Area54

I think you may be dismissing "creative supply for demand inventions". These are for much more than "kids toys". I suspect you were not around to see or use the mobile telepphone of the early 1990s. They weighed in at about a kilogram, were affectionately called bricks, and had batteries that barely lasted an hour of use. What could you do with them? You could make and receive telephone calls. That was it. Now how many inventions do you think it took to produce today's iphone or android? It's hundreds, if not thousands. Devlopments in chip manufacture, in batteries, in software, in memory storage, in touch screens, aerials and more besides. Each one of those simply creative supply for demand. Don't expect to invent something as remarkable as an iphone, but don't rule out the possibility you could invent one of the steps to the next great invention.

Manic woo, strong in this one is, young padawan.

What is a thorough atheist job going on? Your argument in the OP? My response? The response of other members? The behaviour of society at large? If you were aiming for obscure you hit the target dead centre. What on Earth (or in heaven!) is that supposed to mean? What is about a flat Earth, etc. Once again you have offered up an ungrammatical sentence that ofuscates your meaning. (And I'm not talking about the missing apostrophe on "Its". That's a common typo that introduces no ambiguity.) Many cultures on Earth developed the institution of lifeling marriage, a natural outgrowth of our evolutionary trajectory that required extended ages for childrearing. Burial at death was practised in the palaeolithic, so you are out of whack there too. Then an again we have your incoherent " you're short on time of questioning it?" which likely means something important to you. It just wasn't important enough for you to take care in converting your thought to writing. The more I dwell on your post you sound like a manic woo artist. I hope I am mistaken, for I suspect there may be somthing of interest and even value buried in your rambling. Unfortunately it is deeply buried and unless you can bring it to the surface it will shortly be dead.

No. Policy makers rely heavily upon the global average temperature as a means of simplifying the concept of climate change for the generally uneducated and under informed public who lack the inclination to study the data and the resultant science to the degreee* necessary to move beyond such simplifications. You have fixed, even fixated, upon average temeprature as if it was the apex and all subsuming acme of climate science. That is why I say, beyond doubt, you have erected a strawman. I ponder now on your motives. Perhaps you would explain them.

My advice to "Write in your own words, but retaining technical terms" was based upon gaining an understanding of the principles. That was the primary process I used to acquire and demonstrate (to myself) understanding. If I couldn't express the concept in my own words, then I didn't understand it. On reflection it occurs to me that this might not work for everyone and that it might be possible to write in ones own words without real understanding. The lack of motivation noted by CharonY is puzzling to me. From my perspective if you understood the concepts - and had a handful of examples illustrating those concepts - then you didn't need to have the chore of learning endless "facts" that had nothing holding them together.

That was my complaint to you. I suppose turnabout is fair play. Good for you. The pride might be better justified if your audience agree with you. Thus far, I'm not sure that has been achieved. It was an interesting take on the history of Chrisitianity, but contained nothing discernible, to me, concerning the "rational foundations of religion". I suggest you need to change the title, or the content of your post if you wish them to match. This doesn't parse. Do you want to try again? That's two more sentences that don't parse. (If you are, as you say you are, a university student you ought to be doing a better job of writing grammatically. )Even if the sentences did parse, I suspect they would make little sense, for I think you are using words with definitions of your own. Also note that many members here are not Americans. So your state flag references need a little more background.

My recollection is that for a Steady State, eternal universe, life was presumed to have always existed. Since Steady State has been "dead" for half a century there will be very little, if anything, in recent literature discussing the point. (And its apt to be found in philosophy rather than science.)

Before I decided to go for the jugular this contrast/comparison was the one I was going to make. It's almost as telling and probably more practical. Thanks for adding it.

Emphasis added. How fortunate the climate scientists provide an abundance of other information concerning temeprature variations in the oceans, the land and the atmosphere, locally and regionally, over the short term ( hours and days) to the long term (years, decades, millenia and beyond), relating it to such diverse issues as ocean currents, weather, atmospheric composition, albedo influences, etc. In short, you have erected a strawman upon which you are making a pointless and ill-informed attack.

