John Cuthber

Seriously, nobody said that, and your point is a strawman. Religion should have realised at the outset that it had no legitimate idea how old the earth was, and no basis to claim that it knew. Galileo didn't seek to refute the scriptures- far from it, he was hoping to understand God's work- the work of a God he believed in absolutely. However his observations told him that the scriptures were wrong. Galileo didn't falsify a religious claim. The evidence did. Galileo was just the guy who pointed this out.

"The two don't even mix. Science only deals in matters of, well... Matter. Science can only handle that which is measurable, testable, and physical. Religion deals in matters of spirituality and the nonphysical world. " Would someone please explain that to the religious world. Stop them pretending that they know anything about, for example, the origin of the earth, the age of the solar system, the evolution of life, the importance of contraception on a finite world, the fact that killing people because they "worship" their god on a different day of the week is unhelpful to all concerned and so on. In fact, apart from contemplating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and what colour the Almighty's underwear is, religion has nothing legitimate to say about anything. Would religion please butt out of Science's domain. It's also a mistake to say "A major part of science has been the falsification of religion. ". Science was interested in finding out the truth. It would have come to exactly the same conclusions about, for example, the age of the earth, even if there had never been any religion . It only appears to be "falsifying religion" because religion got so many things wrong. If religious beliefs were founded on the basis of "revealed truth" they would be factually correct and science could never falsify them.

Caffeine would dissolve in the moisture in the lung and be absorbed. If you insist on doing this I suggest that you "dilute" it with glucose. But it would still be dumb, I strongly suggest that you simply don't do this at all. What's the point?

"A rocky planet with more mass than the earth but with a hydrogen atmosphere would retain heat due to the super greenhouse effect of hydrogen " Hydrogen is not a greenhouse gas- it doesn't absorb IR radiation at all.

I'm not linking to bullshit. You have labelled it as such for your own reasons, and you have yet to explain them. " and is probably too expensive for electrical power generation if handled well, we all agree and always have: " Is that the "Royal we" or have you decide there's more than one of you?

If you put a huge mirror round the star so it's heat and light couldn't escape so easily, it would get hotter and "burn" faster.

Well, since you won't even discuss the data, apart from one mistake that doesn't affect the conclusion, there's no real point continuing this discussion. I'm sure people will draw their own conclusions from your decision. In any event, each KWhr of power they use is more likely to kill some poor soul if that power was coal-derived, rather than nuclear.

Refusal to look at the data isn't science. You keep asserting that whole page is bullshit on account of one error that doesn't materially affect the outcome. Asking you to come up with evidence isn't a " rhetorical attack" "There is just no way these people can be honestly and naively and hopelessly as confused as one would have to be to compare, say, even the legitimately estimated death tolls from Fukushima with the cumulative death tolls from something like decades of coal mining and burning" Why is it unreasonable to compare decades of nuclear power with decades of coal power? What's "hopeless" or "confused" about it? "The only denialists cut this kind of slack are GMO and nuke advocates. Why is that?" Possibly because those on the opposing side are unable to address the facts. Coal kills about a thousand times more people than nuclear power (calculated per KWhHr). So, you have to show that the figures are not just a bit wrong, nor even grossly wrong. You have to show that they are a thousandfold wrong before you have a case. Please hurry back with the data to do so.

No, you suffocate in very nearly pure CO2. According to this the vapour pressure of pure caffeine can be modelled quite well by saying the log of teh vapour pressure falls linearly with the reciprocal of the temperature http://www.chemie1.uni-rostock.de/pci/emelyanenko/publications/33.pdf Near the boiling point of water it's about 0.1Pa That's about a millionth of an atmosphere or about 1 ppm. So a solution of caffeine with a concentration near 0.1% i.e a mole fraction of about 0.01% would have a vapour pressure of about a tenth of a part per billion.

This "You got those numbers from that link. So we ignore them, and all arguments made from them - because that link has demonstrated beyond serious doubt, in its opening sentence, that it contains nothing but bullshit. " is a circular argument. You are saying the report is bullshit because it contains one argument and is, therefore, bullshit. Please refute it or accept it. "That depends on the "error". If it's central to the argument, of a kind of fact used throughout the argument, completely and obviously ridiculous to even casual inspection, and presented seriously, then we know what we're dealing with - not one deduction on that page is honest, and the facts are accurate only by chance if at all. It invalidates the entire argument." Even if the fault were central to the argument (and it's not- as I explained) then it might invalidate the argument , but not the facts. You can't keep ignoring them. Show that the page I cited is substantially wrong- show that more people don't die making coal fired power.

That's why I said it should be about mass killings.

OK, I was in a bit of a rush when I wrote that. What I mean is webpages openly touting for money are a bit of a giveaway. Anyway, Pears, perhaps the next time you see something you are not sure about you could post a link here and we can have a look to see if we think it's legit, and if not, what we think are the tells.

Again? OK, (and thanks for clearing up any doubts about whether you read responses to your posts.) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78072-theistic-scientists/?p=768262

Hi Iggy, still not bothered about you slur against more than half the world? Whatever. You keep asking for evidence about the similarity of God and the dragon. Well, here's one bit of evidence that they are similar in a rather important respect. I looked for evidence for God, and I couldn't find any. I looked for evidence of dragons, and I couldn't find any. They are both equivalent in that they are unevinced. Anyone who wants to talk about "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" will be asked how they sleep with a tiger in their bedroom. I know there's no evidence for the tiger but absence... (Incidentally, part of my job is finding data so my not finding it may be a little more significant than the man in the street not doing so, but that's beside the point. The two concepts remain similar in that they both lack readily available evidence to support them.)

Does the Uncertainty principle " Focus on Location of Particles?"No, because it also deals with the uncertainty of time and energy.

There's nothing nasty about being a child or a woman. Your tacit assertion that there is, not only detracts from your credibility, but breaks the forum rules. " Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited."Wouldn't it just be easier to either show what the difference is, or admit that there isn't one? In any event, you owe half the population an apology.

It's also worth checking if they are seeking "funding for further work". If they can't get money from orthodox sources, there's often a good reason.

jduff, I suggest you do a couple of things. First wait till you are not so tired. Second read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy then, make sure that you know what energy doesn't mean (and here's a hint- you have been getting it wrong throughout this thread) come back and tell us if you still think you have a point.

"The fact remains that the Law of Energy is a law." http://xkcd.com/285/

You seem to have overlooked my set of substantially irrelevant credentials, and, as a result, you are an example of this well documented phenomenon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect I'm not going to take you seriously until you have read, and commented in detail, on a whole bunch of websites that seem to me to back up my point via the use of logical fallacies. http://www.iempowerself.com/84_pyramid_power.html http://www.free-energy-info.tuks.nl/Chapt1.html http://fengshui.about.com/ http://www.horoscope.com/ http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread971348/pg1

This is just a variation on the theme of "Atheism is a religon!" "Yeah, like bald is a hair colour" But this has additional nonsense like "Death is not really death but ..."

Detailed statistical analysis is required to test whether the regression coefficient is high enough to indicate a significant result- unless the data agree with my personal beliefs.

There is, of course, a problem with the page cited. It should say "mass killings" otherwise it's not general enough.

Maybe they sprinkled it with fairy dust, but there's no reason to think anything other that the banana wasn't ripe yet.

After a while it becomes clear that what you are doing is the equivalent of small child saying "I know what the answer is, but I'm not telling you". They are trying to cover for the fact that they don't really know, but don't want to admit it. Of course, it would be easy to prove me wrong- just explain the difference- but you can't do that, can you?