile phone).