Ophiolite

Fringe science, elegantly packaged. This is his home site. Google for 'Hoagland jupiter' and you'll turn up a number of debunkers.http://www.enterprisemission.com/

My, Sorcerer, you do have such an elegant way with words! I'm sorry if I awoke oedipal cravings in you. Several noted scientists who have intellects, experience and knowledge far in excess of my own have expressed disquiet with the available time for life to arise on Earth. I have found their reasoning to be lucid and plausible. In contrast many of those who favour the Earth origin seem to do a lot of 'hand waving' to bypass the difficult questions. It is my opinion, based on an objective assessment of the evidence I have been able to review that there are many uncertainties as to the exact path by which life arose. I do not know whether life arose independently here on Earth, or arrived here from space. There is evidence for both. So I lean towards the extra-terrestrial option. I would not be surprised if it were to turn out either way. I think it's called keeping an open mind. Nullius in verba

Working on the theory that humour can defuse a situation, allow me to recount a true story that has, perhaps some relevance. (Sayonara please delete if you think it makes matters worse.) Some years ago I was discussing national pride with an Egyptian friend. "Who is the most arrogant nation?" I asked him. "That's a tough one. The French are pretty bad, the American's can be obnoxious with it, the British act so superior." "Granted. But if you had to make a choice.' "Well, I don't wish to offend, but it has to be the British." 'Shall I tell you why you think that?" "Please do." "The Americans think they are the best in the world. The French think they are the best." My friend nodded. "In contrast we British know we are the best." My friend leapt to his feet grinning, "yes, that is it exactly. It is a special kind of arrogance.' I wonder when we are posting if most of us aren't thinking the same - "I know my post is the best, my logic impeccable, and that other chap is really a bit of an a***." Well, we were sitting, as it happened, in the garden of the Mina House hotel at Giza. My Egyptian friend didn't say anything further. He just looked over my shoulder at the Great Pyramid and nodded. After all the Americans, British and French didn't build that.

Tecoyah, I had never heard of Reiki until your post. Now, armed with ten minutes of internet surfing, I am gifted with the ignorance that passeth all understanding. The ability of the mind, to a degree, (and let's not get wrapped up in a discussion on what that is!) to heal the body is increasingly recognised as being valid. From my very brief reading it appears that Reiki falls into this same school. Would that, in your opinion, be a fair statement, and if not, in what way do you see Reiki differing from it? Spiritual understanding (and again let's not quibble initially over precise meanings) is likely related to self awareness and complexity of thought process, so it is reasonable that as consciousness emerged and complexity grew, that so to should spiritual understanding. So, yes, in that sense it would be an evolutionary by-product.

Absolutely. I lean strongly to the view elegantly put forward by Ward and Brownlee in their book Rare Earth (ISBN 0-387-95289-6) that microbial life is commonplace, but advanced animal life is rare indeed, perhaps unique.Where I differ from them is having extreme discomfort with the idea that we could go from nothing to blue-green alagae in just a few hundred million years. For that we need a longer time. So, I look 'out there' for the origin. Heh, if it was good enough for Francis Crick, it's good enough for me.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and lays duck eggs, it's reasonable to assume it is a duck. This resonates with all of the methods and manners of a con.It is interesting that you posted this in Psychiatry/Psychology rather than Anatomy/Physiology or Microbiology/Immunology. Does this mean that you too recognise the concept may be a 'manifestation of neurological disease, psychopathelogical state or related topics'?

Who are your audience? What are they expecting to hear? What are their background and interests? (Do they really want to be there?) What is the goal of the speech? (You say it's to become a 'youth ambassador for Australia', so the judges are your primary audience, but they will be assessing the interest of the general audience.) How do your interests and experience compare with those of the audience? How do your interests and experience match the goal of the speech? How long do you have to speak for? When you have answered those in detail a subject should leap out at you. I take it that you have done a fair amount of speechmaking and debating in the past, but some points that are worth considering carefully for this one, as it sounds important. 1. Don't read the speech. Put key phrases down on index cards and use those to keep yourself on track. 2. Rehearse the speech multiple times so you can get the timing, pace, delivery and emphasis just right. That way the cards are there as insurance only. 3. Make eye contact with every member of the audience, continuously sweeping, but paying particular attention to the judges. 4. Have a clear beginning, middle and end. Make sure the beginning and end have a clear link. i.e. set up some kind of tension in the opening that is resolved in the ending. For example, you could open by saying 'The last thing I want to be is a youth ambassador for Australia.' That will make everybody sit up, as they think 'what's he talking about?!' and 'how is he going to talk his way out of this one?' You then work through all of the aspects of the role asking of each of them 'Now would anyone really want to do that?', but doing that in a manner that makes it clear that there is a growing sense that yes 'they' would and you would. You then close by saying 'So I can say with confidence that this role is so important, that it represents a pinnacle of achievement set against what I have done so far that very definitely the last thing I want to be is a youth ambassador for Australia.' Corny, but the point I'm seeking to make is connectivity. Most poor speeches fall down because they lack connectivity. All excellent speeches succeed in part because they have it. Good luck. Let us all know how you do.

