John Cuthber

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)

" if you can go back and read again what I stated," OK This is a statement of opinion, clearly identified as such. "In my opinion there is more reason or logic, ..." And this, on the other hand, is a bald assertion "It is more logical to believe that all the fundamental constants (Or Laws) came about..." That's the message I get when I read it. But that's hardly the point. You said this "There is a huge amount of evidence for God, although I admit that the evidence is circumstantial." I asked you for that evidence (and I'm still asking) I already knew your opinion, so restating it was pointless and patronising. You have yet to provide any evidence of the assertion you made. If you were to get chucked off the site, it wouldn't be for putting forward an opinion. It might be for soapboxing, because you refuse to enter into a discussion. You say there's evidence. I ask for it so we can discuss it, and your patronising reply is that you beleive it to be true. Well that's a whole bunch of bad logic (though, to be fair, you already said you were abandoning that.) It's also a tacit refusal to discuss the issue. While I'm at it, you make yet another strawman attack- this time on me personally. You say "Why for the life of me are you so obviously hostile to any suggestion that God might exist. " well, as I already pointed out - nobody said that .And, I remind you that I pointed out that it was a strawman before. You might choose to leave this site. You might possibly get barred, but if so, it won't be for expressing an opinion. It might be for refusing to discuss that opinion and back it up. It might be for trying to use a string of logical fallacies to put your belief across. Here's something for you to contemplate. If you need to use fallacies to explain your point of view, you ought to change your point of view. Still, that's just logic and you have decided to do without that, so here's a link to a crochet pattern for a baby dinosaur. http://myskillsguide.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/baby-dragon.html

Or move to a planet with a much denser atmosphere.

When did anyone say anything about race? If you gave a decent education to a hundred black kids from the ghetto, you would be practically as successful in getting PhDs as you would starting with 100 kids from anywhere else. (and it would be a damned good idea to start offering a decent education too)

"Now I treat my future marriage as a business contract," You have ruled out all those potential partners who don't see things that way. Arbitrarily ruling out a large part of the genome is not a sound strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean On the whole, the children of very bright parents are only slightly brighter than average children. Choosing a wife based on IQ is a poor choice of method. The best advice I can give refers to your assertion that " I have a harsh, unpleasant personality inherited from my paternal grandfather and I'm prone to anxiety and hypochondria, inherited from my paternal grandmother. I'm also extremely lazy and envious of others, especially people who are smarter and more hard-working than me." Do something about that.

Jaya Jagannath, My word! what a lot of tosh. You don't understand the nature of debate. It is acceptable to say "your ideas are wrong" but it is not acceptable to say "you are a fool" What is needed in debate is evidence and reasoning. You have provided neither. You have also not quite finished reading some things- for example, I'm described as a resident expert, but the expertise is explicitly labeled as being in Chemistry. It would be better if you understood more before you argued so incompetently. It's hardly going to matter because, unless you start doing a much better job of demonstrating the ability to think (as opposed to parroting arguments you have heard elsewhere) you are going to get banned.

Just to clarify, do you mean "Fools' paradise"? "a state of happiness based on a person's not knowing about or denying the existence of potential trouble. "they were living in a fool's paradise, refusing to accept that they were in debt""from https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Fools'+paradise%22&oq=%22Fools'+paradise%22&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=define+%22Fools'+paradise%22 Are you saying that if i learned more I would be less happy? That doesn't seem to make any sense. It certainly is not evidence for the existence of any God. Why can't your God help you to provide some evidence? Is he a figment of your imagination, or is the fault with you?