-1=e^ipi

Wilber, Waldo, On Guard For Thee I am going to ask you a very basic question. Please answer yes or no. Do the majority of living creatures (there are a few exceptions like anaerobic bacterica) on the planet perform a process known as cellular respiration which converts sugar and oxygen into water, carbon dioxide and energy. I'll even give you a link to help you ponder this question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration I'll even write out the cellular respiration simplified reaction equation for you: C6H12O6 (s) + 6 O2 (g) → 6 CO2 (g) + 6 H2O (l) + energy

So... are you implying that you are willing to explain why you disagree with the theory of evolution in this 'prior thread' you are referring to?

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering at this point... Carrots contain trace amounts of CO2. After your body absorbs your carrot, new CO2 will be formed as the body burns the sugar through the biological process known as cellular respiration. Yes it does, and it is spelled respiration. Correct... oh wait Did you just retract your only correct claim in your previous post to claim that cellular respiration doesn't produce water?... Mostly from your body.

Stupid people is indeed a recurring problem. Unfortunately, I cannot control stupid people. The best I can do is try to reason with them. Maybe you can try praying to your deity and ask it to bless me with the intelligence to be enlighted by your positions. I'll try to eat a plate of pasta in hopes that the flying spaghetti monster will bless you with his noodleyness.

To clarify, are you suggesting that the majority of fossil fuels are dead dinosaurs? Also, I've never seen the spelling with a y. So a carrot that I eat is going to absorb the CO2 in the future that I eat as I burn that carrot. In physics, there is this thing called causality. You may have heard of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29 Yes we do. For the zillionth time, it's called cellular respiration. The fossil fuels that are being 'unearthed' are not CO2.

So if I make a new thread, you will explain why you disagree with humans and chimpanzees sharing a common ancestor?

... really? sigh.... Yeah you do, it's called cellular respiration. It's the exact same process that is producing that CO2 that you are so confused about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration How are you defining 'closed system'? Because it appears to me that you are arbitrarily defining a closed system that does not contain 'stuff from your car' and then declaring because 'stuff from your car' isn't part of the arbitrarily defined closed system, it must be bad. In the context of thermodynamics, the Earth isn't a closed system otherwise entropy couldn't be decreasing on earth and life couldn't exist. But most likely you are talking about the carbon cycle. If so, excluding underground carbon makes zero sense because carbon naturally moves from under the ground to the atmosphere and back through geological processes.

Here Waldo, maybe this picture will help you:

Plants also absorb CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels. Do you think the plant cares as to whether or not the CO2 is from a human or from a car?

I'm strawmaning you? Okay Waldo, here is a simple science question since you cannot answer the one from Accountability Now: Do humans and chimpanzees share an common ancestor that lived approximately 6 million years ago? A simple yes or no will suffice.

1. All religions are ridiculous and therefore deserve ridicule. 2. These "religious minorities" can wear religious headgear when getting their driver's license taken. Pastafarians cannot. Looks to me like it is the Pastafarians that are being discriminated against. Furthermore, if an atheist is not allowed to wear religious headgear then the atheist is being discriminated against. 3. Who are you to determine what is and what isn't a ludicrous stunt? You don't see the danger in having the government arbitrarily decide what is and what isn't a religion?

Lol, you have no idea how similar this response to some other responses I got in other forums discussing other topics. The reason I don't agree with you is because your arguments are invalid and your position is both wrong and immoral. If you want to delude yourself into thinking that the only reason someone can disagree with you is because they can't understand your position then it is your choice to go hide in a corner and run away from logic and reason. If you are so confident in the soundness of your position then why not demonstrate that by refuting my counter arguments? Nope. You are misusing the term strawman argument. It is called pointing out the inconsistency in one's position. It's called refutation by counter example. Your position is inconsistent.

Alarmist Science: When people breath, no CO2 is produced and released to the atmosphere. Or if it is it is reabsorbed right away. When fossil fuels are burned, new Carbon is created. Maybe this should be taught alongside young earth creationism in science class.

@ Accountability Now - This conversation is one of the funniest I read i a while. These individuals can't even answer a basic question as to whether or not humans produce CO2 through cellular respiration, even when all the evidence is presented to them. Says the person who does not agree that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor... Are you saying that humans reabsorb the CO2 after they exhale it?

What about Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi? Isn't he considered to be the caliph by many? Where does he fit into this?

