exchemist

From the inside, eh? Right.

Gypsum is a form of hydrated calcium sulphate, which is not a carbonate. Heat treatment to drive off some of the water gives you plaster of Paris, which mixed with water sets hard. Gypsum also has other used, detailed on the internet. Clay minerals are not carbonates either, but aluminosilicates, variously hydrated and with other cations present. Many uses. Hydrated lime , or slaked lime is not a carbonate but calcium hydroxide, which can be derived from calcium carbonate by driving off CO2 to produce calcium oxide or quicklime, and then adding water. Sodium carbonate is washing soda, an alkali. Chalk is a relatively soft form of calcium carbonate compared to limestone. The multifarious uses of all these minerals are too long to list but are readily available on the internet.

Oh Christ, not here as well, now😱

You are not getting it, are you?

OK. Have you read the Biologos link I sent you? Suggest you look at that and come back with any comments or questions.

No one is getting “violent”. However it is important not to have threads derailed by silly distractions. It is part of the discipline of critical thinking to be able to stay on topic and make one’s arguments and questions clear. The video you linked to is over 2hrs long so I’m not going to watch it. However from the short description it looks like rubbish to me. “real genetics and science [sic] does not support Big Bang evolution theory” sounds like hopeless nonsense. But shouldn’t it have been obvious to you that this kind of stuff is not what I am recommending to you, but the polar opposite? Why did you suggest it?

What for?

But why brighter? I don’t understand this. The advancing side will be bluer, hence “brighter” in the sense of more energetic, in bolometric measurements, but the retreating side will be redder and “dimmer” by the same token. Why does the direction of rotation affect the overall net perceived brightness?

It suggests the universe was born with net angular momentum. Perhaps there is an inaccessible anti-universe with the opposite.😉

Exactly. Everyone around them has got them: Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Israel….. If I were Iranian I’d want them. And it’s all nonsense that they would pose a threat to Israel. Nukes only have value as defensive armaments, because of the retaliation in the event of first use.

Hmm, looks a bit low quality with mechanised voiceover. I did not see anything here addressing the interpretation of Genesis. Is there one on this topic and if so can you provide a link to it? The 6000yr thing is known as Bishop Ussher’s chronology. Ussher was a c.17th Irish Anglican (Protestant) bishop, who worked out a dating scheme from taking various Old Testament ages literally - the very thing I am advising you is a useless approach. Ussher’s chronology was never universally accepted. It was just one, very much pre-scientific, idea. The challenge to it from science came from geology in the c.18th and 19th, following the work of people like Hutton, who realised the Earth had to be far older:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hutton and Buckland, who was a clergyman(Dean of Westminster) and reached a similar conclusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Buckland

It has only just struck me, late in the day, that this implies there is a preferred axis of rotation for galaxies, i.e. they are not randomly orientated. That seems odd.

Whut? I am just pointing out the facts of the matter. I have no idea why you mention the Inquisition, of all irrelevant things. Look, I made this thread to try to help @Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 , who seems to be at a difficult stage in reconciling her wish to learn science with her religious upbringing. I’m really not that interested in silly remarks from you about the Inquisition. Can you please either express yourself more coherently, or stop derailing the thread?

Read the links I provided.

See @swansont ’s post re soul. Re age of the Earth, read on in the articles. I think you find it is covered, certainly for the Catholic church and probably for most if not all the others. Basically, once you have accepted a reading of Genesis that allows for evolution, there is no logic in finding difficulties over the age of the Earth either.

It is what I was told about the subject by my paternal grandfather, who was a Methodist minister and Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Glasgow University. See also Charles Coulson , Professor of Theoretical Chemistry at Oxford, who was a Methodist lay preacher and who coined the the expression “God of the Gaps”, to debunk the arguments of one type of creationist.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps The Catholic position on this is well known, see for example this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church#Pope_John_Paul_II For Episcopalians see this: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/glossary/evolution/ There is also this more general summary, covering a wider range of denominations:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups

I don’t know the channel: can you provide a link, perhaps? Then I might be able to comment. (When I look up Lion Farm on YouTube all I get is some stuff about American farmers.)

@Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 here you are. Read this and then we can discuss the concerns you may have.

