John Cuthber

Or you could just put a beaker of ice in the oven while the camera isn't looking and then move the camera and take the ice out again. Magic!

I'm concerned about "freedom of choice" among people who have been told " You will go to hell if you don't". Incidentally, in the long term these girls will grow up and - notwithstanding the abuse, they will get pregnant. If they stay in the UK (or the West in general) they will almost certainly end up in hospital having their children. And, at that point, it will be clear to the midwife/ doctor that they were mutilated as children. In my opinion, it's reasonable to prosecute the parents, even at that late stage.

Actually, there are a shed full of problems with this "It's not a matter of whether or not they are atheist when identifying themselves. What the degree is indicating is how much they identify as an atheist. As in how important is it to you that you are atheist?" For a start, what answer could I give to the question " how important is it to you that you are atheist?" Is 37% a valid answer? But it's still not actually important because the discrimination they suffer is due to being (known to be) an atheist so it doesn't matter if the answer is 1% or 100% or whatever. It wouldn't matter to those doing the discriminating.

Also, most meat is pretty similar to other meat in terms of protein structure.

It's from this side comment "As a final note on chaotropic salts, guanidinium-HCI has the undesirable property of forming an insoluble precipitate (guanidinium dodecyl sulfate) in the ." here http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4Yp2p-PqDHwC&pg=PA313&lpg=PA313&dq=%22precipitate+guanidinium%22&source=bl&ots=cTift7vo8S&sig=uP4r0rT76h2N0DBAEscLWHA5-L8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TBh-UtGlI8bA7AbjkoCoBA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22precipitate%20guanidinium%22&f=false

It's a fake, but it's very carefully done. One of the comments on you tube translates as "This documentary on the microwave oven is a scientific fraud. It was designed to show that experiments performed in a specialized laboratory, with the scientific support of a physician in a white coat, are not absolutely guarantee a reliable and serious scientific message. Stay alert. Do not believe everything you are told on the internet"

The first one says "Survey found that 41% of self-identified atheists reported experiencing discrimination in the last 5 years due to their lack of religious identification. " Identifying yourself as an atheists isn't complicated. Do you believe there's a God any more than you believe that, for example, there are unicorns? Nope, then you're an atheist. So this "First study doesn't present data on how strongly the subjects identify with atheism. Without knowing how strongly they feel about and believe themselves to be atheist, how can anyone know whether they are or if it's something that they still are deciding for themselves. " is nonsense. The figures don't really matter very much. If one person is discriminated against because of their atheism then there is a problem. "Despite the arguments I've been putting in this thread, I don't believe atheists to be religious, merely that the definition we use to describe religion would make atheism included" So you say you are using the wrong definition?

Even with a scale that only weighs to the nearest gram you can do weight titrations - you just need to use dilute solutions so you end up weighing a lot of water. http://www.uclmail.net/users/dn.cash/GravTitr1.pdf

Interesting idea, but, as far as I can tell, way off topic unless you are just saying that God is not actually impossible- which is fair enough, but dull. Pixies are not strictly impossible but, by their nature, can't be proved to exist . Not much of a discussion there. Feel free to start another thread.

Sodium dodecyl sulphate will form a precipitate with guanidinium ions but not most of the other plausible ions present. Also, learn to do titrations, that will let you produce much better quantitative data.

Come back when you have an IR spectrum or something indicating a guanidinium salt.

Indeed Alan, That's the basis of one of the proofs. The religions say God is omnipotent. But omnipotence is logically impossible.* Therefore the religions are wrong. As Iota says, it doesn't prove that God doesn't exist- but if the only people saying He does are known to be wrong then you have to say that assuming His existence, and basing even the most trivial aspect of your life on that assumption, is illogical. * (Can God set Himself a challenge he can't meet? If not He's not omnipotent because He can't set it, if so then He's not omnipotent because He can't meet it)

Delta It's clear to me that you have little or no idea what you have made. If you think that adding a stronger oxidant (like HNO3) rather than HNO2) will be less likely to provoke a violent reaction, you have not thought it through. If you use KNO2 you can run the reaction in dilute acid, yet you think that's somehow less safe. The point is pretty much moot. Ammonium ions will give rise to gas evolution with nitrate or nitrite. Guanidinium nitrate doesn't play nicely with other children either. The real problem with your assertion is that the hydrolysis of guanidine by boiling it with acid is well known and has been for nearly a hundred years. http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/1926/JR/jr9262901213#!divAbstract So, what you are saying is that you are making guanidine in circumstances where it is known not to persist. Anyone who looked through the thread I cited will understand why I did so.

I'm surprised you didn't cite this thread from the same site http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=26993#pid306040 which includes comments like "This is not chemistry, not even speculations. Just plain brainfart." "Secondly, as for a sulfamic acid test, I am considering adding a small amount of KNO3 to a tiny portion of my salt dissolved in a little H2SO4. If significant amounts of sulfamic acid or sulfamates are present, then I would expect to see gas bubbles produced." Nope, try KNO2

"Hi in my opinion the New Atheism preached all over the globe by Richard Dawking, Hitchens( Died this yer) and many others is a religion, because it is based on faith not fact" Then your opinion is wrong, because what Dawkins says is based on evidence. That should, logically, be the end of this thread.

In the first place, I use the term community in the sense that there is a commonality among them" A bit like the "left handed people" community. Are they a religious group? " I was merely stating that the majority of atheists I come across are very ardent in their defense and proclamation of atheism." How do you know? Was the bus-driver who politely took your money and gave you a ticket an atheist? The guy ahead of you in the sandwich shop? The obvious fact is that you only recognise the vocal atheists as such. How can you rule out the idea that most of the atheists you meet are quiet about the fact- so you just can't know they are atheists? Even I turn up at church for funerals so some people might think I'm part of the God squad if that's the only place they see me.

Good luck with the cancer You might find this interesting "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/luciusanna118600.html

"So I race mountain bikes" Who wins, you or the bikes? Confucius he say "if you think WD40 isn't a lubricant then you never got it on the rims where the brakes bite."

I may not be religious, but I can make predictions. "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group". So, eating is a religion. Sex is a religion among most 16 year olds (They may not be having any sex, but they are sure as hell interested in it." Politics is a religion and so on. That definition covers essentially the whole of human behaviour and defines everybody (and probably most social animals) as religious. It thereby renders the word pretty much useless.

Ikea.

The n is for "normal".

"Atheists believe in Science" ​I believe in science in the same way that I believe in Australia. I haven't seen it, but the evidence is pretty good. However, if someone shows me that the evidence is invalid then I will stop believing in Australia. ​And that's at least the third time that the difference has been explained to you Do you understand why that makes it look like you are trolling or somehow unable to understand the issues? .

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79766-how-can-i-post-links-here/#entry775748

Whether it runs fast or slow depends on the type of motor. The simple answer is get a higher power locally built blender. The next best solution is a transformer The 120 + 120 v version is a bad idea as the insulation will assume that one end is grounded.

LOL