Ophiolite

I'm from Scotland. What is this solar power thing? You haven't fallen for this nonsense that there is a sun out there somewhere, have you?

I see your point. It wasn't clear. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this assertion. For example the Comte de Buffon had emphasised the natural origin of life and the evolution of species, though he decided against any relation between man and apes after studying the matter. Erasmus, Charles' grandfather, and Lamark had also implicitly offered evolutionary explanations for the origin of humans. Creation stories are only one aspect of religion. The plethora of gods arose because many natural phenomena were ascribed to the activities of Gods. That is one of the reasons religion arose - as a means, initially of explaining such phenomena, then as a means of seeking to influence them. Religion also provided a means of excising control over increasingly complex societies and of creating a sense of social coherence. These aspects of the origin of religion are, I believe, accepted as standard, though the details and the emphasis may vary from researcher to researcher. I think you have answered your own question.

I don't have any ideas about this other than, what may appear to you as a bizarre notion, that if one is going to use quotations from "famous people" one might at least look beyond the sound bite to the underlying intent. Such an approach has the advantage of being honest, respectful and typically broadens ones own knowledge.

You appear to be adopting the RNA world hypothesis to explain abiogenesis. If this is a faulty hypothesis your calculation becomes irrelevant. Comment? Let us assume the appearance of RNA was essential and fundamental to the origin of life. You have assigned a time frame for the emergence of RNA based on its appearance on the Earth. Three points: 1. Your reference (6) does not provide any evidence to support the appearance of RNA at the time you suggest. It merely notes that RNA "may have evolved on earth around 4 bya". May is a very important word. Certainly it was around by 3 billion years ago at least, but that would potentially add one billion years to your timeline. 2. Since we do not know what steps were involved in the emergence of life or the production of RNA, its "rapid" emergence on Earth may have been highly improbable, even unique. That potentially minimises the value of the calculation. 3. Isn't this really a modified extract of the first terms in the Drake equation? Nothing wrong with that, but a nod to acknowledge would be nice.

You are, of course, free to define terms as you see fit. However, I am with Lewis Carrol who mocked this approach when he had Humpty Dumpty say 'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ Darwin had nothing to say in his published work about the creation of life. I think you'll find that most students of religion have several other factors that were responsible for its emergence. I recommend you investigate a little more deeply what Einstein meant by that remark and of how he conceived the role of religion. You may then revise your opinion.

I find this constant harping on the Miller-Urey experiment to be frustrating, distracting and misguided. I do not refer to you specifically Rob, but to almost everyone who quotes it in fora such as this. It is as if it was the only such experiment ever carried out and as if its results were of extreme importance to the theories of abiogenesis. Neither is the case. The important thing about the Miller-Urey experiment is that it occurred. It thereby demonstrated that questions regarding the origin of life could be subject to sound scientific experiment. It opened the door to the respectable investigation of the subject.

Generally an implosion will destroy whatever is being imploded. How do you intend to prevent that?

Elizia, you clearly have an interest in matters that are addressed by science. You have a good imagination. What you obviously do not have is any meaningful understanding of what has been discovered about the very matters that interest you. Rather than generating unfounded ideas that are trivially wrong would it not make sense to harness your imagination and interest to properly study these matters? If I may be blunt your ideas are laughable, yet you are in an environment - this forum - where many knowledgeable individuals would be happy to help you learn. Instead you choose to indulge yourself with foolish speculation. It bewilders me. Perhaps you will help me understand with a reasoned reply.

You seriously think it had no legitimacy prior to this announcement?

This is not the present view, though it is one view among others. We don't live in a three dimensional world, but in a four dimensional world. Perhaps we are using different terminology. How would you define a dimension? How does that work? It was my understanding that dark matter is not especially associated with normal matter, but is more distributed. If so, that would invalidate your notion. Have you posted about it before on other forums? I have certainly seen this idea on the net more than once. I am not accusing you of plagiarism, just curious to find that - apparently - several people come up with the same weak speculation. Take your interest in cosmology and your imagination and invest several years in studying the basics. You can then abandon this current notion or place some flesh on what is, currently, a disjointed and incomplete skeleton.

Certainly your post went a long way to convincing me that this was likely true of at least one human.

