John Cuthber

Perhaps we could all stop voting for parties that pledge to reduce taxes.

The flow will be zero.

That line is "i have read somewhere that capillary action have limit of around 32 feet due to atmospheric pressure i may be wrong." I have underlined part of it.

Guess again. It's a mathematical proof, rather than a scientific one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

I'm fairly sure (given the thread title) that the opening post isn't a representation of a syphon in the traditional sense. The whole point is that the outlet is above the input. I think the idea is that the liquid will be drawn up the tube by capillary action, and then drip out of the tube into the next "funnel". With a few funnels you would be able to get enough head to drive a turbine. Unfortunately, it won't work. The simple reason for saying that is that it would be a breach of the conservation of energy. The detailed reason is that, if the liquid "wets" the material of the tube well enough that it rises in the tube, then it will stick well enough that it won't drip from the end of the tube.

It is less strange that the air contains oxygen, when you consider where it comes from. If there were no plants using sunlight to cleave it from water, there wouldn't be any oxygen.

"Unexpected"

Or, if you wish to patent a "free energy" idea, you can simply set fire to your money. It's quicker & easier, and the outcome is the same. The conservation of energy isn't just observed to be true, it's proven to be true.

I thought about changing my facebook picture to "I'm Charlie", but that didn't seem to cut it. I wished I could compose some elegant cartoon, but that's not my forte. Then I thought- the reason they did that was to curtail free speech and thereby reduce the number of people who will see the paper's critique of their world, so I took out a subscription. Here's the website http://www.viapresse.com/abonnement-magazine-charlie-hebdo.html It's a bit tricky to work through if, like me, you are bad at French. I intend to take my copy and ask some of my French speaking friends to translate the cartoons for me so I can annotate them and leave them on the table at work. That should ensure that a few hundred more people see them than would have done so before some ****s shot some people. I realise I'm lucky to be in the position that writing off the £90 or so that the subscription cost isn't a problem for me. Not everyone can do that but, perhaps some who can't sensibly afford a subscription can spread the word.

I don't know if the tundra is a desert. However, if I wanted to reach a conclusion on that issue I wouldn't ask what it looked like- I'd ask how much it rains there- because that's the basis on which the distinction between desert and non desert is made. (Strictly, I think it's precipitation, rather than rain but...). I'd not ask what it looks like- or even what it smells like- because that's not what matters.

I wonder if Fiveworlds would like to explain what he thinks his diagrams mean.

Do you know that there are scientific theories that answer those questions? At the moment they are a bit speculative- but that's only to be expected. The evidence is a bit obscure. Here's one well known example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory So all you did there was illustrate that you don't understand science. That's not particularly surprising, given your age, but don't you think you should learn about a subject before "taking on the world" on the internet? Anyway, it has nothing to do with the topic in hand.

Why do more Americans than British believe in ghosts? https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/31/ghosts-exist-say-1-3-brits/ Why is America well over to the right on this diagram compared to other "Western" nations? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#mediaviewer/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg Why do more Americans than Brits (29% vs 22%) believe in astrology. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5144766/Most-people-believe-in-life-after-death-study-finds.html (Though, by those figures, slightly more Brits believe in reincarnation). is it due to tall poppy syndrome? Or was putting forward Tall poppy Syndrome as an explanation just wishful thinking? Could it be because there are several large powerful groups pushing those sorts of beliefs (or, at least, seeking to restrain critical thinking)? If it is, to any extant, the latter, would it be better to face that rather then blaming jealousy?

IQ is a measure of how well you do in IQ tests.

You could have the liquid J shaped if there were something in the other leg of the tube holding it in place- compressed air, or another liquid would do it. However to do that would stop the system "working" Equally, you could set the system up in zero gravity. Again, this would stop it working. In general, there is no way to make this system produce electricity (other than very briefly). The general reason is called the conservation of energy. It stops any and all "free energy" systems working.

