Ophiolite

This is eqaully, or indeed better, evidence that life must have been seeded from space. The complexity of even the simplest imaginable cellular lifeform is much more removed from prebiotic chemistry than from the first eukaryote and that transition took a billion years plus.

GMCs are only a very few tens of degrees above absolute zero. Surely reaction rates will be so slow as to cancel out the benefits of size?

Unfortunately Villain two of the above sentences can be interpreted in more than one way. I read this as "If some of you who are throwing barbed comments at Christians would actually like to take the time to read the Bible....etc." I accept you did not intend it that way, but in context that is what I read. Read as: "Once you have actually got of your ass and tried to understand it you might frigging well realise why people.....etc" Now while I concede that the faulty interpretation was mine, I wonder if I was not encouraged towards that by what I'll call "contextual hostility".

Wicked!

Wow, man! This thread is like far out. Yeah!

Part of the reason they believe is that the claims are extraordinary. Humans are attracted to a greater or lesser extent to the different, to the exciting, to 'big things'. Scientists - good scientists at any rate - are not immune to this. It fuels their passion for their subject and energises their research. But then the two approaches part company. The scientist seeks evidence, the follower of religion seeks revelation and affirmation of faith. We would not expect a scientist to reject a hypothesis because he lacked faith in it; we should not expect a religious person to reject their beliefs because they lack evidence for them. The two approaches are quite different. The findings of science are full of contradictions: if there were no contradictions then scientific investigation would be at an end. Contradictions are the life blood of science, why demand higher standards of religion? As to atrocities, I have certainly read some atrocious research papers, and on a more serious note some of the marginalisation of unpopular scientists by the powerbrokers equate to professional murder. (And there cannot be a discipline that does not have its deep animosities.) The New Testament wipes away the tenor of the Old Testament. The message of the New Testament is arguably best summed up in the Sermon on the Mount. Therein is revealed a decidedly loving God who urges love on his people. I don't hold with conspiracy theories, which is what you would need for the ambiguity to be a deliberate act. Yes, many interpretations are possible. How many versions of string theory do we have right now? By theorists all interpreting the same raw data. Theologists argue the Word, ut they do so with logic that may sometimes be much tighter than in a piece of scientific research. Comparing the average Christian's views on theology with the views of the Church's leading scholars is akin to comparing the views of a Grade 10 student on science with those of a Nobel Laureate. Revelation and faith. Just for the record Sartanis, since you are new here (and welcome), I am not a believer.

Yes, I concede that. I also feel that horrible liberal gulf opening up beneath my feet: "You can't blame him, it was his environment." I'm not convinced that we did all that we reasonably could in trying to guide and direct him towards a more practical and useful approach. There was a hint of a smug, patronising tone within some of the posts. Please don't take that as a direct criticism. It was only a hint and I've seen the same thing in posts of my own on other threads; that's probably why I felt I saw it here.

None of the planets are perfect spheres. The effects of rotation, variations in density and tectonic activity all cause deviation from perfection. If a black hole were at the centre of any planet all the mathematical models of planetary structure would be invalidated. However these modeles are independently supported by seismic data and geochemical studies.

This is incorrect. There have been a number of reputable 'evolutionists' over the years who have suspected there was a distinction and that some additional mechanism might come into play to cause macroevolution. While this idea is not well supported by currently available evidence it was a plausible and reasonable option to consider. It is unfortunate that creationists have seized upon a valid terminology for their own devilish ends. You seem to be under the impression that we move in a single generation from one species to another. Such is not the case. Divisions into species is an artifact of the convenient human practice of classifying. A family tree of organisms may contain different species, genera, orders, even phyla at opposite endss, but between adjacent individuals in the tree their is generally no dramatic difference.

Perhaps one of these might help: http://www.specsavers.co.uk/ http://optometristlist.com/

Two points: 1. I completely agree that a body striking the Earth at an oblique angle would either accelerate or retard the rotational speed and hence modify the centrifugal 'force'. However, as Mootanman has pointed out this effect would be orders of magnitude less than that needed to produce a significant change. 2. G is the Gravitational constant. There is a clue in the name: it is constant. Nothing you do to the Earth will change it. The perceived value of g may change, but see point 1 above.

John, I am not necessarily blaming you, but rather asking you to consider the following. First, and the lesser of my two points, how many people actually read the rules, digest them and make a serious effort to follow them? And look at the subset of young, internet-savvy, txt spk teens: how many of them would do that. It wasn't rude. It was careless and casual. secondly, it is apparent from the style of "guitaoist" postings that he has had little or no education in science and none in critical thinking. That is unlikely to be his fault. We have two ways, then, of dealing with his behaviour. We can demand evidence and when that doesn't work, we can start to ridicule him. Result: he goes away and we congratulate ourselves on getting rid of an idiot. Alternatively we can explain in as much detail as necessary where he is going wrong and guide him towards a correct approach. Result: he may take our advice on board and we now have a convert to rational, logical thinking. It's easier - and often more emotionally satisfying - to opt for the first approach, but ultimately it's not very smart.

