Ophiolite

And an equal tranche for whom contradiction is equivalent to ridicule. Any brutal destruction of an idea through exposure of its inconsistencies automatically shows it to be ridiculous.

superball thank you for your reply. I must echo JustinW's remarks: I'm not sure what you are saying, or why you are saying it. you say your 'theory', thoughts (?), whatever, are not superior to what we have now. In that case why propose it? Science is about providing better (i.e. superior) explanations. If your proposal is not better then it is of little value. I do not mean this to sound critical. I just want to understand what it is your are trying to communicate, both in detail and your motivation. You say you need a few days to pull the information together. I can understand that, though it seems to contradict your statement that you have been working on this for two years.

Was that a reply to my questions? If so could you relate specific responses to specific questions. If not, could you please reply.

Swansont's comments are welcome since they crystallise precisely what is wrong with your proposals. Personally I have no wish to discuss the validity of the concepts since they are clearly invalid. If you wish to demonstrate this is not the case then you have to offer much more specific explanations and associated mathematics. I sincerely hope swansont continues to pick at your words, since you are redefining terms in such a way as to render them meaningless, useless or both.

You have completely ignored the fact that inow - to whom you were responding - and I and others have explicitly said, repeatedly, that ridicule is the final step and even then not necessarily appropriate in all instances. Here you are comparing that approach to the use of ridicule as an integral part of the debate process, invoked from the beginning. These are two completely different beasts. Equating them as you have done is, frankly, ridiculous. In equating them you have ridiculed yourself, something I would not contemplate doing until much later in our interchange, if at all.

What do you feel makes your proposed hypothesis superior to existing explanations for ice ages? What mechanism are you suggesting would produce the axis shift you refer to? What makes you think the universe has an up and down? (Hint: all present cosmologies do not think so.)

Redundancy is a key part of communication. Repetition helps ensure delivery of the message. Nearly everything I do is self-serving. Is this unique? I trust the ability of peers to identify stupidity. I know that less informed persons may need some guidance in that area. In certain circumstances ridicule can provide that guidance. The essential point of disagreement appears to me to be this. Some members, myself and inow included, believe that ridicule is a valid technique in some cicumstances. Others disagree, yet careful examination of some posts reveals that some of the opposed members use implied ridicule. It seems it would be acceptable to call such behaviour hypocritical, but in an outburst of nitpicking we could not call the person indulging in such behaviour a hypocrite. Now that is ridiculous. Since I have now pointed out it is ridiculous am I guilty of ridiculing? Should I be cenusred? Why not? The path here has always been to blame the person who vigorously and succinctly points out acts and thoughts of stupidity, rather than condemn the stupidity. Those or the rules - fine - just don't ask me to like them.

i.e. it must have a T or a t and a y or a y. The y and the y are indisinguishable. Therefore..........

To be absolutely clear on two points: Appollinaria would benefit from a lesson in black humour detection, or at the very least reading comprehension. I have not promoted the idea of killing of people who disagree with me, even though it would solve the world's population problem. When an individual has demonstrated they will not defend their argument with logic, when they have failed to substantiate any aspect of their hypothesis, when they refuse to countenance contrary information, when they make the tiredold accusations of dogma and closed minds and how Galileo was persecuted, when they reveal almost complete ignorance of the theories they wish to overthrow, when they refuse to provide citations or references for their claims, when they do all this I will - rules or no rules - ridicule that person, for they richly deserve such ridicule. It is a last resort, but it is the right thing to do. Self indulgent ignorance should not be allowed to walk amongst us unremarked.

Gary, I found your sentence structure rather clumsy and consequently found it difficult to follow exactly what you are saying. For example I am not sure which of these various alternatives is true. You do not believe in ID/ you believe in ID You are seeking to disprove ID/ you are seeking to prove ID/ any proof or disproof of ID is incidental to your objective You have published it on download sites, so other have already looked at the code/ you have not done so Further, what is the disclaimer you are thinking of including? i.e. what have you titled the theory? Indeed, what is the theory? What did you find upsetting about the movie Expelled? I don't understand what you mean by brain produced intelligence, nor do i have any clear idea of what the dilema is that you refer to. Clearly you have spent a great deal of time in developing this program and put a lot of thought into its ramifications. I hope you will spend a little more time to try to make clearer what your goals are and what exactly are the problems you have encountered, or expect to encounter. Perhaps other members will be able to make better sense of what you have written, but I'm afraid I am left confused.

imatfaal mentions the use of ridicule as a last resort. I agree with that wholeheartedly. When an individual has revealed through their actions and inactions that they not only cannot grasp current theory, but will not attempt to grasp it, then they deserve no respect. If they insist against all the evidence that they are open minded and undogmatic then ridicule should be heaped upon them without a hint of mercy. Such charlatans are an affront to the better aspects of humanity. Reflecting on some of those who richly deserve to be ridiculed I often regret being a left wing, tree hugging, bleeding heart liberal and therefore opposed to the death penalty.

Really? Hundreds of thousands of species on the planet and a handful develop tool use. That's like, 0.0004% of animals have developed some form of tool use. That seems an exceptionally low percentage to me. And clearly tool use is generally not a selective advantage or else it would be commonplace, like walking, swimming or flying, for example. Are you equating having a brain with intelligence? Even on this forum we have evidence that the two are not equivalent. Airbrush raised some interesting points in his last reply to you. Will you be responding to them?

