John Cuthber

The question is not amenable to a correct answer because, as has been shown, there are many possible answers depending on how the question is interpreted. I think it falls to you to "try harder" to ask a clearer question rather than expecting us to try harder to answer the one you have set.

It doesn't seem that hard to make. There's a patent about it http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2010018199&IA=EP2009060450&DISPLAY=DESC

If I was as easy to please as a bacterium then I too could use a rock as a spaceship (for a short journey).

If you are using 12 or 18 volts to electrolyse water then you are wasting a lot of power. The cell voltage is about 2v and the rest (10 to 16V) is wasted heating the electrolyte. Fuzzwood, I don't think you meant sodium.

Criminalising holocaust denial is a relatively simple way to limit the noise made by a rather obnoxious group. On the other hand, criminalising stupidity is not a clever move unless you are very sure that you will never be seen as one of the stupid ones.

On the whole, unless you have some other medical problem, the body does a really good job of maintaining a pH balance. You don't need to get involved consciously (which is just as well, 'cos it's quite complicated).

"As far as luke testimony not meaning anything your flat out wrong as Luke has been proven to be far more reliable source then even secular historians." Blatant straw-man. I never said that. Rather than answering things I didn't say, perhaps you should answer my original question. Here it is again. Do you really believe that "Even if this could be investigated , there were only 8 people there, "? Also you need to find out what evidence means. Just saying something again doesn't count as evidence.

At least one part of both hands (the pivot points) are coincident and so always at the same distance from anything (in terms of the x and y dimensions) including the 6. The condition is, therefore, met at all times. (Incidentally, my clock is a projection clock so the hour and minute hands actually do occupy the same plane in case anyone was wondering.) Since the condition specified is always met the question simplifies to "what's the exact time?" Well, the forum software timestamps posts reasonably accurately. I think it's about 19:22 (BST).

If I look up and see a distant star it may no longer exist. It might have died before there were any people to see what colour it was so, whatever the reason for the colour, it certainly can't be for our benefit. This "I guess that different colors exist in order for us to be able to differentiate between objects" doesn't make sense. Some stars are redder because they are cooler.

iNow. I think the word you were looking for is "Bollocks" * as in "Assuming something to be a miracle is still a load of bollocks. " Mooeypoo, while you are reminding people of the importance of netiquette, could you explain to Needsimprovement that repeatedly failing to answer questions is also ill mannered. Thanks. * feel free to check out the meaning of the word "In 1977, Professor James Kingsley, a famous linguistics professor at the University of Nottingham, had accredited the word to be used in the early eighteenth century with the Roman Catholic Church priests. His studies show that the actual word "bollocks" means either a 'priest', or 'rubbish spoken by the priest'." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks#Etymology

Here are some pictures of unusually large molecules. They were easy to see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cullinanroughpieces.jpg In principle it's possible to see a single hydrogen atom, provided it is brightly lit and against a dark background. If it scatters enough visible photons towards your eye then you will see it.

If you calculate the ratios of those numbers you find most of them are more than 10% out. (the ratios, as percentages are) 100.00 79.47 116.33 77.78 93.31 93.75 134.83 I speculate that this is a coincidence which just looks "ok" if you plot it on that sort of scale. In any event, unless you can provide a plausible reason why the numbers would follow the rule you expected them to (and remember, most didn't) it would be speculation anyway.

Needsimprovement. Hostile witnesses lie. The experiments were done to study the reliability of eyewitness evidence. The people involved generally knew this. They still proved to be lousy witnesses. If you decide to only believe the witnesses on one side then you have decided what you will see as the outcome so saying "As far as Pauls conversion, it wasn't only written about in pauls own letters but I believe that Luke attested to it" doesn't really convey any information apart from a reaffirmation of your faith. Your faith isn't in question here. The things you put forward as facts are open to contention. I'd really like you to actually answer the points I put forward. Do you really believe that "Even if this could be investigated , there were only 8 people there, "? I'd also like to see some real evidence to support the assertion that "As far as historicity and historically accurate reporting, Luke was a top notch historian, even more accurate then secular accounts of that time. " People who don't respond to reasonable questions tend to get written off as trolls.

Needimprovement, You seem to have quoted the bit where I said "All the experiments done to see if eyewitnesses are reliable show that they are not. (the gorilla is just one experiment among many)", but not understood it. Also, re you assertion " Plus I have shown you why the gorilla experiment is wrong.". Er, no, you have not. The experiment is still right. It's repeatable; people really do fail to see the gorilla. "You cant really compare a gorilla in some sports game to the resurrection of the miracle of Fatima. " I didn't. I didn't mention Fatima. The point I made was that when you said "Even if this could be investigated , there were only 8 people there, " you were totally and utterly wrong; did you not notice that? The other point I made was that the bible is based on eyewitness accounts (albeit often those accounts rewritten in about 325AD) and that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. While we are at it, in answer to your question "Who was more hostile then Paul (Saul of tarsus)?." Well, me for a start. The evidence for this being that I wasn't converted and didn't change my name because of it. ( "Tarsus" is a proper noun and takes a capital letter btw.)

I work for the government and practically none of the stuff we do is anything special. The only bits that don't make it into the public domain are reports containing commercially confidential stuff that would affect, for example, the share prices of companies.Even that data gets out eventually. The "ground breaking" stuff is generally done by universities and, as they have a "publish or perish" mentality I suspect not much stays hidden for long.

Some polymers contain sulphur, polysulphone for example. Rubber, one of the best known polymers, generally contains sulphur as part of the vulcanisation process. Heating these in the absence of oxygen might produce some H2S, but the yield probably wouldn't be good. (Also not all polymers contain long carbon chains; the polysulphide rubbers would be a case in point here)

These two statements "The electrogyre model is not falsifiable. It is based upon scientific evidence. " are damn near mutually exclusive.

It's a reasonable way of degassing solvents, but what context are you asking about?

I doubt this statement "antibiotic resistant bacteria tend to be resistant to sanitizers". Bacteria that waste resources being resistant to, for example, penicillin, will be less able to resist other poisons like the alcohol in skin cleaners.

"Maybe you're an atheist that's why you said that people make lousy eyewitnesses" No, that's not why I said it. All the experiments done to see if eyewitnesses are reliable show that they are not. (the gorilla is just one experiment among many) As you say, the bible is based on eyewitnesses. You are right, I'm an atheist.

"For example, animals are not rational," I have seldom, if ever, seen an animal behave in a way that I can't see a rational reason for.

Actually, my interpretation of the title of the thread led me to think that the proof referred to should have been 1 A proof of the existence of God or 2 Not in this thread. It turns out not to be either. Also, while we may differ on the absolute meaning of, for example, the word "complicated" I think we can probably agree that God is more complex than an atom. That's all it takes to make the atom the more plausible option.

I'd like to know what duob means.

Just a thought Needimprovement. Re "Even if this could be investigated , there were only 8 people there, " Do you really think that the people present would give an honest account? Personally I can't see them saying "oh, yes, we planned to kill him but..." Apart from anything else, if they stuck to that story they would be tried and convicted of attempted murder (or conspiracy to commit murder or some such). The Mystery man with the beard couldn't be found a few seconds later; what hope is there of finding him now? Even if you could find these people, and they were now suddenly honest, you would still have to deal with the gorilla in the basketball court problem. People make lousy witnesses. (this problem) http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=490946 I really don't think you thought that through.

I couldn't be bothered to watch. When I saw "Where do atoms came from? " put forward as "proof" of God I just wondered Where did God come from? In one case you have to say that something relatively simple came into being; in the other case you have to assume that something massively complicated just popped into existence. One of those is vastly more plausible than the other.