Ophiolite

[iRONY]Indeed. I am heartily ashamed that the following examples of free speech are discouraged, or even prevented: 1. Religious preaching, free of any willingness to discuss. 2. Hate speech against ethnic groupings, nationalities, followers of specific religions. 3. Detailed prescriptions for the manufacture of weapons. 4. Encouragement to engage in violent acts. 5. Persistent posting of unscientific assertions, coupled with a refusal to provide evidence to support such assertions. 6. Persistent use of the language and methodology of cranks. 7. Posting off-topic material in threads. 8. Re-posting the same debunked argument in multiple threads over a period of time. [/iRONY]

My pleasure. And I apologise for referring to you as he. I pay little heed to avatars and should have checked your profile instead of running with statistical probabilities. Interesting point. A friend who is a committed Christian tells me that less than 5% of the UK population are regular church attendees. The number of nominal Christians is certainly higher, but few of these are serious believers. I find myself surprised when I meet a Christian who is religious. In such a setting ones attitude to the religious becomes almost one of protecting an endangered species, rather than combating a perceived danger.

Moontanman, I believe you have misread Pears position, almost totally. He was explaining the fact that there are a range of beliefs to which the term creationist, or creationism can be applied. These vary between those, like some Christian fundamentalists, who believe the world was created about 6,000 years ago to those who think the universe was created by a deity then left to evolve to its present condition. If his own view of these matters was implicit in any way, then he came across as not a creationist, in any sense. I believe we have built up a sufficiently friendly and mutually respectful relationship through prior interactions for me to ask you to reconsider your comments and possibly offer Pears an apology.

Here is some information that may be of value to you. This is a privately owned and operated forum. The right to free speech does not apply here. The moderators can shut you (or I) down anytime they wish. Contrary to your impression, they will display considerable tolerance before doing so. If you have concerns about how moderators treat members you might want to start a thread in the Feedbacl subforum, or pm specific mods with your concerns.

Not if it's man flu.

I may be messed up in my thinking, but for me the key word is fundamental. Any change in a fundamental will automatically change the physical controls on any derived variables/scenarios/entities. I am fairly certain that all fundamentals are required for life. Whether they need to be as they are for some form of life is open to debate and discussion.

Hello Fred, I have some interest in planetary formation and therefore in your novel hypothesis. I would welcome the opporutnity to disucss it with you. Could you begin by providing a synopsis of the hypothesis. So far all I can gather is that you think the asteroids were formed from the disurption of a planetary body. I am hoping your synopsis would specify when and how this disruption occured and provide the principle pieces of evidence in support of it. I am also interested in how you reconcile the total mass of asteroids in the asteroid belt being about 1% the mass of the Earth with the assertion that these were derived from a planet. What happend to the rest of the mass? Do you have thoughts on the composition of this now disrupted planet? Does it match non-volatile solar abundances, or CI chondrites, HED materials, or some other composition? How do you account for the zonation of surface type in the asteroid belt? I have a host of simialr questions, but these will do for starters. On a secondary point I am confused by your references to Jupiter's Great Red Spot. I am not aware of any current theory on the Red Spot that requires loss of a hydrogen core? Moreover, the current favoured theory for the formation of Jupiter is based on gas capture by a ten Earth mass core. I am guessing you were probably meaning the outer core, which is likely composed of metallic hydrogen and is the source of Jupiter's magnetic field. (It is more precise, I think, in this context, to refer to the magnetic field, rather than the magnetosphere.) Perhaps you could take the time to clear up my confusion on this point. I've just noticed that you have indicated in your last post your intention to abandon the forum. I hope not. As noted, I would welcome the chance to discuss these matters with you. Even if we reach no agreement, I have found the discussion is always informative.

You seem to be asking indirectly about the concept of fine tuning This can initiate fierce arguments. The most measured answer you might receive is that any change in the fundamental physics would produce some change in life, though such changes might appear minor. If substantial changes were made in one or more fundamental particle, or force, then life as we know it would likely be impossible, but life in some other form might well be possible, even inevitable.

Have you checked the statistics on deaths initiated by flu? It might make you less enthusiastic about it.

@ rwjefferson, help me out here please. What is the object of your posts? I don't know whether you just have a quaint way of asking questions, or whether you are implicitly challenging science, or the scientific method. I don't know if you are seeking to educate, or be educated; whether you want a debate, or an argument. Would you clarify please?

Not really. Just very old. (I had to check wikipedia to find out what the Typhoon was, I recalled it was a WWII fighter, but half thought it was an American plane!)

I don't care for your opinion and am not accountable to you. Well, that is rather sad. As I said in an earlier post I have valued your contributions here for content and style. I certainly care about your opinion and regret you don't give a **** about mine. I am puzzled by that - it does rather give the impression that this is because I have had the temerity to criticise you. Or, perhaps you've never cared for my opinion. Certainly, you are not accountable to me. However, I do feel accountable to you, since we are both members of a discussion forum. I need to act responsibly and supportively in my posts. That's what I tried to do in giving you an honest opinion. I'm sorry you found it valueless. I continue to hope you will find an acceptable way, for you, to engage with the forum.

I really hope you stay with the forum. I am very inefficient at noticing who is posting. I focus much more on what is posted, but my recollection is that your posts have been interesting, relevant, mature and informative. I was surprised by the thread under discussion. Why? As I think I have noted, and as your responsese seem to confirm, you have a highly jaundiced view of religion that bares no relationship to any reality I am aware of either directly, or through reading. Of course there are wings and sects of Christiantiy whose attitudes and behaviour are reprehensible. The same is true of atheists, plumbers and people who are left handed. You posted a thread with a "one size fits all" condemnation that is consequently unscientific, prejudiced and bigotted. I had thought much better of you. I hope to do so again.

