John Cuthber

There are lots of ways to do this. What is the actual goal? Some methods might be better than others, depending on the purpose.

Ascii is the new kid on the block. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code Since about 1840 You need to account for the times so it needs to be a bit more complicated. For example, 1 for a dot; 2 for a dash; 3 between letters

Indeed.

They tried the other metals and iron works best. The cost of a catalyst isn't much of an issue since it's reused. They do use platinum for some things like nitric acid production.

Good point. HPO4 -- does indeed dissociate into PO4--- and H+ But, if there are a significant number of protons about then the reaction will be pushed back to form HPO4-- So at the pH where you have H2PO4- and HPO4-- in significant quantities, the amount of PO4--- is tiny so you can neglect it.

When we have finished deciding "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" we can move onto "What is the difference between an ether that does not exist and an ether that can never be detected?"

Given proper upbringing, all children ( with a few unfortunate exceptions who can be thought of as "broken" for this discussion anyway) are able to learn to use rational thought. Those who lost that ability (even if it's just in respect of some facts) are broken. The norm is to be able to tell fact from fiction. The norm is to learn that fairies are not real. The norm is to recognise that there are no unicorns. Believing in a God is a departure from that norm.

No, but they all have broadly the same pattern of side effects.

Thomas, if you had spent more time reading the forum you would know that the issues you are talking about had been sorted out already. There really are contradictions in the Christian Faith. Also, using bigger text makes it look like you are trying to compensate for something.

I'm sure there's a formal name for that, but I first heard it expressed as the " a million lemmings can't be wrong" theory. If it were true that belief by many people is equivalent to proof (or even good evidence) then there would never be changes in scientific belief in the way that happened with Copernicus or Einstein. The fact remains that there is actual evidence otherwise. Plenty has been cited here in this thread. The existence of evil, the contradictions in the bible, and so on all show that the "consensus" view is deeply flawed.

Villain, Or even the way I already said. Did you not see this bit? (evidence that would stand up in court or be published in a peer reviewed science journal)

There's a really good reason why scientists say that tea contains caffeine. It does, lots. It also contains some theophyline which is one of the dimethyl xanthines. Cocoa contains a fair bit of one of the other dimethylxanthines theobromine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theobromine Those of you who are keeping count will realise there's another dimethylxanthine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraxanthine and there are also three different (mono) methylxanthines. None of these has the effect that the OP is after.

There's a definite flaw in the logic here. The sun exists. There is plenty of evidence for it. It has characteristics (such as a surface temperature). There is, on the other hand, no evidence that God exists (evidence that would stand up in court or be published in a peer reviewed science journal). If I was to say that I believe that God exists because He spoke to me and told me to kill lots of people then that would make me "broken" rather than the messiah. This would be true even if I though it was a valid reason. The brokenness would not then be my belief in God, but my belief that "hearing voices" is actually evidence. Until there is actually some evidence for God, belief in Him isn't rational. Saying "I believe He is real because I remembered to put my trousers on the right way round this morning" isn't evidence. All the other so called "evidence" that I have seen is comparable to that. You say "My opinion is that there is evidence of God" OK, present that evidence so we can all judge it. But I have a prediction here. It will be shown to be inadequate in some way or another.

At least this is a valid issue. Iff there were a God and someone had evidence of His existence then that individual would not be broken. But the others who to believe in spite of the lack of support and the contradictions would still be so. At best this modifies the assertion in the title to "At least very nearly all people who believe in God are broken and, as far as we can tell, all of them are." Hardly a difference worth pointing out.

Thanks.

Oops! Clicked the wrong button. Dekan, please consider yourself + 2

If there was a drug that did all that, we would all have heard of it.

Did it not strike you that it would be nearly as easy, and a lot more effective, to actually cite evidence? At least cite the relevant bits of what you have said among the last 47 pages of posts.

If peltier coolers really dumped 100 times more heat than they pumped, who would buy them?

The ants are slightly flattered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant-fungus_mutualism Seriously, there really are not may things that make us unique, apart from our obsessive belief that we are, in fact, unique. There are lots of things that we do to a greater extent than other animals, but few things where we are the only ones to do it.

iNow, I think you may have misunderstood Villain's post I think perhaps he considers himself to be the " all knowing" and, since no one can prove him wrong, he's not bothering to contribute. I grant you it's a bit of a stretch, but it's more plausible than that he really replied to an invitation to explain himself by saying he wasn't going to because he couldn't change our minds.

Being intelligent isn't always the best strategy. Ask a sea squirt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunicate#Life_cycle Also, as a species we are hardly better able to "master" bacteria than most animals. For a start, antibiotics are a very recent development. They are also too expensive for many, if not most, of the people who need them. OK, we have a better understanding of antibiotics, but if we are all that clever how come we keep prescribing them for viral conditions: this behaviour does nothing but promote resistance? We were not the first to use them anyway: the fungus that produces penicillin using it a long time before we caught on. Practically the whole of your ability to throw off infections is due to your immune system and that's no better (probably worse) than that of your pet dog or whatever. If all the antibiotics stopped working tomorrow the human race would carry on. If the immune system stopped working I doubt we would last a day. The bacteria are now laughing slightly more loudly.

Are you sure? "Technically, the word efficiency relates to the ratio of the amount of work one gets out of a machine to the amount of power input. In heat pumping applications, this term is rarely used because it is possible to remove more heat than the amount of power input it takes to move that heat. For thermoelectric modules, it is standard to use the term "coefficient of performance" rather than "efficiency." The coefficient of performance (COP) is the amount of heat pumped divided by the amount of supplied electrical power. The COP depends on the heat load, input power, and the required temperature differential. Typically, the COP is between 0.3 and 0.7 for single-stage applications. However, COPs greater than 1.0 can be achieved especially when the module is pumping against a positive temperature difference (that is, when the module is removing heat from an object that is warmer than the ambient)." from http://www.tetech.com/FAQ-Technical-Information.html#2 (other suppliers are available, but this was the first one Google found for me)

God knows. The quantity of actual cocaine in the material would be variable (plants are not always consistent). I'm not familiar with the preparation you are talking about so It's impossible to estimate the dose of cocaine. Perhaps the best answer I can give is that the effect would be pretty much the same as if you mixed the same amount of cocaine into - for example, water or orange juice and drank that. I'd not recommend it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant_psychosis#Cocaine