John Cuthber

Isn't the most likely explanation that you were taught about it, but forgot that the "lesson" had taken place?

I have heard someone say that evolutionary theory is not a theory, but a tautology. Those that are fittest have most children: "fittest" is defined as having the most children. or Those that survive, survive. I can't see that failing to be true. Can you explain how you think it might do so?

I'm not a Catholic, nor a theologist, but I knew that their church always believed they were "Right". It's clear that our outlooks on this are very different, but I'm pleased that we have at least some common ground. " I am especially disgusted with idiotic TV evangelists, most of which in my opinion, are nothing more than a self righteous, lying crooks. " "Does our human life have any meaning or are we just a cruel mistake of biological evolution " No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

"Science is not atheistic" Yes it is. Science has no God. It is "without God" It is "a" theist i.e. "without" theist or "not" theist. It is atheist. Science does not believe in God. It doesn't actually rule God out, but it doesn't believe in Him, so science is unequivocally atheistic.

"The churches, I know something about , never state that they know "everything"" They merely claim not to get anything wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility "I really agree with you, you can be a theist and belong to no religion!" ​You can also be an atheist with a religion. But the real problem is the unevinced assertion.

I'm flattered that a couple of people marked it up when I posted it (thanks folks) but I'd really like a reply to my earlier question. "For some years now we seem to have tried to reduce poverty by taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people. It hasn't really worked. Has there ever been a concerted attempt to do it the other way round? If so, what happened."

" It's true that pregnant women don't eat much raw cotton, but that's a fallacious and deceptive claim in context of this discussion, at least in my opinion." Aha! Now we are making progress. Where I live, food crops using Bt are banned so the point is entirely sensible. So from my point of view that comment is reasonable- if parochial. It's certainly not dishonest so Overtone's allegation of lying is false. It remains the case , as far as I'm aware, that Bt isn't significantly toxic in humans. There are places in the world where they grow food crops that produce Bt, but, (again, as far as I'm aware) there is no evidence for human toxicity as a result of this. It seems a lot of debate about one flippant point. How many people have actually been killed by Bt technology? Once we have looked at that, perhaps we can focus on what I actually said "Of course, this may reflect that fat that pregnant women don't generally eat much raw cotton. That's just as well because cotton is known to be toxic to humans" For a start. " this may reflect..." So , even then I was pointing out that while the non consumption by pregnant women may be the reason, it need not be the whole or sole reason. And then we might look at the other point I raised. "That's just as well because cotton is known to be toxic to humans" We often raise toxic plants for non- food reasons. If we did that with plants that were (debatably) toxic to people because of GM, would that be different to raising toxic crops that were naturally toxic?

Look, whatever you may think, I know that I didn't lie. So I know that you cannot prove that I did. That's why I'm asking you to show what you think is evidence, so that I can see if I can explain what error you have made. So. once again, Show that I said something which I knew not to be true.

To make H4O ++ you would need to get H+ to stick to H3O+ and the electrostatic repulsion between the two positive charges makes that very unfavourable.

Each molecule of CO2 weighs 44 times as much as a hydrogen atom (it's an odd unit of weight, but it's used a lot in chemistry). Each carbon atom has a mass of 12 on that scale, and each oxygen has a mass of 16. So 44 grams of CO2 contains 12 grams of carbon and 32 grams of oxygen. The tree takes that in and splits the C from the O2, it releases the O2 to the air and combines the C with H2O to make (mainly) cellulose. So a tree that takes in 48 lbs of CO2 will produce 48/44 *32 i.e about 34.9 lbs of oxygen. So, as I said, there's about 200 Lbs to still account for (225.1 to be a bit more exact). Where does it come from?

So, once again, if you think you have evidence that I lied, post it or apologise. Show that I said something which I knew not to be true.

To me, it looks rather like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

True, it's only a partial understanding. The scientists accept that they don't know the whole story- that's why there is still research going on. On the other hand, the churches think they know everything- they say "It happens because it is God's will" and yet that tells them nothing.

Your observation about tokamaks is correct. If your ideas were anything other than dross, those people would have noticed the effects. They would have written them up and won Nobel prizes for them too. However, in reality, they have not done so. The corollary of this is that your ideas are wrong. You can stop now.

"In the past. scientists (Dark Ages) have insisted the sun revolved around the earth" There was no science in the dark ages. They didn't have the idea of "evidence based learning". What they had was an old book which they were naive enough to believe and a faulty understanding of the laws of motion (Of course we are not moving- we would feel it). The fact that people who don't understand what's happening can be talked into believing stuff by some sort of "authority figure" isn't in dispute. The fact that both modern science and religion off such "authority figures" is also accepted. The difference is that , in one case the authority comes from an understanding of how the universe works, and in the other case it's from an old book and lots of navel gazing. Only on of those groups has any legitimate authority.

Nor does anyone else. That is your fault because you have not, in any way, explained it. When you say "Via mathematics, we can say that, synergetically, 1 + 1 = 4, or 3 + 3 = 12." you are wrong because those numbers don't work mathematically unless, by "synergetically" you mean "wrongly" . As I said, the faulty arithmetic isn't your big problem. The total inability to communicate ideas is your big problem. And someone else getting a dictionary isn't going to help that.

I posted this " Ringer, on 11 Dec 2013 - 5:14 PM, said: overtone, on 11 Dec 2013 - 7:00 PM, said: overtone, on 10 Dec 2013 - 5:13 PM, said: Close enough for most people I think" and you called me a liar for quoting your own words back at you; and my opinion of them. Now you come back and claim that you posted the facts. So, once again, if you think you have evidence that I lied, post it or apologise.

I think he means putting two additional protons onto a water molecule. If I was convinced it wasn't a homework question, I would post an answer. Remind me in a week (I guess homework would have to be handed in to the teacher by then)

Is there any evidence of a difference? Incidentally, I'd rather not have Dawkins present at my death. He's older than me- think about it. On the other hand, if you can arrange for a scientist- who actually knows how to do something about my poor health- turn up and fix the problem, that would probably be great. If a priest could fix the problem that would also be fine by me. I have more sense that to be biassed on that issue. However,as far as I know, no priest has ever actually achieved anything concrete in those circumstances. Incidentally, for those who are concerned about the issue. re atheists and foxholes They exist http://militaryatheists.org/atheists-in-foxholes/ don't pretend there are none- you just end up looking silly.

The numbers don't tally. If you take in 48 pounds of CO2 you can't magically turn that into 260Lbs of O2. Where would the extra 200 odd pounds come from?

I think you can get some sort of "cycling" going on in the short term. For example, cats eat rats, but rats will eat a dead cat if they find one. In general the path is pretty much unidirectional.

"'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.' " from http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Multiple_exclamation_marks

I think this "own nuclear power plant" is a typo. They meant "own un-clear power plant"

I'm still trying to work out if the OP is intended as a joke.

"Did I not state the universal fundamental laws or constants are evidence" Yes, you did. Unfortunately, it's not evidence. Someone else did a much better job of explaining it than I did so I will quote their work "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" via http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams So, still no actual evidence. " For someone so hostile and disinterested in the idea of an Almighty God " Did it occur to you that my distaste for your postings doesn't relate to their subject- God, but to the fact that you won't follow the forum rules and back up your assertions. I get just as ranty about bad chemistry or bad physics. It's irrationality that annoys me. Why do you think the abdication of logic should be permitted in religion? What did beliefinGod do to deserve special treatment? Unless you can answer that convincingly, your posting is yet another fallacy (special pleading). Stop seeking to ascribe intentions to me, and stump up the evidence you claimed (or admit that there isn't any)