Ophiolite

Well that I find impossible to believe. You should stay in more.

Thank you for your honesty. Your dictatorial, totalitarian vision would be the end of the human race. Sieg heil!

Perhaps you don't care about someone nearing the end of their life. Perhaps you lack the compassion to to weep at the pain of witnessing self deception. Perhaps you view posters on a forum as mere avatars. Perhaps you lack the desire to encourage honest self examination. Or perhaps you just have a hard job understanding human concern. Of course the rest of what I wrote was not science. It was an impassioned plea to knowerastronomy to get his shit in order. Your reaction to it, swansont's reaction to it, are irrelevant. It was aimed at knower in the hope he might rethink things. His choice.

And the power source would be the coal deposits? That's viable.

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=geomicrobiology&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on several interesting links on this.

Vitamins C and D could be problematic.

I think it's all downhill from here.

There are many deeply religious people who have no difficulty reconciling religion and evolution. When I was a Christian I saw evolution as evidence for the magnificence of God. However, the majority of fundamentalists have an unfortunate combination of character and intellect that drives them to need certainty, a propensity to self-delude and a lack of intelligence that prevents a sceptical examination of the facts. I recommend a visit to http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php for many examples of this kind of thinking. (As well as much circumstantial evidence that several there have not read the passage about turning the other cheek.)

Fear. Fear of change. Evolution is change. Creationists need certainty. The eternal open-mindedness of science is abhorrent to them for that reason. Edited to correct typo that made creationists look like cretinists. Perhaps Freud knew something after all.

@Eugenics: two points. 1) I congratulate you on sticking to your guns with zero support and major attacks from all directions. It shows commitment and zeal. 2) Your proposal is ignorant and should be abandoned. The apparent motivation is that you attribute your own lack of success to interference by the underclasses. Try working harder and with more respect for your fellows and you might make it.

As another old-timer let me just say this: it's time you grew up. Your theory is invalidated by evidence. Pretending it is otherwise just means you go to your grave ignorant and foolish. The only positive thing that might be said is that your ideas will have given the less compassionate a good laugh. This may sound cruel, but it would be much more cruel to encourage you in your self deception.

Digital logic is typically yes/no, on/off, right/wrong, black/white. Religion tends towards similar perspectives: good/evil; satan/god; saint/sinner Science views things as a spectrum of possibilities.

During the Space Race a janitor at a NASA facility was asked what his job was. He replied, "I'm helping to put a man on the moon." We need more janitors than scientists. You assess that the only meritorious characteristic of humans is their intelligence. Give me a choice between a caring, compassionate, enthusiastic individual with an IQ of 70, or a morose, self indulgent, patronising person with an IQ of 150 and I know who I'll be proppping up the bar with. You wish to eliminate people with known genetic defects. When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. How good is your eyesight, eugenics? Do you have any tendency to dental caries? A trace of asthma in your family? Can you run a mile in less than 4 minutes 30 seconds? Things aren't looking so good for you my boy. Finally, do you want to be the one to tell Stephen Hawkings, or shall I?

Science is analogue, religion is digital.

How does your 'theory' explain the double slit experiment?

You are experiencing what seems to be the common lot of any reasonably intelligent teenager. About all that I can tell you is that in thirty years or so it won't seem all that important. Just do something that seems to make sense, doesn't harm anyone and brings you some measure of satisfaction.

With reference to my first prediction, this earthquake came a little early, but the magnitude was smack in the middle of my predicted range and the location was spot on: Magnitude 6.0 Date-Time Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 00:27:08 UTC Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 08:27:08 AM at epicenter Location 15.467°N, 119.031°E Depth 14.6 km (9.1 miles) Region LUZON, PHILIPPINES Distances 152 km (94 miles) WNW of Olongapo, Luzon, Philippines 154 km (95 miles) WSW of Dagupan, Luzon, Philippines 171 km (106 miles) WNW of Angeles, Luzon, Philippines 230 km (142 miles) WNW of MANILA, Philippines Notice also more than half a dozen quakes, magnitudes from 4.8 to 5.3, over the last week offshore Honshu: stress relief in an area that will impose more stress on the Hokaido region, increasing the probability of a 6.0 to 6.4 before mid January, as predicted.

There are too many words.