False. Many individuals, through a combination of upbringing and natural predilections, naturally behave in a law-abiding way. Other individuals, driven by a powerful desire to conform, would have to apply powerful mental discipline to break the law. 1. You have made an absolute statement that even a moment's reflection would reveal is flawed. 2. You have made no effort to support your statement. 3. You appear to have decided your observation is self-evident, but have failed to explore the possibility you are mistaken. All humans have pretty much the same degree of evolution, so what are you talking about here. Cultural/Social evolution? Amazing - that translates into - "Individuals who have failed to acquire the structured skills and perspectives of their society that would enable them to behave in an organised and controlled fashion tend to behave in a disorganised and uncontrolled fashion." You appear to have said nothing. Word salad. Petrushka, why? As John says, why do you keep posting this nonsense? I took you to task for this on another thread and you apologised. An apology only means something if you try to avoid a repetition of the offense. I see no evidence you have tried. So, why?

Interesting questions. Did your reference to diffusion include the loss of hydrogen through the walls of the tanks? Hydrogen can permeate almost anything. 6,000 years might be quick enough though. Any materials scientists out there have an expert view on this?

You make some excellent points and I stand corrected on the potential value of the linked site. However, in order to retain my sanity and based upon several years of interacting with Rob in another place I shall remain a cynic in regard to his ability to change his spots.

Absolutely and definitely. Many of the supposed inventors of technology were simply the last in a series of experimenters who made took the final crucial step, or who were better at promoting their invention. Knowledge advances to a point where the next step could be taken by almost anyone with the intellect and the interest. Chance plays a large part in determining who, but rarely any part in determining if.

Doubtless using random, unsubstantiated internet links as a potential source fits in with your random unsubstantiated thoughts. When will you learn to use Google Scholar?

You could have a whale of a time.

Which part of the sentence "There is no need to reply to this suggestion." did you not understand? Do you have any idea how frustrating your ongoing refusal or inability to read what people say is? Please do not respond to these questions in this thread. They were rhetorical. However, if you feel compelled to dig the hole even deeper you can pm me.

Evidence that even then the people of Baghdad were working on Weapons of Mass Destruction

Bob, this entire discussion about your idea seems to me to be off topic. Why don't you just open the thread in Speculations and start to present your case. If you are not yet ready for that please remain silent about it until you are. There is no need to reply to this suggestion. Just start the ******** thread.

Wegener proposed continental drift in the early 1910s and Holmes proposed a plausible mechanism in 1927 or 1928, but it was not until the late 1960s that plate tectonics was generally accepted.

This is not accurate. The details of the Giant Impact hypothesis continue to be actively debated. I am currently reviewing some 100 papers on the subject, most from the last ten years. My initial scan does not confirm your statement. Your statement reflects one viewpoint among others that are at least equally well supported. My view of the paper presented in the OP is the same. This is simply another perspective and another piece of the puzzle. It should not be taken in any way as definitive. What I find interesting is that after the concept was proposed, first by Hartmann and Davis in 1975 and then, in modified form, by Cameron and Ward in 1976, it was then almost entirely ignored until the Hawaii meeting of 1984, at which it emerged as the strong consensus winner among potential hypotheses. Debate on the details has grown over the years rather than diminished: exciting times.

Really? You don't see a problem with these two statements? Answering your questions is generally a waste of time RB, since you rarely understand what you are asking and never seem to understand what you are told. I got no inference from it. I got the definitive statement that, contrary to your claim, different asteroids have different isotope ratios.

I've been meaning to look at this thread since it was opened much earlier today.

And I suggested that rather than guess you should do some research. Had you done so you would not needed to have asked the question. For example, here Greenwood, R.C. et al "Oxygen Isotope Variation in Stony-Iron Meteorites",Science Vol. 313 22 September 2006 Abstract: Asteroidal material, delivered to Earth as meteorites, preserves a record of the earliest stages of planetary formation. High-precision oxygen isotope analyses for the two major groups of stony-iron meteorites (main-group pallasites and mesosiderites) demonstrate that each group is from a distinct asteroidal source. Mesosiderites are isotopically identical to the howardite-eucrite-diogenite clan and, like them, are probably derived from the asteroid 4 Vesta. Main-group pallasites represent intermixed core-mantle material from a single disrupted asteroid and have no known equivalents among the basaltic meteorites. The stony-iron meteorites demonstrate that intense asteroidal deformation accompanied planetary accretion in the early Solar System. It took less than one minute to locate that example. If you care to do even a cursory search you will find many other examples, including ones that discuss more subtle variations.