Area54

You are equating religion with a single example of religion. That's not a very convincing opening for an argument that values science and the scientific method. It casts your own thought processes, and consequently your argument, in an unflattering light. Moreover, you completely ignore the possibility (probability? certainty?) that some/most/all of the miracles were metaphors. An argument against religion that fails to recognise the multiplicty of interpretations of religion is not an argument but a worthless ipse dixit. Many scientists believe, though not necessarily in the fatuous strawman you have erected. Based on your lack of logic, affection for strawmen and emotional bias, you should be allowed near any scientific endeavour either. That we can agree on. And there we go again with the emotion and the strawman. The vast majority of religious scientists have no problem applying the scientific method independent of their beliefs. You assert it is not so - provide the evidence. You could have made this an interesting discussion by enquiring as to how such a separation is achieved, instead you have just vented. You should get you more. I don't discuss science with those who have no interest in science, or even a declared antipathy towards it. It's called courteous behaviour. My understanding is that he was, at best, a diest or pantheist, certainly not a theist of the type decried by Mnemonic.

My understanding is that the chicken stopped in the middle of the road. Why? It was a Rhode Island Red. That's not a joke. That's perceptive political commentary.

I believe both these questions are addressed in the two papers I have linked two, which I repeat here for your convenience: Phosphine Gas in the Cloud Decks of Venus Phosphine as a Biosignature Gas in Exo-Planet Atmospheres I think reading those directly would be more productive than relying on my garbled interpretation of them. (The reasons for discounting the SO2 are set out in the first paper; discussion of phosphine production in the second. You may need to follow further references in each case to get the complete answer you are looking for.) @swansont Thank you for corecting my faulty link in my first post. "We;ve seen something we don't understand" carries a lot of traction with scientists, but precious little with the general public. Whereas, "Life Jim, but not as we know it" sells copy. I would not be surprised if we learn it is the product of life, nor would I be at all surprised if it was attributed to something else. I think the latter is more likely, as is misreading of the signature.

Based on that explanation, quite hard. The authors note "Solid surfaces of rocky planets present a barrier to their interiors, and PH3 would be rapidly destroyed in their highly oxidized crusts and atmospheres." In a paper by Sousa-Silva et al the mechanisms for the destruction of PH3 are discussed in section 2.3. For that matter, if I am understanding the discussions correctly, even in environments where PH3 is generated (the atmospheres of giant planets) it is also destroyed , there being a temperature dependent chemical equilibrium. Thus Jupiter's upper atmosphere hosts concentrations of phosphene above the equiibrium level because of ongoing convective resupply from deeper hotter levels. Note: Through, presumably "operator error", the link to the original paper on the subject I thought I had placed in my first post (third in the thread) is not working. This one will work. @swansont Would it be possible to correct the link in my first post? Thanks.

Thank you. If I ever make a court appearance I may call on you as a character witness. My first step with most such articles is to read the first paragraph, if it interests me then track down the original paper. Half the time the link to it is not even provided, or worse - the scientists are not named, other than top scientists at MIT, or wherever. Most papers that attract 'public' attention seem to be, fortuitously, open access. Once I've gone through the paper I might return to the popular article, but mainly to see to what extent they distorted it. This is why @hypervalent_iodine I am rather taken aback that you would focus on a popular review of the subject, rather than the subject itself. Exaggeration or misunderstanding of scientific findings by the popular media are surely a given. So, staying on the subject: was the SO2 simply hotter? The technicality of the detection isn't just above my paygrade, its in a totally different currency, but I'm working on the basis that one or two of the authors of the paper are well versed in such matters and unlikely to make such a fundamental oversight. (Notice I said unlikely, not impossible.)

