John Cuthber

"It is true that almost every religion have loop holes but we shouldn't forget that religion also helped humanity excel and progress." Can you cite evidence for that please? People may have done good things in the name of God, but those people would probably have done good things anyway. What evidence is there that religion "helped humanity excel and progress"? Incidentally, how agnostic are you and tamorph about the tooth fairy and Santa? What about Thor and Ra? You can't prove they don't exist so you should believe in them just as much as you believe in "God". Or would that be a bit silly?

OK, I give up. There's no way I can make someone see sense if they are happy to post that message to the entire internet. Just a quick parting thought: eat lots of fenugreek. For the benefit of anyone else who is still reading this (possibly for laughs rather than education). As I pointed out there's a wiki page dedicated to uraemia which is, in essence, the toxic effect of too much urea in the blood. It has been a long time since anyone said anything about Vitamin B12. People don't produce it. Bacteria do. If any is produced on our skin by the resident bugs that's all well and good; but it would be difficult or impossible to quantify how much (if any) of that gets into the body. A major problem would be the very small quantities involved- You would probably need to radio-label the stuff. Good luck getting that past the ethics committee. The answer to the question which forms the title of the thread is "by not talking nonsense" (and you probably don't want to tell the editor how often you wash your penis).

Since, whatever you may say, there's urea in sweat there's not a lot of point in continuing with this. Get back to us when you have accepted that reality is real. Incidentally, the stuff that I singled out as being excreted in sweat is a plant product http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotolon Would you like to try again?

If is a big word, so is especially. Your sweat will contain urea. Here are the details of urea toxicity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uremia It's not normally considered toxic because it's excreted so rapidly. "And what causes kidney trouble in the first place... Obesity? Eating too much processed red meat? High uric acid levels?" Lots of things, infection would be the obvious one which you have deliberately missed off your list because it doesn't suit your bias. On the other hand, I can't find any reliable link source which says eating red meat leads to kidney disease. High oxalate levels from some foodstuffs like rhubarb and tofu also contribute to kidney damage but I guess you are ignoring them because they are from plants and so they also don't fit with your world-view. High uric acid levels are likely to give rise to kidney damage and gout. One of the best known risk factors for gout is drinking wine. But, since it's not animal derived I guess you won't pay it any attention. I already pointed out that plants are noted sources of purines which are metabolised to uric acid and, again, you seem not to accept that aspect of reality. "I understood that any EXCESS protein gets converted to urea through the urea cycle but its irrelevant because plant-based diets don't negatively effect kidney function." Well, for a start you need to do some research. Individual amino acids (as opposed to total protein) can also be in deficit or excess (though, in some cases they can be interconverted). There are some amino acids which are "essential" i.e. the body can't make them so it needs to get them from food. Unless your diet has exactly the right ratios of all these amino acids some of them will be in excess and that excess will be converted to urea. Some of that urea (which is toxic, whether you like it or not) is excreted in the sweat. Also, non-plant based diets also don't adversely affect kidney function so your tacit claim that they do is false. And you seem not to have answered the other point- the fact is, that other stuff is excreted in sweat too. You remain wrong.

If it turned out that we are a computer simulation, where does that leave the existence of God? If I'm not real, how "real" would God be? Anyway, it's an amusing matter to discuss in the pub, but I don't think many people take the Matrix seriously. Anyway, back to the topic. The thing about God is that He expressly forbids science about Himself. (Deuteronomy 6:16) So, if you believe in Him, you don't do science on Him. If you don't believe in Him, why would you bother to do science on something that's not real? The whole point of God is that He's supernatural, and science deals with nature so there's no sensible science to do with Him. Of course there might be plenty of neuroscience which explains why people suffer from the delusion called religion.

A lot of drugs were discovered rather than invented. Hempseed is a natural whole food and you could extend that definition to the rest of the plant. Opium, magic mushrooms, and coca leaves are natural too. And, if you are not in favour of these plants being legal or illegal, what are you in favour of?

Indeed. There are chromium compounds in every colour of the rainbow and it's also the mirror finish on a lot of metal objects. Is that anything of an inspiration?

From that page "The event was filmed by a number of spectators with many people identifying a UFO" Lol.

It rather depends on the chemicals and the plants.

Do you know how chromium got it's name?

OK, so strictly speaking the sat navs show that the earth couldn't tilt without people noticing it. They didn't, so it didn't.

Plant eaters also produce urea (I already pointed that out- but you didn't read it or understand it). They too will excrete the stuff in their sweat especially if their kidneys fail. And, if you did something outrageous like look at the wiki page you would see that "Some exogenous organic compounds make their way into sweat". Probably the best known example is the excretion of this stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotolon after eating curry. So, stop pretending that you were right. You said "Simply... It wouldn't": you were wrong Incidentally, probably the most widely discussed purines are those in DNA and caffeine. Plants contain those too, but that only matters if you were talking about uric acid and nobody was until you introduced it because, it seems, you didn't know what you were talking about.

