Ophiolite

I take it then, that you haven't actually made a serious study of history. Given that rather obvious fact, do you think it wise to comment on history?

Jumping to a concussion.

If I were to adopt the same rhetorical techniques you employ, waitforufo, I would seek to display your character as ignorant, arrogant and foolish. However, you are doing such a fine job of this yourself I see no need to act.

These are not similar situations. Very few people on the planet would seriously entertain the idea that The Lord of the Rings was factual. Many visitors to this forum are tempted to believe the creationists arguments are valid. Anyone believing in the reality of Middle Earth would not be attempting to corrupt the teaching of evolution in our classrooms; creationists are doing that and more. I repeat, any failure, on even a single occasion, to challenge the arguments of the creationists increases the risks that an undecided will decide against science and for creation. Allowing creationist arguments to be rehearsed, then refuted, is a duty. If you find it boring, frustrating, or time consuming - tough shit. Don't deny the opportunity for others to fulfill that duty.

Last night I saw upon the stair, A little man who wasn't there, He wasn't there again today Oh, how I wish he'd go away. Hughes Mearns

The map is not the territory. Alfred Korzybski

Surely, what would be truly surprising would be a lack of symmetry after three rotations. If you ever find a design that achieves that you may have something!

Phi, I have to echo MigL's puzzlement. When you referenced "two conservative" responses I wondered if you meant me. I reread all the posts. I decided you considered waitforufo's post to be one of the conservatives - though I think just calling it silly would be more accurate. That left MigL's and mine. After multiple readings I could not see anything in MigL's post that seemed definitively conservative. This must mean I am the other conservative. For many years I have thought I was a left leaning, anti-establishment, tree hugging liberal. To discover so late in life that I am in fact a conservative has shocked me deeply. I am not sure I shall ever recover.

. . . . . . . . . did you get that? Hello? ..... Hello?

It appears to me that the action by Turkey was in response to two things: prior violations of Turkish airspace; persistent attacks against the Turkmen rebels. The latter is by far the more important of the two. Turkey is arming the Turkmen, who are anti-Assad, which - of course - is why they are targets of the Russian planes. This is Turkey's way of saying "back off". While it seems the planes (I believe there were two) did cross Turkish airspace the incursion was brief and arguably they were on their way out of that airspace when the attack occurred. Putin will require to thump the table and turn red in order to maintain his image. He may be persuaded to be more circumspect in future targeting arrangements, with the emphasis switching to IS. If he is not so persuaded I have little doubt the Turks will be quite prepared to shoot down further Russian craft.

It was my report that led to this thread being created. This is my argument for not only entertaining creationism discussions, but for embracing them. Science progresses through the collection, validation and distribution of knowledge. While most descriptions of scientific method focus on the first two, distribution of knowledge is important in order to minimise unnecessary duplication of effort and to educate laypeople in the findings of science. As a site devoted to science I believe we have a small part to play in the distribution of accurate knowledge about science and the scientific method. The same tired old arguments that get floated month after month by creationists are not tired old arguments to many of the lurkers reading those threads. In some cases they are even new to the creationist presenting them. We may be bored, frustrated, disinterested, or angered by their seemingly endless reincarnations, but the neophyte lurker is not. From the viewpoint of the neophyte lurker, if they see a creationist argument ignored, they can readily believe this is because no sound counter argument exists. Pointing people to other resources alone is perceived by them as a cop-out. If we do this often enough - and it does not take much - they are likely to decide that the creationists may be right. The lurkers, and some of the creationist posters, stand on a watershed. On the one side is the objective, scientific method and its revelations about evolution. On the other is the subjective, faith based response and its diatribe against evolution. We have a duty, regardless of how boring, frustrating, or repetitive we may find it, to reach out and guide that lurker or poster off the watershed and towards science. Every time.

I think it takes great strength of character to suppress the urge to violence when one feels threatened. I think it is a mark of a civilised individual that before they act they assure themselves of the facts and carefully weigh the consequences of any actions. I think it requires focused and sustained application of intellect to restrain oneself when hatred wells up in your heart. I think the ones who strike out indiscriminately, who react to destroy, rather than work to build, who embrace stereotypes and follow the herd, the ones who let the terrorists win by making those choices, I think those are the true cowards. And their actions harm and endanger all of us.

Here are the errors in your post: 1. Proposal of the wrong mechanism, contrary to your assertion, was of secondary importance. The important point was his identification of continental movement. His proposed mechanism was a minor part of his hypothesis. 2. He had abundant evidence that the continents had moved. That was why he developed the hypothesis. 3. Therefore it is not a missing part. The evidence for their movement was central to his hypothesis. 4. His conjecture was not half baked, but - as I pointed out - his arguments were well reasoned, soundly evidenced and logically presented. Thus your post was, in essence, bollocks. I can only assume you have not studied or even read his work, or you would not be defending such an egregious error.

If you read the post I was responding to I think you will see what I was driving at. I am not opposed to careful, measured, physical responses to physical challenges, where the consequences have been properly considered. Earlier, I think, you were arguing "We can get back to normal human dignity and respect once we no longer have to worry about getting blown up, stabbed, shot, cut-up, poisoned or otherwise "by whatever means" killed in the name of the prophet(pbuh)." Human dignity and respect are not items that can be cast aside because we have been offended, or threatened. It seems you understood this as a schoolchild. It is regrettable you seem to have lost the talent in later life.

