Ophiolite

It is possible that the heavy poll weighting in favour of men simply indicates that men like pushing buttons more than women. I know I do.

Given that the greater volume of space is a vacuum by your second definition it would be more accurate to say, surely, that nature abhors a vacuum when it is within a setting where substantial quantities of gas are present.

The answer is dependent upon the purpose for which you wish to classify it. Such classifications are artificial and are designed to help make sense of our environment and to facilitate data gathering and decision making. So, in what context are you wishing to arrive at a definition?

OK. So do you understand and accept my concise answer to your question? If not, what doubts remain and what is the source of these doubts? On the side issues when you write "please don't give me the usual evolution answers without evidence" then you are implying that you have very serious reservations about the validity of evolutionary theory. That does matter in my response because a creationist will need much more evidence and argument to even consider that there may be something in my explanation. I have assumed your words were a rather careless throw-away line and have therfore given you very condensed argument. The evidence for this argument is likely to be known, in a general way, by anyone who understands a little about evolution. Which returns us neatly to my opening questions.

Please refer to my point number 1. Stop putting yourself down. I mean seriously, if you can pull all the material together that you have, analyse it and produce a complex speculation then you can surely learn how to focus your writing. I've just taken the time to show you what you could have done. Don't tell me I wasted that effort, but I won't accept it. Oh, and the one thing you can say, is did I capture the heart of your message or not? Unless I know I cannot proceed.

So, is this what you are saying in your last post? Mantle plumes, introduced to account for the Hawaian-Emperor Seamount chain, were later held to be responsible for plate motions in general. However, other mechanisms have been proposed, acting alone or in concert with plumes. This diversity of hypotheses suggests the underlying concept is flawed. If that is what you were saying, is there any particular reason you could not have said that? i.e. yes, it was too long. We shall get into detail later, but only relevant detail. Most of your post is not relevant to your central message - and all I asked for at this point was that.

Do you feel the probe must reach the target within a human lifetime? If so, why? If you had three hundred years, do you think we have a propulsion technology that could do the job?

Arc, I really want to work with you here. Please do two things: 1. Stop beating yourself up. 2. Do what I asked you to do in my last post where I made this comment: "I am more concerned that when you are challenged on a point you respond with a wealth of detail very little of which seems to have any relationship to the question raised. At least please, in future, state in a sentence, or at most a paragraph in what way the examples offer support your point.." And as a consequence of that I made this request: "What weaknesses do you say exist in the current model. (I am confident I could list several, but i want to know which ones you think are critical.) Please, arc, give me a simple response: such as this. Plate tectonic theory is based upon the notion of rigid plates, yet we are aware that the plates cannot be rigid. Further no development of the model has defined, to within an order of magnitude, the extent to which they are not rigid. Instead you respond with yet another lengthy piece. I am not going to spend effort trying to figure out what you want to say. I want you to say it - clear, concise and comprehensive.. Without that, this is going to be almost impossible to proceed with. I need an executive summary, an abstract up-front.

I think those who are genuinely arrogant from a sense of superiority in those attributes they consider important do not see it as arrogant, but simply a recognition of the facts. As an aside, the thread has called me to recall various situations. I recall being accused of arrogance because I was - allegedly - downplaying my skill in a particular area. Supposedly - and I still don't quite follow the logic of this - by seeking to minimise the difference between my skill level and that of others I was actually emphasising it. Go figure! I never could.

Difficulty uploading a pertinent (or perhaps impertinent) cartoon. Will try later. Edit No. 2: John's cartoon is more apt than mine, so I'll not try later.

Well, yes. Everyone knows that Thrung can never be too bloomthurgy.

My prior post garnered a -1. Since this thread is about arrogance, I think it may be useful to explore why. For that reason only, I would be interested in understanding why a member feels it deserves a demerit. Here is the post: This, from Deirdre, is what kicked the sequence off. That seems a reasonable take, though I don't quite understand how you can earn intelligence. But it seems a plausible perspective on arrogance. turionx2 replied: Now the use of the word exceptional (describing a reasonable, but pedestrian definition) does raise a small warning flag, but overall I don't really see the post as being sarcastic. Perhaps turionx2 will clarify their intention. Deirdre, apparently found this to be sarcastic and so responded in this manner. Now since I had not found turinox's post sarcastic I strongly suspected Deirdre was being amusing and deliberately posing as an arrogant poster to illustrate the point. I thought that was rather a nice touch, but recognised that maybe she did genuinely find it sarcastic and her post was an objective statement. So, I explored both possibilities in my reply, apologising if she had found it sarcastic and applauding if she had not and was instead being witty and pertinent. So, I am not clear why, for participating in a positive way within the thread my post should deserve a demerit. Might we see this as an example, exacerabted by the medium we are working in, where perfectly innocent actions can be perceived as arrogant? Note: I am also presuming that no one found fault with my I am confident, you are arrogant, he is pig-headed. That is a standard way of expressing how actions are viewed differently by different people. (I even took the precaution of saying it was to no one in particular, lest Deirdre or turionx thought it aimed at them. Edit: Apologies to hypervalent-iodine. I was composing my post when his moderation note was added. If you wish I can remove the post, but I do feel the entire incident is an excellent illustration of how events can be misinterepreted as arrogance, especially when not talking face to face.

