Ophiolite

Conventional wisdom places the origin of life on the Earth. This scenario has difficullties that may (or may not) be overcome). If life can originate on the primordial Earth it could also have originated in the dust cloud around the proto-sun, and would clearly have done so before the opportunity arose on the Earth. By extension it might have originated in any dust cloud in the galaxy and subsequently seeded the Earth (and other planets). The number of detected organic molecules in interstellar gas clouds continues to grow. Similar materials are present in comets. The IR characteristics of some interstellar gas clouds match those of dust coated bacteria. If, as Bettina says, life were to be discovered in the interstellar environment that would overturn the conventional wisdom. You are correct that it would have no significant impact on evolution, but evolution and abiogenesis are separate issues.

I rent mine from Nerds 'R' Us.

On the other hand a lot of people I meet professionally are pretty green.....

I cannot rebut incomprehensible garbage. I am trying to rebut the basis of one of your opinions. You are unwilling or unable to clarify that opinion. I have already provided an anecdotal rebuttal to your claim that doctors are valueless. [Paragraph 2, post 6] I have remained relatively polite throughout, ignoring your snide, provocative remarks. I pm'd you asking in what way I had offended you. You chose not to reply. If you are serious about a discussion, please follow my earlier advice and 'get a f****ing grip.' Clarify your opinion, as requested, so that I can address that opinion.

And I have politely asked you to clarify that opinion. The commonly accepted purpose of posting statements or opinions on a forum is to engage in a discussion. This is difficult to do if you post, then refuse to discuss. You have previously complained about a lack of respect. Respect is not omni-directional. I would appreciate a clarification of your opinion.

Your statement, as written, makes no sense. What are you saying: Deaths from diseases > number of people practicing various professions. Deaths from diseases > deaths caused by non-medical professions. Something else? Please clarify.

Fission yes, fusion no. And most of the fission is in the mantle.

Well, you can make a series of carefully stated and understood assumptions, and see what consequences flow from those. Then change one or more of those assumptions and examine the changed conclusions. Repeat until patterns emerge that define possible and probable limits for the character, ecology and environment of alien life. [Then stand back and expect to be surprised.]

An unrealistic and unfounded belief that rational argument, shock tactics, or both, can alter the behavioural patterns of a self-opionated boor. If I was as smart as I think I am I wouldn't be so stupid.

Yes. More than once. It's called frank and open discussion. It's a very effective conflict management technique, but I recommend it only with an open minded boss. Obviously it was misplaced here.

Get a f****ing grip, Chatha. Your opening post is laid out as a series of clear statements, as though you wish us to consider them as factual. Nowhere do we see phrases such as 'it seems to me', 'in my opinion', 'based only on my experience'. You have deliberately presented a suite of provocative views as absolute truths. This is what has brought the reactions you have seen - not the views themselves. If you had said 'I haven't had much success at getting cured of anything by a doctor, how about you?' it may have initiated an interesting discussion. Instead you malign several professions with unsubstantiated opinions. Again, Get a f****ing grip, please.

You present opinions as though they were facts, then berate others for not 'accepting' them. Yes, this is lying of the worst kind, for it is not distortion of the facts, but the dressing of opinions in a raiment they are unworthy to don.

Curiously, this makes more sense than much of your writing. No. He is keen on discrediting your the emotive, unsubstantiated tirade, that you seek to pass off as an argument. And I have a ruined castle on the edge of my property. Does that mean everyone has the same? Clearly not. Your personal, anecdotal experience is not relevant to a scientific argument. I see three possibilities:a) You do not understand the character of science. b) You are being deliberately trite. c) Self censored for libellous connotations Millions die unecessarily not because of the failure of medicine, but the failure of the political will to implement known solutions for some of the illnesses you mention.Medical care is proportionate to our need! Tell that to the those in the third world. Tell that to those in the US with no medical insurance and no assets.

The Duke of York, one of Prince Charles's brothers, flew helicopters in the South Atlantic during the Falklands War.

I think PG is asking what determines the amplitude of the wave. The first order effect has to be the energy input.

This does not make sense to me. QM is not some 'real thing' waiting to be discovered, digested and understood. QM is our interpretation of observations. You have perpetrated a tautology. Shame on you.

I've tried and tried, but I have failed. I just can't see how Chatha is an anagram (or even an acronym) for Angry Young Man. By the way Chatha, if it wasn't for the pharmacists and doctor's whom you decry, I would likely be dead. You correctly note that "people have been living and passing on since the inception of civilization", however I maintain a keen interest in remaining amongst the living for a while yet. So, feel free to rant away, just don't expect any agreement from me.

Excellent compilation Medelejev. I feel guilty I have nothing to add.

Actually, I counted at least twenty three, so I might not get through all of them. Also, I am no cosmologist, so these are the simplified answers, and all simplifications contain errors. An aspect of the big bang, called inflation, used to explain observations that are inconsistent with the basic theory, requires that the early universe expanded faster than light. But please note that it is space itself which is expanding, carrying the contained matter with it. I have no idea of the mechanism that caused this to happen. The universe does not have a centre. The conventional analogy is to imagine the surface of a sphere: it doesn't have one. No. See above' date=' but.......Yes, possibly. A vacuum is not empty, but is filled with virtual particles and anti-particles that come into existence for an instant then annihilate themselves. Some have speculated that the Universe is a giant version of this. [Google "quantum vacuum fluctuation"'] Plants do it all the time - photosynthesis. Heat is energy in the form of particle motion. Theoretically I don't think there is an upper limit. As particles become hotter it is easier for them to break away from their neighbours, so that hot materials tend to be gases. [Google "plasma"]. When all motion stops, we are at absolute zero. I have a simple rule: If you can imagine something, or understand it, it is probably not advanced physics.

The case for the prosecution: The defence response

3kms in diameter is not quite a 'speck of dust'. We have been misled into what to expect from a satellite by our own moon. It isn't so much a moon as a sister planet. (Or perhaps more accurately a daughter, given its origin.)

CS, we have examined and analysed hundreds of meteorites. Simplistically they fall into two classes: the stones and the irons. Observations of the asteroids at various wavelengths, and determination of their densities where pairs co-orbit, confirms they are of the same material. Current theory on the origin of planetary systems in general and ours in particular hold that the terrestrial planets are formed of similar materials, combining via accretion at the birth of the solar system. The theory is supported by an abundance of detailed observations. That being the case there is no possibility of a hollow earth as you postulate. Other contra-indicators include: 1) The evidence of seismic waves quoted by 5614 2) The inadquate strength of crustal material to sustain its form around a hollow interior. 3) The need for an impossibly dense material below the crust to explain the observed density of the Earth. CS, I appeal to you to abandon this flight of fancy and put your imagination to work understanding the wonders that science has already revealed about the World. Edit - PS: May I suggest this, directed by you to Aardvark, is not helpful "as you persistently like to nose in where you don't belong" This is a public forum. Aardvark, like you, is a member of the forum. He does belong here. He is free, within reason, to say what he wishes. You have posted some ideas, starting several threads. You must expect disagreement and even vilification on occasion. You really cannot post ideas, that I think you know are controversial, and not expect a reaction. By all means ignore Aardvark if you wish - that is your loss. But please don't say he does not belong here responding to any post that is made.

Excellent. May I suggest that there may be other contradictions in your writing that have produced some of the reactions you have experienced. If so a slightly more rigorous editing regimen may eliminate these. I'm re-reading your opening post to make further observations (or questions)......

Can you cite a single palaeontologist or evolutionary biologist, working today, who could be accurately described as a Darwinist?