John Cuthber

i consider that more of a defect than a reason. It doesn't actually make teh world a better place. Plastic bags offer a benefit.The death penalty does not.

Murder is not a good reason for more murder. What would you say it achieves?

Not killing people for no good reason seems to be pretty unequivocally on the moral high ground side.

If the ice and the water are both at 0C then no, ordinary ice will not dissolve. There's a stable equilibrium. However , if you put heavy ice and ordinary water in an insulated container- a vacuum flask or some such- there is no temperature at which the heavy ice won't dissolve but the water is liquid.

Is that word salad?

It would dissolve.

Just for the record, adding unknown chemicals to very strong bases like NaOH is a dangerous game to play.

Water will break down calcium oxide- violently, and (given time) it will break down aluminium oxide too.

Would that be the same question I already answered?

It's an interesting approximation, but, for example there is nothing like as much Pa as U or Th. Po and At are also vastly over-represented. What I find interesting is that they did this in 1970. The idea of using distorted maps has come into vogue recently because it's easy to get a computer to do it for you. Things like this http://www.worldmapper.org/animations/internet_users_animation.html it must have been very hard work doing it by hand all those years ago.

" 10% of the human population is a huge proportion. 20% is momentous. Probably more than 30% recognize the Scripture as truth. 100% is perfect. Which percent recognizes the Koran? Or even the Buddha? The Baghavad Gita? (forgive the probable misspelling)" Actually it's a ratehr small fraction- only 1 in 10- but who cares? As I pointed out, it doesn't matter. It's a logical fallacy to assume that " a hundred million lemmings can't be wrong" "Not strictly by definition. By common use definition, it does: virtually every standard definition of anecdote I've seen implies, or allows (with emphasis on "usually"), that the anecdote is of an amusing nature. " Not remotely by definition, and not at all in the context of discussions of what gets called "anecdotal evidence- i.e. evidence that would be thrown out of court as invalid. Assuming something is true, just because somebody says that somebody said it is a logical fallacy. "The Bible is not intended for amusement. " Nobody said it was. What we said was that it was anecdotal. Pretending that we said something, just so that you can attack that false representation is a logical fallacy (commonly called the straw man). It's also forbidden by the Commandments of the Lord: Thou shalt not bear false witness. "Uhh, the Bible is not brief. " Nobody said it was- and only you raised the issue, and that was on bogus grounds. "If the Bible is not fictitious, which is the case," It doesn't strictly matter if it's fictitious. what matters is if it is correct. And we know it isn't. We also know - in some detail - not only that it was made up, but by whom, and when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea so it is, in fact, fictitious. "and the first premise also holds true, which it does," No it doesn't- see the notes above. " good logic says that the Bible is not anecdote, because anecdote, by definition is brief, and its content is, at the very least, usually, of an amusing nature." Nonsense. For a start, a collection of anecdotes is anecdotal- no matter how thick a book they make of it. And you seem to be the only one who thinks that amusement value is relevant to a discussion of the validity of anecdoatl evidence. "Everyone here is logical. " Nearly- but there's one pretty clear exception "The one that you're criticising is correct." I have just pointed out (as others have) a number of logical fallacies in your argument. Why do you think those are correct? " Who cares? As I pointed out, it's a logical fal10% of the human population is a huge proportion. 20% is momentous. Probably more than 30% recognize the Scripture as truth. 100% is perfect. Which percent recognizes the Koran? Or even the Buddha? The Baghavad Gita? (forgive the probable misspelling)

Given "Modern medicine should not be based on drugs and treatments." I doubt this bit "Well, I for one will live 120 years." Re. "The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence, not initially as fact. Where there are conflicts of resolution between this text and contemporary science, there ought to be dialogue with people of the young earth creation view, whether they're disciplined in science or not, if they're willing to continue in dialogue, and the dialogue should not be aborted. People of the creation view should have opportunity to defend Gen chapter 1, using other passages of Scripture as well as observations of nature." That's what happened. And, in the end, Genesis was found to be unreliable so it was thrown out. "I don't want to "pick," or choose who/what is right or wrong. " Yes you do. You keep picking Genesis; and you keep trying to pick it, even though it is known to be wrong. Why waste time going over it all again?

""Anecdote," requires brevity." No it doesn't. " The Bible is recognized by a huge proportion of the human population" No, it's less than half- and even if it were that wouldn't be evidence. ""Anecdote," requires the assumption of a fictitious nature" No it does not. "So Scripture is not anecdote, " Even if your premises were correct, and they are not, that isn't a logical deduction from them. So you are still wrong. Please learn some logic.

