Strange

Sorry, this doesn't wash. This is a typical argument used by crackpots: "you are rejecting my theory based on existing science, but this is new science". Basically, this is begging the question: "my theory is correct, therefore your objections are invalid, therefore my theory is correct". I think I will put you on ignore before I tell you what I really think, and regret it.

Then, presumably, you don't understand one or other of them. http://biologos.org/

Please stop polluting other threads with nonsense.

GR, not SR. http://lacosmo.com/DeflectionOfLight/index.html

Apart from all those recent paradigm-changing developments.

I didn't say it did. It seems your ability to understand language is as limited as your ability to use it effectively. There are so many serious problems with this hypothesis, it is hard to know where to start. We can skip over the total lack of evidence, the mountain of contradictory evidence and your apparent ignorance of historical linguistics... And that is a fatal objection. If you start off with a single language that fragments (especially one with a small vocabulary, as you claim) then you will end up with a group of obviously related languages. This is seen repeatedly. For example, we see this with Latin splitting into the modern Romance languages (a process that started during the time of the Empire). We see it in the Afro-Asiatic languages (of which Egyptian was a member). We see it in the Sino-Tibetan and Dravidian languages. We see it in all language families. What we don't see, ever, is a language splitting into totally unrelated languages. And yet this is what you propose. If all the languages on Earth sprang from a common ancestor, then why are they split into unrelated families. The rest of the idea is just too stupid to comment on. (But I am sure you will blame that opinion on "modern language" rather than it being the judgement of someone who has studied linguistics.)

They had to wait 3 years for a total eclipse. But the idea was generally accepted already.

No. Newton's equation gives you the wrong result. GR gives you the right result.

Pretty much immediately. He had such a compelling argument. That may be because you are always wrong. Why would anyone change their mind to agree with you.

Then we how do we have any choice? I decide to be a saint. God already knows I will be going to heaven. But if I change my mind and go on a killing spree the, either: a) God was wrong. Which is impossible. b) I can't change my mind (because it would prove God wrong). Therefore I don't have a choice. Therefore I don't have free will.

So now we have censorship and torture.

Any statement about humans that includes the word "everybody" is almost certainly wrong.

I missed this before as it was tacked on as an apparent non-sequitur. You seem to be describing some sort of literal Tower of Babel story. Is that correct? Are you claiming that there was one language throughout the world? And that at some point people started speaking a different language? And, presumably, not just a different language but multiple different languages? What do you mean by "based on different formatting"? Do you mean grammar? And what caused this event? And over what period of time did this change take place? And how did the hundreds of new languages spring into being with apparent historical relationships? (This is the same problem that creationists face - why the family tree if they were all created de novo?

I just read that post again. Dr Rocket points out the problem that there is no consistent defintion of God which makes many discussions futile. He then considers a couple of classes of defintions and shows that one would be in conflict with science and the other has no connection to science. If anything, I would have thought it could be an interesting starting point for a discussion, rather moaning about non-existent censorship. You are not being censored. Except perhaps by yourself, in that you refuse to have an intelligent discussion about the subject.

So, perhaps, after 15 pages we can summarise your position as: some people may sometimes be somewhat reluctant to adopt to some new ideas. I think that falls into the category of "no shit, Sherlock".

Is that supposed to be an answer to someone's question?

Yes. GR gives the correct result.

Again. Penn and Teller. Or "You'll believe a man can fly" A video is not good enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of evidence.

Line of discussion undropped! Please provide evidence that anyone can light a light bulb with the electrical energy from their body

I don't know what you think the "laws of flight" are, but this is obviously wrong. There is no answer that I "wish" to hear. I am trying to understand the answers you are providing. When you started talking about being able to control electricity, it wasn't clear if you meant you can turn the lights on and off by the use of your mind. Given the subject of the thread, I rather assumed that might be what you meant. But you now just seem to mean that there are electric processes in the body. Which is not very relevant. Maybe we should drop this line of discussion.

What is manipulating it? I am not trying to be difficult, just to be clear about what you are talking about. For example, are you talking about normal biological processes or "you" somehow controlling your own cells in some currently unknown way? Again, who/what is controlling this? And what electricity are you referring to? Interacting in what way? Newton stuck needles in his eyes to observe the effects. You can put your hand in a fire to "interact" with the cells. I'm just not sure what you are trying to say. I don't know if you are being deliberately vague or you are just not making yourself clear. Obviously not true. Not the old, "science has been wrong before and therefore i must be right argument" <sigh> Yes, the law of non-existence. How come there is no scientific evidence for this force if it is so powerful?

OK. That is why I asked. I thought you might mean something as vague and unsurprising as "there are electrical processes in our bodies". Although it still isn't clear what you mean by "Cells can be manipulated to channel electricity in such a way that we can 'control them'." What do mean by "manipulating" cells? What do you mean by "channelling electricity"? In what way can we "control" our cells? However, all this provides no support for your claims about Qi, or about "electrokinesis". It also has nothing to do with biophotons.

I am not going to use unidentified IP addresses, thank you. Especially as one of them appears to be in Russia. Why not explain what you meant. I'm sure someone could set up a DNS server that has non-existent/invalid domain names. But so what. That has nothing to do with censorship. What is the IP address of the site you are referring to as "welcome.gpf"? And can you give an example of where "we" (who is "we"?) are heavily censored?

I posted this in another thread recently. It could be a model for what is happening here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer You will have to better than that.

Only in that neither of them exist. Please provide a reliable reference that shows that our badies are capable of "controlling electricity". And that this is due to "biophotons" (which seems unlikely as the Wikipedia page talks about individual photons). Really? You think that is a good reference? Or it is a myth.