John Cuthber

"The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience. Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors,[14][16] and fails to produce the results asserted by proponents.[17][18]" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

Meanwhile, in reality... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_Conversion_Act

Substantially pure (Semiconductor grade) silicon is a perfectly natural material. It can be found in laboratories and factories throughout the world. Or are you saying that people (and their products) are somehow un-natural? If we are not natural, where did we come from?

" Mainstream IS argument from authority, " No, it's based on evidence. Feel free to present some. However that's not really the point. People put forward non-mainstream ideas here. A "mainstream" idea in religion is a rather silly idea. There are simply too many dissenting opinions.

You have no idea who I am; anything I say is of unknown origin. However, if I was to contradict myself you would know that I am unreliable.

Just for the record, it's perfectly possible to prove something with a thought experiment and speculation. If you didn't know that, perhaps you should learn about it, rather than ranting here.

There is one thing you can certainly get from it. The Gospels* are not reliable; you don't know what bits are mistaken. * OK strictly, that one example only shows that john's Gospel is untrustworthy. I'd have to find 3 more contradictions to show that none of them is reliable. I doubt it would take me long.

At the risk of sounding like a parrot (because I'm repeating something you have already seen). Yes we have standards, you read them and signed up to them when you joined this site. They are the site's rules and, among other things they don't approve of argument by authority, proof by loud assertion, or other logical fallacies. It's not clear why you cite Freud along with Darwin and Hubble. Freud wasn't much of a scientist (or much of a physician). Science doesn't have all the answers, it knows that,if it did, it would stop. On the other hand it has a lot more answers than you seem to be able to justify. In short; find some evidence or find anther site.

The quicksand on which you stand has a name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority I just looked up who this guy was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce Did you expect to be taken seriously?

Please don't waste time and bandwidth on what other religions do today; it can't possibly make a difference to whether or not someone lived 2000 years ag.. At best you are showing that you don't understand they are irrelevant. It's possible that you come across as not realising that two wrongs don't make a right. Re. the old Christian church, I can't be sure because I wasn't there. But , the evidence suggests that they were involved in things like witch hunts. So they were in fact sticking to the old laws no matter what Aquinas thought. Any changes- like the realisation that slavery was wrong, were brought about a lot later and they are introduced in spite of the church, not because of it.

Two points http://www.lab-initio.com/screen_res/nz212.jpg and that's not the way it works; you make that assertion , it's your job to provide the evidence.

Wrong question. How many did so in, say, 300 AD- long after Christ- but before civilisation had persuaded Christianity to stop being unmitigated bastards? The Church today is not what Christ made it, but what the effect of years of moderation by society has made it.

OK, so on one hand, a bloke with an obvious source of bias says they were abolished by his time- something like 1250. Yet they were still in use 400 years later http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins And they needed to be abolished again 600 years later http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States And they are still in force today (Ask just about anyone who is homosexual) All you did there was point out that Thomas didn't know what he was talking about If he said E=MC2 some of the time and he said E=MC3 some of the time we would know he was not infallible, or that the record was untrustworthy..

I'm on the side of not writing off a 20 page debate with a glib logical fallacy.

Really? If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true (John 5:3 1) Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true (John 8:14)​​ No doubt I could find others

yes. At least, based on a sample of one- me- your observation simply isn't true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Microwave oven transformer.

http://newsthump.com/2015/03/03/weasel-shocked-by-hidden-charges-after-cheap-woodpecker-flight/

I think Marshall's problem is the lack of a fixative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixative_%28perfumery%29 Koala's is a misunderstanding. The alcohol in perfumes is a solvent, not a reactant. (and, BTW those compounds are esters rather than ethers.)

Or a few different sugar concentrations or pH levels.

If the wiki page is right it is 1395 kg in mass and we probably need a few SI units The weight is 13685 N 60 mph is 26.8 m/s The power is 735KW I will leave the calculation as an exercise for the interested reader.

OK, I didn't explain it; science isn't generally good at answering questions about why. But the asymmetry is a direct consequence of that act that all particles have positive mass. If the pair production gave rise to particles of + and - mass then you would have a point. It doesn't: you don't.

A few home-brew kits at different temperatures.

I thought you might have. that's why I elaborated a bit. There's really not a lot more to say Your question was is there not a 50/50 chance of a black hole absorbing either a positive energy particle or negative energy particle? and the answer is no because, as I pointed out, no particle has a negative energy.