Well, it might be a better approximation than assuming that everyone lives 3 score years and ten. So, what would you use? It's not enough to say that - "because science does [whatever] it is dangerous" for two reasons. Firstly, you need to show that it is true, both that science does what you say it does (and so far you have shown that you simply don't know how science works) and you also need to show that doing so is dangerous (and again- you have not even got close). But, even after you have done all that- you still need to show that there is an alternative which works. What alternative are you suggesting?

Writing an anecdote down does not stop it being an anecdote so 1 isn't an assumption- it's an observation. Adding anecdotes- as it they were real data- is reckless since we know that it is unreliable (and sometimes outrightly dishonest. So, again, that's not an assumption, it's an observation. So you are actually wrong on both points.

Thank you for that heartfelt plea in favour of better jails. I agree- and I'm sure others do too, that it is better if criminals don't escape from incarceration. What has it got to do with the death penalty?

Are you saying that two wrongs make a right?

Yes, I thought about that but, if it's true then measuring the volume of gas isn't going to get you anywhere in identifying the red stuff- i.e. what tEE was after. I don't see a reason to assume that he left the reagent lying round for ages. Also, the liquid changed colour- that suggests an excess of NaOH was added. CO2 would be trapped as carbonate or bicarbonate by excess NaOH..

Quite possibly less than it would be if you didn't use superconducting magnets. At high field strengths things stop superconducting, so by imposing a condition that the magnets are superconducting, you are limiting the field strength. Since a coil gun doesn't need to power the magnets for a long time, the energy savings you get from superconductors are less important. Also, if I'm allowed to use a non magnetic stainless steel as the "ferrous" slug, then the answer might be "pretty much zero". What question are you trying to answer?

"Beyond this, of course, we have races and nationalities, tribes and clans, etc. " We have, and those are known to be unscientific, so I guess we can ignore them. If you want scientific terms for the heritable differences within dogs you could go with breed or strain. But the thing is that a wistar rat can breed with a sprague dawley rat, and given a chance- they will. And, as I pointed out- yet you refused to learn- a chihuahua cant' get a Great Dane pregnant. So there is a fundamental difference between the two classifications. "Modern science always presumes that because our technologies evolve, nature evolves. " Is clearly nonsense; it's an observation that nature changes. On the other hand "Modern science always presumes that because our technologies evolve, nature evolves. And again, that's presumption, not mere assumption." is true because this part "Modern science always presumes that because our technologies evolve, nature evolves. " is a presumption as you say- but it's you doing the presumption.

Killing killer is sinking to their level and abandoning the moral high ground. The US might want to look at the company it is keeping by still having a death penalty. Country Total executed, 2007-12 SOURCE: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CHINA THOUSANDS IRAN 1,663 SAUDI ARABIA 423 IRAQ 256 UNITED STATES 220 PAKISTAN 171 YEMEN 152 KOREA (NORTH) 105 VIETNAM 58 These are not the great and the good. (data from here) http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/29/death-penalty-countries-world

OK, you didn't introduce gas density- you introduced measuring the mass and volume of a gas. "If it releases gas during reaction, you should measure precise mass of either compound," And if it's an indicator solution then it's almost certainly pretty dilute. If the density is near 0.789 then it's probably a solution in alcohol. If the density is near 1 it's probably a solution in water. Did you not realise that? And we can probably pretend quite well that pressure doesn't matter- nobody involved here will be measuring a liquid's density accurately enough for changes in atmospheric pressure to matter much. As I said, I'm not sure that the gas release is a chemical reaction anyway. There aren't many candidates for "stuff that, after sitting in a (glass?) bottle for ages suddenly releases a gas when treated with NaOH. Can you think of any plausible ones?

Yes. I know that- way to miss the point there. Here's what I actually posted. Was the father present? Some reports call it a family trip which suggests he might have been. The police are on record as saying that the parents (plural) won't face criminal charges. Why is that attention all on the mother?

Measuring gas density is very difficult. Measuring the density of the liquid will give you a clue about the solvent. It's also possible that the gas that's released was dissolved air, rather than anything produced chemically.

Really, that's interesting. Was the father present? Some reports call it a family trip which suggests he might have been. The police are on record as saying that the parents (plural) won't face criminal charges. Why is that attention all on the mother?