What?Edit:???????

Imagine you have a container, divided in two by by an impermeable sheet. On one side of the sheet is fresh water, on the other side salt water. Nothing much happens. Now remove the sheet. Water molecules will now tend to move from the side where the concentration of water is highest - the fresh water - to the side where the water concentration is lowest - the salt water. In the same way the salt ions will tend to move from the area of high concentration (of ions) to the area of low concentration (of ions). After some time the concentration of ions will be the same throughout. Now repeat the experiment, but with a sheet that is semi-permeable. In this case it will allow water molecules to pass through, but prevent the passage of salt ions. Both the water and the ions 'want' to cross the barrier, but only the water molecules can do so. Water potential is a measure of how strongly the molecules 'want' to cross. The water potential is a way of quantifying that tendency. It is measured in pressure units. Water moves from a high water potential to a low water potential, Pure water has a water potential of 0, the highest possible, and all solutions have water potentials less than this. Does that help make it any clearer?

This link may well help. http://www.engineersedge.com/spring_tension_calc_k.htm

I notice the author of the article in the Houston Press is a certain Dylan Otto Krider. Now I thought the article was strange, at first, definitely rubbish, and actually it quite annoyed me. And to think all of those reactions were captured in an anagram of his name. ODDITY ROT RANKLE

In post62 atinymonkey says, "The French army gave time for the withdrawal of British forces. Without that time, the British forces would have been lost. If the British forces had been lost, Britain would have fallen to Germany. If Britain had fallen to Germany, Russia would never have joined the Allies. With only one front to fight on, the Germans would have overrun Russia. America, in terms of comparitive size of forces, would have been easy defeated by the Axis (Italy, Spain, Germany, Poland and Japan). " It's the basic "For want of a nail" argument and suffers the potential weakness that at each step in the progression other possibilities intrude and the presumed outcome becomes less likely. But it is a plausible sequence.

I believe the Romans drank vinegar as a refreshment' date=' though this was mainly restricted to slaves and soldiers. When the Roman centurion offered Christ vinegar on the cross it was an arguably an act of compassion. Excellent idea. It has my vote. I have observed that several thread debates revolve around 'same words, different meaning'. So perhaps we could expand it to include semantics (if you know what I mean!)

A simple calculation of the global energy generation versus solar energy input will show the very small role of the former.Remember also that it is not so much heat generation that is responsible for global warming but heat retention.

This thread could effectively end here. Tecoyah has said it all.

I don't think it's a bicycle pump, I think he's just pleased to see you.

Sincere applause. Once again atinymonkey says in one sentence what I would take three pages to say badly.Thanks for making me smile.

On the other hand that's not true for bats (is it? You could lose a lot of heat through those mebraneous wings, but if you were that small why would you want to?), or the gliding mammals. I thinks its the only one so far:http://www.nurseminerva.co.uk/adapt/feathers.htm

In the 1918-1919 flu epidemic between 25,000,000 and 40,000,000 people died. If the same percentage of the population were to die in a pandemic today, that would be between 90,000,000 and 145,000,000. The highest mortality rate in 1918/19 was among those aged 20 to 40. Scam? You just keep taking that chicken soup. You'll be fine.

His theories are likely wrong, in many cases very wrong, but he was a pioneer. Most pioneers are seen to be, in hindsight, wrong. Linnaeus is recognised as a brilliant scientist, yet he rejected any concept of evolution or change.Freud's theories were based on evidence, but that derived from patients who were sexually repressed and neurotic. It's hardly surprising his ideas came out as they did.

rum = strange mange Nullius in Verba