John Cuthber

It hasn't moved in 40 years http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091109050756AAxqqXw It hasn't moved in 400 years http://jane.whiteoaks.com/2009/08/31/chasing-galileo-22-day-old-moon-comparison/ And it hasn't moved in 4000 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge And, if it had moved in the last 4 years, most people's sat navs and satellite TV wouldn't work. Why do you persist in believing this sort of nonsense?

Here's evidence that the Earth is tilting on it's axis. Watch both videos and I guarantee you will be convinced Why would I watch a video? I can look out of the window and see the moon, looking just the same as it did in old paintings. If, on the other hand, I look at it from the other hemisphere, it's the "wrong" way up. So, if the earth's axis tilted I wouldn't need a video, just my eyes. Why do you believe all this rubbish? Why didn't you realise that you can tell it is nonsense, by just looking at the moon?

"Well...A chamber made of thick titanium backed up with walls of lead say 50 to 100 feet thick which are then encased in re-enforced concrete walls 50 to 100 feet thick" Titanium melts at about 1700 C. How long do you think it would last when 10,000 times hotter?

The pressure at the centre of the sun is something like 10^11 bar and the temperature is about 15,000,000K What are you going to make the pressure vessel from? Also, it's not often realised just how little heat the sun generates. Overall it produces a lot of heat (10^26 Watts,) But that's only because it is very big. (10^30Kg) However a ton of material from the sun's centre generates (very roughly) about as much heat in a year as a compost heap of the same weight. It's not sufficient to get fusion to work as well as the Sun, we need to do it thousands of times better

Get a grip. You can't talk about vitamins, particularly deficiency states, without talking about food, If you are not supplementing the B12 provided by food, what are you supplementing. There is more to science than experiment. As was discussed at some length- it is a vital part of science, that it make assumptions. It remains the case that you assumed that I was wrong (rather than, perhaps a little careless with language). So you made an assumption: end of debate. No "twisting of words" needed. And you indicated what you mean my a limit mind thusly "Making assumptions instead of asking for clarification is a sign of being limited." So, you included yourself in the "limited" people. You also said "I can learn from others if the knowledge isn't coming from a limited mind." and you said "Autodidact implies a person who can only learn by teaching oneself." And, in the title of the tread you imply that you are an autodidact. And, once again, you are saying that you are the one who is right and that I'm twisting words. Nope, you are just plain wrong. I pointed it out, that's all

You keep making essentially the same argument from ignorance. Because you can not make a computer which can prove (some) things in mathematics which humans can, you assume that it's impossible. I contend that I don't need to understand how that computer works to demonstrate its existence: because I have one between my ears. In a sense your view is begging the question. You say the mind is not a computer because it can do things which a computer can't do. It's just as valid to say that, because the mind can do these things, and the mind is a computer (albeit made of grey squishy stuff) a computer demonstrably can do these things. For example: a computer solved Fermat's last theorem. It was the computer in this guy's head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles No need for God, just a rather better computer than you or I can (at least currently) understand.

"Making assumptions instead of asking for clarification is a sign of being limited." So you say that all scientists are "limited". You asked "Can anyone self-learn and make discoveries?" And my answer is "if you want make discoveries in amateur science, I recommend astronomy." It's fairly clear that it would generalise. BTW, the reason I didn't say "proper" was that it would have been a statement of the obvious. However, instead, you "assumed" that I was wrong. Congratulations you have just defined yourself as "limited". Since you can't learn from others and you can't learn from limited people you have just declared that you can't learn.

"I've always found the concept of American poverty as rather humorous. Poor Americans can only be considered poor comparing them to other well off Americans. It requires a comparison because people with a house, air conditioning, car, food, clothing, TV, cell phones, game systems and etc can only be considered "poor" when compared to someone else with a nice house, nice air conditiong, nice car, nice food, great clothing, incredible TV, the latest cell phones and game systems." I don't find much humour in it. For some reason you seem to have forgotten "dying early" as one aspect of poverty. I'm also unimpressed by this sort of thing http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-issue-of-homeless-us-veterans/7907 However, what I find particularly distasteful is the rising gap between the highest and lowest earners.

I never said it was a choice: I said you had mis-defined it. How have you come to the decision that any of the minds here are limited? Do you realise that many here have come to the same conclusion about you (not least because of the logic faults you have displayed) Do you really think we are all wrong, and you are the only one who is right? How would you react if you saw someone else acting like that (i.e. making clear errors but claiming to be the only one who is right)? No, I understood, you didn't. Animals do not need vit B 12 supplements: if they did they would die out in the wild. Yet they survived just fine in the world before we came along. They continued to survive with our care and exploitation (take your pick- it doesn't alter the argument) for centuries before we had a clue that B12 existed. Obviously, at that point they were getting their b 12 from their food. Clearly, farming practice has changed and, it seems, the food which we provide them is inadequate- that's why we add b12. If we gave the animals proper food, they wouldn't need the supplements. So, as I said (and you misunderstood), animals don't need supplements- they need proper food. My dad still has his army issue knife and a bayonet. They would roughly f*** all squared use at 20 yards. Incidentally, if you want make discoveries in amateur science, I recommend astronomy. Of course that relies on not living in an area with too much light pollution.

You can stop waiting now (Sorry, I had to catch the bus to work earlier.) http://www.softpedia.com/get/Others/Home-Education/Computer-Generated-Encyclopedia-of-Euclidean-Geometry.shtml Others are available. So, lets be clear about this. Computers can generate new mathematics- previously unknown to man. On that score, humans are no longer unique (if they ever were: I'm not getting into an argument about what animals think here) BTW, I read Penrose's book when it was new. It didn't convince me then either. Citing it doesn't do anything to convince me of the validity of your case.