Where is the overstatement? (I don't intend that as a belligerent observation, but a genuine query as to what you think was overstated.) They do not 'headline' the possible evidence for life - the title speaks of the detection of phosphine They refer in the abstract to the apparent presence of phosphine. They detaill the abiotic routes to phosphine they have eliminated and note that a biotic source is suggested through analogy with its terrestrial production, not via any demonstrable pathway. They searched carefully all current databases for other possible chemical species that might have been responsible for the transition signature. They discuss at some length within the paper and the supplementary material what abiotic processes they have considered and why they have rejected them. They caution that other phosphene transitions should be sought in order to solidfy or disprove their belief that phosphene is responsible They note that "Even if confirmed, we emphasize that the detection of PH3 is not robust evidence for life, only for anomalous and unexplained chemistry." Where is the overstatement in all that? i genuinely don't see it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-1174-4.pdf Extract from abstract: Measurements of trace gases in planetary atmospheres help us explore chemical conditions different to those on Earth. Our nearest neighbour, Venus, has cloud decks that are temperate but hyperacidic. Here we report the apparent presence of phos-phine (PH3) gas in Venus’s atmosphere, where any phosphorus should be in oxidized forms. . . . .The presence of PH3 is unexplained after exhaustive study of steady-state chemistry and photochemical pathways, with no currently known abiotic production routes in Venus’s atmosphere, clouds, surface and sub-surface, or from lightning, volcanic or meteoritic delivery. PH3 could originate from unknown photochemistry or geochemistry, or, by analogy with biological production of PH3 on Earth, from the presence of life. And from the discussion: If no known chemical process can explain PH3 within the upper atmosphere of Venus, then it must be produced by a process not previously considered plausible for Venusian conditions. This could be unknown photochemistry or geochemistry, or possibly life. Information is lacking—as an example, the photochemistry of Venusian cloud droplets is almost completely unknown. Hence a possible droplet-phase photochemical source for PH3 must be con-sidered (even though PH3 is oxidized by sulfuric acid). Note the caution exhibited by the authors that one hopes, but rather doubts, will be echoed by the popular press.

Perhaps it can. Perhaps it cannot. That, however, is not relevant. I am applying it to your idea. Sidetracking into vague comparisons and loose analogies merely reflects the paucity of support for your proposal. That is a claim for which you have provided zero support. Without that support it is of no more value than an assertion such as, "breeding unicorns should reduce global warming". Because this is a science forum and speculation is meant to accompanied by technical justification, through reasoned argument, or quality research material from reputable sources. Such support informs and provides a basis for interesting, robust discussion. It is also an implicit requirement of the rules. (Mods, please correct me if I have that point wrong.) You just keep making the same assertion, while offering nothing substantive to support it. I would have thought, given your interest and belief in the concept, that you would have made an effort to assemble some data or argument to address at least one of the weaknesses I have noted about the project. Just repeating your beliefs doesn't work.

It's an amusing perception. Do you have any evidence to support it. For example, how many wealthy people did you interview to arrive at this conclusion? The wealthy have fewer children largely for two reasons: they no longer need to ensure sufficient numbers to support them in old age; they wish to use their wealth for their personal pleasure, not to support large numbers of offspring. I see you didn't get the e-mail about the evolutionary pressures to breed.

That reads more like unsupported optimism than a thoughtful and informed analysis. For one thing, just because something is possible does not mean it will necessarily be economic. Until you put some meat on the bones of your idea and address the problems that exist for it then all you have is a highly speculative, vague notion. Thus, the answer to your question, can fracking extract gold, is probably, but not economically and not without major environmental concerns.

While some humour can be cruel, most forms are quite different from sarcasm. Humour, gently applied and inclusive, not discriminatory could help to persuade, something I thin sarcasm can rarely, if ever, achieve. I thought schadenfreude would be the more usual word choice, rather than epicaricacy. The latter, given its recent currency, appears to be more an affectation than sound lexicography. (That's an informative statement, not a sarcastic one. :))

Sarcasm feeds the attention the conspiracy theorist welcomes and lacks the evidence that a formal disagreement could deliver. I suggest it offers only a momentary satisfaction to the deliverer, while cementing the beliefs of the theorist.

Thank you for clarifying. Would you like to address my reservations, which I repeat below for your convenience: The first method is feasible in terms of well placement, but the fracturing pressures required would likely make this a non-starter. You have overlooked the significant strength difference between the comparatively weak sedimentary strata containing oil/gas and the much stronger metamorphic or igneous rocks that are gold bearing. You have also ignored the greater cost of drilling wells in rock that is much harder and more abrasive than those encountered in oil/gas drilling. (Not to mention the greater challenge of achieving good directional results.)

While I am aware of the meaning of the acronyms you used, I have no idea what you are driving at. So, yes, for at least two of us it is difficult to understand.

I am not sure what you mean here. I see two possibilities (Did you mean something else?) : Drill a well which becomes horizontal at the zone of interest. Drill a second (vertical) well to intersect the first at its end point. Employ fracing technology to facilitate penetration of the chemicals into the zone of interest. Drill two vertical wells. Establish a connection between them by hydraulic fracturing. The second method won't work economically. The first method is feasible in terms of well placement, but the fracturing pressures required would likely make this a non-starter. You have overlooked the significant strength difference between the comparatively weak sedimentary strata containing oil/gas and the much stronger metamorphic or igneous rocks that are gold bearing. You have also ignored the greater cost of drilling wells in rock that is much harder and more abrasive than those encountered in oil/gas drilling. (Not to mention the greater challenge of achieving good directional results.)

