cypress

Have you established that all of these passages are genuine and written by who you claim wrote them? In the Letter of Peter to James, have you established who is the man who is Peter's enemy and of what specific doctrine he objects and what distortions and interpretations he takes? In the Homily I don't see any specific doctrine to which this writer objects. I only see a frail human displaying jealousy to another that claims he holds a special position. Perhaps you can find a passage where Peter describes these differences and can show that Peter's interpretation is consistent with Jesus' actual teaching while Paul's is at odds.

Not hardly. It is irrelevant that you fail to grasp what it means to be God. I would think that you would want to use the definition used by the community of philosophers. I provided a link to establish this common meaning. There can be no conflicting morals. You continue to confuse morals with social norms. And again social norms. It is clear that you fail to understand what I said. Clearly you fall on the side of those who believe there is no god and there are no [invariant] morals. I agree that if there is no God then there can be no [invariant] morals. You are arguing for one aspect of my case. Thank you for that. How can you establish vengeance has a root in evolutionary history? It sounds like an opinion rather than fact. Also it is not clear that [acting out for] vengeance is an intrinsic principle that all people hold. My introspection indicates that acting out for vengeance is wrong, and as far as I know that is not a belief that I learned from society. How would you demonstrate that I am mistaken? By redefining the word morals as you have done. I can only assume you don't understand or don't want to understand the concept of a God in the context of morality. I suggest you read the link provided earlier and follow that with the copious online papers and discussion on this point. Furthermore my argument is that without God there can be no morals. If as you (incorrectly, it believe) argue, God can have no morals to give, that does not contradict my argument. Yes, but in surveys, people lie and people make incorrect statements. Surveys are evidence of intrinsic absolutes, but not proof, and they can be incorrect. Thus a survey provides an indication that we have intrinsic principles. I'm not sure why you take exception to this idea, since in the post I am responding to you said as much directly. Why should we limit the meaning of life in this saying to the short time prior to spontaneous abortion? If there is no intervention, why shouldn't we expect them to meet? If there is intervention why should we pretend we are capable of understanding and perceiving the interveners purpose?

It is an opinion rooted in interpretation and translation.

Supposing this could be done. The skin cell is alive, as is the culture, and the resulting cells. I don't see how this has helped the question of when life begins. How is this relevant? Unfortunately this does not reveal truth because it is a metaphysical belief as opposed to an established fact. It fails on causal adequacy and it fails because during this process there are transitions whereby previously a unique and separate entity did not exist but now does. Your concept fails to recognize the reality of unique and separate beings. It is therefore logically inconsistent.

The single biggest problem with your elaboration of this conjecture is that there is no substantive disparity between the teaching of Jesus and Paul. Those who seem to think there is a disparity seem to have difficulty with interpretation or redaction or context.

Antimony is often associated with lead compounds and must be removed in lead smelting. Look for information online for the common compounds of Sb and how those are made soluble. Post your ideas here and I will have a look at them. This is homework right?

I don't see that as a problem for his side of the argument. If there is a God, then there are two solutions. 1. God is not necessarily directly involved in the physical process of the progression of life on earth. God or no God, the evidence indicates that random accidents occur regularly and there is often little evidence to suggest some force is intervening to prevent them or mitigate the outcomes. Is it immoral to not intervene in an accident even if one could prevent it at a higher cost to themselves or others? 2. God has authority to determine who lives on earth and who does not. If there is a God, unless it has been specifically granted to the created, the created lacks the authority to dictate who or what should live and die. Some see ignorance of a creator as justification while others seem to accept there is a creator but claim ignorance of what has been granted. Some seem to accept that they do wrong. Is there more than one creator? "Handed down morals" if there are any, are, by definition, fixed. If any existed and a particular society takes one and changes it over time, the changed norm is not a moral, it is a social norms, just as you have correctly termed it. I don't see any contradiction in that. I don't see anything funny or strange about it. These two statements seem contradictory unless in your first statement you meant social norm instead of Moral and morals. These religions you speak of, are they true and lasting, or have they faded along with the culture? If they have faded, then the practices could not have been based on a fixed moral principle. In your second statement you speak of instinctive feelings for right and wrong as opposed to those promoted by social norms. It is these instinctive feelings that I speak of when I talk of principles obtained through introspection. Are you suggesting that murder and rape (as I defined them, as opposed to the behaviors granted to certain persons by the society's religious authority) are not components of what instinctively is understood as wrong?

