Ophiolite

While some dinosaurs were cold blooded there is good evidence that some of them were warm blooded. For example this paperexplaining how oxygen isotope ratios point to homeothermy in theropod dinosaurs. The situation is open to debate, but an unequivocal statement that they were cold blooded is out of place.

You appear to take that post as seriously as you take life. Lighten up for ****'s sake. Smell the effluent. Our ancestors loved it. Sorry, appolonaria, but you are just so frigging negative I find it impossible not to reach out and give you several metaphorical slaps about the face in the hope you will snap out of it. But it seems you are a lost cause, so I shall get lost from this thread. to inow - you know me so well; its' almost as if you were there. (That wasn't you, was it?)

Appolinaria, perhaps you need to get laid. The inability to be inspired by the emergence of complexity from simple rules, to be amazed by the fact that there are simple rules, that these rules produce aware beings who can discover and contemplate the rules, this inablilty on your part is remarkable. If you find it to be 'just reality' then I can see why you would be bored and depressed by it all. So, once again, get laid, get drunk and stop thinking. It clearly doesn't do anything to enhance your life.

zapatos and assinine cretin - thank you both. You've made my day. I can go home with a smile on my face. Here it is (symbolically)

There is the cliche of viewing a glass as half empty or half full. You seem to view it as spilt on the sidewalk or laced with cyanide. I am at a loss to see how one cannot be overawed and inspired by the emergence of stars and planets, galaxies and clusters from a score of fundamental particles, a handfull of forces and a smattering of constants. For these same basics to be responsible for the emergence not only of life, but of conscious life, is astounding. You are a part of the universe that is able to contemplate the universe! And yet you say this is not a deep meaning. That this is dull!! The universe exploring itself through your consciousness is dull!!! Give me frigging break!

zapatos & assinine cretin - I love you both. I enjoy your posts. I think you are, each in your own way, fine human beings. Don't place me in a position where I feel obliged to take sides. Take a step back - try seeing the other's point of view for a few minutes. Do you see how it leads to an escalted round of insults? Might it be worth stepping back permanently? Pretty please.

In your early post you seemed to have set the bar very low. You say, in various posts: there is no point to our existence at all. I see no purpose to life, aside from possibly wanting to diminish pain in others, because there is one reality- the here and now. And we suffer unnecessarily. Eliminating all life on Earth wont solve the problem because I'm sure it will sprout up somewhere again. Screw the beauty and complexity, I don't really care. I think the universe sucks. These and similar thoughts were what prompted the suggestion that you might be depressed. As I said, it wasn't the question that was the problem, it was your apparent response to it - as evidenced by your comments quoted above - that was the problem. Do you think the responses you gave above actually represent the highest purpose you think life can have? If not are you then rejecting these earlier remarks? If you hold them to be true do you understand why some of us might see this as problematic? And, for the record, I don't think calling such a negative approach to life a problem is a display of ignorance. I'm sorry that my proposal to set the highest goals you could think of did not resonate with you.

The problem wasn't the question, but the answer you appeared to have come up with. contrary to your understanding life has a purpose: the purpose we choose to give it. If you are not satisfied with the apparent absence of meaningful purpose then you have only yourself to blame. What is the highest purpose you feel life could have? Take that and make it your purpose. Problem solved. Now life can begin.

Sorry, why are you introducing Darwin and references to genetic drift? Are you trolling? The ocean is not the outcome of a small drift of land, but is a consequence of a limited maount of continental type crust and a specific amount of water. 4 billion years ago the Earth was about eighteen galactic orbits behind where it is now and 4 billion years in the future it will be about eighteen galactic orbits ahead. Do you understand that location has little meaning when we are talking about the sun's position in this context?

David, I am puzzled by your question. the sun is in orbit about the galaxy, so of course it is moving from its current location. If you try to defiine its current location relative to other stars then you are confornted with the fact that they all have different velocities and different galactic orbits, so once again current location doesn't mean very much. It is generally thought that the sun would have formed in a star nursery, but that the memebers of the nursery would have drifted apart over time. Please note that - drifted - not flung out with impressive relative speeds. Also note that the star forming regions today will not be star forming regions in 20 million years time.

