shadowacct

OK, now its time for me to come back on this. ParanoiA exactly got the point and he could not phrase it better. I was so extremely patronizing for a reason! I just found it is time to stir up some dust and then it may be necessary to use strong words, otherwise the dust may settle again, unnoticed I really dislike people who try to ram their belief in my throat (something like some Jehova's witnesses try to do when they push their feet in the opening of the door), but the same is true with the way some people over here (only some!) are trying to ram their atheist view into the throat of everybody else without any respect.

I also made a little joke, about Mr Skeptic's one Btw, iNow is just an example, I picked his name, but there are more like him over here

That's as fake as the purple unicorn with its farts, most DNA structure and cell structure is ruptured by the freezing process and you know that. It's only postponing the process of rotting two feet under the grass. One day, the freezers will go out when noone cares about the frozen pieces of meat inside anymore, and then the process sets in, as described above

He is not a christian, he is a charlatan.

This kind of mails really pisses me off. This is utter bullshit. I have had many similar mails. Sometimes they pretend to be christian, sometimes they do not refer to any religion. But whatever they pretend, they are only after one thing. YOUR money! One year or so, I read a nice article about a person in the UK, who actually did respond to this kind of mails. He was told to transfer GBP 5000 or so, but he responded that in order to do that, they first had to pay him GBP 50 or so. This happened quite a few times. After that, he simply quit. This guy collected a few hundreds of pounds, and gave this to some charity organisation .

Yesterday I read in our newspaper that the images of WMAP might be wrong. The irregularities might be caused by dust in our own galaxy. If this is true, then the background radiation is much more uniform than WMAP suggests. This could have large consequences for the theories about the earliest span of time of the universe. @YT: big bang indeed occurred everywhere in our known universe. Probably, spacetime already was infinite at the time of big bang, but a very small area expanded to what is our known universe. Space itself expanded. The "border" we have in our universe is not a real physical border, we simply cannot look away more than appr. 13.7 billion lightyears, because at that distance the light from the beginning of the universe started. An observer, e.g. 10 billion lightyears distance from our position can see part of our universe, and also part, which is beyond our horizon, beyond which we cannot observe anything. Think of the two observers as two points, with circles around them, the circles having a diameter of 13.7 billion lightyears, each circle being the observable universe for that observer. The universe hence is much larger than what we can observe.

I'm getting really tired of this.... this evolution vs. creation debate reminds me of Psalm 119. It seems to last forever . There also is one big difference. Psalm 119 has something to tell. What about this debate??

Assuming the electrodes are inert, you'll get the following: Anode: oxygen gas Cathode: probably some hydrogen gas, but also reduction of permanganate to MnO2. If pH is very low, you even can get reduction to Mn(2+).

That's rubbish and no serious chemistry. Use real chemicals! Toilet cleaner may contain some HCl, but it also contains detergents, perfumes, stuff to make it more viscous, coloring agents, et.c Totally useless for any other purpose than cleaning surfaces. HCl in reasonable purity must be available in any hardware store. It also is called muriatic acid. This acid can be somewhat yellow/green, but simple distillation makes pure HCl (dissolved in water), perfectly suitable for experiments.

Allowing the water to evaporate will not result in formation of FeCl2. The material will be oxidized and at best you'll end up with a mix of hydrated FeCl2 and FeCl3. More likely, you'll end up with a basic ferric chloride. I also doubt whether you can make the anhydrous salt in a dessicator. Many hydrated salts of transition metals tend to loose HCl as well as H2O, leaving behind a basic chloride. Many such salts need drying in an atmosphere of HCl. I'm not sure, however, how strong this effect is for FeCl2.4H2O.

Ah.. yes, the OP definitely meant MnO2. This is a strong catalyst for decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. Question for the OP: What is a characteristic property of a catalyst? What are the decomposition products of hydrogen peroxide.

