Ophiolite

Only a couple of your posts have attracted negative votes, so it is inaccurate to say that everything you say is put down. I view a negative vote as a wake up call to assess what has been unattractive in my post. In the few instances where I have had negative votes they have seemingly been awarded by another member with whom I am having an energetic debate. If I received multiple negative votes - something that has not yet occured - I would suspect that what I had written was seriously against the spirit of the forum, i.e. it was anti-science in some way. However, what I want to emphasise is that in both these cases I have accepted that the cause of the negative vote lies in what I have written. In contrast, you seem to wish to put the blame on those giving the negative vote, rather than assessing the quality and tone of what you have written. I have looked at all of your posts and I see no evidence of harassment. I see a handful of your posts being attacked for what other members seem to have judged as illogical or anti-science. The solution to that situation is simple: stop posting things that are illogical or anti-science.

I don't see the point of flaunting your talents somewhere they are irrelevant i.e. on an anonymous internet forum. That's not pompous, just rather pointless, even calling into question the claimed IQ.

Once it got started other potential 'sources' became foodstuff for the that first life.

If someone is demonstrably behaving like an ass and is ignoring the very principles of the scientific method and is being deliberately provocative I, broadly, have two choices: ignore them or tell them they are an ass. (In some cases I have a third option of calmly and objectively seeking to point out to them in what way they are mistaken.) I have no problem with the second option and it seems from some of your snide comments that you have no difficulty in this area either.

I trust you see the humour in this juxtaposition. No one said it was. Scientists are humans. A good scientist is passionate about his or her work. Defending one's work and hypotheses only in a dry, unemotional, strictly logical manner, without allowing a sense of the wonder, the excitement and the enthusiasm one feels would make the world of science a poorer place.

Clearly you have never read between the lines of exchanges between protagonists in peer reviewed journals. By comparison, calling someone a fuckwit would constitute a compliment. Apparently you value politeness over truth; diplomacy over the scientific process. You have found it acceptable to critique someone for attacking a poster who made insolent, provocative posts. You have made no attempt, that I have seen, to condemn that provocation. Such actions are useful in formulating an understanding of your ethos.

There are several reasons. Here are some of them: 1. You are talking rubbish. 2. You display a singular ignorance of the findings of science. 3. You fail to justify any of your assertions. 4. You repeatedly reveal that you misinterpret or misunderstand current theory. 5. Your observations are boring as well as wrong. 6. There is nothing of value in your writing. Freedom of speech is a right: stop abusing it.

No. I am assuredly not saying any such thing.

That makes sense. I think such things as compassion and hatred are a consequence of energetic interaction of matter, resulting in changes in energy level and type. That, however, does not mean that they are matter. so my original point remains: your assertion is wrong.

This is a common misunderstanding. I suspect it arises because some scientists, or educated laypersons seek to counter creationist babble, by distinguishing between abiogenesis and evolution. This is a convenient, but unrealisitc disitnction. Pre-biotic chemistry merges into biochemistry imperceptibly. Natural selection of organic materials that led to what we would comfortably call life was in place from the outset.

Do you mean 'why do I think they are causes'? At any rate, I have made no claim that they are causes. There has been no prior discussion, that I have noticed, about them being causes. I am challenging your contention that if it is not matter it does not exist. (Such a contention is, of course, trivially disproven by mentioning energy.) So does compassion exist? Does stupidity exist?

You don't think the Biblical passage is metaphorical? You think that a people with a rich tradition of imagery in their language chose this particular instance to completely literal? Those are interesting thoughts, but they seem quite unrealistic. It seems to me much more likley that the passage speaks of the spiritual characterisitcs of God. As far as I am aware compassion, love, hate, enthusiasm, concern, none of these things are made of matter. Perhaps you think they don't exist.

You mentioned the Hunterian. Are you a graduate or post-graduate at Glasgow? I studied there in the late Eocene!

@JTufnell. Can you apply your theory to words as well as numbers? Does your working reveal what is the largest word in Bahasa Melayu?

Matt Ridley's book, Nature v Nurture, is an excellent treatment of this topic.

Everywhere is the centre of the universe.

You think newspaper articles constitute sound scientific refutation of anthropogenic global warming? I mean, the Daily Mail for ****'s sake. Fox News with an English accent.

Although this is from a sixty year old paper the observations appear to be relevant. Was Decay Important in Origin of Coal? James M. Schopf Journal of Sedimentary Research Volume 22 (1952) ABSTRACT Microbiotic conditions that existed in ancient peat deposits prior to their coalification were probably highly varied. Some of the probable variations are discussed with reference to common plant products and different agencies of decay. Differences in sulfur content may reflect greater anaerobic decay in Paleozoic than in younger coals, and the prevalent remains of saprophytic fungi in post-Jurassic coals suggests that, in these, aerobic decay was of proportionately greater importance. Plant material contributing to Paleozoic coal was, in general, less subject to mechanical degradation than is apparent in the younger coals in which the peat was affected by saprophytic fungi.

That is not the problem. I have no difficulty separating the words that have stuck together. You do not write good English. If you wish to get your idea across you must find someone who does write good English to help you.

Only, perhaps, in regard to human intelligence. There is abundant evidence of intelligence beyond homo sapiens.

