Strange

Then perhaps you can provide some evidence for that. As it is, the facts would appear to contradict you: the natural birth rate appears produces a greater proportion of males.

So, just to confirm, you have moved away from the bogus "irreducible complexity" argument to abiogenesis? You say "which they claim was a bacteria". Who are "they"? And where do they say this? Why do you think this is relevant to the theory of evolution? There are several different hypotheses for how these things arose. For example, the idea that RNA preceded DNA. And that cell membranes may have developed independently of the reproductive molecules. One common idea in all models is that there is no need for a complete cell to appear "de novo" (but, of course, we can't currently rule out that possibility). Please explain why you think the quoted text is relevant to abiogenesis. And what "laws" are you referring to? Also, it would be helpful if you could make it clear what you have copied from elsewhere and what are your own words (if any).

I'm afraid it is too late for that.

Are you going to stop when you get to Q20? From Wikipedia: And why is this posted in Speculations? It is a question, not a speculation. It is about some fairly well-researched science.

Looks like you might have been mislead by a "documentary" on TV and mistaken it for factual reporting.

Exactly. Presumably I misunderstood, but I thought that you were saying that if we had a model then whatever is modelled was real. But the thing we model may not exist. And if it does exist then the model is only ever an approximation and idealization of certain (relevant) properties of the thing.

I'm not quite sure what argument you are trying to make, but I think this started with the relationship between the model and reality. So, here, the "reality" is the locations of all the electrons including some "missing" from certain locations. It would be really, really hard to model that and get useful results. So the model used is based on the existence of fictional positive charge carriers (with a charge of +1, a mass much greater than the electron and therefore lower mobility). This is much simpler even though it does not (directly) represent reality.

Er, obviously. (I haven't seen mountains of evidence. If you are referring to the videos you posted after the post I replied to then all I can say is: I don't watch yootoob videos. They are not evidence for anything other than (occasionally) creativity and (usually) the mind-numbing stupidity of the human race.) Sorry, I thought that was your weakest argument. How is it different from any other source of illegal weapons? You don't give up trying to control something just because it has got more difficult. People can (and do) manufacture illegal drugs at home. By your argument, therefore we shouldn't try and legislate drug use. People can and do commit child abuse at home. Therefore there is no point having laws against it. Really?

I didn't realise that was a "key point". It seemed rather silly. It is no different from any other illegal source of banned weapons. You can make a deadly knife in your own home from raw materials. That doesn't mean there is no point trying to control their use. I can't see why. Many other countries have very large weapons industries (rightly or wrongly) but don't allow their citizens to own those weapons. You seem to be stuck in a "but that's the way it is" mindset. It is not clear why you think this argument only applies to guns.

Thanks for confirming that it is not the "only possible" operation. In fact you clearly had to search among the large space of possible manipulations until you found something to feed your pareidolia and alien fantasies. This is fallacious and unscientific on many levels. Perhaps the most egregious are "cherry picking" and "begging the question". Ironically (given your Aliens!!1! delusions) you appear to have ignored the meaning of the large cross-like structure in the centre of the image.

There is no evidence for "irreducible complexity" so it can't really point to anything. If you think there is a strong case for "irreducible complexity", why not present it here? Instead, you have chosen to ignore the counter-evidence provided here and simply repeated the untrue statement. This begins to look very close to a deliberate lie. Do you think that is a good way to conduct an argument? Do you think your God would approve? The rest of your post appears to be quotations from one or more sources (some unreferenced). You don't even say why you think these quotations are relevant, or how they might support your argument. This is confusing, dishonest and probably against the forum rules. As such I will ignore them. Except to point out that the fact we do not have a full explanation for abiogenesis or the origin of DNA says nothing at all about evolutionary theory; why would you think it does? This seems to show some very confused thinking.

Why not? Other countries have done it. There are more dangerous technologies. And guess what? People aren't allowed to own them. Or are you also suggesting we should also allow unrestricted access to plutonium, for example? If one child suffocated or was accidentally shot, I doubt anyone would say this things should be controlled. But if several children were killed every day by trashbags, then I suspect something would be done to control their use. You are being completely illogical, and I find the first part of that sentence quite implausible.

