John Cuthber

If you take the lenses out of a pair of binoculars you end up with "upside down vision".

He wasn't under threat of persecution because of his religion. He was under threat of persecution because of other people's religion. That's the religious persecution from which he suffered. He wasn't granted asylum because he was an atheist. An atheist from, Russia (for example) wouldn't be granted asylum. A Christian, Jew or Buddhist would have been granted asylum in those circumstances too. So, I'm not sure that it's a "lack of religion" that got him asylum in this case.

"I ask specifically what rule would I need to find for people to start listening?" One that works. It needs to be reasonably concise; that's not very clearly defined but it needs to be able to calculate pi indefinitely with a finite set of rules. This, for example, shows how to calculate pi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi#Continued_fractions Toi do the calculation would take forever because the number of digits is infinite. But from just a few lines you can see how to carry on and get as many digits as you want. The "rule" is simple. Your "rule", in addition to being a bit unclear, are arbitrary. Every few digits, you need another rule. With a set of rules like those, you can link anything to anything (pi to my brother's DOB for example) but you can only generate all the rules if you already know pi. And, if you already know pi, it's no use being able to calculate it. There's something else you seem not to be taking account of. A bunch of people here with a solid understanding of maths, have pointed out that you seem to be barking up the wrong tree. Why can't you accept that?

You forfeited that right when you agreed to the rules here. If I was feeling hostile, I'd explicitly report that as a breach. Now, answer the questions.

I think he may have been referring to the clinical use of antibiotics and their effect on the gut, rather than environmental exposure.

Fair enough, I will stop offering thanks. Could you answer the questions please?

Thanks for answering the first question. So, you say that you don't know the difference between the heat of the moment and capital punishment. OK, that explains a lot. Please answer the other questions. Thanks

But when there's a 5 in the sequence, you do 3 different things. How do you choose which one ? (appart from the fact that you know what answer you are loking for)

OK, so you have introduced two labelled rules (and a lot of other tacit rules too). How many more rules would you need for the next hundred digits? The point is that you have to keep adding arbitrary rules. Anyone can do that. Here's my brother's birthday 27/10/1962 Remove the /s 27101962 and compare it with pi 27101962 31471592 "Obviously" you get pi by adding 1 to the first digit, subtracting 6 from the second, adding 3 to the third and so on. But that doesn't really help because you have to keep on making up new rules to get it to work. Now, unless you can show me the way in which the rules you have used are produced (and show me how to keep on producing them, without knowing what the digits of pi are) then you haven't done anything more than I did with a birthday. (And, once again, it doesn't work in other number bases)

The forum rules require you to answer reasonable questions about your assertions. There's a tacit assertion that you think the home invasion scenario is relevant to a discussion of the death penalty. They are not remotely equivalent, and the law recognises that. I'm asking if you also know what the difference is. That's not an insult, it's a question. "Finally the subject topic was to establish if capital punishment was a form of justice, in my scenario I would not wait for the state to do it, I will do it myself ," And, in my opinion, you thereby lower yourself to their standards. If there's no other way to stop the crime then shoot all you like, and with my blessing, but it's still not the same as the cold blooded killing of a helpless man in jail so it's not the same topic. "How can you state as if it were a fact that, I don't know what I am talking about" Because you couldn't even spell it correctly. I remind you that, when I asked for evidence, you didn't provide any. To me, that also suggests that you don't know what you are talking about. Why do you assume that this is something to do with "Of course I am always wrong and you are always right, you have "proved that to everyone by now" have you not?." Do you not realise that if you post stuff that's wrong (or unsupported) on a science website then people will point out that you are wrong. Do you not think we should do so? Would it still be a science website if people could post any old stuff and people were not permitted to point out errors? Incidentally, that's quite a lot of questions. Please answer them.

Did you somehow imagine that bold text would make it seem less wrong?

No it isn't. That's denatured alcohol. IPA is a different chemical.

We don't do that.

It seems that about 9000 people looked into all that. Only one of them thinks it's not down to us.

