Phi for All

I see little point in selecting any individual for such a question.

It's hard to believe this could be important enough to warrant ANY effort. I've already expended too much.

Did you ever see Penn & Teller debunk the wall idea on Bullshit? Crazy funny. They went to Home Depot, hired some illegals, bought some building materials, then told the workers to build a section of wall to the specifications outlined by Republicans at the time. Afterwards, they had the illegals try to defeat the wall, one team going over, one under, and one through the middle. They basically proved there's no way to build a wall people can't get through. The amount of time you can delay them getting through is completely dependent on how much you want to spend in the first place, and how much you want to spend maintaining it. The plan outlined by Trump and Cruz will not work, period. Tested, failed, end of story.

Sorry, but I really dislike your approach to the subject. It's like you're saying science is barely acceptable because we don't know everything. It's incomplete, hidden, can't be proven. It's an undue pessimism that taints what I feel is incomparably wonderful and fascinating. Oh well.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. Progressives aren't railing against Catholicism when they object to banning abortions. They're simply looking at history, and determining that abortions happen at about the same rate whether legal or not. The issue isn't a religious one to many people, it's about saving women from dark alley butchery. I don't think this is a good example of what you mean. Do you have any others? In a similar vein, progressives usually hold the Catholic Church up as an example of a religion that acknowledges evolution, and often use them to "rail" against creationists who insist the Creation "Science" should be taught in school. It shouldn't be about the ideology, or the party, or whether you're conservative or liberal. It should be about doing wise things with our government, something I don't believe the Donald is capable of.

You make it sound like science is lacking, but this is EXACTLY why the scientific method is so successful for us. and EXACTLY the way it's supposed to work. If you think you have the answer, you stop asking the question. Science never stops questioning, because we use theory instead of "proof". And yes, we do it to give ourselves the best explanations currently possible for various phenomena. Why do you sound like you have a problem with that? What methodology would you use that's at least as trustworthy?

The "establishment" that was established by businessmen like Trump, to benefit businessmen like Trump? Revolting is a great word for it. What's really at the heart of the matter is a perspective that imagines Democrats aren't supporting various cultures. The blue collar worker is EXACTLY who people like Bernie Sanders want to empower through education, banking reform, and tighter regulations on how those blue collar workers are compensated. Nobody on the Republican side, especially not Donald Trump, is really trying to help the middle class.

This is, imo, what drives the average Trump follower to double down on the ridiculousness. It was supposed to be a great relationship. The GOP promised they loved them, would keep them safe, keep them living the dream. Then they started groping them like they owned them, made them feel dirty, but what's a little dirt when they've got it so good? Then the GOP had their way with them, and it was wrong, but they'd said yes so many times before. Hard to feel dignity when you've been raped, but want everyone to know it's OK, you knew the rapist, and it really wasn't that bad. But then the GOP starts doing things that are beyond the pale. Things their worst enemies (the liberals) are calling insane, and unfit, and WRONG. They have to decide if bending over is worse than admitting the liberals might have a point. I think it would be humiliating to know, in your heart of hearts, that the folks you dislike most are just trying to keep everyone from being sodomized by the folks you like the most.

I sure would like to see some science being discussed. This hand-waving just doesn't cut it.

An even better idea is for Obama to nominate himself. That way a lot of extremist conservatives die from head explosions, and the gridlock ends.

! Moderator Note Once again, this isn't the Wishful Thinking section, or the Let's Make a Guess section. We don't have areas like that. We prefer to discuss science. Thread closed for lack of minimum rigor for Speculations.

There are an inordinate amount of Solar Global Warming denialists from Scotland.

What I don't get is why they think the Donald is going to suddenly be a champion of the working class. If he can make more money replacing you with foreign labor or a robot, do you think he'd hesitate to call you into his office and tell you, "You're FIRED!" He'll sell a LOT OF BOMBS for his friends in the industry, but do you think he's going to demand that the workers get paid commensurate with their productivity? What about the Donald would lead anyone to think that?! Why does anyone listen to the lies that come out of his head?

In the past, what we gave illegal immigrants was a completely mixed message. We needed the labor, those laborers bought local goods and paid into local economies, business owners were happy. Until someone bitches about losing the jobs they were doing. Then they round them up and ship them back over the borders. Now that the jobs are available, the bitchers don't take them, and so the illegals need to sneak back. The "laws" are enforced with discrimination and inconsistency. The laws allow those who want cheap labor to get it, while at the same time holding a threat over them to keep quiet and stay away from the authorities. Isn't it better to find a way to make these people legal, these folks who want to live here so badly they'll play ball with such a weird system?

