John Cuthber

I think he's too young to qualify.

So, no evidence, no valid argument, just name calling and rude words. Plainly rational, unemotional, logical, and scientific then.

" So what if it were? GMos are especially new, especially unknown, and especially dangerous." So, that's a couple of cases of defamation, some special pleading, and begging the question. Then there's some flat out falsehood "They've all been tested better than any GMO has been" Can you show me the pre-release safety testing they did on, for example, peas? "More to the point, if I want to avoid the odd chems I can - they're listed on the label, and they don't spread themselves into my food." Do you understand that your food is made of chemicals? Most of the naturally occurring ones have not been identified, far less have they been studied and tested. So, exactly how do you plan to avoid chemicals in food?

The silicon atoms are not arranged in squares like that, nor in a single flat layer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Silicon-unit-cell-3D-balls.png

One factor that is sometimes misrepresented as evidence against warming is that global warming may lead to local cooling. Some (I think most) models predict that if the world warms the gulf stream will be less effective or stop. If it does that the UK temperatures will fall dramatically. So, if there was a measured fall in temperature here in the UK people could use it to say that global warming isn't happening, but it would actually be evidence that the planet was warming up.

That's an interesting view on evidence. If I had asked the creationists about 70 million year old dinosaur tissue a year ago they would have told that it couldn't exist because the earth isn't old enough. Now we have found it and they say it's still not evidence because "it's impossible". It's clear from things like this that the evidence wouldn't matter because they will pretend it doesn't exist, until it becomes overwhelming, then they will pretend that it never mattered. They did it with the heliocentric universe, and they did it with evolution. And they will doubtless do it again..

"If we are all physiologically identical " We aren't.

I see you quoted the cut down version in the repeat, rather than the original whole thing. Here it is in is full glory "They should be the ones providing the evidence. If they can't then they should stop going on about it." Now, if they believed whatever they wanted, but never mentioned it, there wouldn't be an issue. Meanwhile, back at the evidence... Do you know of any?

In any event, " die hard christians who insist that creationism is right" should be able to provide evidence to support their assertion.

Come to think of it, this thread is upside down. "I'm an atheist in a family of die hard christians who insist that creationism is right and evolution is completely wrong. Which lead me to ask is there any evidence for creationism. " They are the ones making the strange claim about the sky fairy. They should be the ones providing the evidence. If they can't then they should stop going on about it. And I'm willing to be that the website that Pears just cited provides no actual evidence to support the existence of a God.

Move house.

No, not really.

Got any evidence for that defamation? (and, I remind you that I'm not the only one who contested your assertion that " nobody said that")

Not really, no. The pressure rise isn't caused so much by the expansion of the liquid (where ullage would help) but by the rise in vapour pressure. A closed bottle of ether in hot water can generate nearly 7 bar pressure. It's rather noticeably flammable. It's got a pretty low autoignition temperature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoignition_temperature and broad flammable limits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammability_limit

A fairly typical picture of him can be found here http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html I'm not sure how much of that is radiation damage.

Then they wouldn't be unemployed.

You can't really get a reactor to produce useful power that way. It wouldn't really matter much how many smoke detectors he got. (strictly it would because you can get a reactor with 60 Kg of 241 Am: but each detector contains something like a ten millionth of a gram ). You would need roughly 50 smoke detectors for every person on the planet to supply the Americium. Producing that would require rather a lot of conventional reactors so, what would be the point? All you could hope to achieve was a nasty radioactive mess.

Most of us are killed by it and all of us would be if something didn't beat nature to it.

Yeah, right. From wiki "The earliest forms of cigarettes were similar to their predecessor, the cigar. Cigarettes appear to have had antecedents in Mexico and Central America around the 9th century in the form of reeds and smoking tubes. The Maya, and later the Aztecs, smoked tobacco and various psychoactive drugs in religious rituals and frequently depicted priests and deities smoking on pottery and temple engravings. The cigarette and the cigar were the most common methods of smoking in the Caribbean, Mexico and Central and South America until recent times" The scientists may have been involved in tweaking the design, but the fundamental idea of deliberately breathing the smoke from burning plant matter 1) is the cause of the health problems and 2) was there long before any scientists. So, what you have effectively said is "I'm not going to listen to evidence from someone who doesn't agree with me." That's soapboxing. . Close enough for most people I think

Whether in politics, or religion, if you have to lie about your ideas, to make them acceptable, you should change those ideas.

It would never have worked. The neutron gun relied on alpha particles knocking neutrons out of beryllium or aluminium (the stories vary). But only about 1 alpha in 100,000 does that- the rest are "wasted". You can't really build a reactor based on that design. However what he did was very dangerous. Don't try it.

It's a matter of definition.The universe had a beginning. But there is no valid evidence for a "Creator". People cite a number of things as evidence, probably the commonest is one of a number of old books. However the actual physical evidence contradicts essentially all the scriptures. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3339982/Worlds-oldest-tree-discovered-in-Sweden.html

Does this look familiar? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtcXXbuR244

And, since accusing a journal's contributors of plagiarism is a slur, he has also broken rule 1c Is a breach of 4 rules in one post some sort of record?

They tend to have a pretty short half life on discussion fora too.