Then we agree and your original objection is incorrect when you said "Utterly, quantifiably false" indicating that you disagreed with may statement that without a higher authority there is no moral (truth). One cannot properly weasel out of an argument by redefining words. I believe morals (if they exist) are practical and I even said so in my original posts, If morals exist, they are practical. They establish a fixed standard against which behavior is measured. Surely you understand the practical value of a standard. Science is full of standard measures. Two possible moral absolutes are: Murder (intentional killing without authority and cause) is wrong. Rape (forced, against one's will and choice) is wrong. I doubt you have not, but why did you earlier attempt to argue morals exist when your metaphysical belief is that they shouldn't? Is it because through introspection you suspect they do? Your challenge is to factually demonstrate that these objective truths that we understand and identify through introspection are not morals rather they are a product of society norms or perhaps biological processes. My statement is that there can be no morals (moral absolutes) without God. It is very clear from your previous post that you now agree. I offer your agreement as evidence. You believe there are no such things as moral absolutes. Existence of what are thought to be absolute morals is known by introspection. Assemble a randomly selected jury of rational persons free of strong bias and the vote will invariably fall on my side. Yes, you are helping to demonstrate my point that morals can only exist if there is a moral being we are accountable to. Without God there are no morals. I agree, it would be self serving. Thus morals, if they exist, must be handed down. If there is no creator then there is no handing down, and there are no morals, only social behaviors and norms. How would you demonstrate that all our principles are changing, self serving social norms as opposed to objective morals? Is this fact or conjecture?

Those who claim unfertilized eggs and sperm represent life are equivocating likely to blur the lines. Neither of them replicate. the life of the living organism begins at conception. It is not an established reality that all life is related. It is an open question. The idea that life has a single common ancestor to this day lack causal adequacy. Nobody is able to factually show that it is physically possible much less show that it is factually accurate that all life is related. It is a metaphysical belief that may or may not be true.

Well you have not only failed to equate societal norms with intrinsic moral principles but now you have introduced a metaphysical belief that intrinsic moral principles are a product of evolution. Intrinsic moral principles are taken to be objective truths. Can you factually demonstrate that evolutionary processes necessarily are capable of and actually do generate behaviors that do lead to objective truth? Game theory only works to demonstrate that societal norms arise from social interactions. Since morality is intrinsic objective truth, if anything you are once again arguing that in a society that does not treat the intrinsic morality as such, has no recognizable moral codes, instead they have social norms that change over time and are subject to suspension for practical reasons. It is a definition. Morals are fixed and they are intrinsic. Again your argument supports my original contention that without God there are no morals, instead, as you have stated, there are only social behaviors which you describe. You can call social norms morals if you like, but a dog by any other name is still a dog. Where have you demonstrated that this intrinsic sense of right and wrong has society as a source? I don't see any references, no data and no evidence.

What you describe are society norms which are invented and defined by a social group and you are attempting to equate them with morals which are intrinsic. Your challenge is to factually establish these are one in the same. Please do so. To provide a sense of the difficulty of this challenge I offer this: Here is a good discussion indicating that those on both sides these questions of a creator have come to understand that god is a necessary postulate of morality. If a particular behavior involves a moral principle, then that behavior is an invariant obligation. Violation of that principle, by it meaning to be moral cannot have value and therefore cannot be practical. That you argue this is false is further indication that morals are not norms established by society, since you argue that violation of a societal norm can be of practical value. In that way your example supports my claim.

Indeed, there is no morality if there is no accountability to a higher authority. Thus if there is a moral obligation to avoid murder then abortion cannot be practical and if there is not a moral obligation then it is.

Recently there have been a number of papers identifying and discussing the +/-60 year cyclic oscillations in ocean patterns and the relationship these oscillations have regional and global climate. This paper provides a good summary of the nature of these oscillations and the relationship they have to regional and global temperature. Here is a example of the correlation these oscillations have to US temperature, courtesy of wattsupwiththat.com Here is a publication that demonstrates the relationship these cycles have on the arctic climate. This article provides empirical insight into a causal relationship between these oscillations and solar system influences and shows that at least 60% of warming during the most recent warming cycle (between 1970 and 2005) is due to the combined natural influences due to these oscillations. This matches very well with the results I presented previously. This paper also shows that these cycles have been occurring continuously into the past as far back as records and data is available. This paper represents independent confirmation that natural factors and measurement errors have dominated the 1950's -2009 warming as has been shown previously. Additionally, this article indicates that the cyclical temperature between 1850 and 2009 due to this natural oscillation is equal to the adjustment between 1970 and 2005 or about 0.3 C out of the 0.8 C agreed apparent total, leaving 0.5 unaccounted at this point. Recall that my goal was to show that less than 0.4 could not be accounted for by natural causes so at this point I have about 0.1 C left to account by natural cause.