I'm on the same planet (in a sense) as the people who wrote those pages. My sat nav still works. It tells me I'm at home. If the earth's tilt had changed it would not do that. So the earth hasn't moved. Sorry to spoil your fun but there's no way out of it. If the earth had moved then my sat nav would be telling me I'm somewhere else. It doesn't so the earth is just where it should be. There is no more to be said on this subject.

LOL

So, how come satellite TV still works then? Satnav?

"I wasn't talking about uric acid as the toxic substance. You came up with it." No I did not. Learn to read. Urea is not uric acid. "Naturally.. a person with kidney trouble will not be excreting large amounts of urea out onto the skin. As you stated." Yes they do. That's why I was able to cite a medical dictionary describing it. And that's why your assertion is still wrong. Why don't you just admit that you were mistaken?

You shouldn't use gas pipes for earthing. Get one of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antistatic_wrist_strap and connect the other end to the metal frame of the treadmill. That way you will dissipate any acquired charge continuously.

Ho Hum This "High urea/uric acid levels are caused by the intake of animal products. It has nothing to do with natural sweat per se." makes no sense for a number of reasons. The cause of high urea levels is generally kidney trouble. Any protein, whether animal or vegetable (or fungal, for that matter) will produce urea if it is oxidatively degraded in the body. If the kidneys don't get rid of it, the urea is passed to the sweat glands for disposal. There is nothing "unnatural" about urea in sweat- it's usually there in small quantities. In any event, the cause of the high urea levels isn't the issue is it? The point is that the body dumps this toxic material onto the skin via the sweat. So when you said "Simply... It wouldn't" you were wrong And you are still wrong. Fundamentally, if we made and absorbed significant amounts of b12 in our sebaceous glands then nobody would get b12 deficiency. They do, so we don't.

Aminolevulenic acid has no chromophore that would allow it to react with light. So your assertion that "Aminolevulinic acid is a molecule that reacts with light and causes cell damage." is impossible. "Why would the body dump toxins on the skin?" to get rid of them. It is known to do this. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/urea+frost So, to say "Simply... It wouldn't" is, again, wrong. "Eccrine sweat is also for tanning the skin with light. I don't know how the photochemistry works between sweat, skin and light;" The people who do know understand how it happens and you have got it wrong. Tanning takes place deep in the skin, below the surface (obviously, or it would wash off). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanocyte

Yes

"So much ignorance in this post that I don't even know where to begin." Well, it's your post, and I'm not arguing about that aspect of it. BTW, calling evolution "rubbish" on a science website is, at best, likely to get you laughed at. Did you not realise that? What bits of bacteriology do you think I need to work on? It's not my field, but I'm sure the µbiologists at work would be happy to explain it to me. "What I meant was that its an assumption that we humans produce it through fermentation and absorb it." For a start, that may be what you meant, but it isn't what you said. Anyway, nobody makes that assumption. It has been documented for decades that the B12 ends up in the sewer (from which it can be recovered): we don't absorb the stuff made in our guts. If "we" made it (well, really "the bugs" made it, but, as you say, "I lack the professional language skills which are necessary to write up what I discover in the first place.") then we wouldn't need it as part of or diets. We do, a few vegans have demonstrated that. When you say things that are wrong it doesn't mean I think you are wrong, it means you are wrong. It's not a viewpoint. Seriously, it's difficult to know what you are calling a "theory" but most of what you have said is demonstrably tripe. Why not just explain the essence of your "theory" by posting it here. If it gets shredded then it was never valid: if it survives then you will be better placed to get a journal to publish the details.

That post is wrong on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start. Humans don't force bacteria to make B12. The bugs were making it before we evolved. We permit them to make it, by giving them good growing conditions in fermentation vessels. We also let them make the stuff in our guts but we don't "force" them to do anything so when you say "I know how humans force bacteria to produce it and take it away." or "You're the chemistry expert and you can't see how humans force bacteria to produce B12?" you are plainly talking nonsense. Let's look again at the first assumption cited here You said "Its an assumption that we humans produce it through fermentation". Hardly: for a start, while I agree that WIKI isn't always right, it's generally fairly well informed about non-controversial things like the industrial production of B12 and it says that the production is by fermentation. and they cite a reference http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00253-001-0902-7 Yet you also say "an assumption means having absolutely no evidence." Anyway, re "By limited mind, I mean being limited in viewpoints." so far, you have only accepted one viewpoint- your own. And you have continued to do so even when it has been shown that you are clearly wrong. So, once again, you say: you can only learn from yourself. You can't learn from limited minds and you have a limited mind. Good luck learning anything.

In fairness, I don't agree that his English is the problem here. I think he has conveyed his ideas well enough that we can tell that they are wrong. That must be rather difficult in a language that someone didn't grow up with. As has been repeatedly pointed out, he has told us nothing of these "sun particles" except that they must be lethal. That's the problem- not linguistics.

The thing is that, if the walls are not in contact with the gas, how will they keep the pressure at 100,000,000,000 atmosphere's pressure? Of course, that's a rhetorical question: nothing would stand that pressure or that temperature. The idea won't work.

Meanwhile, showing on every satellite TV show on the planet, conclusive proof that the earth is still pretty much where it was when they launched the satellite.