I won't speak for Strange, but that is an accurate description of my position. It is based entirely on your posts here. You have spent your time repeating your assertions in a variety of different ways, always with a tone that declares you are correct, without showing any willingness to learn why you are wrong. I think willfully ignorant is a good descriptor of that approach.

I ask out of curiosity. At school were you bullied, or were you the bully? In either case ...........

Bollocks. His arguments were well reasoned, soundly evidenced and logically presented. The alternative explanations for orogenesis ranged up to the bizarre. The explanations against some of the stratigraphic and palaeontological evidence he used were truly half baked - "land bridges" is a more prominent example of the ludicrous notions from his opponents. His ideas were well received by geologists in the Southern Hemisphere, since they accorded with observation. Arthur Holmes, one of the giants of 20th century geology, had pretty much accepted the notion of moving continents by the late 1920s though he did little to promote the idea. The reason for rejection was based upon the absence of a mechanism (in my view a defective reason) and an inadequate measure of mantle viscosity. Holmes dealt with the former rather well, anticipating much of the work of Hess, Dietz, Wilson, etc.

Curiously, it may be because oceanographers don't make enough waves. Perhaps the tide will turn soon if current concerns don't leave us all at sea.

If they have a life span of 200,000 years, waiting 3,000 years for a reply would be a reasonable time frame for them.

Have you heard of trends? One that seems doomed never to become widespread is careful thought.

I have been on this planet for well over half a century and have read widely in newspapers, magazines, government adverts, novels, technical books, research papers, etc. At no time have I seen any publication suggesting that there is an "urgent" risk that lightning will strike if I go outside. What I have seen are carefully measured warnings that in a lightning storm one is advised about being in the open, or sheltering under trees, or flying a kite with an electrical conductor trailing off of it. Despite these very clear and specific warnings around fifty people a year are killed in the US by lightning. Without the warnings we might reasonably expect the number to be higher. If you choose to ignore the warning about lightning you place your own life at risk. Your choice - I think you would be silly, but do carry on. If you choose to ignore the warning about global warming you risk the lives of my children and grandchildren. Now your view is a direct threat to me. I don't take kindly to threats.

All the elements that are presently in the Earth were present at its formation, though - because of radioactive decay - the proportion of some of them has changed. The early solar system contained elements formed in more than one supernova. This included a number of short-lived radioactive elements that were significant in the heating of primitive bodies in the accretion disc and that left there mark on chemistry/mineralogy of meteors and asteroids. In general, only the simplest of molecules could have survived the initial stages of planetary formation. The collision thought to have produced the moon would likely have rendered the Earth molten throughout. I would not expect any minerals to have survived from that time. However, after the Earth had cooled sufficiently to form its first crust, accretion was not complete. Impacts continued for the better part of a billion years. In this case some molecules, simple and complex, and minerals would have survived. Also, the minerals that now formed were - in many instances - the same, or very similar to those that formed in the accretion disc. I have already answered this question, both implicitly and explicitly. Practically all sedimentary minerals and probably most metamorphic minerals would not have formed during accretion. Limestones, which are generally biogenic, are not going to form in the vacuum of space since there is no life to produce them. Shales, formed from clay minerals, are not going to be present, since there is insufficient water to generate volumes of clay from feldspar and no meaningful transport mechanism to deposit them. Garnets and staurolite and a host of other metamorphic minerals will not form, since the pressure and temperature conditions are unsuitable. The Mid Ocean Ridge Basalts see things differently. Mike, I continue to be bemused by your oscillation between very, very basic concepts and wild speculation about more advanced topics. You cannot sensibly engage in the latter till you have mastered the former. Surely you have read of the basic Earth structure! Iron-nickel core, with traces of other elements. Rocky mantle, composed of silicate minerals, solid throughout - except for some partial melting in its upper reaches. Rocky crust with basic oceanic plates and acidic continental plates. (The terms basic and acidic in this context referring to silica content.)

@Tar, Your post #199 has been answered effectively by Strange in post #200. I have one additional comment. You said: The first sentence is the exact opposite of what I said. I stated very clearly (post #199) that "My solution on the other forum is this: I shall study the topic in sufficient depth to either understand why I am in error, or to be able to explain why they are in error." In most instances I shall provisionally accept (not "submit to") the views of the experts. They have studied their specialties for years.. The odds are that were I to do the same I should arrive at the same conclusion. I have no desire to invest my time to acquire knowledge that others have already acquired for me. For my current issue, I think I can - with minimal study - bring myself to a point where I shall either recognise my error, or be able to convincingly demonstrate theirs. I shan't be putting you on ignore, but I see no point in furthering this particular discussion. Thank you.

I just want to report that I've broken my mouse key pressing the up arrow on CharonY's post and it still won't add more than a single +1 rep.

Clearly this post exists for the sole purpose of attracting visitors to your creationist Young Earth site, where the same tired old arguments are trotted out in a manner that will fool the gullible and amuse, or anger the educated. Site protocol will probably lead to the early deletion of the link. I rather hope the link is left up for two purposes: 1. One can go there for a good laugh. 2. Anyone who finds any of the arguments and so-called evidence convincing may raise their doubts here and receive an objective explanation from members. If you have the integrity expeliermers, perhaps you would return to discuss the single point you find most convincing for a young Earth.