Area54

Those who perpetrate such hoaxes live in perpetual darkness.

John Cuthber replied: "But it's not cogent, not focused, not ethical and not the only option available to those who seek to follow, rather than to lead. I'm not asking for a book; just an example of what religion can do that nothing else can." John, perhaps you are not taking this thread seriously. I say this because, based on those of your posts I have read, you do not suffer from poor reading comprehension. Therefore, I am puzzled that you, apparently, do not know the meaning of "improper". If I state that offering a "cogent, organised ethical focus" is part of an improper answer might it not mean that one or more of those characteristics is invalid? And yet, apparently thinking you are disagreeing with me, you choose to repeat my observation. Odd!

My point was more the impact government policy has had on the ability of many millions of Chinese to raise their standard of living and, for some, to achieve substantial wealth. Upward mobility is now seriously compromised in the USA compared with China.

I half see where you are heading with your OP. My observation was more one of semantics than science. Hopefully someone with more understanding of this field than you or I will provide an answer.

That's how forum discussions should be conducted. +1 to each of you. (Hope that doesn't come across as patronising, it's just that I've seen situations like that rapidly deteriorate.)

The American Dream is alive and well and living in China.

This is speculative. Several early religions involved, I understand, sun worship. The shining of a gold nugget, or object fashioned from it, may have been interpreted as the presence of the sun and therefore of the sun-god, here with us. This would surely have enhanced its value.

In the United Kingdom Remembrance Sunday is the Sunday closest to November 11th. On November 11th itself a minute's silence is held across the nation at 11.00am. The eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month. The time at which the Armistice ending World War I was signed. I recall at the age of seven or eight, in a church service on Remembrance Sunday, the minister remarked that I and my fellows were too young to understand the importance of the sacrifice made by our war dead. He was mistaken. I understood it with a clarity that was both awe inspiring and comforting. I wondered if I would ever again recapture that clarity. It came, quite unexpectedly, when gazing at a plaque commemorating some of the fallen, inside the White Tower, in the Tower of London, some thirty years later. I'm hoping I may capture it again before I go.

My psychic's spirit guide told me not to believe in that sort of hokum.

This is not central to your point, but would we really describe a logical structure as a hierarchy that only had two levels and two components?

It seems to me that choosing not to believe in a malevolent God, because it is more comforting, is exactly equivalent to believers in a benevolent, rational God who offers eternal life. Both are based upon desire, not logic. I'm an equal opportunity non-believer.

Thank you for the clarification. It would definitely have been helpful if you had said something like "Although hierarchies have been part of religious and scientific thinking for centuries, Niles Eldredge came up with an interesting take on these in the 1980s." And so on. I'll still take exception to your last statement (which based on what you have said earlier, I suspect is just a slip of the fingers). There are many hierarchies depending upon point of view and contex, not just one. Cheers

Mike, you really do frustrate me. I am not "very learned" in the subject. If you are going to be talking about hierarchies that's just a smattering of the foundation you need to have. I wouldn't run around pontificating on the subject with only these few morsels to feed my thinking, yet with even less you are ready to build an entire world view. Forgive me, but that just strikes me as silly. Now, I see you have moved the goalposts. I have not at any point in this thread suggested that I do not consider the possibility there may be superior beings. But in nearly every instance, in talking of superior beings you have been a) Placing them in a hierarchy. b) According them supernatural powers, refering to them as angels and the like. Now as to your three points, I have no idea what point 1 means. Actually, all three of your points make no sense to me. I've tried multiple ways of parsing them and they either make no sense, or are ambiguous, or contradictory. Do you want to try again.

You made these statements: Your argument appears to run thus: Sauropods were able to get large because Gondwanaland and Laurasia were large. When those continents had split apart they were too small too allow for large sauropods. If that is not your argument it would be helpful if you had been clearer. If that is your argument then it appears to be a fatuous one. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt - that you have evidence or an argument to support the contention. Without either of those you are simply blowing hot air. Edit: I am not disputing the fossil evidence that they became smaller. I am disputing your claim that this is because the land masses were smaller.

I store mine in a small satchel and take them out when I need room on a crowded train.

Firstly, you are confusing correlation with causation. Secondly, dwarf species are well known as a response to severely restricted environments. The splitting apart of Gondwanaland and Laurasia still left extremly large continental lands. To suggest that an area many times the probable range of these "giants" was insufficient is a "highly suspect" speculation. If you wish it to be taken seriously you need to produce something more substantive than an inapplicable evolutionary trait, observed thus far only on islands. You may be correct, but your suggestion is at odds with established evolutionary biology. You need to make a proper case, or acknowledge that it nothing more than a wild assed guess.

This seems a very tenuous correlation and a highly suspect inference. If you consider probable grazing/predation range for such beasts one does not need a supercontinent to provide the space for a viable populations of each. If you dispute this could you provide citations or a well-reasoned argument to justify the claim.

I suspect the average cinema goer is unaware of the extent to which special effects are used for what might seem to most of us like mundane shots.

I have read your opening post carefully and it seems to me that you are harassing logic, evidence, the scientific method, good writing and common sense. Unfortunately, these alone are not sufficient for banning. Your rude behaviour maybe. Time will tell. I urge you to take the advice offered by other members and seek a proper education in the sciences, assuming you actually have an interest in them.

Whoa there!. Certainly there are Hierarchies of various kinds within the universe at large and life in particular. My objection to Mike is that he has failed utterly to justify the kind of hierarchy he claims exists, or to counter evidence that calls it into serious question. Strange appears to be rejecting the same specific hierarchy of Mike that Moontanman, myself and probably others have questioned in this thread. That hierarchy has two essential components. Man is above all other terrestrial life forms and their are others entities above man. Mike has failed to offer a cogent argument for the first (though one could be made) and failed to provide evidence for the latter (perhaps because nothing substantial exists). Further, your suggestion that the concept dates from the 1980s is simply wrong. The Great Chain of Being, the prototypical hierarchy, derived from the writings of Plato and Aristotle was fully established in the Middle Ages. It was probably, in part, responsible for the development, by Linnaeus, of the biological classification system, which is inherently hierarchical. One could select more examples from the past couple of centuries. I'll throw in one more. Nikolaas Tinbergen's work in the 50s and 60s, wherein he helped develop ethology, was essentially a recognition and investigation of biological hierarchies.

I'm sure a skilled satirist could make something pointed of that which would evoke Paley and the Watch on the Heath, while ridiculing YECs. But where is a skilled satirist when you need one?

More likely he has indigestion.

FFS will you drop your preconceptions and take a moment to consider an alternate point of view. You may have intended it as a statement of fact, but it carries with it real and virtual implications. I know from reading many of your posts that you are smart enough to know this and am bewildered by your intransigence here. You are both behaving like spoiled brats. I'm done with this nonsense. Have a nice day!

Thank you. Would you have the courtesy of telling me whether or not my understanding of your point was accurate or not?

@koti and iNow. Thank you for communicating, by your inaction, that my post attempting to explain and resolve the difference of reading of a simple sentence was a complete waste of time. I'll leave you to stew in your own juices.