It actually does in the sense that whether the the substrate is strong or weak, a similar molecular equivalent of the titrant is required, but the difference is that with a strong substrate, the beginning pH will be off the chart in one direction or another because the strong substrate readily dissociates on its own account so that as the titration progresses, the pH will also move greatly. However with a weak substrate (buffer), the pH will remain relatively stable because the "buffer" dissociates only as a response to addition of the titrant in proportion to the amount added until the buffer is consumed. When the initial solution contains both a strong substrate and a buffer, pH will again move slowly until the buffer is fully dissociated/ionized and then it will move greatly, but more to the point, it will require the molar equivilent of both the strong and the weak substrates. In general the capability to form a solid rather than remain ionized is always possible, but in practice it occurs less frequently with strong acids and bases because the propensity to remain ionized is a primary driver for what allows the compound to be strongly acidic or basic. Therefore it is not as common for the ions of strong acids and bases to precipitate a salt (precipitated salts are often referred to as minerals). Keep in mind that it does happen from time to time so don't treat this observation as a rule. I think you have a fairly good understanding. Your questions illustrate a solid foundation and you are questioning the simplifications that are provided to introduce this topic. As you are finding, the simplifications tend to be a bit misleading and your questions are around these apparent contradictions. They coexist because they are in equilibrium, continually changing forms as H+ (protons) leave and reattach. The concentration ratio is the ratio that is required given the conjugate base and acid forms relative propensity to hold/release protons so that the rates are balanced. They don't react because they are chemically similar and have little chemical interest in each other. Think of them as two gentlemen suitors (sorry my age is showing) taking turns on the dance floor with the ladies (the proton). Sorry for the slow response, was helping my daughter with homework as well so I did not see your edits until after I finally finished this.

Crude oil is a solution/mixture of many (generally 30+) hydrocarbons. Separating just three is a much simpler task. Are you familiar with how a fractionation column (like for example a crude unit) works? Are you aware of how differences in partial pressures at different temperatures and pressures influence changes in relative concentrations? Do you think it would be practical to set up a multistage fractionator in a lab environment? If not, perhaps you could design a batch unit similar to a moonshine(backyard alcohol distillation) still and design a proceedure to do it in stages. I am trying to be vague since I am not anxious to do your homework for you.

You need to first understand what Phosphodiesterase does to a diester and what phosphatase does to a substrate. From that and the differences in the products you can determine which of the bases are in the center of the tetranucleotide and which ones are on the ends.

Since you know the weight of the copper and the charge required to generate that much copper you should be able to determine the total charge required to generate a different quantity by multiplying the known charge by the ratio of the mass right?

What you propose might be an interesting thing to do, but don't lose sight of the stated goal. Your challenge is to separate these three hydrocarbon compounds. So.... Not three different experiments, but if you were to start with cold fluid and slowly heat it to near the boiling point of the lowest boiling hydrocarbon, what would be the relative concentrations of the three compounds in the vapor vs. the fluid?

But, because the intestine is a highly speciallized flow through absorber and equillibrioum is involved, therefore as C6H6-CH2-NH2 is absorbed, the concentratiion gradient will drive C6H6-CH2-NH3 back to C6H6-CH2-NH2 to maintain the concentration ratio. At a pH of 8, the concentration ratio [C6H6-CH2-NH2]/[C6H6-CH2-NH3+] is 0.05 or about 1 in 20 molecules is easily absorbed and at pH of 7 the ratio is still 1 in 200. In this range, even at the low end of 1 in 200, a flow through absorber with good retention time is more than enough to absorb nearly all the chemical even when radial diffusion is fairly low. When one considers that there is a wide range of chemicals to be absorbed with a range of pKa's, pH of 7-8 is optimal for the job being performed. The key to answering these problems is to understand how to compute these ratios for various pH's and to have an idea of the process involved. The stomach is a well-mixed batch absorber while the intestine is a continuous flow through absorber. Even a batch absorber can work pretty efficiently if the retention time is reasonable (30 minutes or longer) but the stomach is primarily a batch chemical reactor/digestor. As this problem illustrates, the stomach is set up to absorb chemicals that are insensitive to pH (very very low pKA's)

You said above that structure 1 is hydrophobic and at pH 3 it is mostly in the protonated form so.... You might want to think this over a bit. hmm..... are you sure? You said the neutral form would dominate at high pH and it is hydrophobic.... Yes the pH is low but the issue preventing transport is the polarity of benzylamine at this pH right? At pH of 1 the ratio of protonated to nonprotonated is about 2*10^8 so there is very little nonpolar form to be transported right? While this is a true observation, it is not relevant. What is relevant is the equilibrium concentrations of the various constituents. Try to find an equation that represents the relationship between pH and pKa and then let's work through it to see what dominates at pH7 - 8.

Review the definition of pKa and the relationship to pH and let me know if still think this is correct and why you think so.

As far as reacting goes what do you know about ethane and oxidizers (like for example Oxygen)? Is Peroxide a oxidizer? If so then the Carbon is going to be oxidized but the equation must be balanced. This is homework right?

The problem statement gives you a clue. How can you exploit the differences in boiling points? What does boiling point differences imply about partial pressures?

Nice! Don't forget about significant figures. Only four...

and the reducing agent is Mn+2{++} and it is oxidized to Mn+4O2 .. Im on chat but Im not sure I know how to use it...