It is much more likley a consequence of two things: our considerable ignorance and our limited intellects. Do you have any evidence at all for such a suite of 'entities'. So, in essence you are stringing together some ill defined thoughts about ill defined nothingness and tying it neatly to a religious concept just because it appeals to you. I don't think that will have many buyers.

kitkat, you were rightly offended when certain members breached the bounds of politeness and forum rules. But have you considered that they may have been provoked? How so? Here are a couple of things you said, about them. Or take the converse of that: most posts that I have read in science forums, including this forum, are dishonest. That is quite an assertion. Do you see why someone might be offended by it? Which translates as: scientists are nitpicking, semantic bullies, who must have things done their way and their way alone. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that is how it came across to me and apparently to a handful of others. Again, do you see why someone might find this offensive? Now regardless of the offence given, whether intentional or not, there was no justification for their childish responses. However, I hope you might be a little more cautious in how you phrase things in the future. Now, getting back on topic, a point that does not seem to have been raised yet is that there are different kinds of intelligence. The verbal, spatial and mathematical problems of the standard IQ tests come to mind, but I believe some experts propose many kind of distinct intelligence facets in humans and other animals. That may expose the reason intelligence is so difficult to define: it is not one thing and, literally, lacks definition. Humans have artificially classified a host of mental attributes as being facets of the same skill. They are not: they take place in different parts of the brain and are developed to different degrees in different people. Any practical definition of intelligence has to take account of this variety.

OK, here is some simple information. In the twenty years between 1988 and 2007, inclusive, there were 681 earthquakes of magnitude 6.6 or greater. (I have used 6.6 rather than 6.7, since you changed the goalposts from your original prediction of 6.7 by posting a 6.6 event in Bolivia as a hit. If it had been 6.5 would you have included that as well?) This equates to an average of 34 earthquakes each year, or one every 10.7 days. You had a ten day window on yours. Approximately 75% or more of earthquakes are in the ring of fire, which is roughly one > 6.5 every 14 days. But whatever way you cut it your prediction is not much different from claiming precognition skills because you bet on red at roulette and it came up. You need to offer something that produces results that are better than chance before anyone will take you seriously. I mean, what good is a prediction tool that doesn't actually predict? Here are my predictions*: A magnitude 5.8 to 6.2 in the Phillipines between December 11th and December 18th. Two more Latin American quakes exceeding 6.5 before year end. A Japanese quake off Hokkaido, magnitude 6.0 - 6.4 before the 14th of January. *These predictions are offered to highlight the fallacy of superball's approach and as a form of black humour. Do not alter your travel plans in the light of these predictions.

Enthalpy, your irresponsible use of electricity to communicate on this forum will directly contribute to an increase in greenhouse gases, rising sea levels and the drowning of an indeterminate number of Dutch. Will you continue with these unethical actions, or will you do the right thing and immediately forego the use of any electrical appliances?

I quite commonly have lucid dreams, but the instances I have garnered useful ideas from were definitely not lucid ones. (I'm too busy trying to take over the world in my lucid dreams to be bothered with mundane matters. )

@Appolinaria and tar I don't wish to give the impression that most, or even many of my dreams produce meaningful, useful thoughts. Most don't, but a small number do and it is a technique worth developing. There is a related story, possibly apocryphal, about Winston Churchill. He used to keep a pencil and notepad by his bedside for any thoughts that occured to him. He woke up from a dream in which he felt he had finally grasped the secret of life, the universe and all that. He quickly jotted it down on the notepad. In the morning he remembered the feel of the dream, but not the specifics. With eager anticipation he picked up the note pad. There, clearly written, were the words brussel sprouts.

This was in reference to my point that you had to do the legwork to prove your case, not I or any other member, or reader. I made no assumption. You have made a claim. I have pointed to information that must accompany that claim in order for it to have any value. I have asked you for that information. This is your response: If you are unwilling to provided the basic statistical information to validate your claim then your claim can safely be ignored. The work involved is hardly substantial. Either you want to have your ideas given serious consideration, or you don't. Refusing to provide non-confidential information, readily extractable from public sources, that you claim to have already prepared, well such a refusal is ridiculous and suggests you have no idea how the scientific process works. You do not need to give me data inputs. You just need to give me the statistical information derived from those data inputs. That is how science is conducted. Here's the deal superball. Your ideas as presented so far in this thread lack clarity and conviction. I'm investing my time to help you develop and promote your hypotheses. I don't have to do a damn thing. If you want your ideas to be considered then you should provide the legwork. In a later post you say: Once again you quite miss the point. It is your responsibility to provide these data, not ours. You are the one making the claims, you need to provide the relevant statisitical data. If you do not then what you have is not a scientific hypothesis, but inconsequential arm waving and word salad.