In a sense Proof by outrageous font size. I haven't been following this thread but, as far as I can tell we know that accelerating electrons gives rise to em radiation in a number of cases. The transmission of radio waves. The production of X rays when fast electrons hit a target and - if you are looking for cases where a magnetic field does the acceleration, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation

Well, if we are the apes with no sense of smell, is that evidence of ongoing evolution. We are the nearly bald apes, but that doesn't indicate that we are changing; we were always the least hairy apes. I'm still looking for evidence for the suggestion that "humans in general, are evolving out of many of there animal instincts"?

"We don't fight right away when we don't like someone" Nor do most animals "we don't fight each other to 'win' females" That's a matter of definition Both sexes, at some level, "compete". "perhaps our sense of smelling is less good" Than what? Sure, it's less good than a dog's, but we are not in the same ecological niche as dogs. Our ancestors broadly speaking ate plants. You don't need to be able smell them from a long way off, because they don't move; also we have good eyesight. Is there evidence that our sense of smell is much worse than, for example, a chimp's?

You seem to have missed this bit of my earlier post Do you have any actual support for your suggestion that "humans in general, are evolving out of many of there animal instincts"?

Would it matter? What has been checked very carefully is the overall death rate with and without flu shots. Even if it marginally raises the risk of some conditions- for example, coronary disease, the overall effect is beneficial so the benefits must outweigh that increase. Having said that, I suspect that the data is there somewhere as part of the studies into vaccinations.. Indeed, a bit of googling gave me this http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/267777.php which says "As the flu season is fast approaching, a timely study links receiving a flu vaccination with a lower risk of serious cardiovascular events, including heart failure or heart attack. And researchers say patients who have experienced recent acute coronary syndrome see the greatest effect."

I doubt that we are evolving out of this trait. The only human data I have heard about it are stories of mothers waking up because they heard the baby's breathing pattern change. That's potentially a matter of enormous benefit to the baby and, since we all start out as babies, it's a benefit to the species as a whole. Do you have any actual support for your suggestion that "humans in general, are evolving out of many of there animal instincts"? It would be odd- we haven't been around for very long in evolutionary terms.

I agree that it is unscientific; you should never have introduced it, but I don't think it's a clever argument at all. It fails as I showed. Meanwhile, back at the topic. If God wrote the Bible He messed up http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html Those contradictions are exactly the sort of errors you would expect people to make.

Well, since you insist I will answer your irrelevant question. I would do the same as David did (or something like it- depending on circumstances: I'm not sure about the castration. If I had a gun I would shoot to maim, rather than shoot to kill) Now, will you answer my point about the difference between killing in cold blood as you advocate and killing as the only way to stop a bad situation getting worse. Do you understand that there's a difference? Do you understand that one of them has nothing to do with capital punishment? Also my point about spelling was not to illustrate that you can't spell- who cares- as you say, I worked out what you meant. However I raised the point that you hadn't bothered to check what you were saying. (if you had done so you would have got the right word). Why do you post opinion as fact? Oh, BTW, this " I don't need to go and research "Closure" I would get immediate closure, while you would be out somewhere researching it." Is nonsense as you well know. I wasn't suggesting that someone who comes home to a disaster at home did the research. I was suggesting that you should find out what you are talking about.

Presumably, if you do all those things "as a scientist" you have evidence for them all. Please cite it.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wanamaker A popular saying illustrating how difficult it was to reach potential customers using traditional advertising is attributed to John Wanamaker: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." Good money is, indeed paid for studies of product layout. And the results of those studies are reasonably consistent- for example items placed on the ends of aisles are more likely to be noticed. However I don't think there is no scientific theory behind the results. No psychologist, as far as I know, could a priori predict what would be a good place for some product any better than a layman who thought about it for a bit.

If it is the word of God then He really ought to make His mind up about stuff https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RB3g6mXLEKk#t=86 Also, we know it's the work of men. We know when it was rewritten, where, and by whom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea And Popcorn's "argument" is nonsense. It suggests that anything said by anyone is the word of God. So, imagine I make up some word like webzootlefningywhatsit and I say it, then it's the Word of God, but I'm the only one who has ever said it. So I must be God. Popcorn, you really should think things through a bit more carefully before posting.