No knowledgeable evolutionist would ever make such a claim. If you disagree then justify your disagreement with a quotation from an established researcher in any part of the evolution field, published in a peer reviewed journal.

Imparticle, allow me to make some general observations about the tenor of your posts. You seem to imagine that those who respond to you critically, lack the imagination to think novel thoughts, explore weird ideas, or embrace abstract concepts. I could argue that the lifetime I have spent doing exactly that equips me to assess hypothetical constructs from others quite rapidly. Your position seems to be that if I ultimately disagree with you or dismiss your ideas, then I simply haven't thought about your proposal long enough, or lack the intellect to understand it. This approach, whether deliberate or accidental, willl not endear you to your readers. If you wish anyone to invest time in thinking more about your speculation then you damn well need to grant them some respect and to entertain the possibility that you may be mistaken. Really? You said this: "The imparticle is invisible, having no distinct qualities, having no energy or value....... Imparticles have no inherent qualities and can never be scrutinized or quantified in themselves."Something with no distinct qualities would seem to be something that has variable properties. If the properties were not variable then they would be distinct. On the contrary, since these particles have no discernible qualities they are, by your own definition ill-defined. As Bignose has pointed out you call them infinitely valueless, a seemingly meaningless term. If that constitutes a definition - which you say it does, and I accept - then it is a poorly, i.e. ill-defined one. Excuse me! It most certainly seems that way to me. I am one of the audience whom you are trying to convince. If it 'seems that way' to me then either you abandin efforts to persaude me, or you start listening to me. Why do I think so? tar has epxressed it quite clearly for me. You are raising the possibility of a particle whose only justiifcation appears to be that you think you need it. I don;t see a need for it. Others in this thread see no need for it. The provisional conclusion is that you have misunderstood current theory and seen a gap where none exists. It is not that it is false, it is that it is wholly lacking in substance. Again, I think tar captures much of this in his post. I'll put it another way - I see no connection between your attempt to justify your claim and the claim itself.

With the intention of being frank, this defence and the initial speculation come across as word salad. You appear to be postulating particles having no, or ill-defined, or variable properties solely because you see a need for them. This perceived need seems to be based on an improper understanding of the consensus view of reality. Certainly you have not demonstrated that there is a need for such particles and, for me at least, have failed to convince me that further consideration of the idea would be valuable. If you could offer a single way in which this hypothesis provides a better explnation of any observation than I would consider it worthwhile to look at it further. Until and unless that happens my open minded consideration of your proposal will retain a negative conclusion.

You then favour the view that intelligent life is extraodinarily rare.

There are more absolutes in that post than you can poke an erect penis at. I disagree with what you have written for that single reason. Serial monogamy is largely natural. Now, there is a good correlation between the extent of monogamy and sexual dimorphism. The minor dimorphism in humans reflects the minor deviations from serial monogamy. It doesn't make much difference whether it's a 'good' thing, any exploration of changing it needs to recognise it is natural.

@Widdekind I copy here the post I just made in the thread about contact with aliens. If you wish to respond to the concept I suggest that response might be more relevant in this thread than the other, but the decision is yours. Widdekind, your responses <snip> all demonstrate a simple fact: you have not understood the meaning of the word alien. You are describing beings whose behaviour is similar to ours, or what ours might become. In other words they are not, in your mind, aliens - but familiars. Alien means alien. Strange, different, not like us. One of the better attempts to capture this in SF were the moties in Pournelle and Niven's The Mote in God's Eye, and I suspect that doesn't even come close. Follow that thinking and the answer to Fermi's "Where is everyone?" becomes evident.

Hello User-X. I see you are new to the forum. I offer you welcome and a word of caution. Describing something as just theory or only a theory is the language of Young Earth Creationists and cranks. Even from your short post I see you are not either of these. Theories are as good as it gets in science. What might have conveyed your meaning better is to say it is just speculation. I think that captures the lay use of 'theory'. Cheers

That ought to be detectable in the infrared. If you are using energy, as any civilisation must, then there will be waste heat. The error in thinking here lies in the presumption that aliens would continue (or have in the first place) the uncontrolled desire for expansion of numbers. Widdekind, your responses in post #70 and likely many other posts in this thread all demonstrate a simple fact: you have not understood the meaning of the word alien. You are describing beings whose behaviour is similar to ours, or what ours might become. In other words they are not, in your mind, aliens - but familiars. Alien means alien. Strange, different, not like us. One of the better attempts to capture this in SF were the moties in Pournelle and Niven's The Mote in God's Eye, and I suspect that doesn't even come close. Follow that thinking and the answer to Fermi's "Where is everyone?" becomes evident.

You also have to add in processing time for the brain so that we perceive what we are looking at a moment after we see it.

Unfortunately, while your post is imaginative it contains almost nothing that is correct. Every statement you have made has abundant evidence that disproves it. I propose that before you make such foolish statements you do some serious reading in the matter and not imagine that whatever you think must automatically reflect reality.

If the environment can support and sustain more species then there are likely to be more functions carried out by those species, in total. The greater number of species expand the opportunities for interaction and for side effects of activity, which in turn increase the complexity of the environment, which allows for a greater range and numbers of functions. More is no better unless you are placing a higher value on more functions. Nature doesn't give a toss, you might. You switch from talking of functions to talking of productivity, as if the two are equivalent. They are not. Perhaps you had best define what you mean by function, productivity and better.

A very useful and interesting post. Thank you.

In what manner is this a correction rather than an expansion?