I missed the link. Could you take it on faith for the minute that I'm not stupid enough to lie about it and answer the point? Computer generated proofs exist. So either the machines have God in them too, or proof doesn't need God.

If you removed the bollocks from this post there wouldn't be much left.

I understood that the US prison system was designed to make money. That's consistent with very poor rehabilitation rates and a very high proportion of the population in prison. Financially speaking, the prison service is a great success.

"I've found another report on area 51 that tends to give a certain amount of credibility to the other 2 videos" No it doesn't.

Past experience of Semjase's ability to discriminate good from bad on youtube indicates that it may leave a lot to be desired. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72880-meteorite-fall-in-chelyabinsk/?p=730122

There are two major problems with Immortal's latests assertions. The first is an argument from ignorance. He thinks that , because he doesn't understand the mechanisms by which the brain does things, it can not do them without needing to involve some sort of "magical" ingredient. That's plainly absurd. the second thing is the he tacitly asserts that some sort of "magical" event takes place when a mathematician comes up with something new, and he assigns that "magic" to God. OK, by that "definition", computers are now blessed by God because computers can invent mathematical theorems which nobody knew about before. Here's a link to a book full of them. So, either the programmers managed to build some "magic" into their computer or Immortal is simply wrong to assume that creating new maths needs "magic". That's not too big a shock. He made the assumption that some "magic" was needed on the basis that he doesn't understand the neuroscience involved. Well, nor do I and I suspect nobody does. But that doesn't mean that there is no "magic free" explanation- it just means we haven't found it yet.

"The only other realistic solutions to prevent them re offending are indefinite detention or euthanasia." Why have you given up on society?

This "There is no mechanism with in the neuro-chemistry of the brain which can account for how the mathematicians can access the ideal world of the platonic realm and obtain absolute mathematical truths." is an argument from ignorance and, as such, a logical fallacy. Looking on the bright side, it makes a change from the appeals to authority which I'm sure we were all getting bored of.

Seriously, there is roughly as good a reason that the offenders should castrate the society. The US has the highest incarceration rates in the world. That strongly suggests that there is something abouut their society which leads to increased criminality. In any individual case you can say "He didn't have to comit that crime" but, in general some poor soul did. Incidentally, the post immediately above this one as I write is a spam advert for a mesh screen door. It makes more sense than the OP.

"Autodidact implies a person who can only learn by teaching oneself." No, it does not. However if you believe that you can't learn from others, what are you doing here? It's against the rules to preach to us. "Naturally, animals products don't contain enough Vitamin B12; hence why animals require supplementation." No, they require food. They always have. "And we have no killing instincts unless we are severely in ketosis." So wrong, it's silly; ask an army.

What sort of tubes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube

Should this be in the homework help section?

"First of all, Jesus took away the sins of the world. Not just sins by Christians or former Christians, but all sin. So, how could a Christian parent, for example, stone a child to death for disobedience? It doesn’t fit the overall Christian faith." It fits perfectly: that's exactly what it says in the OT and is reinforced in the NT when Jesus says that all the laws of the OT still apply. "Someone who sincerely believes in Christ, believes that God alone punishes the unrepentant sinner, maybe not in this life, but definitely by — or on — judgment day. The New Testament is chock full of talk about love, forgiveness and giving. Our job is to love; God will punish." And yet, as has been pointed out, the old laws of the OT still apply; so the "an eye for an eye " still holds true. And Christ also points out, in respect of “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire” So, you are screwed, because anger is part of the human condition (God-given condition and consistent with being part of God's image since God is noted for getting his knickers in a twist and, for example, sending floods + plagues) “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” So, once again God (who made you think like that) has screwed you over again. "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.” So, once again, it's "don't do as I do: Do as I tell you" from God. "So, this alternate interpretation would be contradictory that — in the middle of encouraging us to be to be meek, to be merciful and to be peacemakers, to not be angry, to love your enemies, to turn the other cheek to go the extra mile, etc — Christ basically mentions that, oh by the way, if your kid disobeys you, stone the brat to death." So, God, through Christ, reminds us that He doesn't want us to behave in the way that He does (and, made in his image, the way we tend to behave) under threat of eternal damnation. So, H's a total shit. That's perfectly consistent with telling us- "By the way, I wasn't joking about stoning the kids to death". The interpretation that when Christ said that the OT stands, he meant that the OT stands, is perfectly consistent. What's inconsistent is that there's any love involved. Why do you insist on pretending the Christ meant something other than what he said? He said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law" Why do you not accept that he didn't change the old laws: the OT laws (stoning etc) were not abolished? If he had meant to change the law (i.e. to say that God had previously got it wrong, which is "interesting") Why not say so? Why, in particular, say the exact opposite?

There can be no sensible disagreement with the observation that the Bible contradicts itself http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html It is, therefore, at best an unreliable source. You can not rely on it as evidence for science. on the other hand, countless experiments and observations show that evolution happens in things other than humans. So, when you start by saying "I think that only humans evolve. This I say because if you look at the Bible..." you are not going to get very far on a scientific website.

So, you took a drug which is known to reduce blood pressure. Shortly afterwards you had a stroke, which is known to be strongly associated with high blood pressure.Yet you blame the drug for the stroke. That looks like a post hoc fallacy to me. And, as has been pointed out, adults generally have the authority to say that they don't want to take any treatment. Would you like to comment on the circumstances under which you received this treatment? As far as I know, doctors are not in the habit of press ganging patients into taking drugs. Had you, for example, been admitted to hospital?