Sarae, one tip: it helps if you use the “Quote” function at bottom left when you reply to a post. Not only does this make it clear which post you are replying to , but it also notifies the person that you have replied.

Background reading: the debunking of Dixon White’s “Conflict Thesis” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis So, the bulk of history shows Western Christianity to have been at least neutral towards, or indeed supportive of, science as a rule. Coming to interpretation of scripture, there is a very long-standing tradition, dating back to Origen, one of the Fathers of the Church who lived around 200AD, to interpret Genesis as an allegory, i.e. as a piece of literature conveying a meaning, rather than a documentary account to be taken literally. Origen and Jewish scholars of his time in Alexandria, where he lived, had read their Homer and were familiar with the tradition of epic narratives. They realised one obviously can’t take both Genesis 1 and 2 literally, as they give conflicting accounts of the story of creation. This allegorical view was one of several that was held in the church from that time onward. Paradoxically, it was the rise of science, after the Protestant Reformation, that replaced the medieval sense of “mysteries” with the conviction that humanity could now have certainties, leading to a demand that the entire bible should be read as a science textbook, to be taken literally word for word, rather than a mixture of history, myth and literature employing literary devices such as allegory to make its point. As science advanced in the c.19th it became increasingly obvious that a literal reading was untenable. Those Christian denominations that had a long tradition of biblical interpretation by theologians were able to accommodate this, but some of the newer, literalist branches could not - or not without increasingly tortuous attempts to square the circle. So today we find that the more mainstream denominations , including Catholics, Episcopalians and the Church of England, most Methodists and Presbyterians, don’t struggle with the science of the age of the Earth or evolution. At least, not in terms of their official theology. What the individual person in the pew may think can vary, of course, depending on how much thought they have put into the matter.

No. Carbon dating is pretty useless over geological timescales because C14 decays too fast (has too short a half life). Rocks and fossils are generally dated radiometrically using a range of other naturally occurring radioisotopes, with half lives of appropriate length. I”ll open the thread for you but I do hope you are not just going to use it for drip-feeding more falsehoods about the science of the age of the Earth and evolution. (I’ve got burnt before by creationist trolls masquerading as innocent young people “just asking questions”. For now I’ll assume you are who you say you are and are posting in good faith. Excuse the unfriendly tone but this is the internet. We get all sorts .)

Horseradish is still very much in use today, esp. with roast or grilled beef and smoked fish. I like it a lot and went to some trouble to get it when we lived in The Hague: mierikswortel in Dutch, raifort in French. Piccalilli I never liked and have not seen around since was a kid, but I expect it is still made. Chutney I see the point of with Indian dishes but not otherwise. Tends to be the sort of useless substance relatives make out of surplus garden produce and suggest you put on cheese, thereby wrecking it - unless it was just a terrible cheese to start with.

…and from the rectum too, acc. @iNow . Sounds uncomfortable….. None of these links provides any support for your idea that these weight loss drugs can explain bizarre behaviour.

Yes, in fact made exactly that point to you when we touched on it before. The “Conflict Thesis” put forward by Dixon White : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis is now pretty well discredited, even though it still has some hold on the popular perception. If you like, we can start a thread in the Religion section in which I can explain my understanding at least of how the mainstream Christian denominations accommodate such scientific ideas as the age of the Earth and evolution of life. I can open a thread on the topic to get it started. Shall we do that?

Why not start by re-reading the discussion you and I had before, which I have now found under your old identity. If you want to study science you need to move on from biblical literalism and join the majority of Christians. No need to abandon your faith but you do need a more sophisticated, less childlike, interpretation of scripture, just as most Christians have. But this is really now a different topic and requires a different thread. The mods here do not welcome discussions about creationism, as they have so often been fruitless in the past. What we can perhaps do here is get you past the false idea that gaps in the fossil record cast doubt on the theory of evolution. What you have with fossils is a series of data points, which you can join up by interpolation, just as you do with a series of measurements in physics or chemistry. When you consider how rare it is for a dead creature to become fossilised, then how rare it is for rocks containing the fossils be become exposed at the surface once more, and then how rare it is for a re-exposed fossil to be found and identified, it is amazing we have as many data points as we do.