I share your admiration for the Space-X achievement and surprise at the lack of commentary. If there is a future in space, this type of endeavour will be central to it. A small correction: Shepard's first flight was sub-orbital and he was launched by a Redstone, not an Atlas. When he returned to active flight status to command Apollo 14 he was launched on a Saturn V.

Do you use them because your intellect is impaired? Just asking for clarification. Nothing adverse implied.

I think I just spotted a logical fallacy in your post. Or was it just improperly edited?

Exactly. So why do you insist that one of them is superior to the other? If you cannot compare them then it is not valid to make that comment.

Am I mistaken? As far as I can see the assinine cretin has very effectively mocked the position of creationists in post #7. He has issued a warning that he is going to do so - right at the start of his post - when he refers to "my imaginary creationist friend". And for this lighthearted debunking of the creationist position he receives two negative votes! I've counteracted one of them and 'punished' insane alien for apparently delivering one of the negatives.

Alternatively he could just ignore the hard questions, request thread closure and add snide comments. You know, sort of play to his strengths.

My first objection to your posts Israel, was this: Your ability to communicate in writing or verbally is abysmal. As evidence of this I offer the following: Spelling mistakes, improper grammar, incomprehensible clauses. Your ability to compress multiple errors in to such a short sentence is impressive. I presume you meant something like: Please listen to the presentation I linked to in the first post and tell me again whether any of your so called listings of my failures are founded. Clearly, on the strength of your last post, this claim of failure is well founded. There are many examples throughout the thread of comparable errors and ambiguity. My second concern was this: Where any 'facts' are discernible in your output they turn out to be false. Here is one such example: While renaissance scientists were very often part of the church hierarchy and most saw their work as a means of glorifying God through a better understanding of nature, the development of the scientific method dramatically separated its methodology from those of theology. My third and fourth concerns were these: Your assertions are delivered with zero supporting evidence; You have disregarded all contrary arguments. Please provide any instances where these statements are not true. I offered you these observations to improve your understanding of how your arguments may be perceived by a large portion of the membership. I imagine you may wish to persuade at least some of us to your way of thinking. While I think this is unlikely to happen, the limitations of your posts make it even more unlikely. You are free to ignore the implicit advise in my criticisms. You are also free to swim with alligators. I do not recommend either action.

I agree with you completely. The instinctive behaviour of bees is quite inacapable of destroying the biosphere, developing nuclear weapons, initiating the sixth major global extinction event, polluting the oceans, poisoning the land, imbalancing the climate and producing reality TV shows. But human intelligence allows us to do all that and more. We are clearly superior.

In my experience most people are very bad at recognising logical fallacies, or sound logic. Only time will tell which group are favoured by natural selection.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/generalchemistry/ss/redoxbal.htm Does that help?

The key point elegantly expressed.

Here is a back of the envelope calculation, but it should give within an order of magnitude of the correct answer. Star formation rate in the galaxy is 7 stars per year. (Source:http://phys.org/news9595.html) Formation time for the planets is around 50 million years (Ranging from 10 million to 100 million) Assume five planets per system as the norm Total number of planets now forming in the galaxy equals 7 x 5 x 50,000,000 = 1,750,000,000

Speciation and Macroevolution Ernst Mayr, 1982 Punctuated Equilibrium Comes of Age Gould & Eldridge 1993 Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of Microevolution D.H.Erwin 2000 And a few thousand other publications would seem to indicate you are mistaken.

There are two practical problems here: 1) tunneling into Yellowstone 2) creating a channel for it to erupt just enough to prevent a super eruption To paraphrase the 70s series, The Six Million Dollar Man, We do not have the technology.

I find your question puzzling. Those aspects of primate behaviour that are common to humans and other primates are readily acknowledged as such by those working in the field. Those outside the field who are ignorant of the terminilogy are irrelevant.