I think the reference was to passing information on through culture, not genetics.

Do you have a video of that please? @guitaoist: This must be very frustrating for you. You have done some reading on the subject of astrology and found it both intriguing and convincing. You see a strong match between your character and the proposed character of Pisceans. You've taken the time and trouble to convey your ideas and your enthusiasm and your conviction to a wider audience through your videos. You are pretty damn certain that the reaility of astrology has been established. You want other to understand this. You join the science forum and seek to share this knowledge with others. What happens? Waves of negativity assault you. You are criticised for your writing style, for failing to write down what you've clearly said in the videos, for not providing evidence. They go on and on about evidence. And one guy even complains about being called dude. You must be pissed off by this time. Well, dude, here's the deal. There is something called the scientific method and it has been incredibly effective at allowing us to gain understanding of the universe. The regular members of this forum, for the most part, have great confidence in the scientific method because they have seen what it can do. A cornerstone of that method is evidence. That's why they keep asking for it. Now laypeople - people without scientific training - no matter how smart they are can have a tough time coming to terms with what evidence is. Evidence is not anecdotes. Evidence is not selective information. Evidence is not reasoned argument. Evidence is data that can be replicated that shows a statistically significant confirmation of or support of a hypothesis. You haven't provided this and until you do you will be assailled, rightly so, by doubters. And if you think they are being harsh you would not imagine how they would rip you limb from limb if they thought you did have scientific training, for your approach then would be wholly unacceptble. you are getting away with it, barely, because you are presently ignorant of the scientific method. You can change that.

Have you heard of friction?

We have developed over almost a century a detailed understanding of stellar structure, nucleosynthesis and stellar evolution. This understanding is internally consistent, theoretically sound and evidentially supported. There is no place within that understanding for a black hole at the centre of each star and planet. It is equivalent to saying that our digestive system may function because small invisible rodents consume the food in our stomachs and we live upon their excrement. The facts stand against it. I applaud your original thinking, but recommend you put your energy into learning some serious science before risking further original thought. In that way you might someday make a genuine contribution to human knowledge.

It is an admirable goal, but if your hypothesis is incorrect then you will do more harm than good. I ask again, do you have any plans to test this hypothesis by rigorous statistical analysis, or - as Bignose suggests - offering us some predictions of upcoming severe weather, or earthquakes?

You need to create an extensive list of phenomena such as earthquakes and hurricanes and another list of planetary alignments and statistically analyse any corrleation that appears to be present. Otherwise you are just cherry picking incidents and your speculaiton is valueless. Have you conducted such a study or do you intend to do so?

Are the above effects achieved with alcohol or some other recreational drug? I'm just curious.

No. The 1760's. I was part of the Enlightenment. Good exercise, cold showers and a proper diet can keep you going almost indefinitely. (You also had to avoid press gangs during the Napoleonic wars.)

I have kept all of my university textbooks from the late 1960s and, over the past decade, added signficantly to my collection. I have acquired examples from the 70s, 80s, 90s and into the new century. They provide a window into the evolution of concepts over half a century. Fascinating.

Doctors are not scientists. They seem to be to hold the same relationship to scientists as do engineers: they apply the findings of science for practical purposes. Are you, a trained medical man, seriously asking such a question! Cancer has multiple causes and it occurs in varied organs and it progresses in different ways. For these reasons no single cure is probable. Understanding the causes and processes involves deep understanding of biochemical processes and genetic control and cell functioning and on and on and on. In many cases we have olnly had the tools to properly study such things for a decade or so, or even less. It is ridiculous of you to ask such a question, if you ask it seriously.

A scientist can determine directly for himself that the scientific method is a practical, effective method of determining how certain phenomena work. He or she will do this likely in a specialised area of research. Within that area they will be able to verify by experiment and observation that such and such seems to be the case. They can compare their results with the results of others performed from different perspectives and find their hypothesis is validated, or in need of modification. They can do this for a lifetime and thus demonstrate in a specific field that the scientific method is a reliable one. No faith is required for this. They can then examine the work of other scientists in other fields and observe that they are employing the same methodology. It requires no faith to expect the same methodology to produce the same results. Thus they can readily accept provisionally all findings reported by scientists in other fields that have been derived by the scientific method. Notice the two qualifiers: accept and provisionally. I do not believe findings of scientists. I accept those findings. I do so provisionally because all scientific findings are provisional. And still there is no need at any point for faith.

I lack the mathematical skills and the intellectual rigour to have a meaningful opinion on the matter. It is fascinating to discover that many other do not have these limitations.

I read what you wrote, but I understand you to mean "Considering that none of you are prepared to agree with me and keep citing the success of science and the definition of scientific methdology to demonstrate that I am mistaken, and since I have no meaningful rebuttal I shall just run away."