Strange

Immortal means being alive. OK, if you are dead, you are not aware that you are no longer alive, but you are still ****ing DEAD. Just shows how silly solipsism is.

I am struggling to come up with an interpretation that could be considered positive (from a Christian PoV).... Unless they interpret "cure" in the sense of "care for" or "curate" ? Or "something that makes Christianity better" ...

They are not alive. This is getting more bizarre.

The density of D2O is 1017.5 kg m-3 @ 3.82 °C The notional density of water is 1000 kg m-3 (at 20 °C, I think). So the heavy-water ice would (just about) sink. You might be able to find a temperature at which it would float (before it melted).

Noooo! Every single word in the Bible is literally true. There is not a single fable, analogy or metaphor in there.

What? Science is based on mathematical models tested against evidence. Those are the reasons that theories get accepted or rejected. If you want your ideas to be considered you need some evidence and a model to explain it. And, ideally, a demonstration of how well the model fits the data.

Looks about right (without measuring everyone and checking). Note that this is abundance on on Earth. (Not in the solar system, the galaxy or the universe as a whole.) Why what?

The magnitude of a vector is always a scalar but not all scalars are the magnitudes of vectors. As in your example of temperature. I'm not sure what the question or controversy is?

You have moved the goalposts (a common rhetorical trick). You said they were fictional, now you say there are "amusing". But, more importantly, you are missing the point. "Anecdotal" evidence, doesn't really have anything to do with anecdotes, in the sense of telling stories (amusing or otherwise). It is a description of the quality of a certain type of evidence. For example, people defend smoking by saying "my grandad smoke 200 cigarettes a day for 70 years and he never had a day's illness". This is anecdotal evidence because it just describes a single case. It may be completely true, and not in the least bit amusing but by itself it is not useful evidence. We know, from large scale studies, that there are a large number of health risks associated with smoking. No single example can overthrow the weight of evidence. Similarly, ancient texts, of whatever source, may provide some information about the past. But, without corroborative evidence, they are not conclusive. For example, it used to be thought that the story of Troy was probably largely mythical (perhaps based on real events at different times and different places). But since then, archeological evidence has been found that is consistent with the story so it is now taken to be largely true. Very few people here seem to know what logic is, let alone use it correctly. You have shown little sign of that. When you say "logic that's correct" are you referring to validity or soundness?

So no evidence, then.

What evidence do you have for this? People have been eating fermented and cultured foods for millennia. Cancer is still around. 1. There is a massive amount of research and investment in these technologies. 2. What evidence do you have of any significance for optical health? Light is light. No it wasn't. The main motivation was battery life. Colour versions are available. The biggest challenge is speed of update, not resolution. Citation needed.

Yes. Expansion only occurs on very large scale. Galaxy clusters (and smaller things) are held together by their gravity.

What variables and data are excluded? What specific bias is present in science. 1. Should Tenchikaibyaku and every other creation story also be considered as evidence? (After all, you want to avoid bias) 2. If we consider "Genesis is correct" as a hypothesis, then the scientific method is to compare that hypothesis with evidence in the real world. There does not appear to be any evidence to support the hypothesis. I thought the lion's share of research was supposed to be spent on the Kindle? Nutrition is important - particularly for the large proportion of the world's population who are suffering from malnutrition. But it is not a general cure for disease. Even when they work?

That doesn't make it correct. Parts of it are clearly not correct.

I think it could be argued that the popular worship of saints is a form of polytheism.

But there are other measures that could be used to estimate your lifespan. (Obviously, the future is unknown so it can only be a statistical prediction.)

He is the [possibly mythical] founder of Judeo-Christian monotheism. But there are/have been other monotheistic religions.

What do you suggest is used? There are several branches of science that use textual information. An obvious example is linguistics.

Sorry about that. But he has said plenty in other threads.

If you think that using objective measurements to test ideas is dangerous then I don't think there is much hope for you.

Obviously. But that has nothing to do with your original claim. Every time you are challenged on one of your claims you resort to some sort of rhetorical fallacy or trick: shifting the goal posts, straw man arguments, non sequiturs, etc. I assume this is because you are unable to substantiate any of your beliefs.

You keep saying this. You provide no examples or evidence. It is very obviously not true.

As they are based on well-tested science, I would say they are better than random, untested speculation. We have models of the atom which are tested. The one you refer to was abandoned long ago. It doesn't work. I certainly don't think everything is pointless. Ideas based on evidence can be useful. Perhaps you could tell us how you would test your idea? What would convince you it is wrong? (That is, after all, how science works.)

But we have physics theories that do describe what happens there. That model of the atom is just wrong. So, no maths and no evidence. This seems pretty pointless.

i.e. not to the person it matters to. I'm afraid I can't get my head around the logic that equates being dead with being alive.