Simon Conay Morris Life's Solution - Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe Cambridge University Press 2003 ISBN: 0 521 82704 3 This is an expansion of his earlier work, Crucible of Creation, which I do not have. I shall try to locate the two (?) papers he published on the Burgess Shale. He is Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology at Cambridge and a Fellow of the Royal Society, so his credentials are impeccable. Whether his ideas will survive the test of time will require time to determine.

I take it that was you trying to demonstrate arrogance in a practical manner. If not, I apologise. If so, well done. Nice one. Now, to no one in particular: I am confident, you are arrogant, he is pig-headed.

What you say is plausible, but not - as you know - necessarily the case. I recommend the work of Simon Conway Morris on the issues of convergence in evolution. (He took Gould to task - and some would say, to pieces - over the interpretation of the Burgess Shale fauna. He disavows Gould's mantra of playing the tape of life again and getting a different result each time.) He is somewhat persuasive and, if correct, this would render your reservation inoperative.

We adapted to a range of environments we didn't evolve in. Until we know the range of probable alien environments we cannot make any conclusions here.

As often as necessary to achieve the following: Ensure they understand what they are meant to be doing. Ensure they know how to do it Ensure they have the tools to do it Ensure they understand the importance of what they are doing Ensure they understand that they have your full support and are available, within reason, when they need you Ensure they know you are interested in their work and in them But not so often that: They think you are micro-managing They think you don't trust them They think you have nothing better to do And that, as previous posts have pointed out, varies from day to day, task to task and individual to individual. Read Hershey and Blanchard on this topic.

But if you do not pay, then you are evicted, or jailed, or at the very least have to take up your time to justify your non-payment. The result is that you have paid for the fruit either by paying money to retain the right to have access to it, or by using your time to defend that right.

You pay council tax, or the equivalent, in order to be allowed to continue to live in the house, even if you inherited it.

Plus: instinctive drive evangelism "the grass is always greener" dispel boredom and most likely of all poor navigation skills.

Sorry, arc, but I'm not in this to win. I'm in this to examine your proposal as a genuine scientific hypothesis. I shall set aside for the present the request for a demonstration of the mathematics of the heat transfer portion of your idea. It would be nice if you would concede that before your proposal can be taken seriously, not by members here, but by practicing Earth scientists, then you would have to address that. I am more concerned then when you are challenged on a point you respond with a wealth of detail very little of which seems to have any relationship to the question raised. At least please, in future, state in a sentence, or at most a paragraph in what way the examples offer support your point.. You say I am attacking the messenger. Nonsense. I am attacking the message and the way it is being delivered. From the range of material you have gathered and the innovative interpretation you have placed on them I suspect, now that you have raised the point, that you are my intellectual superior. But frankly, and excuse the language, that has ****-all to do with anything. As to your challenge about the current models, let sidestep into that for a few exchanges. What weaknesses do you say exist in the current model. (I am confident I could list several, but i want to know which ones you think are critical.) Please, arc, give me a simple response: such as this. Plate tectonic theory is based upon the notion of rigid plates, yet we are aware that the plates cannot be rigid. Further no development of the model has defined, to within an order of magnitude, the extent to which they are not rigid.

OK, arc, let's return to my first point. Would you explain to me in what possible way your series of short comments addresses my concern. Here is a reminder: As to point two, would you explain to me in what possible way your rambling response, loaded with references and quotes that fail visibly to support your claims, addresses my concern. Here is a reminder: I shall not be progressing any further until these points are dealt with.

My understanding of this is that the instabilities that might arise and lead to planets being either ejected from the system, or plunged into the star, arise more from gravitational interaction between those planets, rather than between planets and star. The probability of instability in any system will tend to rise with the number of 'participants', so there is likely some practical upper limit.. Much of the work on planetary formation is conducted via simulations using finite element analysis. I would think that an appropriate FEA study could define that practical upper limit, but I am not aware of any such research to date.

The key arguments relating to abortion are based upon our sense of self, our perception of individuality, our ethical touchstones, our religous background. Logical argument, rightly or wrongly, is largely misplaced in the discussion. Consequently your observations will resonate with only a sub-set of humanity.

No, no, no, no, no. Sorry, I may not have been clear. NO! Arc is proposing a mechanism, based on scientific observation and employing - to a degree - the scientific method. Half the nutters on the internet have you-tube videos and animations and are incapable of stringing together a sequence of two logical thoughts. Arc, though he may well be wrong, is proceeding in the correct manner. Mike, I love your enthusiasm, more than that I am occassionally inspired by it, but at this stage going down that route would be a bad idea. M The geomagnetic field is very complex. Our attempts to simulate it - and thus confirm we have a comprehensive understanding of it - have been only partially successful thus far. I am unaware of any research that demonstrates conclusively that an increase of field strength at the surface must be accompanied by and a consequence of an increase of field strength in the core. Indeed, as I understand the consensus the reverese is true. You need to address this, or your hypothesis falls at the first hurdle. 1. You need to demonstrate quantitatively that the increased heat generated in the core cannot be carried away through convection fast enough to limit temperature increases to an irrelevant level. 2. The heat transferred by any means from the interior of the Earth is orders of magnitude less than that necessary to induce any climatic effect. The total heat flow from the planet in ayear could melt a global layer of ice less than 1cm thick. On this point you are irredeemably wrong. I'll respond, over time, to the other paragraphs, most of which contain either fatal errors, or highly questionable interpretations.