@Mike12 By "the rational foundations of religion" do you mean the process by which a spiritual concept and its associated memes adapted and evolved in a secular context? If so, why did you not say so? If not, what did you mean by it?

One cannot. No it cannot. No, that's not the way it works. Now, a serious question, are you just trolling or do you genuinely wish to learn some biology? If the latter there are several members who can guide you towards appropriate study. (And answer sensible questions. I can answer the silly ones.)

?work always this Does

That's phenotype, not genotype. If oyu think otherwise post the evidence. (Also a single instance counts as an anecdote)

No problem. It is an interesting announcement.

Before posting my thread on this news I checked to see if anyone else had already done so. They hadn't. Until now. Just saying.

Superconductors, through which an electric current can pass without loss, have long been seen as offering great potential in such applications as transmission of electric power. The downside is that superconduction was initially found only at temperatures close to absolute zero. Years of experiment have led to demonstrations at substantially higher temperatures, but still well below room temperature - one of the goals of the research. Now the good news: reported in this Nature article, researchers have achieved superconduction in a carbonaceous sulphur hydride system at a temperature of 15o C. And the bad news: this occurs at pressures between 140 to 275 gigapascals. However, the researchers feel that "introduction of chemical tuning within our ternary system could enable the preservation of the properties of room-temperature superconductivity at lower pressures". The Nature article is behind a paywall, so only the abstract is accessible, but this BBC item gives a popular assessment.

As you go through notes/textbooks write down key points, ideally in a heirarchical bullet point format. Write in your own words, but retaining technical terms. If you know what is on it envisage typical questions you might be asked, write them down and answer them.

You are probably correct. I'll make sure to ask for a mathematician to conduct any surgery I may require in the future. He is sure to be more trustworthy than some over-qualified surgeon.

Speaking as a liberal I am unimaginably incensed by your ridiculous, scandalous, doubtless libellous, innuendo and outright explicit implications that liberals are anything other than measured, reasonable, thoughtful, calm and objective in their reactions to the turgid, emotional, hate filled drivel issuing from the mouths of asutralopithecene conservatives. Grrrh! Do I need to point out that the above is satire?

If all humans were absolutely equal, we'd all say the exactly the same things, so we couldn't have discussions on this forum, or any other forum, as they'd all be the same.

Yeah. Those damn, well-written, properly researched books. What a waste of time they are. Best you steer clear of them laddie.

I suggest that "most academics" seek recognition and admiration from their peers rather than from "most people" who cannot understand their work. For the most part such academics will generally get an appropriate amount of recognition and admiration most of the time. Whether they think it is sufficient will be down to the individual character of each academic. Some will be, but they get their own TV series, drop out of serious research and thus any bias becomes largely irrelevant.

That is far too vague and general. It means nothing to me. Can you describe the process of what you identify as "academic creation"? Applied science could be used to describe the majority of invention. What makes you think Tesla's approach was different? Many companies make the mistake of trying to sell what they make, rather than what the customer wants/needs. You appear to be about to embark upon a similar error. Rather than figuring out what you might be able to invent you should focus on the largest unanswered needs that could be addressed by new technology.

Do you really believe that?

We are not talking mathematics. We are talking science. I gave you link that refers to a variety of experiments that confirm my assertion that hallucinations are likely for most people if they go for long periods without sleep. I used an example in order to avoid searching for dozens of instances detailing the research that confirms my assertion. The normal way of countering an assertion such as mine would be to produce links that describe research that says hallucinations do not commonly follow long periods without sleep. Now, are you, as you appear to be doing, denying that long periods without sleep commonly cause hallucinations. If you are denying this, on what basis are you denying it? Once again the 80 hours was chosen to illustrate the point. I thought it clearer than just saying a long time. I could just as easily have said 50 hours, or 100 hours, or 40 - 90 hours. Which is why I included my warning after mentioning going without sleep for 80 hours. I was making clear (or so I thought) that going without sleep for long periods was not a good idea.