Hmmm... again cold hearts and hot heads. This kind of discussion leads to nothing. Only Retrograder got it right. That is the attitude which can really help us further in our understanding. Please stop "evangelizing". Both camps do harm to science, _and_ to religion. MrSandman, feel free to believe that God created the world appr. 7000 years ago, but why must others be told all over again? Is this essential for your belief? I hope not. On the other hand, from a scientific point of view, most other posters may be right, but does it really add anything to the discussion evolution vs. creation? Both camps are ramming their point of view through the throat of others and that makes me sick . This is not the core message of christian faith. Narrowing down the set of possible options for how the world came into being to young earth creationism is narrowing down the greatness of God and the beauty and mystical thing of Gods creation. Why could God not have worked in a different way? The Genesis account is not meant to be read as a sciencebook, it tells that God created universe and why He created this. It is not a record of how He precisely created this. I understand that this leaves open LOTS of questions, but if you are honest, then you accept the challenge. I personally have lots of questions on evolution also, and not everything is clear to me, but if you look around, then there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, and you cannot deny this. What you try to do is bending, deforming, and pushing things in such a way, that the evidence does not seem like evidence anymore, but most likely that is not the right way to respond to this evidence. All creationist explanations, that I have seen, require so much bending, deforming, and pushing that they make these explanations HIGHLY unlikely. To my personal opinion, the whole quarrel evolution vs. creation is not a scientific discussion, but a discussion with an agenda behind the visible agenda. Some people (only some) use evolution as a device for actively fighting against religion. Many others follow those few anti-religion people, thinking they are doing good things for science, but unfortunately they do not see the agenda behind the visible agenda. In response to this, many christians (but also muslims and other religious people) react with a stubborn young earth creationism, not because of the scientific importance, but in an attempt to 'rescue' their religion. Both camps abuse the Genesis account. The hardcore agressive atheists read it literally, so thay can say: "See these fairy tales? Do you see that we are right, we at least have lots of SCIENTIFIC FACTS!". The young earth creationists read it literally, because this useless quarrel has blinded their eyes so much for the true message of the word of God, that they simply forget that and only focus on one little aspect of the word of God. Finally, there are two victims: 1) Science. The discussion is so far, that even questioning some aspects of evolution makes you suspect and a person generating new "wild" ideas in this area is regarded an heretic. Sometimes, however, "wild" ideas can open completely new lines of thought and can open up doors to new insights. That is what makes science such a fantastic thing, and in this area of science there hardly is any room for this anymore. 2) Religion. The true nature of religion is not a concrete belief in some book/scripture, but it is a personal relation with God, the people around you and the world in which you live. This discussion creationism vs. evolution narrows down religion to only one little aspect.

Hope the following helps, but you have to write your own reaction equations. I hope to add some understanding with my reply, and if you give reaction equations, then we can have a look at them. As iNow suggests, this is not a spoonfeeding forum, but many people are willing to help you understand things. 1) Dissolving of solid, subsequent ionization. Ammonium ion is a (weak) acid. There will be an equilibrium. Which one? 2) Magnesium dioxide? This does not exist. There is a compound, called magnesium peroxide, MgO2, but this is not a normal oxide. I suspect this question is ill-posed. 3) Have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metathesis_reaction_(chemistry). You get an aqueous metathesis reaction. 4) Look at the redox potential table for metals and compare this with the potential for 2H(+) + 2e --> H2. Do you think magnesium will react?

John, the oxidation could also go as follows: 2MnO4(-) + H2O2 + 6H(+) ---> 2Mn(2+) + 3O2 + 4H2O As a side reaction then we could have: 4H2O2 ---> 2O2 + 4H2O Sum both reactions left and right, and you get equation (5) of the document. This is interesting. The reaction can have any stoichimetry, with linear combinations of my two equations, but apparently only one combination is really happening. You are right with your second point (at least for the acidic situation). EDIT: The combination, which really happens is based on the half-equations. For lower than 5H2O2, there also would be oxidation of water (through the acid). For higher than 5H2O2, there also would be decomposition of H2O2.