hypervalent_iodine

I disagree. You're practically never going to convince someone on this topic as people who enter into creationist/evolution discussions very rarely enter into them for the purposes of genuine discussion and learning. Some do, most don't. I fail to see how walking away from a pointless discussion is the 'worst thing,' when your only other option is to argue basic points ad nauseum. Unless all you're trying to do is sharpen your debating skills (though surely there's a less irritating way to do that?) Whether or not someone has a degree in something is not particularly relevant to your discussion and you really don't need to discuss mutations that result in speciation at a molecular level to see why the creationist argument is bunk. There are a lot of threads here on SFN that discuss this, so perhaps you could look those up? CharonY and Arete would probably be able to direct you to those better if you can't find them (I'm currently working from my phone/iPad).

Well, I would think that people qualified in the field of evolutionary biology wouldn't use the term evolutionist to describe themselves, so there's that to consider. I find it hard to believe that the creationist argument could sound scientific, but it doesn't really matter. As CharonY mentioned, I think the lack of response here is because the sorts of discussions you reference are very rarely discussions at all and there's almost always no point to them. A lot of members here will have had their fair share of them at SFN alone and in my own experience, they get very old, very fast.

! Moderator Note Popcorn, please avoiding posts that consist solely of videos or links to other sites, especially when those videos are as long as the ones you've posted. If you have something to say in response to the OP, please do summarise your points in written form; it is a little much to expect people to trawl through hours of footage to figure out what you're trying to say. You may provide a link to your YouTube videos as a supplementary to that if you wish, but do not make them the entirety of your post.

! Moderator Note I believe you've been warned about preaching before, Jaya Jagannath. Please do not do it again, or you will face suspension. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note Ron, please stop spamming SFN with your website or you will be banned. This is a site for discussion, not advertising.

! Moderator Note I realise this is a few days late, but we are about stretched for staff per the holiday period. iNow and Alan, chill (though I hope you both have by now). Alan, your response to iNow's question was trollish at best. That being said, iNow, your attack was totally inappropriate. We have a report system. You'd do well to use it to air your grievances instead of crafting insulting outbursts. Alan, you'd best make use of the report system as well if you perceive an infraction rather than attempting to enforce the rules yourself. For the record, the use of WTF really did not warrant your little protest.

Firstly, baking soda is a bit more complicated than that and you appear to be using a very restrictive definition of acids and bases; I would advise you to perhaps look up Bronsted-Lowry and Lewis definitions. Baking soda, NaHCO3, typically reacts with acids to form CO2, H2O and a sodium salt. HF is monoprotic and highly corrosive, but it is not a strong acid just as sodium bicarbonate is not a strong base (meaning they do not fully dissociate in water) and you would likely need more than a 1:1 ratio to get to the equivalence point (though your pH still may not be 7). You may want to read this: http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/?title=Physical_Chemistry/Acids_and_Bases/Ionization_Constants/Acid_and_Base_Strength/Weak_Acids_%26_Bases Secondly, you can get an idea of acid strength by looking at pKa's or base strength by looking at pKb's. These are the logs of the acid / base dissociation constants and may be determined experimentally, or simply by looking them up. Your second paragraph makes no sense and I am not sure what you're asking. What is all of this for?

! Moderator Note Hi LiLim sAtaN, Welcome to SFN. You may want to have a quick look at the rules you agreed to upon signing up to this site, specifically the following rule: ! Moderator Note We will not tolerate racism here. Please be more mindful of this in the future.

It wouldn't work. You should probably avoid giving this sort of advice if you don't know what you're talking about. There are a lot of reducing agents that could potentially work, but it depends on what the OP has access to and what they consider cheap. Really, hydrogen / Pt or Pd would have been my go-to and it's possible that getting 5 or 10% Pt/C is more doable than purchasing one of the many pyrophoric reagents that would work (such as sodium or sodium borohydride), even if it is a little more expensive (you only need a catalytic amount, anyway).

! Moderator Note We've established that it is okay to answer the OP, so stick to the topic, please.

! Moderator Note No. You were asked to elaborate, you didn't, thread closed. Do not reopen it.

! Moderator Note in the opinion of staff, the OP is not asking for personal medical advice, (s)he is asking for technical/theoretical answers to a mechanistic question. It is fine for people to answer this.

Is there a problem with just buying propane? Or is this just to see if you can?

! Moderator Note These festively coloured notes mean that I am not here to debate the content, I am here to tell you to start following the rules. Last chance.

! Moderator Note Yeah, that's not how this works. If you say you have a 'theroy' (sic), then it is up to you to demonstrate it and provide evidence. At the very least, you need to provide some detail about what your hypothesis actually is, evidence for why you believe it to be a better description of our current model and what it predicts. If not, this will be closed.

! Moderator Note Popcorn, just because your last closed thread on this dates back months does not mean we're going to now suddenly let you open it again. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note Endercreeper, I'm going to close this thread now. You were given your chance, so please do not reopen the thread. And before you try opening another coefficient of whatever thread, please take Bignose's advice and go away and learn something first.

! Moderator Note Endercreeper, I have moved this to Speculations.you are going to need to do a better job of proving your claim here, as well as why the current proofs for why 0.999... = 1 are not correct. Again, this will be closed if you don't comply. You should also be warned that you are wearing our patience very thin with these sorts of threads.

He's been banned, so he'll be ignoring it indefinitely. On a related note, since the OP is no longer with us, this may as well be closed. Edit: I am re opening this upon request.

! Moderator Note Firstly, moved to Speculations. Secondly, please provide a synopsis of the video and some evidence to back up the claim in your title. If you can't, I will be closing this thread.

! Moderator Note I realise that this is a month late, but this is totally unacceptable. If you can't post here without being insulting, then don't post at all or be prepared for a suspension. Secondly, you are responsible for providing evidence for your claims (not anyone else, since black holes are an accepted model in physics) and you are responsible for demonstrating how they are linked and you need to do so without waving off criticisms by insulting the intelligence of the people who take the time to reply. In fact, the rules dictate that you have to do this, so please rectify this or the thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note In case some miss it, turionx2 was recently banned as a sock puppet and will not be back to reply to your posts.

turionx2 has been banned as a sock puppet of Consistency.

! Moderator Note hoola, I removed your reply because it was off topic. Please do not keep posting off-topic comments. cixe, perhaps you could clarify your OP because it makes veyr little sense. If not, I will be happy to close this thread as well.

! Moderator Note Once again, Endercreeper, you need to back your threads up with something a little more intellectually sound. I've let this thread go on without moderator notes for as long as Bignose's patience was intact, but since that has begun to diminish I am going to have to ask you to provide evidence for your claims and stop waiving off Bignose's rather rigorous and detailed criticisms or this thread will be closed. Given that we've been here so many times before, I am giving you only one chance to do this in this thread.