As far as I can see, this is the only objection that hasn't been raised. (This logical fallacy is known as a "strawman".) I'm not sure what the formal name for the fallacy of "jumping to ludicrous and unjustified conclusions" is. It is clearly not the "only possible" operation. How many different things did you try before coming up with your results? What would persuade you that you were mistaken? (And, most puzzling of all, why am I still responding?)

I see. I was assuming that 96Zr is the only unstable isotope, because it says "90Zr, 91Zr, 92Zr and 94Zr are stable." I think that there is a typo. Where it says, "94Zr can undergo double beta decay" I think that should be 96Zr. If you follow the "double beta decay" link, it lists 96Zr as the isotope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_beta_decay#Known_double_beta_decay_isotopes But this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_zirconium Says that 94Zr is "Believed to decay by β−β− to 94Mo with a half-life over 1.1×1017 years" but that it is "observationally stable". All rather confusing ...

Have you every done a cryptic crossword or other similar puzzle (i.e., one set by a highly intelligent person)? One of the key features is that once decoded, there is only one possible answer. You have performed a number of arbitrary tricks and come up with something that you interpret as being a diagram of distance between stars. To me it looks like a plan for a new subway station. Or a serving suggestion for a meal. There is no reason to interpret it as you have. This is just as insane as the leap from UFO to "allienszz!!1!" "Apparently"? This is not at all apparent. It seems to be entirely in your imagination. What evidence do you have that it was not designed by the Mayans? What evidence do you have for these non-humans? Except that that information was not hidden in a coded image. Hence my question: why hide it? However, as this thread has now passed from a possibly interesting idea to complete lunacy, I will leave you to it.

I think you have got it the wrong way round it says "90Zr is the most common" and "90Zr [and others] are stable". So one of the stable isotopes is the most common. The only (known to be) unstable one is "96Zr has a half-life of 2.4×1019 years". And "96Zr is the least common". So it seems to match your intuition. I assume (but I don't know) that the relative abundances also depends on the proportions that were formed in stellar nucleosynthesis and not just decay since then. And I guess that the unstable isotopes are also less likely to be formed (less energetically favourable). Similarly, although the other four are all stable, presumably some are still lower energy configurations than others, hence their relative abundance

But why hide it? Why not include the diagram with some text that says "this diagram shows the distance between these stars". Apart from that, there are the obvious questions such as: did the Mayans know the distance to these stars? If so, how? If you are in a culture that discusses such things (as you suggest) then you would have words for them. And the Mayans had very accurate calendars based on detailed astronomical observations so they presumably had words for planets and stars. It may look image based but, like every other writing system, it represents the (sounds of) the spoken language. So anything that the designers could have talked about (e.g. solar systems, stars) could be written down.

Note that if "at the time of the big bang" is referring to a singularity, then that would be zero size, even if the universe is (and always has been) infinite. Do we know they are (were) the same everywhere?

Why does that imply "message" rather than "design"? (This seems to be similar to people who see something unidentified and irrationally assume "aliens".) Why wouldn't it just be in the other text around the tomb?

There are regulations regarding fire safety in houses, children's clothes and toys, etc. I don't know about the US but over here the sale and ownership of knives by children (and others) is very strongly regulated. And you mention water: there are regulations about safety barriers around bodies of water, about the need for rescue equipment and trained staff, etc. So your argument seems to be: we can make efforts to make all these other things safe but we should leave guns alone because ... GUNS!

Why do you think there might be a hidden message? Why wouldn't it just be in the other text around the tomb?

I was going to say that I thought some of the symbols in the picture looked like Mayan writing (but their writing system is so decorative, it probably takes an expert to be sure).

They would only cancel out where the signals are in antiphase. And this depends how far from the speaker you are. So there will be points where the signals destructively interfere (cancel out) and places where they constructively interfere) add together. This is a like a more complex version of the famous "two slit" experiment.

I don't really understand this. I don't know what you mean by "make" vs "discover". And I'm not really sure what you mean by "objective" and "subjective". For example, colour is subjective but would you claim that we "make" the perception of colour? Or do we open our eyes and discover it?

Not really. Semiotics is an import apart of Art History; it studies the meanings of artworks as well as any purely decorative aspects. Gosh, I don't know. I am not an expert on Mayan art. But maybe because they represent celestial bodies? Or raindrops? How much do you know about the symbolism and meanings in Meso-American art? Can you provide any insights into this?