I have never used an ak47 to kill people. So can I carry an ak47 everywhere? 1. There have been attacks by individuals using kirpans. Just use google. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=c6135308-4ace-4944-921c-652650424188 http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2010/04/06/brampton_kirpan_attack_renews_debate_over_sikh_daggers.html 2. For many sikhs, wearing a purely ceremonial kirpan that is tiny, has been dulled, and is bolted into its sheath is fine. While on the topic of Sikhism, how about discussing the fact that the entire religion is basically a giant FU to Islam. - Sikhism was a response to nearly a millennia of offensive jihad in Pakistan and India. - In Islam, one is suppose to perform acts of fitra and do things like shave body hair and perform genital modification. - In Sikhism, body hair is sacred and trying to modify one's body by doing things such as circumcision is an insult to the creator's design. - In Islam, one has to eat halal meat, where the animal has all its blood slowly drained out from it's neck. - In Sikhism, halal meat is no good. Instead you should eat Jhatka meat where the neck has been quickly severed from the rest of the body. Jhatka meat is of course not allowed in Islam. - In Islam, or at least the dominant forms that existed when Sikhism was forming, non-muslims should have less rights than muslims in an Islamic state: Muslims are exempt from Jizyah, Muslims can receive Zakat, Muslims can build their mosques higher than temples/churches of other religions, Muslims are allowed to convert others to their religion, Muslims can serve in high positions in the military, Muslim men are allowed to marry non-muslim women, etc. - In Sikhism, everyone should have equal rights under the law (for the most part). - In Islam, people that convert away from Islam should be killed under Sharia (not all forms of Islam agree with this but the dominant forms in the region did at the time when Sikhism was being formed). - In Sikhism, people should have freedom of religion and freedom to choose their faith. In fact, historically kirpans were used not only as self defence but as self defence of others including religious minorities. "A Sikh must also have the courage to defend the rights of all who are wrongfully oppressed or persecuted irrespective of their colour, caste or creed." - Islam embraces dogma. - Sikhism claims to reject dogma (though the Sikh position on the existence of the creator puts this claim in doubt). - Islam contains the belief in many miracles (like the moon being split in two) and supernatural beings (like the Jinn). - Sikhism rejects miracles and supernatural beings. - Islam claims that their is an afterlife where people will go to heaven or hell. - Sikhism rejects the afterlife and believes in reincarnation instead. I could go on. The inconsistency of the law is the issue. The law should be consistent. And I'm not against people wearing turbans or hijabs. Wait, so now you are okay with disallowing burqas? Why? I fail to see consistency with your position. Dude, all they want to do is wear a colander. How is that petty nitpicking?

Sorry. It was late and I misread the sentence about poison. I apologize for the misrepresentation.

You're trying to ignore the greening effects of CO2 on the Sahara desert by bringing up desertification caused by other means. This is a red herring tactic. Your understanding of basic chemistry remains bad. 1. the CO2 has not 'always been there'. In fact, your very action of breathing is helping to continue cellular respiration in your body that is creating CO2, water and energy from oxygen and sugar. 2. You can't melt water. Water is already a liquid. I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to water being toxic. Are you preferring to 'water poisoning', more commonly know as drowning? Edit: Misread what you said about water poisoning, my apologies.

And that makes CO2 bad how?

I thought this thread was about climate change. We were talking about the effects of CO2 fertilization on the Sahara. The fact that Sahara is 'greened' as a result of CO2 fertilization is not somehow demerited by pointing out that human activity is causing desertification by other means. If you want to discuss the importance of overgrazing, overpopulation and poor agricultural practices causing desertification, fine. But don't purposely confuse it with the effects of CO2.

That desertification is primarily a result of issues such as overgrazing of land, overpopulation and poor land practices. Not as a result of climate change due to increased atmospheric CO2.

By the system I meant the legal system as well as the influences from society as a whole. The law is hypocritical and inconsistent and so is a large segment of the population. You can't claim to support freedom of religion, and then deny freedom of religion to those religions that you don't think worthy enough, and remain consistent.

No, it's a mockery that the law is not applied equally to everyone. Everyone should be allowed to wear turbans! The government shouldn't define what is or isn't a religion nor should it be able to determine someone's devotion to a particular religion; if it can do either of these things then society does not have freedom of religion nor freedom of thought. Yes. You fail at reading comprehension. I said the system. System != ability of people to wear religious head coverings. I said it was a combination of reasons and I listed them. The right to wear a colander is one of them.

Does it upset you if we wear a hats? Why do you have the right to determine if we can wear a hat or not? "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" - Orwell No, you are projecting this view point onto the pastafarian even though there is little reason to believe this. Look, myself and other atheists in this thread do not see that as the pastafarian's intent. I've talked to many pastafarians, I think I understand their motives better than you (especially since I might wear a colander myself). Most pastafarians have no intent to prevent people from wearing turbans or hijabs and support freedom of religion. How is he an idiot? In any case, even if he were an idiot, why does that prevent him from having freedom of religion? The system is already a mockery. All he did was indirectly point it out. It's not obvious because it isn't true. You are trying to project some evil hidden intent on this individual where there is none.

If you are asking if I support the right of people to wear colanders on their head when taking their driver's license photo, I absolutely support it. Actually, I'm very tempted to get my driver's license just so I can get my photo taken with a colander on my head. It is very tempting.