Area54

7 hours ago, Mnemonic said:

According to the bible Jesus Christ was a supernatural character who could walk on water, occasionally talked to Satan, and could turn water into wine, amongst many other marvels.

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.

7 hours ago, Mnemonic said:

Can you be a scientist and still believe in this stuff?

Many scientists believe, though not necessarily in the fatuous strawman you have erected.

7 hours ago, Mnemonic said:

As far as I am concerned, you should not be called a scientist or be allowed anywhere near any scientific endeavour if you believe in fictitious myths.

Based on your lack of logic, affection for strawmen and emotional bias, you should be allowed near any scientific endeavour either.

7 hours ago, Mnemonic said:

Am I being too aggressive in my attitude? Probably

That we can agree on.

7 hours ago, Mnemonic said:

however science and the scientific approach to research application is a serious technical field that should not be sullied by ridiculous fairy tales.

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.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

But I've never seen anybody discuss theology when they go back home from the church, the synagogue or the mosque.

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.

33 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

The answer is yes.  Einstein was clearly a scientist and believed in a God. 

My understanding is that he was, at best, a diest or pantheist, certainly not a theist of the type decried by Mnemonic.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

I would still prefer age limits for Presidential nominees.
Say 62 for the first term, 66 for the second or a single.
No President should be over 70.
( although J Carter is still very lucid at his age; must be the clean farm living )

I would be a crap President at any age, but I'd definitely be better now, in my seventies, than I would have been ten or twenty years ago.

9 hours ago, Saiyan300Warrior said:

So no definite answer yet.. hmm... hope you guys accept me here still!

What might convince the powers-that-be would be posts from yourself, in existing threads, where you were on-topic, polite, interesting and supported your comments with accessible, relevant, valid, scientific links.

I got up at some indeterminate time in the morning, GMT, to watch it live. I sat through an interesting half hour preamble of BBC political pundits, but switched off the debate a couple of minutes into Biden's first offering. I found his delivery uncertain and embarrassing. I had hoped, having read what an accomplished debator he was, that he would provide an astute, dignified alternative to Trump's style. I decided I couldn't face the probable reality of an unconvicing fumble. I switched to Netflix and watched two episodes of the Big Bang Theory, which allowed me to pretend all was right with the world.

American international policies over the last several decades have often been characterised as a form of Imperialism. No matter how true that is/was I doubt you deserved this unpalatable choice berween a deceitful narcicist and a bumbling septagenarian.

On 9/22/2020 at 11:47 PM, MigL said:

I would think your parents left you something much more valuable than an inheritance Area54.
They left you valuable life lessons, like caring and getting along with your siblings, and anyone else you care about.

That was the central point of my post: contrasting those implicit benefits with the mercenary gains that seemed to be the principal (only) interest of @Charles 3781. Perhaps the point was lost in my courteous attempt to avoid calling Charles's view that of a pathetic and despicable narcissist.( I shall be more direct in future. :))

On 9/24/2020 at 8:22 PM, Janus said:

ZENO:  The chicken couldn't have crossed the road. It would have first had to cross halfway, then halfway the remaining distance...

My understanding is that the chicken stopped in the middle of the road. Why? It was a Rhode Island Red.

12 hours ago, iNow said:

When someone tells me they’re a Christian, I ask:

Classic Jesus, or Republican Jesus?

That's not a joke. That's perceptive political commentary.

8 hours ago, Arete said:

I do think  it is coming down to a choice between authoritarian populism and democracy, and I am genuinely scared at the proportion of US citizens who want an authoritarian leader, and don't understand what the actual implications of that are. 

A decade or so ago I was discussing with Russian friends the growing dictatorial tendencies of Putin. They observed that "Most Russians are not ready for a true democracy. We still need a strong man who will tell us what to think." I just didn't expect this to become true in America, but I fear it has and I now expect (regardless of current polls) that Trump will be re-elected.

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

Just for fun the article also stated that 'Darwinism' was the cause of:

1.  WW1

2.  WW2

3.  Communism

4.  Destruction of the education system

5.  Legal abortions

6.  A culture of death (whatever that means?)

7.  Bad judges

8.  Attacks on the family

And on top of all that he figured out how coral atolls form. What a guy!

On 9/25/2020 at 8:44 PM, studiot said:

I was in Hungary during the Uprising of '56.
NATO was not actually at war in the same way as the Soviets then.

My belated sympathy.

Global objections and revulsion to the aggressive Soviet suppression of the Uprising were partially undermined by the poorly timed invasion of Egypt by France and the UK.  (I omit Israel for hopefully obvious reasons,)

7 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

OK, I apologise for sloppy wording

Wholly accepted. Thank you.

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I understand what you are saying and just focusing on the major member states is a rather narrow view.  However, I think it is quite clear that the overall point was that the EU was instrumental in avoiding a continuous conflict between these member states, resulting in the longest peace period between those nations. 

The difficulty is that having a "rather narrow view" contributes, in my  opinion, to increased risk of conflict. I hesitated to mention it since it my observation might be viewed as aggressive, but I would have felt irresponsible if the oversight were not pointed out.

