John Cuthber

From this I deduce that either: you have not observed Buddhists or you you are an idiot who contradicts himself. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive. (I also see that you haven't learned to use an apostrophe)

You have said that science should study theology (though you have offered no credible explanation of this). Do you think that, before criticising science, the proponents of theism should take the trouble to understand science. It is clear that you do not understand it.. There is, therefore, very little point in you continuing to post until you have learned enough about how science works, and what it does, to be able to discuss it meaningfully.

That seems like a good start, how might one go about answering it?

I have just edited this a bit. hope you don't mind. That seems better

Really? Black, white, brown or yellow? In the real world it doesn't matter, but as far as religion is concerned that question has been responsible for a lot of misery.

They are not. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Saturn "The ring particles are made almost entirely of water ice, with a trace component of rocky material." Ice is a very good insulator.

Guess again. https://www.facebook.com/Muslims-Against-ISIS-1444672609121662/?fref=ts

In fact, the Quran contradicts itself on the issue of making peace with non believers. http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/peace_or_not.html so there is a necessity for interpretation. And those in charge can choose to interpret it as pacifists or as warmongers. Did it not occur to you that there are sects within Islam, just as there are within Christianity who differ in their interpretation of the same book?

A brief enough exposure to 5g wouldn't be nice, but it probably wouldn't give rise to serious damage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stapp

With respect to the sun, every human on Earth is exceeding Mach 5 because the orbital velocity of the Earth is about 30 km/sec (near Mach 100) Velocity doesn't trouble us at all. it's acceleration that matters.

Just a quick question. Is political science one of these "careerless" degrees, and if not, why not? Should political office be restricted to those who have shown that they can actually do something in the real world (whether that's philosophy, welding or delivering pizza)? (Incidentally, if I bothered to collect my degree it would be a BA in Chemistry)

It's legitimate to ask. and the answer certainly isn't as clear as some would like to pretend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades The Quran, like the bible contradicts itself a lot. So it is easy enough to find bits that support making peace with other faiths or making war with them. So, the decision doesn't rest with the scripture, but with how it is interpreted. So the question is, how did the warmongers get taken seriously when violence is always seen as the dumb answer? Could it be that the actions of the West such as unequivocal support for Israel might explain part of the hostility? So, perhaps the ideology that's to blame lies not in the Arab world, but in the West.

Really? Some don't seem to have got that memo. Bearing in mind that there is not yet any actual evidence of who did these dreadful things or why they did so http://www.mediaite.com/tv/donald-trump-would-absolutely-close-down-mosques-in-order-to-fight-isis/ http://www.alan.com/2015/11/13/jeb-this-is-a-war-being-created-by-islamic-terrorists/#email-modal http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/ben-carson-syrian-refugees-immigration-terrorism/

If I throw a rock up in the air, it falls down. If I throw it faster, it takes longer to fall back down. I can plot out how long it takes to fall vs how fast I threw it. The velocity which I have to throw it in order to get the time to be "forever" is the escape velocity. I could, in principle, put a really long ladder into space and climb it as slowly as I liked- I'd get there in the end. There would also be a point where, because the earth is spinning, I would be flung off the ladder up, rather than fall down if I let go of it. but that's a different question. If the earth were not spinning (or if I put the ladder at one of the poles) then, if I let go of the ladder, I'd always fall back to earth. The further I fell from, the faster I would hit the ground (ignoring air resistance). But as I got further up, each additional step would make less difference to how fast I hit the ground. The speed I landed at would tend towards a limit. That limit is also the escape velocity.

It might be easier to look at the problem from the other end. Find lots of common inedible weeds and check if any of them hyperaccumulates. Also, looking for plants that are not eaten by animals is a lost cause.

What knowledge?

Is the set of [my hit records] the same as the set of [whales on Mars] and the set of [even primes bigger than 2]? I think it is, but what would I know; I'm a chemist.

Science has provided the means to solve the population explosion. If only religion would get out of the way. The only "help" that religion has offered for the issue of global warming is the notion that prayer will help. Oddly, that never seems to have worked in the past, yet they keep on at it. It's another of their essentially evil policies.

In the presence of water you would get what's loosely described as Fe(OH)3 and the hydrochloride of the amine. In the absence of water My guess would be some sort of complex of the amine and the Fe(III) ion as the chloride Maybe [Fe(C6H15N)3] Cl3

then the universe would need to have sides. Would you like to expand on that notion?

Thanks for clarifying your position that your opinion of the weather in one small part of the world is what matters.

Heretic! It's right there in the Bible that she must do that. OK, I will read it. Yuo said "I'm exhorting atheists to act rationally and morally. What exactly is wrong with that? Do you object to being rational and moral? " And yes, you are still picking on atheists by singling them out. Whynot stop doing that? Why not say "I'm exhorting people to act rationally and morally" rather than taking sides?

Perhaps you should stop bragging about how good you idea is, stop whining about it being repressed and tell us what the damned thing actually is. I suspect that, when you do so, it will get panned, probably because someone will point out that it doesn't tally with the real world. At that point, there's no way to argue that it's anything other than speculative (or worse). Come to think of it; all ideas start off as speculation. Why not post it there in the first place. That will thwart the dastardly Mods, and you will be able to get on with supporting it.

It's not that they are unaware that they are doing it, nor that their reasons for doing it are, at best, debatable.

Interesting question. There is a defined set of {my brother} which has just one defining property but that also identifies him as human, male etc. which are other properties Can you have a set that is { the number 1} without it having at least two properties; being a number and that number being 1