Ophiolite

In summary, then - the glass is not half empty, but cast on the floor and ground underfoot by the jackboots of indifference. Alternatively, a world that can do this is not without hope.

Thank you Janus. However, as I pointed out to swansont, my question was based upon the whimsical juxtaposition of anti-gravity and floated. Well, it amused me.

That's not how I understand chance. A wide range of dinosaurs were well adapted for the environment of the late Cretaceous. Very few were well adapted for the environments associated with the chance Yucatan impact.

Agreed, but it is misleading to present a currently discredited alternative, view as if it is a likely possibility. This may be the speculations sub-forum - but you would need to offer more convincing evidence to support your assertion than you have. Or, you could have simply added your caveat to the original post and we could have avoided this interchange.

Except for the fact that the evidence shows that the expansion is accelerating and that the universe will not collapse on itself at some future date.

And probably the application of blind chance too.

I think you are confusing science and engineering. The problems that exist - and they are very real, very serious problems - are a consequence of the application of science, i.e. engineering, not the science itself. You may argue that the two are intimately linked, but it requires a political decision - in the broadest sense - to apply the science.

The link is partially accurate . You can surely see that the entries contradict eac other. There are particles in space so there is pressure , but it is in very, very low. I have no idea why you think you can't sweat in space , although the fact that you body fluids would likely be boiling might inhibit it.

From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/anthrax/ http://www.cdc.gov/anthrax/ Google is your friend.

False dichotomy. Therefore flawed premise. Therefore posts function as opinion not argument.

You can ask questions in most parts of the forum. The precise place depends upon the subject of your question. If you want to know what is meant by electronegativity you would place your question in the chemistry sub-forum. If you were curious about volcanoes, your question would go in Earth Science. If it was about the decline of amphibians, then place the question in Biology.

Clearly your response and my response to the situation reflect particulars of character that are not readily susceptible to scientific analysis on a discussion forum. I'll just note that if you ever run out of sand then I can sell you some at a discount.

I have a degree in geology and several decades of work in the oil and gas industry in an engineering capacity. I revisited my interest in geology about fifteen years ago and have been reading textbooks and research articles routinely since then. And I've learned a lot from members on this and other forums. I have found these forums immensely useful as a way of learning more on a topic. If I am giving a detailed answer I shall very carefully check what I am saying to ensure it is correct, according to current thinking. This checking is what helps me to expand and cement my knowledge. For my own amusement I write one page summaries of specific concepts, complete with references, as a way of helping to remember the facts. It can be hard work, but its fun. Remember that even the the most knowledgeable of the members was unable to walk, talk, or control their bowel movements at one point in their lives. .

Indeed. Evolution had been proposed, for example, by Erasmus Darwin, Charles's paternal grandfather. Comte de Buffon guardedly spoke of it in the late 18th century. Lamarck trumpeted it in the early 19th, but got the mechanism badly wrong. (That said Darwin dabbled on and off with forms of Lamarkism through the various editions of On the Origin of Species.)

There are fewer than a dozen types of galaxy. The same types are seen where ever we look. There are a dozen types of stars. The same stars are seen wherever we look. It appears that there are a limited number of kinds of planet. It is early days, but it seems they are going to be the same kinds wherever we look. If Darwin thought every finch on the Galapogos islands was different he would never have been able to develop the theory of evolution. He generalized and saw that the differences on any one island were small compared with the differences between islands. You are looking at the galaxies and seeing what is different, not what is the same. That is the wrong approach in science. (I separate my work life from my forum contributions. I do not share who I work for, though I am happy - where appropriate - to discuss what I do. I do not work for Shell. Shell is an operator. Operators own the oil fields, or have been granted rights to develop them. The bulk of the workers in the oil industry work for service or supply companies. These companies own the drilling rigs, provide the technical services and the varied equipment needed to drill and complete wells. That is the segment I am in. Enough off-topic.)