19 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

We have avoided any European war for decades because we have a reasonable discussion forum.

I find it rather insensitive to ignore the pain and suffering of the people of the Balkans over the decade from 1991.

20 hours ago, MigL said:

You are not old enough to have lived through the last war, Studiot,

Unless Studiot is a teenager you appear to share the same indifference to the violence, ethinic cleasing and atrocities of this period.

My comments are on topic, since this was an example where NATO countries certainly interfered in other peoples politics - justifiably in my view.

This linked Financial Times article may address some of your questions and should, at least, be of interest to other members.

43 minutes ago, trynglTHReye said:

The direction things are currently going.

You need to be a lot more specific.

44 minutes ago, trynglTHReye said:

Relating to etymology or some numerical symbolism, just haven't found the education that quite quenches my thirst whatsoever

So which aspects of the current periodic tables use inappropriate symbolism?

45 minutes ago, trynglTHReye said:

Perhaps relating to body chemistry,

One could readily highlight and annotate a conventional periodic table to emphasise those elements that play a role in body chemistry. I am sure I have seen examples of such, but for most biological issues there would be better ways of presenting the topic than through an ameneded PT.

I understand that you find the tables clumsy (?), inadequate (?), confusing (?). My impression is this may be because you are striving to extract meaning from PTs that is appropriate. If I wish to make pizza I don't seek the recipe in a railway timetable. I suspect you might.

• I do not know what you mean by a "trajectory base"
• I can think of nothing related to the periodic table that might be thought of as a "trajectory base"
• While the current periodic table may not be ideal I see no obvious weaknesses
• What specific uses/goals do you have in mind that require development?
• You probably would benefit in getting "more learnt verbosely".

1 hour ago, Charles 3781 said:

Everyone feels that way really.  It's just that most people don't like to display it. 

Your belief in your ability to discern the thinking of others is less viable than you think.

Anecdotes do not normally provide proof, but in this instance a single exception trumps your "everyone feels". When our father died his solictor pointed out to my sister and I that we had a substantial legal claim on his estate. Our concern was not "How much are we going to get", but how quickly could we ensure all assets were released to our mother. When she died, sharing her "net worth" was a painful reminder she was gone, not a source of mercenary delight.

1 hour ago, Charles 3781 said:

The uniqueness of humans is precisely our capacity to lie about our true feelings, in order not to hurt others.

And yet, at times, this capacity should be invoked not to spare feelings, but in order to avoid a string of offensive personal remarks. Such is the case here.

On 6/21/2020 at 2:41 PM, Othmane Dahi said:

Have you ever thought that maybe we see the future when we are asleep ?

In my teens I Imagined this might well be possible. For a couple of months I documented my dreams and looked for evidence of their predictive content. Sure, I dreamt I went to school - but then I did that every weekday, so it wasn't much as a prediction!. Any distinctive event in my dreams distinguished itself in reality by not happening. Unsuprisingly this loosely scientific effort produced the same results as more serious and properly conducted tests have revealed: dreams don't appear to be predictive.

On 6/21/2020 at 3:12 PM, MigL said:

( I still dream about women )

Women dream about me!

(I suppose nightmares might be more accurate than dreams.)

On 9/18/2020 at 1:30 AM, drumbo said:

You do not have the right to determine when someone else's life should end. Your freedoms end where other people's safety begins.

Since your constant attacks are stressing me out, raising my blood pressure and increasing the risk of a fatal stroke or heart attack, will you cease your immoral posting immediately? If not, what is your defence?

P.S. My grandmothers died in 1948 and 1962. They now lie beyond your logic.

7 hours ago, drumbo said:

This is a miscalculation. You can buy groceries in bulk so that you are set for at least 2-4 weeks. Taking a taxi or an Uber once every 2-4 weeks is much less expensive than owning a car.

• Fresh vegatables and fruit do not have a shelf life of 2-4 weeks. You want me to eat chicken nuggets and canned beans?
• Uber's are exploitative. You want me to substitute a claimed immorality for a real immorality?

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Why, you selfish sack of crap! What does a common peasant like you need with groceries?! Thanks a lot for killing my grandmother instead of taking the subway!

Well no, if I actually were a peasant I would grow all my own vegetables and drive to town with a horse and cart. (And the local kids would run behind with a sack to collect the horse crap for the vegetable plot.)

10 hours ago, drumbo said:

If you believe that everyday people should be allowed to operate motor vehicles then you are enabling immoral behavior. There were 36,560 motor vehicle deaths in the United States in 2018. There are far safer methods of transportation; including subways, buses, trains, planes, and bicycles. Those methods do not involve allowing common peasants to operate a machine weighing thousands of pounds that can reach speeds of over 100 mph.

Older drivers, particularly those aged 75+, have higher crash death rates than middle-aged drivers (aged 35-54). If you are in favor of allowing common folk to operate motor vehicles then I have to ask, are you OK with letting your grandma die in a motor vehicle accident?