I was raised as a Christian within the Church of Scotland. The church was arguably less restrictive of women than the rest of society at that time. My elder sister, for example, was unable to acquire a mortgage in the 1960s without a gauruntee from a male relative, not because her income was too low, but because she was female. Ten years earlier the church was more than happy to entrust biblical education of youngsters to her in weekly Bible school. I found the openess of the church to ideas the equal of what I encountered in the science class at school. Several decades on, and by now a long standing devout agnostic, I was delighted - as school governener - to have our local minister (again Church of Scotland) give occassional talks to the children on religious matters. If there had been even a hint of what you refer to in your post I should have made it my priority to get him out of ths school, and for that matter out of the community. (Incidentally, when he retired he was replaced by a woman.) So, my experience of Christianity is quite different from yours. Moreover, you have taken the most extreme example and tied it behaviour that is much more embedded in society than in the church. Let me take another science example. The Piltdown hoax was, we would all agree not science. What about the work of Mendel, which was crucial evantually, to the acceptance of evolution. Do you want to link that kind of science with the Piltdown hoax? After all, it is probable that Mendel cooked the books to make the ratios in his experiments come out too nearly perfect. The two are different. I'm not defending Mendel, nor am I defending patriachal societies. But.....

Most hard line creationists I have encountered (in person, online and in the literature) argue that if the 'facts' are in conflict with the Biblical truth, then the facts are wrong. That does not, in my view, leave any manouvering room for such an individual to be an honest scientist.

I think the evidence is clear and unequivocal: the average, long term temperature of the planet is increasing. The evidence is also overwhelming that this warming is largely due to human activities. The counterarguments are typically produced by deliberate, deluded or accidental misinterpretation, or selection of the evidence to support a belief.

I think one of the problems, Tridimity - perhaps the problem - is that your thread title was obviously and seriously inflammatory. The problem you highlighted was disturbing and could, potentially, have generated productive discussion. However, your thread title doomed it to become a religion versus atheist discussion, then debate, then argument, then flame war, then closure, possibly accompanied by bans. The mods made an educated guess that was where it was heading and cut it off before things got out of hand. Let's be clear, the majority of religious would be as appalled by this story as you were and as I was. What you did was equivalent to me posting information about the Piltdown hoax with the title "Here is why I don't trust Science". And it would have had as much justification.

No need to apologise. I can see how the confusion could easily arise. On a segue to nothing directly related, in World War II the Typhoon was a partially successful replacement for the Hurricane. The latter was the fighter that, with the Sptifire, defended Britain during the blitz. And, as you likely know, blitz is German for lightning, of which there is plenty in typhoons and hurricanes.

I dismiss the idea, in part for the reasons noted in an earlier post. I do not dismiss it through narrow-mindedness. I dismiss it because it is a poorly thought out, ill-substantiated idea, contradicted by a plethora of observations and well founded theory. It is a monumentally dumb idea. Before you start accusing me of ad hominems and flaming, please note I am fully entitled to this view. I claim precedence for the concept, which first occured to me in 1963, or possibly 1962. That said, I have run across many people - especially in their early teen years - to whom a similar idea occurs. Most of us grow out of it when we gain an improved understanding of reality that broadens our mind and our outlook.

1. What evidence do you have for your speculation? 2. If things are expanding at greater than the speed of light then, relative to each other, they are not moving all that fast, so what's the relevance of stating what happens when objects collide at near light speed? 3. You don't have a theory you have a loose speculation.

Captain Panic makes some excellent points. I should like to add to them. An online/in forum insult exists as much by context as by what is said. For example, Moontanman is a well educated, scientifically oriented member of the forum, but he has a couple of off-the-wall, non-mainstream ideas that he is quite ready to acknowledge are non-standard. If, in response to one of his posts, I remarked, "Man, is this another of your crackpot ideas." I don't think he would take it, nor would I intend it, as an insult. In contrast, responding to the insubstantial ideas of a self-deluded fool, I might say "Sometimes mediocrity is a tough act to follow." It's not overtly insulting, but - in the right context - would be powerfully denigrating of the poster. Should we offer insults at all? Are they born out of frustration, or out of a belief they may actually change behaviour? I do know the forum would be a better place without rampant name calling, but perhaps a less interesting place without the more subtle put down.

Then why do we have typhoons hitting Hong Kong and the Phillipines? I don't think you are suggesting that the winds have blown them north of the equator.

No. Typhoons in the Far East. Hurricanes elsewhere.

I just asked a small group if they could do this. All agreed they could and were surprised it was even questioned. It is perhaps worth noting that they consisted of two Brazillians, one Chinese, one Saudi, one Kuwaiti, one Englishman and a Scot, so the ability appears to be cross cultural - not a surprise.

In that case I would be astounded if there was anyone on the planet who was unable to do this, excepting individuals with some genetic deficiency, or who had suffered some trauma. At the risk of sounding patronising, which is not my intent, this is rather like saying "did you know that if you tilt your head way back when you are outside and keep your eyes open then you can see the sky". Now you say you have discussed this with others, many of whom have said they cannot do it. Note that I was unsure what you meant by blurry vision. Would you try asking those same people if they can defocus their eyes and let us know what the result is then?