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.

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.

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.

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. :))

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.

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.

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

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,) Wholly accepted. Thank you.

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.

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

You need to be a lot more specific. So which aspects of the current periodic tables use inappropriate symbolism? 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".

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. 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.

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. Women dream about me! (I suppose nightmares might be more accurate than dreams.)

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.

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? 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.)

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?

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.)

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.

Do you feel better now?

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.

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.