Strange

So we have already established that you don't know anything about evolution. Now it seems you don't know what "Creationism" means. The fact that you know nothing about evolution (or, apparently, creationism) does not make it moot. Simply because the ignorant try and impose their ideas on others, even though reality shows them to be wrong.

What does "gravitational velocity" mean? It depends what you measure it relative to. There is no absolute velocity or time. There is no centre of the universe. They don't track all particles. (They have enough trouble just tracking the ones they generate!) That is nothing to do with you claim that there is absolute time.

Or: "Nurse! He's out of bed again!"

Then you need to show why general relativity is wrong (despite making accurate predictions and being used in all sorts of technology - e.g. the Internet). Because the evidence disagrees with you. And if it is a choice between evidence/reality and some unknown guy on the Internet, I am going to stick with reality. Sorry.

I really liked: "Also of note: the gut has 100 million neurons. For those of you counting, that’s seven thousand times more than the heart. Maybe “The Institute of BowelMath” didn’t sound sexy enough?" A money making scam organization selling quack medicine. No. It is a small number of neurons (nerve cells) that control the heart's activity to ensure it meets its requirements for pumping blood. I don't think so. (My heart says no.)

Here is another article by the same author: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17981929 The heart has neurons that control its behaviour. Not exactly a surprise.

Not even, not even not wrong.

No. That is how it is used, mathematically, in modern science: as a dimension. You might not like that but ...

There is nothing there but a title.

We use equations all the time in the real world. have you never calculated how many miles per gallon you get from your car? Or your average speed to get from A to B? Do you think that cars, computers and medicines are designed without maths? It is up there in the Top Ten Wrongest Things Anyone Has Said. Ever. It is so wrong it goes through "not even wrong" and out the other side to "just wrong"

That confirms the suggestion that he made a lot of money from writing books and talking about them. I don't wish to talk badly of the dead, so I will assume he believed the nonsense he pedalled, rather than being deliberately dishonest. That doesn't mean you have to believe it. You can take a more rational approach and use your God-given intelligence to question the ideas in a scientific manner. Rather than being a gullible fool like all those who bought his books.

Dr Who has two hearts. But he is not human. "Aside from conjoined twins, no human is born with two hearts." http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131122-can-humans-have-two-hearts

Well, if you can't find any scientific support for it, then I would say it is not science. I am not going to waste my time doing your research for you. If you are too lazy to find support for this, why should anyone else bother. Sorry, that is not how it works. You don't assume unicorns are real until someone proves otherwise. If you don't have any scientific evidence then we can just ignore this as the nonsense it appears to be.

It means that the rate at which someone ages depends on movement and gravity. It is not absolute. Indeed. Every single example of a "paradox" in science is simply a label used to describe something which has surprising results.

Why would everything be "in a shape"? What shape do numbers have? Infinity is bigger than any number (because whatever number you choose you can always add 1 to it). http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/clips/zjyd7ty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

So in response to a criticism of using the Dail Fail as a source, you post more articles from the same rag. I'm not even going to bother reading them. I don't know. Are there are any peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject?

If it is in the Daily Mail, then it could just be a story they made up. Much of what they publish is lies. The story even contradicts itself. I woud recommend you avoid reading that ignorant hate-filled rag. On the other hand, millions of people get married and die, and thousands of them have transplants, so some sequence of events like this wouldn't be too surprising. It certainly isn't scientific evidence of anything.

Your friend is correct. It appears to be a work of fiction. Can you find any scientific research that supports the author's claims? They provide scientific evidence that the brain is responsible for decision making.

Someone should make a film of that. Oh, hang on ...

I doubt it, very much. It looks like utter drivel. (Why post a random picture, instead of a link to the book you are asking about.) To make money. Read his bio: he writes popular books about nonsense and then gets paid huge amounts to talk about them. Wikipedia defines cellular memory as "the pseudoscientific hypothesis that memories can be stored in individual cells". So, no.

Then perhaps you could explain how our most successful theories, which treat time as a dimension not as a "sequence", are able to work.

We observe all three categories. Because the theory that describes it is purely probabilistic, not deterministic. We have models based on, say, ballistics which describe the paths of projectiles in a deterministic and predictable way. We have models of weather systems which are deterministic but can only make predictions within certain bounds and with a certain probability. And we have models of quantum behaviour which are purely probabilistic. There is no "mechanism" or deterministic-but-too-complex description. And there are good theoretical reasons to think that no such description can exist. All of these are, as you say, based on observation. (They must be; they are all scientific models.)

Well, no. The nature of science is that you can never know anything for sure. But there are things for which there is no known possible cause and for which current theory rules out a cause. (You can always say, "ah but there must be a cause" but at that point you have abandoned science.)

That is pretty much it. For example, the decay of atoms or fundamental particles is no unpredicatle in the sense that the weather; they are unpredictable because they are random and without cause.