John Cuthber

Lance, there's only one pertinent question Does the Earth reproduce? Well, if it does then that's easy- show me the baby Earths. Without that the last 3 pages don't matter. If you can't do that then it's also very simple. If the Earth does not reproduce, then it is not alive, Your decision to "redefine" a few words in the mean time doesn't affect that.

While some scientists may gain something from religion, there's nothing that religion has to offer to science. Vague notions and old books just don't help science. Why would science want to join religion? Since science doesn't seem to have anything to gain from this "unification" it will only happen if religion decides to move to join science. What would it gain, and what would it lose by doing so? Well, it would lose all it's authority and power. Is there any great surprise to the fact that religion isn't rushing to join up with science?

For a start, it's NaCl. Anyway, adding salt to ice causes the ice to melt; it doesn't prevent it.

The question was already asked, but you don't seem to have answered it. Do you think a wart is an example of human reproduction? Does a mountain grow up to become a planet that can have mountains of its own (in the way that happens with the offspring all other sorts of life)? Surely you must see that a mountain is nothing to do with reproduction. The way to report a mod note is to go to the mod note and click the bit underneath it where it says "report". If you think that this forum's rules are a breach of free speech then (1) you shouldn't have signed up to them and (2) feel free to start a new thread to discuss that issue. Please don't discuss it here because it has nothing to do with the topic.

If the patient died it rather suggests that they didn't mount an adequate immune response so their blood probably isn't the best place to start. On the other hand, people who survived ebola may well have valuable antibodies (etc) in their blood.

Why?

The whole Ormes story is bull shit. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/ORMUS

It also lists thallium triiodide as a Tl(III) species which is wrong. That website isn't reliable.

Acme, if you can cite the posts you find hard to understand, I will try to explain them for you.

You seem not to have attributed that quote http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-10-28/

No. What people said were things like This is rather like saying that a glass of water is still empty, but full of water! or "You seem to be trying to find underlying meaning to poor descriptors of the universe, that's not the route to fruitful discovery. " and "As Klaynos says, you need to define dark carefully. It is not a typical term used in physics." And "Relative, on 12 Oct 2014 - 12:31 PM, said: Yes, but it is a trivial statement." And "You are not self consistent. You state that dark is the absence of light and then say when you have light you still have dark. Sorry but that just doesn't make sense " or "This has no physical importance. " "Your other statements are pretty much meaningless. " So essentially, people are not agreeing with you except in the trivial matter that the absence of light is dark.

That's still nonsense.

Then you are plainly talking nonsense.

Yes it is

No. Dark that's full of light isn't dark because the definition of dark is that there's no light.

This is pointless, it's like saying I'm still hungry when I have eaten- it's just that I don't notice it because my stomach is full. No. If my stomach is full of food, I'm not hungry: and if there is enough light to see then it's not dark.. Also re. "I do not post a concept unless I am 100% sure it is a possibility." I'm 100% sure that unicorns are a possibility, but I still wouldn't try to post a lot about them. What, exactly, do you think "dark" means?

This site can't- and doesn't- supply medical advice. Go and see a doctor.

Nobody has said that the vaccines are without risk,so this "WHETHER YOU WANT TO ADMIT IT OR NOT, VACCINES DO AND HAVE CAUSED INJURY. JUST LIKE THE VIRUSES THEIR DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE" is still a straw-man, even if you use CAPS LOCK. The point we are making is that, while there is a risk from the vaccine, the risk from the illness is much bigger. You have chosen the bigger risk for your child. That's your prerogative, but don't pretend that you have not made the irrational choice. Life is risky. You have to make a choice for your child about which game of Russian roulette you choose to play. You have chosen the six shooter, rather than the seven shooter, and it's not as if you have not been warned. No amount of straw manning will change that.

I can't imagine that any piece of music would persuade me that I really wanted to fill in a tax return. I find that some operatic arias, and a lot of recent (say, post 1990) pop music motivate me to change the channel. As far as I can see, all that music might actually motivate me to do was listen to it, or not listen to it.

You have failed to count the people who told you tales of how their child didn't get measles and die. If the human race behaves sensibly then we will eliminate measles (we nearly have with polio and we wiped out smallpox a while ago). At that point it will clearly be true that the risk from vaccination is bigger than the risk from the disease. In fact, slightly before that point, it won't make logical sense to vaccinate someone. Your mistake is that you think we have reached that point . We have not. I think that might partly be because you think (judging by some of your posts) that your country is somehow isolated from the rest of the world. You talk about the death rate in the US as if that's the only thing that matters. An increasing number of people are coming to the same conclusion that you have- the vaccine is more trouble than it's worth. That fact destroys the herd immunity. So your child will grow up in a community with no resistance to measles. Sooner or later there will be an outbreak. With inadequate supplies of vaccines and swamped medical care, the result won't be pretty. Do you want your child to be part of that?

If you make up enough stuff and express it ambiguously enough then eventually some of it might look like it's right- especially to those who really want to believe it. They just ignore (or lie about) the stuff that's plainly wrong. If one considers the idea objectively, it falls to pieces as soon as you look at it. For example you show a picture of " the fact that there are these 2 large bodies of water (Mediterranean =Atlantic), meet but don't mix even a little," But it is obvious that they do mix. That is why there is a brown area between the black stuff on the right and the white stuff on the left. So the answer to the question "how could anyone, 1400 yrs ago know these detailed things? " is that anyone can "know" stuff that's simply not true. The real question is why do you believe the assertion, even though the picture you have posted shows that it is false? Do you realise that you have been mislead or brainwashed?

"There seems to be a correlation between how far from reality someone's pet theory is and their inability to use the quote function." Really? Which way does it correlate? I often don't use it because it's clumsy. If you can't work out who is being quoted it suggests to me that you haven't read the thread well enough to comment soundly on it anyway.

"On a risk basis no good reason not to vaccinate? We personally know parents who's children have gone deaf, blind, encephalopathy, even shown signs of regressing in their milestones after receiving their vaccines, and death." Isn't that a post hoc fallacy?

Strictly, the power supply of the computer is rated at 1.2Kw (5 amps 240 V) If I get round to it, I will measure the actual power. "Wouldn't such heat output make your computer rapidly get red-hot, melt its plastic case, and engulf you in flames?" OK, so you just explained what the fans are for. "The fan might be just there, to make a "whirring" noise, so you think it's a proper computer. " No, it's there for cooling. That's why a PC PSU can dump over a kilowatt without cooking itself. it could be there to make a noise- but it isn't. It's easy to prove. Remove the fan and watch the computer overheat and die. " I mean, why haven't laptops, tablets, and smartphones got fans inside them?" Do you remember why someone started talking about computers here? It was a question about high power computers. They use more power because they do more stuff.

Well, you are only likely to get banned if you don't provide evidence. You say you can prove it. Start by saying what you think "black" means, because otherwise the statement is meaningless. Then, just to clarify things, can you confirm what you mean by "the sun"? Then you need to explain why everybody else is wrong. good luck with that last one.