Area54

And we only have an assertion it is a solution: no evidence as yet.

Can you provide a citation to this research please?

It would probably help if you specified what aspect of psychotherarpy you are interested in. The details won't help me to help you, but they should help those knowledgeable in the field. Your present question seems too general. I'm presuming you might already have checked on Google Scholar. "Psychotherapy" returns 1,380,000 hits there.

You have to state what those observations are, provide the link to the wikipedia article here, then detail in what way those observations provide support for your thesis.

to which I replied "A reason that has been investigated by science from the standpoint of biochemistry,psychology and ethology, to name but three, The phenomenon has been measured, quantified, described, documented, analysed, disected and modelled. . . . by science. Science has also investigated isolationism and solo behaviour, in the same meticulous detail, and those investigations continue because science does not jump to conclusions; science does not take a "what if" and turn it into a "must be"; science works from a "why" list, not a wish list." Klaynos even went to the trouble of repeating my post, when you repeated the same material about crowding without acknowledging that this had been addressed. Your latest response, from my perspective failed in two ways: Once more, for the umpteenth time, you reintroduced the top level of your hierachy concept without argument or evidence to support it. At this stage the top level is irrelevant. The relevant portion (the part dealing with goldfish and humans) contained only a trivial remark about the questions we might wish to ask about the crowding. Mike, those questions have been asked and answered (often in considerable detail). What is expected by me is that you summarise, or provide examples of, those answers then show how they support, or provide a foundation for your thesis. If you cannot do this then you all you have to offer is endless repetition of your unsupported thesis.

On the matter of sugars, an interstellar origin is possible: Glycolaldehyde, the simplest aldehyde sugar was the first sugar detected in interstellar space, almost twenty years ago. Since then this same sugar has been detected in a comet. Laboratory work with cometary ice analogs has confirmed the formation of sugars in these conditions. Delivery of prebiotic organic compounds by comet or asteroid is accepted as probable.

Please re-read my post, consider its implications and try again, please. If, after careful reading of my post you are at a loss as to what I think is lacking in your reply, ask.

It would be polite and within forum rules if you were to respond to criticisms of your ideas rather than simply repeating them. Klaynos has repeated my observations about your "crowding" thesis. Any chance you could begin by addressing that?

Things intended to be humerous, rather than humourous, often turn out to be a bone of contention.

I stopped that some time ago. I have offered an honest statement of my position. If you find that annoying that is your problem not mine. I've also made a note that you are an individual who denies the existence of sub-text in forum discussions. It will give the grandchildren a good laugh. Finis.

Mike, I notice you have now edited your earlier post to include a reference to the Rohl quote you used. It would have been normal etiquette for you to note you had been prompted by me. That way my following post, written before you did the edit, would not have looked so out of place. Strike one for rudeness. I notice you failed to address my dismissal of your post. Strike two for failing to address the issues. I see in your preceding post you have included material bearing no relationship to the subject of the thread. Strike three for irrelevance. Three strikes and I am out.

It is one of the things I am saying, but it is not the central point. Look in any dictionary and we see that most words have multiple meanings. Often these are quite similar, but still have important differences between them. I am stating, not just suggesting, but asserting that words like faith and belief and trust and acceptance have those differences. In the context we are in here, in this thread, different members are bringing different senses of these words to the discussion. What they are not doing is recognising those subtle, but important distinctions. Hence a lot of us are saying the same thing with different words, thinking we are in disagreement. As far as I can see any disagreement that exists is small and much smaller that the differences that are being, erroneously, percieved.

Didn''t work.

David Rohl may ascribe to these views still, but he sure as heck doesn't believe that we are all descended from Adam, nor - as far as I am aware - is he even a Christian. He is simply an academic with a radical set of views on ME chronology. Hint: you might just avoid being shut down if you provided proper citations instead of unfocused mind farts. For the rest of you, the above is an extract from "Legend - The Genesis of Civilisation" by David Rohl, published by Arrow 1999. See page 67.

The text and sub-text of your posts create, for me, the clear impression that you wish to put anything associated with Lee out of sight. I don't know how many more ways you want me to phrase that. You say, or at least imply, that this is not what you mean. Fine. We'll subscribe to the hypothesis this is due to poor reading comprehension on my part. If I so stipulate may I get the hell out of here? (Rhetorical question)

That's not faith. That's acceptance of a probability based upon experience. You and PGJ are saying the same thing. You are just using different words to express it.

I have no such faith. My experience, direct and indirect, suggests that my local GP will do a passable job of identifying my ailment, if it is a reasonably common one. Faith is not involved. Evidence and experience are. Today, I had faith that Kyle Edmund would defeat the Canadian wunderkind in the US Open. However, an in depth analysis, based upon two years of closely following professional tennis made me accept that he was very likely to lose. Spoiler Alert. Once again faith was trumped by good data and logical analysis.

A Federally funded Lee library would contain more that statues. This would be "other material related to Lee". You indicated clearly you were not in favour of such a library. The connection appeared clear to me. i.e. I mentioned other material related to Lee and you noted disapproval of federally funding a facility to house it. That' how you gave me that impression.

I read, I think on a forum, an observation regarding evolution that I have since used myself. I don't believe in evolution I accept evolution as the best current explanation for a wide range of observations. This is a valid sense of the word "belief". It involves the notion that belief requires a measure of faith. It is faith based, not evidence based. The OP is simply asserting that faith is an invalid basis for ones world view. It is not the only sense in which belief can be used, but it is sound. I have also confirmed, in an earlier exchange with PGJ, that this is how he is using it. Essentially, PGJ is promoting the concept of ultra-scepticism. The problem is he has difficulty coherently framing his posts and has been seriously misread by most members, including myself, until recently. Now as to the three statements: you have agreed they are correct, but they are directly derived from the post by PGJ that you characterised as fairytale, philosophical musings. Try re-reading it in the light of what I have said. We've already estbalished what he means. "We should concern ourselves with (focus on) evidence (not faith based, fanciful beliefs)."

Come on Mike. It's a bit rich you advising persons to "take care of our words". With your words you routinely fail to respect the rules of grammar With your words you routinely fail to respect the rules of spelling With your words you routinely fail to respect the application of logic With your words you routinely fail to respect the findings of science With your words you routinely fail to respect the findings of historians and archaeologists With your words you routinely fail to respect the work of theologians And now, bereft of argument, you appear to be resorting to preaching. I find this sad. I don't think I am doing you any favours by continuing. This has gone beyond discussion and deteriorated to incremental mud slinging. I commend you to read and consider the full import of Psalms 119:18.

What about the truth claims in the Koran?

Does this mean you will be avoiding any and all double malts?

A reason that has been investigated by science from the standpoint of biochemistry,psychology and ethology, to name but three, The phenomenon has been measured, quantified, described, documented, analysed, disected and modelled. . . . by science. Science has also investigated isolationism and solo behaviour, in the same meticulous detail, and those investigations continue because science does not jump to conclusions; science does not take a "what if" and turn it into a "must be"; science works from a "why" list, not a wish list. Pie in the sky when you die. /dripping sarcasm and intellectual disgust

Thank you for saving me the trouble of responding.

Some people may consider short posts like yours to be lightweight. I think it's spot on and the sub-text is extensive.