Your argument, as presented, is that since there have only been around 1,000 deaths, then on a global basis this outbreak is insignificant. I have demonstrated that taking a time-specific casualty rate does not provide any evidence whatsoever for the final number of deaths. Therefore, while you may be correct in your assertion as to the eventual limited impact of the disease, you have not presented any meaningful evidence to support this assertion. I am surprised that anyone would take an Ebola outbreak lightly. I quote from Leroy, E.M. et al Multiple Ebola Virus Transmission Events and Rapid Decline of Central African Wildlife Science Vol. 303 2004 "The recent high frequency of EBOV out-breaks in central Africa, associated with high lethality and serious social consequences, has made Ebola a major public health priority. Given the very rapid spread of the disease and the lack of a vaccine or effective therapy, the cornerstone of management remains the prevention and rapid control of outbreaks." And further, from Feldman,H. and Geisbert, T.W. Ebola Haemorrhagic Fever Lancet 2011 "Ebola virus is regarded as the prototype pathogen of viral haemorrhagic fever, causing severe disease and high case-fatality rates.1 This high fatality, combined with the absence of treatment and vaccination options, makes Ebola virus an important public health pathogen and biothreat pathogen of category A." There are only six category A pathogens. So, I do not think the Ebola outbreak is a very serious and dangerous development. I think it is potentially a very serious and dangerous development. Taking potential threats seriously is often an effective way of stopping them realising their potential.

The point is that, at certain scales, it is that simple. It seems that where ever we might be in the universe we would see galaxies that have a limited range of sizes and structures, composed of stars and gas and - apparently - dark matter, and assembled in groups, some small some large. It's the same everywhere. I mean the company I work for. It is a large multi-national service and supply company within the oil and gas drilling industry. I do not work as a geologist: that was simply my original training and my continuing interest.

At one point in time the 1918 flu epidemic had killed around 1,000 people.

Nicholas, you need to get a sense of scale. Consider two dining room tables. On the scale of the solar system they are identical. On the scale of furniture they are similar. On the scale of atoms they are radically different. That's all we are saying. (And to answer your earlier question, I know KL quite well. I saw Mohamed Ali fight Joe Bugner there in the 1970s and was last there 18 months ago, and many times in between. Our office is just opposite the twin Towers. I've only made it to Penang once.)

Have you heard of compression and extension?

Good luck with that wish. In order to verify the validity of the theory you have two options: 1. You can devote the next forty years of your life to gathering information, carefully assessing it, testing it against reality, adapting your thinking accordingly, then - when you have the basics reasonably well established - you can look for weaknesses in the current theory and probe at those for a couple of decades. When no weaknesses are revealed you may provisionally accept the theory as valid. 2. Alternatively you could consider that tens of thousands of researchers have done this for you and all you need to do is to satisfy yourself that they have, by and large, adhered to the scientific method in their work. Which option do you think makes the most sense? You also have the idea of authority bass ackwards. We do not view the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as valid because of the authority of Charles Darwin, we view Charles Darwin as an authority because he produced a theory that was consistent with the evidence to a greater extent than other theories and which has been validated by countless further researches.

No, you are wrong. I think imatfaal has explained it to you, but just in case there is still some doubt, consider this analogy. Take the train up to KL, go into the shopping mall at the base of the Petronas Twin Towers. Go up to the fourth floor - the one with the Kinokuniya book store. Look down at the people walking around on the floor below. Although the people there every day are different from the day before, their movements are very similar. You could not normally tell what day it was, or what time of day, just by watching their movements, or their clothing, or their average ages, etc.

factseeker, it is a good name and I encourage you to live up to it. As others have pointed out you have a flawed view of science and scientists. The reason that scientifically educated laypersons and scientists often seem to be quoting from textbooks, or appear to be taking things for granted, is simple. Information only gets into textbooks after it has been validated by thousands of observations, carried out in hundreds of tests, by scores of scientists. The only thing that is taken for granted is that the scientific method has shown itself to vastly superior to any other method for learning about the nature of the world. And the validity of that approach is tested thousands of times every day by scientists working in every field. So, if tectonic plates are not the underlying explanation for what we see of the topography and geology of the crust, what alternative explanation do you think we should consider? You say you want to question everything, but so far your questions have been sub-standard - to an embarrassing degree - for any scientific discussion. Please ask a probing question about a detailed issue of geology. One that we might be able to address without going through the entire canon of geochemistry, geomorphology, tectonics, petrology, paleontology, historical geology, sedimentology, seismology, geophysics, mineralogy, etc,

So, who first floated the idea of anti-gravity?

1. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is supported by multiple lines of evidence from palaeontology, anatomy, ethology, microbiology, genetics, zoology and botany. 2. It need only be consistent with pre-existing theories, if those theories give a good explanation for observation. They don't. 3. Through the work of Sewall Wright, J.B.S.Haldane, R.A.Fisher, Ernst Mayr, G.G.Simpson, T.Dhobzhansky and others a wealth of new material was incorporated into what became known as the Modern synthesis. You appear to be critical of the theory. Is this the case? If so why? (And if so, is it wise to be critical of something of which you are largely ignorant?)