John Cuthber

And the gun lobby makes sure they have the means to follow that urge, easily, cheaply effectively and with little or no risk to their own health and safety.

Kudos (and rep point) for the use of the correct plural of forum. I can't understand why someone who doesn't think the rules are a good idea (based on how often he breaks them) could want the job of enforcing them.

The water molecules in all the samples are continuously emitting and absorbing microwaves naturally. It is difficult to see how this experiment could show any real effect.

""it isn't really the objects moving that fast, but time and space expanding between those objects." Which inherently goes back to necessitating an aether." No.

No, Both are statements about truth. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

Trust me, it's a paradox: just like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox especially if you ignore the additional error of the stuttered "the".

Wrong for two reasons. First there are electrons, whether you like it or not. Secondly, it wouldn't matter, Consider a bunch of protons rattling round. When they collide they cause one another to accelerate. They have a charge so they emit em radiation when accelerated. There's nothing magic about electrons: as I said earlier "Classical physics explains the emission of em radiation from a charged particle when it is accelerated."

That was grounds to go and see your doctor.

To be fair, I don't think that's what it's missing, you could include the "Then" clause...

Just because they are different types of errors doesn't mean you can't count them together. Two apples and three oranges is still five fruits. So "Some cats are the black" has two errors, one grammatical and one factual. That's two errors.

Only on Thursdays. "Presumably anything not tied down " To what would you tie it, and how would you define "down"? Anyway, in physics it's difficult to distinguish gravity from an acceleration. When there are small brief sideways accelerations of bits of the Earth, the world goes to pot as far as humans are concerned. (They call them earthquakes) So, the simple answer would be the pretty rapid death of everything on Earth.

If I have some sort of political power and I want people to do something intrinsically bad- like killing others I can say to them "I want you to do this" or I can say "the Creator wants you to do this" . Which one is more likely to work? That's the real problem with most religions they short circuit the normal common decency of people. How many ruined lives does this story tell of? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/pope-benedict-defrocked-400-priests-child-abuse That's modern mainstream Christianity demonstrating that you can't trust it to be anything but evil. So, as far as I can tell, the answer to the title is "No, and nor are most of the others. If you want peace you are probably better off without a God in whose name to justify killing people."

OK, back to basics. "All cats are green and live at the bottom of the ocean" contains two errors. They are not all green. They do not all live at the bottom of the ocean. Agreed? "This sentence contains 143 errors" is false. It contains one error- it is wrong about the number of errors. Agreed?

" is 20,000 psi too much to handle? " Yes. You are, essentially, building a bomb. The remaining question is how big a bomb?

That's not what the New Testament says. it says rhat Christ said "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." He explicitly says there that the laws stay the same doesn't he?

I think you will find it does.

"From these verses, we see that forcibly enslaving people, and trading in slaves, are against Christian teachings." No we can't. "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." " teachings show that women and men are equal in God's sight." Did you ever read the bit about Eve? and so on. A plague on both their houses; they are both deeply evil.

Nope, strict Christians should follow the law. Christ told them to. "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" and "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Have you actually looked at the Bible?) They choose not to do so, but, in doing so, they bastardise their faith. The followers of Islam could do the same. The difference is not due to what the scriptures say (it can't be- because it's the same Book). The difference is in how those rules are interpreted. That's down to local politics.

In principle, all the Abrahamic religions accept that "Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses." (Hebrews 10 26-29) and "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." (Deuteronomy 13: 6-11) They all advocate murder of apostates and unbelievers, so it's impossible to distinguish Islam from Christianity on that score.

If you read the battery you would see that it said "4.5 AH" not" 4.5A" What you probably need is thicker wire. What are you actually trying to achieve?

Classical physics explains the emission of em radiation from a charged particle when it is accelerated. So if an electron that is traveling in a straight line then gets near the +ve charged nucleus of an atom it will be deflected from its path and the speed might also change. That's an acceleration and so em radiation will be produced. At high temperatures and pressures the line spectra get broadened out to such an extent they look like a continuum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line#Thermal_Doppler_broadening

Remember that quite a lot of the old testament law is also reflected in Islam as well as Christianity. So any examples of warmongering from OT Christianity also counts as war mongering in Islam. The comparison with Christianity etc (which is also pretty barbaric) isn't really relevant. The question is whether Islam is a religion of peace. Not many religions are peaceful, many have been responsible for wars. What I want to know is why the followers of a religion (there are plenty of examples to choose from) say that it's peaceful when their scripture shows that it isn't. Is it the same sort of doublethink that lets them believe in the scriptures in the first place?

"A true statement may have errors." You might struggle to explain that to a judge if you were in court.

Ditch the doubled "the" to make things clearer and you are left with "There is one error in this sentence" Well, is there, or isn't there? If there is, then there isn't but if there isn't then there is. It's clearly a paradox.

How many errors are there, and what are they? Well, there's the stuttered "the": that's one error. That's easy. What other errors are ther? Well, there initially seems to be just one problem- the doubled "the". So, that's just one error. But if there's just one error then the assertion that there are two errors is also an error. In which case there are two errors. But, if there are two errors then the statement is correct (ignoring the second "the"). In which case, there's only one error. So it's wrong to say there are two errors, that's a second error (in addition to the twin "the"s). And so on. It is a paradox. How many errors are there?