Strange

Really? So is it "true" that gravity is a force (Newton) or is it true that it is curvature of spacetime geometry (Einstein)? Is it "true" that light is an electromagnetic wave (classical theory) or is it "true" that is made up of photons (quantum theory)? Is it "true" that there is a singularity of infinite density at the centre of a black hole (GR) or is that physically unrealistic (requiring an as yet unknown theory of quantum gravity to explain)? And what about all the things that are not susceptible to scientific analysis? Is it "true" that rap music is better than opera? Or is the opposite "true"? Science is about finding the best descriptions of things we can observe and measure. Those descriptions are not necessarily true; they are always contingent and subject to change in light of further evidence or new theories. Maybe you need a list of 10 best books on the philosophy of science!

I don't think science has anything much to do with "truth". And as there are plenty of scientists who believe in god or gods (and even more implausible things) your belief seems to be unfounded. (Isn't it ironic that you should believe in something that isn't based on evidence?)

I agree. I read The Blind Watchmaker when it came out. I thought it was a good insight into the mechanisms (if you'll excuse the pun) involved. Never read anything else by him (but the bits I have seen about his views on religion are just annoyingly stupid.)

Talking (and other behavioural therapies) are better when it works. It doesn’t always work. And who do you think prescribes and provides these other therapies? Yes, that's right: psychiatrists. Unfortunately, sometimes only medication works. Many people are happy to put up with side effects in order to be able to live a normal life. Nonsense. Your ignorance is almost boundless. As a blanket statement, that is clearly ridiculous. Please provide a link to this study. (If that was the reason for the thread you should have (a) said so and (b) provide a link to the study. I am finding it increasingly difficult to take you seriously.) I am very sceptical that "psychiatric medication" as a whole causes dementia. I am even more sceptical that anything causes dementia. I am neither of those and I think your opinions are profoundly irrational, and apparently based on ignorance of mental illness and treatments. People like you who stigmatise people with mental health problems by using words like "crazy", "nuts" and "insane" (and pretending that their problems don't exist) are a bigger problem than psychiatrists who are trying to help them. You really need to learn something about the problems that people with mental health issues face and stop using offensive labels.

Here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/10096-the-periodic-table/

This is a nice interactive version: http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table I particularly like the temperature slider.

I assume so, hence my comments about maps. But they are not "out of order". They are in exactly the correct order, just moved out of the way. Although, to be fair, I have seen people get very angry about maps not showing the "correct" relationships. But then they never do; there is always a choice about representation. I mean, look at this, Alaska is about where Greenland should be!

There are no elements "out of order". Unless you can provide some evidence for this. It's true. You might have seen maps that move the remote Scottish islands and put them in a box near the mainland. Or maps of the USA that show Alaska and Hawai'i in "unrealistic" positions. What is it? And what do you mean by the "Standard Periodic Table"? There are hundreds of versions (I think there is an entire thread on the subject somewhere). It doesn't happen.

! Moderator Note Don't do that. If there are no responses, it presumably means no one is interested. That might be true if there were heavy metals in your stomach at the same time as the algae. But if your body has previously ingested heavy metals, and they have been absorbed by organs in the body, then these will not be accessible to the algae. Heavy metal poisoning is very rare. It can be treated by chelation, in serious cases.

This is a discussion forum, not a place to publish your paper. Submit it to a journal, if that is what you want. I was using "argument" in the sense of "a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory".

! Moderator Note You can provide an attachment to support your argument. But you must make your argument in the thread, not just say "read this document".

Given all the inconsistencies and violence in the bible, maybe god is a fucking moron and a pathological liar.

On the other hand, Costa Rica has doubled its rainforest in the last 30 years (and switched completely renewable resources for electricity) https://www.intelligentliving.co/costa-rica-forest-cover/

Yes. Use [math] tags. [ math]\Delta \ge \delta[/math] -> [math]\Delta \ge \delta[/math] (There is a little bug where the Latex isn't rendered until the page is refreshed)

And whose fault is that? If you just came here to preach, then you are probably wasting your time (although not everyone here is a non-believer). We don't delete accounts.

Maybe you should explain what you are talking about, then. So far, all we've had is biblical literalism (which is a ridiculous concept) and attacks on women. Do you have anything useful to say?

Is there any evidence it is a guided process? No. Is there anything extra that would be explained if it were a guided process? No. So, is there any reason at all to think it is a guided process? No. Is what you should have said. Note that evolution is not a theory. It is a fact (like gravity). The theory is that evolution is explained by natural selection. And why are you supporting your arguments by reference to a religious forum?

There was some previous discussion of this liar's(*) ideas here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67884-what-are-the-odds-of-life-evolving-by-chance-alone/?page=13&tab=comments#comment-1034197 I haven't checked to see how well it ended up... (*) He is a creationist, which means he is dishonest by definition

I have a book called Nature's Building Blocks, by John Emsley. It talks about every element: where it occurs, its properties, what role it plays in nature, industry and human life, along with some interesting trivia. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/natures-building-blocks-9780199605637

I think this question is a bit too broad. There are such a huge range of chemical compounds, that it would be impossible to summarise them all. One place you could start is by looking at the periodic table: this lists all the elements and shows the relationships between them. Similar elements appear in the same column. The patterns of behaviour are explained by the number (and organisation) of electrons in the atom. Here is an example: http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table For more information, I would try and find an introductory course in chemistry (either a book or online).

Worth noting that the "Pioneer anomaly" (an unexpected, very small acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11) was eventually explained as a small asymmetry in thermal radiation. If I remember correctly, this had to take into account heat from the onboard nuclear battery and the electronics, as well as incident solar radiation (even at that distance).

1. There are things that can be easily verified as false. 2. No one is diagnosed as "crazy". 3. A delusional belief, by itself, is only a symptom and does not necessarily indicate mental illness. As your opinions have little or no basis in fact, I don't see what anyone would take your opinions seriously.

If by that, you mean that the genes do not specify how a protein folds (or how larger scale structures are formed) then: Duh. Thank you Captain Obvious. There is no "inconvenient truth" here. Just the facts that everyone knows. You appear to have worked it out for yourself and there smugly think that no one else knows. So it is completely unclear what you are adding to this. You keep saying "but there's more" there is the "inconvenient truth that everyone is ignoring". Yet, when pressed all you can do is state the obvious. Which is obviously nonsense, as we don't get complete cells spontaneously appearing from nowhere. As this thread is going nowhere, and all you can do is repeat the same thing endlessly, I am going to report this thread for closure.

Where is the oxymoron? What evidence do you have for a relationship between altruism and homosexuality? As well as being wrong. As that doesn’t correspond to how most people live (and homosexuality has existed at all times in all sorts of cultures) it seems utterly irrelevant. But feel free to provide some actual evidence.

Therefore it has a genetic component. Therefore it evolved. You would need some good evidence for that. My understanding of the experiments you are referring to is that they put animals in situations of extreme overcrowding etc. That does not correspond to how most people live. That is such an extraordinary claim, you had better have some extraordinary evidence. I suspect it is complete and utter bilge. (Ignoring, for the moment, the grossly offensive use of "deviancy" to describe non-heterosexual relations.)