Area54

The claim is not that the belief systems lack followers, but that the belief systems lack substantive evidence to support them. Followers of these systems do so on the basis of faith, or upon perceived (but not independently verified) revelation. Faith and personal revelation seem viable bases for belief by many people. They offer very little, if anything, to science, though they do provide much to some scientists.

Which is irrelevant, since science if not based upon or validated by immanent perception. I await your next response that is even more off-topic and quite probably presented in a variety of coloured fonts. Your posting style makes it very difficult to take you seriously. I cannot imagine that is your intent. Something for you to reflect on.

Scientists may make use of intuition, but science is not intuitive. Intuition may identify a door. Science opens it. And some doors turn out to be trompe l'oeil. Your concept of time is flawed.

Excellent perspective. Excellent post.

No I am not. I suspect, based upon what I have read about Covid vaccine development and vaccine development in general, that the total number of man hours, the total number of test subjects and the total amount of money spent is similar for both. What differs is the the shorter time frame into which that effort was compressed.

No. The relevant point is, in terms of subjects tested and protcols followed, do the Covid vaccines compare favourably with other successful vaccines. I am unaware of any other vaccine development that benefited from the intensity of manpower, money and effort. Do you?

I see no paradox in my observation and no logic in your argument.

No it is not. The first sentence of the article clearly demonstrates this. The relevant words are highlighted. Human awareness of time is not time. Human perceptions of time are not time. Case closed.

This BBC article is relevant: AstraZeneca vaccine: EU regulator 'firmly convinced' benefits outweigh risks The article notes that "The EU's medicines regulator has said it remains "firmly convinced" that the benefits of the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 jab outweigh the risks. It reiterated that there was "no indication" the vaccine causes blood clots, after several leading EU states paused their rollouts. European Medicines Agency (EMA) head Emer Cooke said the body stood by its decision to approve the vaccine."

Thank you for the information. I should have paid attention to the thread title, not just the OP content. However, my main point remains the variability of Smoothies.

My thoughts: who is claiming these Smoothies offer 750mgs? 750mgs of what? Which Smoothies? Who is making them? The contents of a Smoothie may not be infinitely variable, but they can certainly differ greatly. I think for you to get good news from the forum you may need to supply more information.

I have a long draft post that says the same thing in a roundabout way. I've binned mine and given yours appropriate commendation.

I just make the observation that anyone who wishes to understand how the German people could fall into the trap that led to the atrocities of WWII would benefit from reading Mein Kampf. I know I did. I haven't read Naked Lunch, but I see that Time included it in their list of the 100 Best English-language Novels from 1923 to 2005. I presume you find aspects of the content disturbing. Have you considered, or attempted, to discuss the work with your son? I'm assuming you meant he has started reading Carlos Castaneda, though you posted that you had. I found his writing amusing nonsense. Someone whose reading embraces Mein Kampf and the Beatnik Bible, sounds like someone who is taking a look at the world from several perspectives. Why do you think that is a bad thing? I suggest you discuss his reading with him from the perspective of what he liked/disliked about the works, what he found interesting, how they had changed his understanding, etc. That conversation, done openly, can greatly reduce the risk that any negative effect might follow.

(The emphasis above is mine.) That's because these types of question are not scientific. The Earth does not have "needs".

I hadn't considered it until now. Having done so I find it implausible. These are some of the reasons for that finding, in no particular order. There is no evidence that the "magnetospheric bubble" has been burst. Rockets do not ascend through the polar regions. Many more rockets are being launched now, yet the ozone hole is slowly disappearing. We have a satisfactory mechanism to explain the ozone hole that has been validated. Additionally, the Earth's atmosphere is not designed. It is certainly not designed to "envelope incoming asteroids". But thank you for calling it a hypothesis, not a theory.

Thank you for the links. We clearly have different interpretations of the meaning of "specify".

To end an argument, which adopts a scientific style, with an unsupported and previously unmentioned statement such as the above, sits somwhere on a ternary plot whose apices are Whimsical, Nonsense and Agenda driven. It strongly discourages me from investing time in thoroughly studying your post, lest that time be wasted. Just something you might wish to consider in future presentations.

Please specify where he says this. (Work, edition and page number would be helpful.)

I think @MigLis getting frustrated, or at least puzzled (not furious) at the ambiguity and vagueness of your posts. You may have a clear idea in your own mind of what you wish to say, but it is not getting successfully transfered to your posts. Perhaps take a little more time to review and edit before you hit "Post".

I see your point, but not how fast it's moving.

It is difficult to take the question seriously when the scenario is both patently absurd, gratuitously violent, morally ambiguous and mind numbingly simplistic. Thus, members may find it difficult to prevent a mix of distaste and disbelief from creeping into their responses. Admittedly, I could write an equally distasteful and pointless question, but why would I? Which raises the question, why would you?

Surely this is just a modified Five Easy Pieces - Chicken Salad protocol?

I think you have totally misunderstood the helpful post from @ahmet. He gave you a list of words to use in a google search. (Not sure why he included animal vision, but there you go.) Read some relevant links then ask for clarification of what you don't understand.

Possibly. Two issues would effect it. 1. Would the genetic changes necessary to cause this occur? There is an element of chance here. 2. Would the environmental conditions favour the change? Not necessarily. Human environment is now greatly impacted by culture (in the broadest sense). Thus whites using sun screens and late 21st century medical procedures need not worry about skin cancer. Dark skin would offer less, and possibly no, survival advantage. Or blacks living outwith the tropics might use gene therapy to maintain a high melanin content as a statment of cultural identity. These are just examples.

You're not a member of the British Royal Family are you?