I live five miles from the nearest town. Only the last half mile is on a bus route. Half of the distance is on a single track, extremely risky for cyclists. My health precludes me from walking the four miles, then returning carrying groceries. My finances preclude routine use of a taxi. Do you feel my use of a motor vehicle is immoral?

9 hours ago, drumbo said:

 My brain then associates all of those qualities with bad people so that I can avoid them. Is this a reliable way of avoiding bad people, or are the correlations drawn invalid?

There are no bad people; only bad actions.

(Moreover "bad" is a subjective judgement. Stalin probably viewed many of his actions in a positive light.)

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

That statement seems a little unfair. The majority of the US did not vote for Trump. The majority of 'voters' in the US did not vote for Trump. And that is just looking at the US. Surely the people of North Korea don't 'deserve' Kim Jong-un. The list of despots goes on and on.

Well the original is more direct: it makes no mention of "majority" and implicitly blames the entire electorate:

Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite. - Joseph de Maistre

I introduced the notion of "majority" to relieve others of blame. On reflection I may have been too gentle. As a UK citizen who has become increasingly dismayed by the quality of government I must accept responsibility for failing to adequately hold politicians to account. Simply voting in every available election and referendum is insufficient, and debating the matter with friends and colleagues is entertainment, not activism. Thus, I am not making any criticism of US voters that I don't make of myself.

In the case of the last US election the majority of voters either voted for Trump or failed to vote at all. Consequently, they got the government many of them wanted and that all of them (sadly) deserved.

The founders of the US put their lives on the line to get the government they felt they deserved. Many of those lives were called upon. The indifference to politics of a substantial body of US voters is a stain on their memory.

Your point about Kim Jon-un is well taken: I should have made clear that the quote is normally taken to refer to democracies.

3 hours ago, Slug4dagov said:

You do realize how ignorant you sound? Personally I choose to understand rather than reject, so how are you so narrow-minded, so much so to actually think and type this bs. I'm with you ONLY and solely on the topic of all the human knowledge we've accumulated since but you just make it all seem so miniscule because of your closed mindedness.  Oh sky spirit hurrr durrr, people find comfort and some kind of discipline and compassion from the belief in GOD. Not everyone that believes is a moron like you. I apologize im not insulting you im just being honest.  Just because I dont agree with it doesnt mean you can be a bigot especially cus our knowledge and beliefs are being backed by common sense and science like so what. There's more to life than what you are, not who you are because you're obviously a drone, you sound like tons of other people that take pride in knowing so much that they forgot how little they really know.  You dont look at anything from all or as many perspectives as possible you just look at it with your eyes and are content. I can go on, but you just make me want to completely reject the truth and cold hard facts. Like your way of thinking belongs and would flourish in the bronze age. But hey, ignorance is bliss right? I have nothing against you nor do I care. I care about humanity and youre doing it such an injustice . Hope you have a beautiful day and learn more and more because you have such a long way to go just like the rest of us. What's the use of all this accumulated knowledge if all you do with it is so barbaric and contradictory. How can we progress when your  mentality is so antiquated and shit? What can you do with knowledge but build a flimsy pedestal for your ego to stand upon and jerk off violently to itself? Instead of accumulating the wisdom and understanding that comes with such accumulated knowledge.  Idk. Dont pick on other people for their beliefs, youre just causing a division as opposed to fucking progressing holy fuck

Do you feel better now?

53 minutes ago, joigus said:

What are your thoughts?

People get the government they deserve. Unfortunately it based upon a majority of views and en masse people can be as thick as two short planks nailed together, no matter how detailed and substantiated are the warnings shouted from the sidelines by the minority. The technological (and social) advances of the USA were made under bipartisan governments that appreciated and understood the value of science. Trump, who makes G.W.Bush look like a genius and Richard Nixon like an honest man, lacks either the interest or the intellect to counter current trends, but rather sees benefits in it, since it plays well with his followers.

If he can be defeated in November I suspect the situation can eventually auto-correct, but if he gains a second term I fear for the future of the country - at least until population demographics reduce the influence of certain segments of White America.

8 hours ago, joigus said:

Thanks @Area54 and @MigL. Do you know of any geological/atmospheric process that could replenish PH₃?

Apparently the authors have tried some of that and ruled it out.

Also, does anybody know the answer to,

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.

8 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

It seems much more likely there is an unknown non-biological process making Phosphine than unknown biological processes. But news programs I've seen are hyping the "could be life" story - some with inclusion of appropriate skepticism but mostly not.

"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.

7 hours ago, Peter Dow said:

"Unexplained"? How hard can it be?

P₄(g) + 6H₂O(g) + 6CO(g) → 4PH₃(g) + 6CO₂(g)

Based on that explanation, quite hard.

6 hours ago, joigus said:

Question for the chemistry experts:

Suppose that were phosphine they're measuring in Venus' atmosphere, and never mind where it comes from. Would it be possible for this chemical to last in those conditions for, say, billions of years after it was produced, whether biologically or otherwise?

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.