John Cuthber

By the way Semjase, I forgot to remind you that you still haven't addressed this Meanwhile, back on planet earth. Does he explain who reset all the satellite TV dishes? Does he explain who redrew Galileo's pictures of the moon? Does he explain who rebuilt Stonehenge? If not, there's no real point watching is there?

Could this be the sun's binary star pulling on Earth's magnetic pole? No, for two reasons. The Sun isn't part of a binary system and the sun's magnetic field is tiny compared to the gravitational field at this distance. Did you ever think about learning some physics? If you had then you would know that binary stars have to orbit their common centre of mass so, from time to time we would see both of them. Because of the distances involved they would be seen more than once a year. Also you would know that the magnetic field of a dipole, like the sun, falls as the cube of the distance while the gravitational effect only falls as the square of the distance. OK, I guess you can't be bothered with physics. What about common sense? If two suns were visible in China then they would also be visible in other places round the world, but the only report comes from China. There are two ways of looking at that- one more "polite" than the other. One is to remember that China has sent out faked footage before. The other is to assume that it's some local effect- like reflection from a cloud or even just a lens flare. In any event, it hasn't got anything to do with a shift in the earth's rotation or magnetic field. So, why did you post it?

So, Christ says that you must obey the old laws (he explicitly said he had not come to change them). But He doesn't obey them: he confronts then (in the case of one woman who isn't stoned because there wasn't anyone "without sin" to do it). He also shows anger, but says that we shouldn't. This contradictory mess is certainly not the origin of anyone's morality, because they wouldn't know where to start. Do they do what He does, or do they do what He tells them to do? They can't do both.

You need to get it rather hotter than boiling and you need a catalyst. https://www.crystec.com/kllhyame.htm

You missed out a contradiction in terms, but I can't say I blame you. "Genes aren't the root cause. Folate deficiency(& other nutritional deficiencies) and/or toxic environment leads to Proto-oncogenes to Oncogenes to Cancer." So genes (specifically proto oncogenes) lead to cancer but genes don't lead to cancer.

psychology is suffering from the same problem linguistics was suffering from before I called them out on it Lol. Now, perhaps you would care to explain your earlier comment "I do also believe that your previous post was fallacious" so, as I said. Two problems. What previous post?, and what fallacy? It's not enough to say that something is wrong, you have to explain what is wrong and why.

Two problems. What previous post?, and what fallacy? It's not enough to say that something is wrong, you have to explain what is wrong and why.

Popcorn, Check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Did it occur to you that there may be a reason why nobody is doing a good job of defending religion? (BTW, Iggy, he wasn't vegetarian either)

According to WIKI they are white http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#Properties

"And I don't know what "no more harmful than the beliefs of those religions" means. That's very contradictory." Just as well that I didn't say it then.

I wouldn't have hated him for what he said, I'd have hated him for what he did. His beliefs should have been laughed at which would have discredited them, rather than feared (fear is the origin of hatred) which lent them credibility. As far as I can see,Immortals stated beliefs are absurd, but no more harmful than the beliefs of other religions. BTW, nice Godwin award.

"Do you realize that the bold part of the sentence which says step 1 lifts prana(the elan vital) upwards in the body and step 2 and 9 moves prana to the lower body parts is in contradictory with what science says and teaches? According to science there is no such thing as elan vital or the life air." Yes, I realise that, like fairies at the bottom of the garden, science says there is no such thing as prana. Unless and until you can prove that Prana exists, you just wasted a couple of pages talking about it. BTW, the paper you cited shouldn't have been published in a reputable journal. There was no "reference intervention" to compare the yoga with so the testing was not scientifically valid. Nobody is surprised that gentle exercise (such as yoga) improves muscle tone so it's a meaningless study And much the same thing also works if you don't believe in it (My mother found that Tai Chi helped her arthritis, but she didn't believe it was due to anything mystical- just a bit of exercise). "You should better know that our ancients used those same old exercises to obtain all their knowledge and philosophical insights." (There is no evidence that they gained anything, apart from the benefits of gentle exercise and, of course, the benefits of having the locals believe that you have the "hot line" to God) "I think God has more evidence" (then cite some) "and a higher probability of existence than extra-terrestrial life" (irrelevant) "so don't go so far as to equating him with a tooth fairy which is a false analogy." (What, just because you say so twice?) "By this time the scientific community should have been seriously in search for a hypercosmic god because all evidence in science is in favour of such a god. (Nope, none is. and you have failed to produce any such support even though yo have been repeatedly asked. Most of what you have produced are logical fallacies- specifically appeals to authority in the form of quotes from people) "Bernard won the templeton prize for the concept of a hypercosmic god and not for the concept of a tooth fairy " (The Templeton foundation has a tacit policy of thinking that there is a difference. They too have no evidence for that distinction. This is an appeal to an authority which is known to be biassed so that's two logical faults for the price of one) "and it is the concept of veiled reality" (for which there is no evidence) "and the great eastern philosophical systems" Which offer no real benefits and therefore are not particularly "great", except in the eyes of their believers. That's too biassed to be valid evidence) "which are being discussed in journals of science and religion" (As I said, at least one of those journals should do a better job of science) "and hence God meets with reality more than your tooth fairy which is the invention of a fictional writer." (Nope, the tooth fairy is part of oral tradition and so, according to your earlier postings, it is as important as the scriptures.) "Therefore what you have got is a false analogy, God has more supported evidence than your tooth fairy." Nope, you can't say that. It's another logical fallacy- you can not presume the truth of your assertion in order to prove it: that's begging the question.

