Ophiolite

Eric - a word of advice. Start taking the medication again. You are havering. If you actually think that concatenation of buzz words condenses into something with meaning, then you have more than one loose screw.

Do you think, Athena, that you might get a better hearing and stand a better chance of convincing the mod team an error had been made if you stopped insulting their education and intellectual capacity? Instead of a thread like this, you could have posted one where you explored the distinction betweenn philosophy and religion using the instance that concerns you as an example. Within that you could have given reasoned, supported arguments for your position. Of course, it wouldn't be as satisfying as throwing thinly veiled insults, but it might be more effective. So, the question for you is, what do you value more, satisfaction or effectiveness?

I strongly suspect that there are many motiviations and among them would the desire for something exciting to enliven their dull lives, or a frisson of superiority thinking they are 'in on' a secret. For me the troubling ones are those who think we are nearing the End Days and therefore do not need to take any corrective action on global warming, or any of the troubles facing civilisation. They are rushing straight to the scene of the accident.

The War on Terror would have been a lot more effective if we hadn't mentioned it to the opposition. They should have been made to create their own recruitment drives instead of having us conduct them on their behalf. A botched job and them some!

We are rightly encouraged to be respectful in our posts on this forum. Politeness it an admirable quality. Respect is something that can be earned, or it can be something that is given freely. One can make a sound argument that as we are all human we should automatically accord the respect to others we would wish to receive for ourselves. Sometimes it is very difficult to honour this objective. Such is the case here. Here, Israel Unoone, is why I can feel no respect for you: 1. Your ability to communicate in writing or verabally is abyssmal. This is a consequence of lamentable grammar, trite, undefined terminology, structureless ramblings and wholesale absence of logic. 2. Where any 'facts' are discernible in your output they turn out to be false. 3. Your assertions are delivered with zero supporting evidence. 4. You have disregarded all contrary arguments. I am left puzzled as to why you even posted here. I would be very interested to hear what you hoped to achieve by your post. If you can explain your goal and if you will listen to what others say to you, perhaps tha goal will be attainable.

I have used the analogy to help you understand how untenable and ultimately ignorant your position is. Macro evolution is a consequence of micro evolution. The large differences between a giraffe, or a gnu, or a Christian fundamentalist are the result of many, many small changes over millions of years. Since those large changes take more time than a human lifespan, then we can only witness the small changes. That's not an analogy. That's the way it is. That's what you choose to deny through a process that has the appearance of self deception, seriously inadequate educational background, or lack of logical thinking processes. So if you won't address the analogy designed to help you, at least address the reality, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you. Edited for minor typos in last sentence

Sammy, macro evolution is occuring today. Here is an analogy that may help you to understand, if you are able to open your mind. If I take a slice of a few seconds of time I can see someone move in a car from a few yards away to just opposite me. That is not a very long distance. I'll call it a micro-distance. I can see them move a micro-distance if my observation time is restricted to a few seconds. One of those cars may have come from a city three hundred miles away. That is a macro-distance. I can't observe a macro-distance being covered in the span of a few seconds, but it certainly does not mean that a macro-distance has not been covered. And it has been covered by simply covering a lot of micro-distances over many, many short periods of time. It really is that simple. If you wish to deny macro-evolution you had better stand ready to deny that anyone ever came by car from Arkansas.

Cherry picking of an overt, cynical and dishonest nature. Find the entire speech before you draw a single provisional conclusion.

The only abuse of world resources that will lead to problems is global warning caused by excessive use of fossil fuels. There is no way in which mining or oil production had any effect upon the Haiti quake. That quake was not a megaquake. It's destructive results were caused by the proximity of the fault to the town and the lack of an adeqate building code. It is not overdue. There is no reason to believe it is overdue. It is irresponsible to state it is overdue based upon casual hearsay. Mining can lead to some surface subsidence. Oil extracted from the small pore spaces in reservoirs is replaced immediately by water. It is possible that minor changes in matrix stress related to oil production could marginally alter the timing of a quake that was going to occur, but that is all. Generation of significant virgin quakes could not occur by this means.

Incorrect. We do not know that this would be the case. Such a conclusion is based upont the methodological naturalism employed by current science. But that methodology is based on the notion that naturalism is axiomatic. We can employ a different methodology based on a differnt axiom - an axiom selected primarily for convenience - and could then arrive at a different conclusion.

