Prometheus

Senior Members
  • Content count

    1168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

373 Beacon of Hope

1 Follower

About Prometheus

  • Rank
    Organism

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests
    Building statistical models for Raman spectroscopy.

Recent Profile Visitors

15266 profile views
  1. A discussion of heathen religions

    Everyone knows that Jesus was actually a Buddhist whose actions and teachings were not understood. All Vedic historians agree to this undeniable historical FACT. There is even a BBC documentary on it. Thus LOGIC dictates that it is Christianity which is heathen. You cannot argue with logic, it is simply TRUE. Anyway, it doesn't matter: it is undeniable that Jainism is actually the RIGHT and ONLY answer given all the Indian scholars who say so.
  2. microwave scanning for diagnostic

    Like this?
  3. Why do people so frequently tie a creator to religion?

    Many religions already do this: a creator deity is only important for the Abrahamic faiths.
  4. Why do people so frequently tie a creator to religion?

    This thread has actually been an excellent demonstration of why belief in a creator deity is often conflated with religion: we see the same string of intellectually dishonest or simply misguided arguments are put forth together with an absolute refusal to engage in a coherent discussion.
  5. Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

    I completely agree.
  6. Why do people so frequently tie a creator to religion?

    Well first it would have to be true before science would be able to provide evidence for it. Currently the balance of evidence is going the other way though. You may well imagine a world where some event unifies mankind. But that would be ignoring human nature. If you want to live in that unified world, rather than relying on an external event to bring us all together we should actually work toward it by engaging in dialogue and such. By the way, it's interesting that you think there could be evidence for a creator god, it's says you believe that god (or 'creator bob' or whatever you want to call it - can you see why people just end up using religious lingo?) still intervenes in the universe - if not there can be no evidence.
  7. Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

    But we can't be expected to kill our own animal every meal, can we? Maybe something like taking older children to an abattoir would be a compromise. At least they know what goes on then.
  8. Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

    Any species that can suffer. It would be a mess to quantify though. With regards to masses of animals maybe it's easier to dehumanise the process. I've only killed my own food once; it did change the experience.
  9. Why do people so frequently tie a creator to religion?

    Just to flip this on its head and offer another perspective: not all religions have creation stories and many that do don't have a creator - more a creative force as Itoero put it. So the association between creator and religion isn't so strong as appears from the Western perspective. The reason that people associate a creator and religion is that the Abrahamic faiths are ubiquitous in the West and they assert (often aggressively) the existence of a creator. Nothing controversial and you're free to hold a belief in a creator without religion. But this will naturally lead to questions about how and why your belief is different to mainstream teachings. So it's strange you would bring this up then refuse to take questions on it. Like in the middle-east where all those people fervently believe in a creator? It being scientifically proven would mean nothing to the truly faithful.
  10. It makes perfect sense to look for life as we know it first. It's hard to look for something when you don't know what it is. That means looking for liquid water amongst other things.
  11. How does lab permission generally work?

    Their consent will not be considered informed if your trial has not been judged as reasonable by an ethics panel. They do not just assess the safety of participants, but also the scientific rigor of the study. For instance, a trial without a good statistical plan in place should be sent back to the drawing board. If the substance is something not yet licensed for use in humans then you are looking at a first in man study, which has additional hurdles - such as ensuring access to a resuscitation team and an Intensive Care Unit on site. If it has been used in humans before, but you are looking at unlicensed uses/doses then you're looking at a phase 4 trial - usually still requires a healthcare professional to be around, but depends on the substance. The fact you have identified volunteers before even thinking of gaining permissions would be considered very suspicious. Stating you don't care about the ethics also doesn't bode well. Make sure your lawyer knows something about medical ethics and law and clinical trials regulation.
  12. Graphs

    I can't tell where they're from, but SAS and STATA are very common, could it be them? R has so many packages how can you be sure it's not one of those?
  13. You can get a signal from a monolayer but more cells would improve it. Could also use Surface Enhanced Raman Spec. People claim to be able to detect single cells. I don't know anything about looking at cells though, just suggesting alternatives.
  14. You could look into using Raman spectroscopy. The question is whether it will be sensitive enough to differentiate between them. Also it does not (yet) include morphological information, only biochemical data.
  15. Interesting exhibitions in London

    The Wellcome Collection if you fancy anything medical and/or macabre. Opposite Euston Station and behind UCL.