! Moderator Note OK, we're up to four pages now, and I still don't see much rigor. Lots of denial and hand-waving, lots of basic misunderstandings (I could list them, but a re-read is probably a good idea), lots of sound explanations rejected over incredulity. Very bad form for scientific inquiries. Last warning. This thread is in danger of being closed. Please answer all the questions put to you (a great way to learn), and don't just cherry-pick the ones you like. This seems to lead you to rejecting everyone's explanations. More rigor, please. No response to this note is necessary.

That isn't discussion. That's blogging, or preaching, or soapboxing. That's not what this forum is about.

What's the best way to convert this heat to electricity?

This is how it seems for someone looking at your posts. I have seen multiple people offer you valid, sound advice on overcoming some of the hurdles and obstacles you've chosen to share. I have not seen you take ANY of it on board, not once. You argue when someone tries to offer their perspective, and so it seems like it's rather pointless talking to you. You'll never change, that's what this attitude of yours says to me. Why discuss anything with a person whose mind is made up? It's very much like you're disgusted by the knowledge others are trying to pass on. What's up with that, anyway (cue defensive denials)?

Because porn makes you forget to use protection?! That would make me itchy too.

They aren't keen on paying for infrastructure, because they know it's so necessary that eventually the middle and lower classes will have to pay for it just to maintain its poor condition. Who wouldn't like a deal where you get to use the roads and airports and marine ports, while someone else (who doesn't use them nearly as much as you) pays to maintain them? But road maintenance seems to be different. Since it's mostly privatized, using state and federal contracts, they've figured out how to grow maintaining roads in the US into an enormous business. If you drive on asphalt the day you put it down, that road will need maintenance as early as next year, and that's REALLY GOOD FOR BUSINESS, but not for the city, county, state, or country. Is anyone surprised to hear that the US government gets gouged on private infrastructure contracts? At least compared to their first-world European counterparts.

I suppose, if the Republican Party gets to continue on their present course, Americans will eventually cost less to employ than their foreign counterparts, so the businesses will get to move back tax-free, using all the infrastructure for free while their workers pay for it. I think this is their Job-Creator strategy. We're welcome.

! Moderator Note This lacks all rigor. You're just claiming this with nothing to support your idea except "It doesn't seem likely to me". This is known as the Argument from Incredulity, it's a logical fallacy, and a poor method of learning. If their are videos out there that claim the physical laws are wrong, please DO NOT post them here, but rather, as Mordred asks, summarize the conclusions you think they present that show where physics isn't being followed. Please, please, support your claims with evidence, not fallacious logic.

The organic molecules were formed starting with inorganic precursors, as the link mentions. How is that not abiogenesis? This experiment is normally considered the hallmark piece for a purely chemical origin of life. I don't know if panspermia has this much evidence to support it, but it's also another theory that describes mechanisms that might account for our origins. The point is, I was objecting when you claimed "We can't explain abiogenesis". We have some great explanations. It's up to you to decide which version has the preponderance of evidence on it's side. That's how science works. Excellent. I was also objecting when you claimed "There is always an argument for those who believe". I don't consider the supernatural to be an argument either, so now I'm curious why you think this.

There is one flaw in your argument, MigL. What makes tar capable of deciding if welfare benefits are adequate or not? It sounds like he's not accessing that program yet, so how on Earth could he, or you, or I, know? He can only tell us what he thinks he's willing to give up to offset the privilege he's heir to. That's always going to vary from person to person, which is exactly what we want to avoid. Fortunately, those kinds of parameters are usually taken out of the hands of those who don't have the training or experience, and acceptable levels should be determined, not by tar or you or I, but by those who can assess the various and variable situations in context. Just like it's kind of STUPID to allow an insurance company to have first say in your healthcare, rather than you or your doctor, it's kind of STUPID to allow tar or any of us to determine what form welfare should take. Shouldn't the families it's designed to help be the focus, concentrating on ways to help them be what they want to be, a productive part of the economy, and the society? This is what leaves most Republican politicians inadequate in my eyes. To my mind, you decide to level the field, or you don't. Either give people a chance to overcome circumstances of birth as an investment in the potential they represent, or tell them to fend for themselves, too bad about that. This bullshit where we pretend to be generous while keeping one foot on the necks of welfare recipients has got to stop. But the Republican politicians keep pandering to the "judgement" crowd, those who imagine welfare as non-stop parties for the lazy, so they can whine about lowering taxes and cutting social programs, because they're so unfair to the well-to-do.

Are you familiar with the Miller - Urey experiment? What about my second question? Why argue for a supernatural explanation when science has done so well with the natural ones?