Let's do that. Why do you think it is important? You think? Would you provide evidence that substantiates this claim please. Am I missing something? You seem to be saying that in some circumstances the null hypotheis can be proven. My understanding is that it can be disproven, or rejected, or not rejected only. Why are the ethics of the matter important? I fail to see what you are driving at. The scientific method is blind, therefore only conclusions reasched via the scientific method need t be considered.

I've made this my aim in life, mainly because it's so easy to hit targets.

I wasn't talking of microorganisms. I'm speaking of biogenic limestones where the bulk of the rock consists of the skeletal remains of macro-fossils. (And microfossils also.) However, microfossils are an important though minor constituent of many rock types also. And in other rocks there can still be layers where there are many fossils within a single square metre and a few centimetres thickness. Fossils are numerous. I've got a sample of Carboniferous limestone sitting on my desk at the moment, filled with complete brachiopod specimens and a host of fragmented material. If I were to extract these from this and other samples I could build up a detailed picture of the biodiveristy at this horizon. I could compare that biodiversity over time (going up and down the stratigraphic sequence) and space (going to other outcrops). Looking at isotope ratios in the shells we could estimate the temperature of the water during growth and also note geographic and temporal variations of this and how they affect the consequent mix of species. From statistical dimensional studies of particular species we could determine average life span of organisms and note changes of this over time and space, relating these to changes in environment. We could identify the impact of the introduction of a new predator to the mix. And so on. This is not a field I was especially interested in, being a hard rock man, so I am giving a very superficial view of the type of ecological studies that can and are being conducted via the fossil record. Note also, that palaeoecology pays major respect to the Law of Uniformity, the present is the key to the past. Thus the palaeontologists make extensive use of comparison with modern ecosystems. The detail and the surety of the detail is just an order of magnitude greater, at least, than what you surmised in the opening post. I have to throw in an anecdote here that illustrates the awareness palaeontologists have of the risks inherent in some of the statisical studies I have hinted at. Our Head of Department, a world expert on the Carboniferous, was acting as external examiner for a student's Master's thesis. The student believed he could determine the specific age within the Carboniferous on the basis of the relative proportion of three common plant species. He had his samples laid out for inspection. The Professor looked at one tray and asked what age it was. The student replied. The professor picked up one of the specimens, broke it into four, replaced the pieces in the tray and asked 'What age is it now?'

Well spotted. Your reward is a + like. However, recognise the precise meaning of words varies with context. In my reply to the bible scholar I was making a subtle distinction. In my rant to Moontanman I was lapsing into the colloquial.

Do you believe in God? If so, briefly explain your view. I am a devout agnostic. I am quite confident the God of the bible is a fiction. How do you think the universe began? I suspect the present form of the observable universe went through what is commonly called the Big Bang. Although I have philosophical objections to this concept the weight of evidence is in favour of it. You should note that Big Bang theory does not actually deal with the origin of the universe, but only its development from a point only a tiny fraction of a second after that origin. How do you think life originated?Through gradual development of increasingly complex chemical reactions in a rich diversity of chemicals produced by several natural means on the primitive Earth. Explain how you believe life forms evolved?I have no belief in this matter. Belief is a matter of opinion. It is subjective. It implies uncertainty about the issue under consideration. So I accept the enormous body of evidence from palaeontology, biology, genetics, embryology that life evolved as envisaged in the Modern Synthesis and modified by subsequent studies. (Details will be provided on request.) How old do you think the earth is and why?4.5 billion year +/- based upon vast bodies of mutually consistent evidence from geophysics, astronomy, geology, cosmology, etc Do you believe in life on other planets, aliens, and UFOs? I have no firm opinion on this matter as one cannot make meaningful predictions from a sample size of one. I suspect that primitive life is abundant in the universe, but intelligent life is less common. I should be astounded if UFOs turned out to be alien spacecraft. There are many more mundane explanations that account for such sightings. Is evolution still happening, and if so, what do you think will be the end result? Of course evolution is still happening. We routinely observe it. I suspect, from context, that like many laypersons you are obsessed with the evolution of humans rather than evolution in general. (If so it is an arrogance I find difficult to understand.) So there is no end result, but evolution will continue delivering responses to changing environments and probably the occassional introduction of novelty over the next billion years. Beyond that would require more data to predict. Do you believe in life after death? Explain.It seems highly unlikely. There seems to be no significant evidence for it. Please note the following: if there is life after death there is no reason to assume it would be eternal life. There is no reason to believe it would be remotely akin to the Biblical Heaven and Hell. Life after death could exist even if there were no God, of any kind. How do your beliefs in origins and evolution affect your sense of purpose for your own life? They demand of me the following: Respect for life in all its varied forms. Cooperation with my fellow humans. Full effort to achieve all that I am capable of Thanks!!!! You are welcome. Excuse the forthcoming bad language (or not - on this issue I really don't care) I am frigging well tired of the ignorance of individuals who should know better. Evolutionist is a perfectly respectable term to apply to those of us who believe in evolution. The fact that you are unaware of this indicates that you are prone to the same emotional knee-jerk reactions we rightly accuse many fundamentalists of. In support of my view I need go no further than to note the title of Ernst Mayr's book, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology - Observations of an Evolutionist . If one of the founding fathers of the Modern Synthesis feels it is acceptable, even honourable to be called an evolutionist then it is fine with me. It ought to be fine with you also.