|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 881 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Is hydrogen sulfide really amphoteric and if it is, give examples of how it acts as a base and an acid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 881 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
I have already seen that wiki article. I can see where it can give a proton away, but I haven't found anything on the web where it shows that it can accept a proton. Thanks for answering though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 881 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
It only says that hydrosulfuric acid is amphoteric. It does not tell us what it becomes after it accepts a proton. I assume it accepts the proton from hydronium. It would have to become h3s after proton acceptance. I don't see that compound listed anywhere on the internet. BTW, I scored 100% on the score at the bottom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 881 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
This is the best answer yet. I just couldn't see how it could accept another proton because it's valence is 6a on the periodic chart. H2S has full valence shells, and so it will be difficult to force another hydrogen onto it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 881 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Well, hydrogen sulfonium is what I could not find on the web. Without subscripts, it doesn't pull up on google I guess. The only question left is what acid is strong enough to make hydrogen sulfide act as a base?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 881 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
I did google sulfonium and I have read your response. My questions are still unanswered though. If there was an answer, I failed to see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 881 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
I finally get it now. I realize my difficulty was caused because I was thinking in terms of ionic bonds instead of covalent without realizing it.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 881 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Actually, two regular covalent bonds and one co-ordinate covalent bond if it is a proton being added and not a whole hydrogen atom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 881 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
So the only scientists that count who believe in ID are those in the biological sciences who have done post doctoral work?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 881 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Although a PhD in a specific field should know more about his field than scientists from other fields, most competent scientists from a wide range of fields, can offer very valid objections if they have done sufficient research on the subject. Having certain analytical skills and a certain amount of intuition comes with being a competent scientist in my opinion. Now, if you get a large number of competent scientists from a variety of fields outside of the subject in question that object to the conclusions of the expert in the subject, I feel their objections have considerable merit. The subject of global warming comes to mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 881 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
What hostility? I am giving my opinion. I guess my opinion is offensive to some on the face of it. I find your post to be hostile though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 881 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
Except that it turns out that the objections didn't have much merit... From what I have seen, the anthropogenic global warming theory is full of holes. I have seen objection after objection go unanswered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 881 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
Seashells on mountain tops. This may seem counter intuitive, but there are several basic problems with seashells on mountaintops that show it was not a world wide flood event: The sediment where the seashells are found have evidence of mature marine ecosystems that would need decades to produce, more than could possibly occur during a couple hundred days with normal growth behavior;There are multiple layers of such deposits, not a single event, and different layers have different organisms that show evolution from one layer to the next; floods do not produce mountains, plate tectonics does, with current recorded movement consistent with the long development of mountains; floods pile debris in low spots, all jumbled up, not sorted on mountain tops; different mountains have different ages, and the marine growth on them come from different eras of evolution of life on earth, consistent with the mountain ages; there is not one thing I am aware of that is consistent with a world wide flood lasting a couple hundred days at most. These problems cannot be resolved without invoking magic and made up scenarios that are just ad hoc inventions with no empirical basis. Wasn't the earth covered with water at the beginning of the archean? That qualifies as a flood to me. Also, if the preflood earth had no oceans, today's oceans would be prime evidence of such a flood.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025