I'm not sure how good an idea that is. If he's really a schoolkid (and he's acting like one) then naming a school teacher on this site might get him into trouble. it shouldn't; any teacher ought to be able to defend their actions, but it's entirely possible that someone who misleads their classes is a bully in other ways too. Also, it hardly matters. It's some kid or someone pretending to be a kid. Their arguments are equally invalid; the refutations are the same. Also, it's late and I'm off to bed.

It isn't "stooping". You asked for constructive criticism, and you got it. The points he made are true. None of us is struggling. (and, for what it's worth, I believe you are acting like a teenager) In any event, you are simply wrong. As I said, I didn't source my points from wiki. So, weak as it would have been, your reason for refusing to reply, is without foundation. All your points stand rebutted. None of them is valid. Feel free to ignore this, but remember , if you get laughed at in class, you were warned.

I didn't source it from wiki; I sourced it from my memory and experience. I simply cited wiki so you can look up what the terms mean. Incidentally, wiki has a very good reputation for citing sources where needed. The fact remains that there are valid rebuttals for every "point" you have raised; and if the others in the debate have "done their homework" you are going to get trashed.

Evolution and creation are the only two candidates. ID and it's partner IC are creationism dressed up as science (badly) So, if you want to discuss one, you are going to discuss the other OK, "Speaking Point #1: Irreducible Complexity is the theory that humans are too advanced to have evolved from a single cell," Nope, it's not a theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory That rebuts your first point. "Speaking Point #2: Irreducible Complexity stems from the claim that some biological systems appear to be too complex to have arisen by natural selection." That's an argument from personal incredulity and, as such it's a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance "Speaking Point #3: According to Scientific American, “living things have fantastically intricate features" Another fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority [Edit- it seems this isn't a logical fallacy- it's a straightforward lie] "Speaking Point #4: Remember the story about scientists growing an ear on the back of a mouse? This point has a faint connection to that. See, take the DNA of a fish for example. Somewhere in there is a piece that says “I’m a fish”." No there isn't. There is no DNA that flags it as a fish- not least because there is no such thing as a fish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Such_Thing_As_A_Fish#Title Speaking Point #5: Evolution states that we evolved from single cells which somehow became cavemen along the course of time. While physical evolution is a statistic that can be recorded, mental evolution isn’t. How is it possible to “evolve” something that isn’t tangible? That's the same fallacy as point 2 just because you can't see how something intangible can evolve doesn't mean that it can't. For example, it's fairly easy to see how a sense of taste can evolve- it just needs cells with surface proteins that react to chemicals in the environment. "Speaking Point #6: The well-known “Missing Link”. " That's a non issue. Just because the fossil record doesn't include everything does not mean that those things were not there. It was never expected to be a "perfect" record- why would it? The implication that all intermediate stages should be recorded is a straw man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man "Final Statement: While this is mainly a Biology debate, Irreducible Complexity can be supported by Chemistry as well." No it can't. " How is it possible that even if that single cell did in fact exist, it could sustain itself and the evolutions after it? " It evolved to do so. The earliest cells didn't do anything that complicated, so they didn't have to. ​Your implication that all cells throughout history have done the same thing is another strawman. None of your "points" is valid. I suggest that you change sides in the debate. Good luck anyway.

If he thinks the "talking points" you have quoted are a valid debate then it's going to be a short contest. None of them is valid. He should know that.

Would you like us to point out the errors in each of the talking point you raise so that you are forewarned of the arguments you should face when you debate this?

How you got there isn't the point I was making. If a school can't teach kids to understand that evolution is a fact then it's a school that has failed. Also, if it can't teach them to debate in such a way that the side that's clearly correct wins, then they have failed. There is, by the way, no conflict between religion and evolution- it's a pity that more religious people (and schools) don't accept that. http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/16/us-vatican-evolution-idUSLG62672220080916

If you were my kid, I'd move you to a better school.

Why do you think that?