You seem to overlook the fact that there is no evidence that what you speak is actually the truth. On the other hand, hating you for speaking what you think is the truth is also ludicrous. To the extent that this "Yes, any matured educated man who doesn't realize that a God resides in him is at best deluded and broken." is true, it makes the word "God" meaningless.

I think you may be getting indicators and titrants mixed up. (and pH always has a capital H)

Because the equivalent mass of sulphuric acid is not the same as the molar mass.

Meaningless.

It its if you have anything worthwhile to add.

The problem is not adequately specified. What output torque do you need? It will probably help if you tell us what you are trying to achieve.

You cannot sensibly say "genetic therapy is unethical because oranges are full of uranium". You can not support a position by making a statement which is false so you can not justify your claim that "Its on topic because I am pointing out why genetic therapy is unethical.". As it happens I agree with you in that such therapy is, at best, ethically questionable and that each case should be judged on its own merit but you still said "Folic acid is the synthetic version of folate." and it's still strictly wrong, even if you copied it.. Those web pages you cite are also wrong about folate, but they are right about this "Folic acid and folate work the same in the body,." The body doesn't actually use folate, It uses tetrahydrofolate and dihydrofolate.

This "antidepressants give you a stroke" is plainly false. Many people take antidepressants and don't have strokes. Some people have strokes but never took antidepressants. And this "If they do block the reuptake of chemicals, then they cause a blockage. Well, if you have common sense, then you'll know that if a pipe is clogged, water won't travel through it." is a ridiculous misinterpretation of what reuptake inhibitors do. So this "Well, if there is enough pressure on the pipe (because of this blockage), then the pipe will rupture." is of no relevance whatsoever. And yet, on the basis of a complete lack of understanding, Popcorn thinks he is in a position to offer medical advice.

Maybe, just maybe, you should find out what the f*** you are on about before you post gibberish like that. "Just because people like to go far right(science-atheism?) or far left(religion-theism?) in extremes, it doesn't mean I have to join a group which doesn't agree with my personal values. I am staying in the middle, natures middle, the non man-made middle." OK, is the world roughly 6000 years old? There are exactly two answers to that question. One is science's view, and the other is religion's. There is no " middle". You don't have to "join" a group- you are in one. But, since you have no real idea what science is, i guess you couldn't be expected to get that right "note: far right/left has nothing to do with politics." I rather think you will find it has.

Congratulations! you got this far "The words Gnostic and Gnosticism are not exactly standard features in the vocabulary of contemporary people. In fact, more people are familiar with the antonym of Gnostic, which is agnostic, literally meaning a non-knower or ignoramus, but figuratively describing a person with no faith in religion who still resents being called an atheist." before citing a statement which is not just inaccurate, but potentially insulting to a group of people ( the agnostics ) and , as such, may be a breach of the forum rules. "This isn't science, this is esotericism and I don't like to use science to prove this." How else could you prove it? Incidentally, I didn't ask you to use science: I just asked you to explain how you "knew" it was true. Re "Also, you have talked a few times about "revealed truth". What truths have been revealed? Truths as to how the universe is working and who is in control of it. There were revealed truths." Why do you believe that these are "true". Do you have any actual evidence beyond "it says it in an old book" or " a long tradition of people say it" Both of those are an appeal to authority. Do you realise that an appeal to authority is not a valid reason for me to believe it? "That's why we don't just rely on Holy books alone." "The oral traditions are as much important as the holy scriptures." But those are just made-up stories too. So you are basing things on essentially a lot of old stories. Also this "Though the ancient Aryans used to perform rituals in a holistic way for the good of the whole world" is begging the question. It's assuming that some good is done. There is no reason to believe that: no evidence and no established causal path. "It is advisable to practice it to test the efficacy of this method under the guidance of a master and the verses after the asterisk (*) should be silently uttered in the mind when performing each step." Why? What evidence is that that such an action achieves anything beyond a psychosomatic reaction in the person concerned (and the same sort of well documented exercise induced euphoria that a lot of joggers etc get) You don't, or won't, understand that there is no more factual basis to your faith than there is to a belief in the tooth fairy. It is not sufficient to say that it is a poor analogy, you need to explain why it fails. Don't show me pictures of a man doing old exercises. Show me that they achieve something: Show me the evidence.

Spectacularly wrong and also off-topic. In particular re "Folic acid is the synthetic version of folate." No it's not. Learn some chemistry. Any way, back at the topic. Why is it that so many people who understand that biodiversity is a good thing, think that the same doesn't apply to humans.

Prove it. Show us that you can really access a real noumenon. Prove that it isn't just imagined stuff. Also, you have talked a few times about "revealed truth". What truths have been revealed? How can you be sure that they are the "truth", rather than religious propaganda? The various holy books may say some things which are true, but they also say many things which are false so it's impossible to tell whether something is true or not, just based on whether it turns up in one of those books. They simply are not reliable. As far as I can tell, there are no revealed truths. Also, would anyone like to explain why I should have any more respect for someone's belief in God than I would do if they professed a belief in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus? (Just to avoid a repeat of an earlier misunderstanding, not the Turkish guy who died about 1700 years ago, the one in a fur trimmed red suit with the sleigh. So, obviously, I'm talking about the Santa who doesn't exist, but whom little kids believe in, rather than the patron saint of prostitutes. Well, I thought it was obvious, but someone managed not to understand this idea earlier in the thread)