John Cuthber

Or you can light a candle. IIRC in the particular case of xenon, you can ionise it by simply allowing it to react with platinum hexafluoride.

OK where did the oxygen (O2) come from? Neither Fe nor NaOH is O2 The reaction of iron with water might be spontaneous and the reaction with oxygen certainly is. But that doesn't say anything about the reaction of NaOH and Fe.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17742230

I guess it's about right if you are talking about the world population, many of whom are very poor. I think the broader point is that some people are very rich for reasons that have nothing to do with ability. In my experience the majority of people have the same agenda; get richer. However; the poor can't and the rich can.

I suggest you look at the Wiki pages for LC and MS and the page for LC-MS If there's anything you don't understand then get back to us, but I couldn't write a better intro than the Wiki ones.

Acetone is very slowly oxidised by permanganate, but the reaction isn't useful since it produces a number of different products.

I don't

Some fairly bright bloke once wrote that you should make everything as simple as possible; but no simpler.

To be blunt; can we talk to the organ grinder please?

Zero is often complicated. Can you explain what you think the phrases " space of 1" and "value of 1" mean?

There isn't a direct link, but both colour and anti-oxidant behaviour rely on having loosely attached electrons.

The point remains; Darwin was an evolutionist who put a lot of effort into converting creationists. I know I said this before, but I think it stands repeating I still don't understand why this topic is controversial. We know that carbon dioxide blocks outgoing IR from the earth. We know that the earth's surface is warming We know that there is more CO2 than there used to be We know that it's from our use of fossil fuels. It's like saying "I know that we put another blanket on the bed, and I know that I'm now warmer. But I don't know if I'm warmer because I put another blanket on."

According to wiki they are rather short lived; your new friend may not make it till Spring, but that's a poor reason not to try. You might find it a struggle to find proper food for an insectivore in Winter.

"i never once mentioned an act of god," And nobody said you did. I mentioned it as an analogy. If you choose the "right definition" you can make the discussion pointless. and this bit "And again your first argument falls into "the first cause" argument which essentially boils down to accepting a pantheistic view of the universe or the door is open for other forces beyond the realm of our comprehension...." makes no real sense. You seem to have forgotten that science doesn't think it's finished yet. It's entirely possible that we will find a cause which doesn't involve pantheism. One possible example would be if science actually found a God. The point is that "beyond our comprehension" is a set that's shrinking all the time. And may I join the chorus of people asking you to show us something that actually is supernatural? You don't seem to have done that.

OK so he wasn't the first evolutionist but I think you would have to accept that Darwin's book on the origin of species was a pretty clear attempt to convert creationists to evolution/ In any event, the fact that there are now many evolutionists whereas they ere previously very few shows that evolutionists don't just attempt to convert people; they clearly succeed.

That's just getting silly. If acts of God are supernatural and He made the Universe then everything is supernatural. If you take a loose enough definition, it stops being meaningful. "We can debate semantics of nature and supernatural, but as ive stated they at the very minimum are mutually exclusive. If it is not one, then it must be the other." Good point. Now, show me something that's actually supernatural. Or stop going on about it as if it has some importance.

The process of making paper is essentially the process of extracting cellulose from plant matter. It's been well documented over the years.

Actually, it was a valid search at the time because Google hadn't indexed the site yet so the references were to your work (rather tan the recent page citations). Now, what was that about looking like an idiot? Now, what's even more puzzling is that a search on Smegmasterson doesn't get any hits. It's also an odd choice for a pseudonym.

Actually, I will say it. You didn't try.

I'm sorry, but this bit of the thread just keeps reminding me of a line from the Hitchhikers' guide to the galaxy "Also of note that when others visited the planet where Veet Voojagig claimed to have lived, all they found was a small asteroid inhabited by "a strange old man who repeatedly claimed that nothing was true, though he was later found to be lying.""

I suspect that Godot is bringing it.

Meh! anyway. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-campaign-misstatements-donald-trump/

Why do you see East and West as so different? in particular, why do you accuse all Westerners of not understanding things and, equally daftly, of not accepting "Eastern" though (whatever that might be).

Guess.

Well, apart form the absurd racism of "This is something that cannot be conceded in 'western' thought, because if it were conceded then it would become indistinguishable from 'eastern thought." that didn't seem to mean a lot. In particular "True or not, it represents an explanation for metaphysics." So, the best explanation of metaphysics might be true, or it might not, but it doesn't matter. and yet you claim it's the basis for understanding reality- even though it's not possible to tell if it's right or wrong. That's not really progress- it's just a shrug dressed up in fancy words. From time to time peole pop up here and breate science for being too difficult to understand- here's a recent case http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92782-a-unified-theory-by-dea-patricia-smegmasterson/ but even they have to accept that, for all it's failings,; science works. You seem to be saying that if you want to "know" more you have to accept a system where you end up knowing nothing. Is there a circumstance in which that is useful?