That's good. When can we see the graph?

The OU courses are of excellent quality, so these are well worth looking at. I was impressed by the range that was available. Thanks for the heads up.

Using an appropriate vocabulary for a productive discussion is not an obsession, but a prerequisite for advancing that discussion. Why are you so afraid of the word? I haven't taken a position. I've simply challenged you to elucidate yours - something you seem unable to do. And yet we saw the example where, a police chief in the US, prior to the riot beginning, defused the situation by offering to walk with the protestors. As you say, a thesis can easily be disposed of by a single, contrary example. Done and dusted. If you can make the request without the misapplication of emotive adjectives, I shall be happy to track down a link to the example mentioned above. Note: looking through your posts it seems you have an inclination to be disagreeable. IF you continue with that attitude with me then my side of the conversation is at an end.

If you genuinely have no model then you are just farting into the wind and your comments may be disregarded. However, i think you do have a model, it is just over-simplified. I suggest you reflect on the meaning of the word 'model' in a scientific context. You should then, readily, recognise that you do have a model. I say your model is over-simplified since you fail to consider, for example, having police deployed with 'social workers', or psychologists. Or having improved physical safeguards for the protection of property. Or adjusting the training of officers to reduce or eliminate harmful interactions. And those are just some of the options that are ignored in your simple model, or, as you call it, your "abject truth". So, I should like to understand on what basis you reject these (and similar) examples. Unless you are able to do so your argument is refuted.

Could you review the justification for this claim please. It appears valid if, and only if, one has a closed system with two goals, yet that is not a sound model of the real world. Your argument then becomes analgous with the Creationists who assert evolution is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics. Perhaps I am missing something and you can point me to it.

I cannot see any connection between the contents of my post and your response to it. I shall, however, respond directly to your post. I agree with @dimreepr that speaking of "bad guys" is not helpful. I agree with @paulsutton that "Each case should be treated as an individual case", adding that this distinction of treatment should (generally) relate to sentencing, but not to declaration of guilt or innocence. I agree with @Markus Hanke that people are " responsible for their actions. Whether or not they should be answerable for them is another matter." Your examples, while superficially specific, are actually too general to allow a meaningful answer, other than "it depends".

I would simply like to understand the point you are making. At present it is not clear. Please state your position clearly, because at present I have little or no idea what it is, other than, apparently, being generally disagreeable. You state society is not to blame, but also imply it is to blame. Also note, I have expressed no position whatsoever on the thread topic. My couple of posts have been directed solely at attempting to understand your position. So please don't assign me imaginary motives conjured out of your own psyche.

No, I am focusing on your assertion that "alcoholism arises from a more permanent set of conditions that cause the disease. This is determined not by the alcoholic but by the vast majority of alcohol users who have no problems with consumption." That reads, to me, that if there were not a large number of people (ergo, society) creating the demand for alcohol, coupled with many others meeting that demand, then alcoholism would not exist. Thus, as you have written it, you are blaming society. Your post has failed to address that ambiguity. Try again.

So, you are arguing society is to blame, by providing the alcohol? That seems to run counter to your earlier position. I am confused. Using the same logic you would appear to agree that responsibility for the use of guns in violent crimes is not down to the gunmen, but to the existence of many responsible gun owners and the gun industry that equips them. That thought would also seem to run counter to your bumper sticker position.

There seems to be a presumtion in the last few posts that the solar system formed from the product of a single supernova explosion. This is not the case. Multiple supernovae would have contributed to the molecular cloud whose collapse led to the formation of the solar system. What is thought to be practical is to identify sister stars to the sun, from their spectroscopic signature. These would have formed as neigbours in the same cloud (compare with the Pleiades) then drifted apart. I don't recall whether such siblings have yet been idenitifed, but a literature search should turn up the answer. Here are a couple of papers on the subject: The evolution of the Sun's birth cluster and the search for the solar siblings with Gaia The authors "use self-consistent numerical simulations of the evolution and disruption of the Sun's birth cluster in the Milky Way potential to investigate the present-day phase-space distribution of the Sun's siblings." Searching for solar siblings among the HARPS data The authors note "At present, there are four plausible candidatesreported in the literature: HIP21158, HIP87382, HIP47399, and HIP92831. In this study weconduct a search for solar siblings amongthe HARPS high-resolution FGK dwarfs sample, which includes precise chemical abundances and kinematics for 1111 stars. Usinga new approach based on chemical abundance trends with condensation temperature, kinematics, and ages we found one (additional)potential solar sibling candidate: HIP97507."