John Cuthber

or C) it's a made-up story and doesn't have to make sense.

I'm intrigued that this thread has degenerated into an argument that could be summed up as "One extreme diet is bad for you!" "Another extreme diet, at the opposite end of the spectrum is also bad for you". with a side order of marmite. The fact remains that a meat heavy diet isn't very healthy (I thought everybody already knew that), but it's misleading to compare it to smoking. How did the science disappear so quickly?

Something may be broken, but it isn't maths. Maths doesn't allow division by zero.

I agree, but I didn't want the others overlooked.God seems to be an (almost)equal opportunity hater. There seem to be very few people He likes. I was wondering if Peter had read the Book. He seems to have missed those bits

Please cite evidence of Christians (or any other religious group) being sued for their faith. (In the US or, if you like, elsewhere in the Western world) Moooey has given some nice examples of where the Bible commands that Christians kill large groups, but remember it also tells to slay individuals for various crimes- notably being rude to their parents or being homosexual. Have you actually read the bible?

I want to know what idiot let the snake into the garden? I mean, it's not like they couldn't tell what would happen. What were they thinking of? (I'd also like to know how come people believe that it was all paradise until someone decided not to follow the rules; and that someone was a woman. Seriously?)

OK Forufes, play nicely by the rules and reply to the point I made.

OK, I will play along, but I'm not fooled. You seem to have got this the wrong way round. You turn up at the end of a very long thread which already includes the arguments about the implausibility of religion, Then, you put up one fairly short post making unsupported assertions about the almighty. And, then you complain that nobody bothers to go over (yet again) all the evidence which shows that you are talking through a hole in your hat (and which you apparently didn't read). Instead, you say "You are arrogant! for not immediately accepting my unevinced assertion!" Like I said, it's obviously a parody. Nobody would really do that.

Just a thought, methane is less dense than air. Also, counter intuitively, if your planet has a high gravity, it's easier for a balloon pig to fly. Finally, ask the walrus about this; he knows about porcine aerodynamics.

"But it is hubris to believe that sky fairies unicorns which can't be seen or detected don't exist." "But it is hubris to believe that sky fairies Thor which can't be seen or detected don't exist." And so on, until your head is full of junk. There's proof aplenty that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. "It is my contention that if we understood the nature of religion that we'd see that both religion and morals spring from logic;" Unfortunately for you, that contention isn't supported by evidence. If it were then scientists (who are quite good at logic and evidence) would all be religious. As I understand it, the stats go the other way.

Let me know when that makes a difference. i.e. tell me when it stops being true that I have morals but no religion. BTW, you seem to have ignored my point about the idea that if language were hard wired we would all speak the same language. To an extent, that's why dogs all bark, but cats all meow. Never mind; it's off- topic.

You may not realise it, but you are asking a lot. There are essentially two ways to get something to glow in the dark. Something that you continuously provide with energy or something which stores energy. The aluminate phosphors store energy. You shine a light on them and the electrons in them get knocked into a higher orbit As they fall down, they give out light (crass oversimplification- but it makes the point) The alternative is something like the two recipes I already gave you. With fluorescein, you add energy continuously as UV light and get some of it back as visible light. With the luminol reaction you add the energy as a chemical- the reaction provides the energy. For some reason you seem to ignore the second sort of glowers, but there's a big problem with the first type if you want them in solution. You can make calcium aluminate glow for quite a long time because the electrons take a while to fall from the excited state. They are trapped in the very rigid crystal structure. However, if you dissolve them in water that water can bump into those excited electrons and rob them of their energy. So, that's why what you are asking for is practically impossible. The real question is why didn't you believe me the first time?

How hot do these things get? Inconel is still strong at 1000 C (and, I suspect, less brittle than it is at normal temperatures). Mild steel at that temperature has lost a lot of its strength.

I'm calling Poe's law on this. Nobody could sincerely say (in effect) "I'm too arrogant to accept that I might be wrong, so I will ignore those who disagree and move on, pausing only to call them arrogant." Come on Forufes, admit it. You are an atheist pretending to be a theist putting forward an absurd version of theist belief, just to make the theists look dumb. And that's before anyone addresses the question of how arrogant you need to be to claim to know the will of God and slaughter thousands in His name. Nice try, but there's no way that anyone could truly believe that tripe.

Wrong on a number of levels. If language (rather than a capacity for language) was hard wired, we would all speak the same language. Also, if everything is language, how can anyone invent anything new? They can't even think of it, because there's no word for it. Without language (in the broadest sense) there could be no religion, but there might be morals of some sort.

On the contrary, there's got to be nothing that simply sits there glowing. If it did, we could get a big bucket of it + surround it with solar cells to solve the world's energy problems. So you need to supply energy to the system to keep it glowing. with a solution of fluorescein, the easy way is to shine UV light on it.

OK, so who exactly are the ones who are bad due to a lack of religion? To clarify needlessly; many people are good because of religion, and bad for a lack of it. How could you possibly hope to know that? How could you tell? It's an absurd claim to make. Just for the sake of discussion, lets say that Stalin was an atheist- lacking all religion. And, for the sake of discussion, I'm sure we can agree that he was evil. But, how can you possibly know that one caused the other? Perhaps he was just born bad and religion would have just slightly altered his targets and methods.

According to this http://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/grammar/conditional-sentences/type-1 it's the main clause and the other bit is the conditional clause.

The sky fairy might be wired into your brain, but He's not to be found in mine.

Still here. Sill not religious Still got morals That's still the reality that you are still not paying attention to. It still doesn't matter how I have morals without religion it is sufficient that I have morals and no religion to prove the OP's contention.

"What I'm looking to accomplish is a fluid that will glow with the proper light range which I can provide, and will output with no input thereafter."

"The Alkaline Earth Aluminate does not dissolve so I need to solute it" No you don't, because, if you dissolve it the solution won't work. Exactly what are you hoping to achieve? Fluoreseinesolution will glow nicely if you shine UV light on it. Nothing will glow unless it is supplied with energy from somewhere.

What does "just a theory" mean? In science a theory is about as good as it gets. Anyway, is this the sort of thing you want? http://www.rsc.org/education/eic/issues/2010Mar/ExhibitionChemistry.asp

If you dissolve it, it won't glow in the dark any more.

the difference between the D and L forms of glyceraldehyde is the carbon between the aldehyde group and the CH2OH.