This turns out to be an incorrect understanding of anthropology, palaeontology, and most of the sub-sets related to geology. In this field the experiments have already been conducted through the evolution of the planet and its life forms. Hypotheses and theories (not the data) concerning these can be falsified by making observations that wholly contradict the theories. Statistical, obervational and analytical techniques furnish the data on which theories will fall, or be validated. It is rather foolish to suggest otherwise.

This is bringing down the tone of the Speculations forum - not an easy thing to do.

I think we should take note of the fact that ewmon is an anagram of women.

The problem is that most peole who have a bent towards science have a different mind-set from those with a bend towards marketing. Marketing is what is needed to counter creationist misguidance, misinterpretation and lies.

Brilliant!

An in depth, long term scientific experiment is underway in Scotland to assess the impact of reintroducing beavers. More information here and here. This is an officially sanctioned release. More contraversial was a secret release of beavers into the Tay. See here.

Well, it might be interesting, but would you expand a little on exactly what you mean by it.

Interesting. I realise you are not stereotyping, but simply commenting on what you have observed. Here is a counter position. I am an old person. I have no difficulty reconciling my actions past and present with what those actions should have been and should be. Guilt, or the desire to avoid guilt, would not impact on my actions or opinions in this matter. I have enromous desire to change the staus quo because my children and grandchild will not, I hope, be dead soon and my great-great-great grandchildren aren't even born yet. Moreover I would not feel properly secure in regard to the protection of the human race till we had at least colonies in three or four other planetary systems. In the present economic climate very few peopl have many discretionary funds. Old peopl can however use their politcal nouse or any other skills or contacts developed over their lifetime to agitate for government intervention. Further, I've heard young people argue that they don't see why they should pay for the problems created by their parents; that science is always getting things wrong, so they probably got this wrong too; that this is just a huge conspiracy; etc. To address inow's original question. I think the answer is a definite no. I can conceive that a specialist in some aspect of climatology could have formed a maverick opinion they believed to be validated by the facts as they interpreted them that would rule out a significant anthropogenic element in global warming. There position, right or wrong, would be based upon sound application of scientific principles. do most GW deniers fall into this category. Absolutely not.

I wasn't quick to dismiss it. I spent close to a decade considering the viability of this and other beyond-the-fringe concepts. I abandoned them because there was no evidence in their favour. Disappointing, but that's the way the cookie crumbles - regardless of when it was baked.

I don't understand why you think this is a valid and required assumption. Would you explain and justify? Even if a creator exists why would you automatically assume he was interested in you? If I am creating a turned table leg I have no interest in the wood shavings, except as a potential fire hazard. There is a difference between looking for a creator and claiming to have found one without replicable, external evidence. I don't think anyone has claimed that to look for a creator is broken - if they have then they are mistaken. Anf the methodology of science requires that every assumption be tested deeply, vigorously and repeatedly. The only untested assumption is the one that the universe is explicable and even that is ultimately tested by the confirmation of the success of the scientific method. How would it not?

Scots are equally fluent in their mither tongue and in English. While stylistically non-standard the repetition of in gives the phrase more oratorical power. As Winston Churchill said of prepositions at the end of sentences, "It is something up with which I shall not put."

All well and good. Do you have any evidence?

I saw no objectivity in your post. An objective person would not introduce a term (obligation), imply it was part of another poster's argument and then argue against it. That is either careless, or deliberately manipulative. Neither of these are attributes associated with objectivity.

@Amateur-1 Here is a thought for your consideration. When a poster opens a thread with a phrase such as "science took a wrong turn", the mjaority of readers think "Oh, no, not again. Another ill informed crank, who thinks they have the answers, who will pepper his thread with misinterpretations, misunderstandings, blatant stupidity and a commitment to wrongness that would have embarassed Lysenko." I doubt that is the reaction you were aiming for. You could transform that reaction by opening with a slight modification. "Is it possible science took a wrong turn? I'd like to offer some evidence and some speculative reasoning that suggests this may be the case." Te medium is the message.

Gaelic is the language of the Highlander. The Lowlander speaks Lallan Scots, or Braid Scots, or the Doric, an Anglo-Saxon dialect of Germanic origin and arguably a language distinct from English. Being intellectually superior to the rest, Scots are equally fluent in their mither tongue and in English. The Welsh, in contrast, are good at rugby and shag sheep.