Ophiolite

I feel compelled to say "And your point?"

1. I think you meant to say fewer evolutionary steps. 2. Why do you assume that the greater number of evolutionary stpes man has passed through compared with our ancestors would lead to a reduciton in aggressiveness?

I know that weather ballons definitely exist. I know that gliders definitely exist. I know that micro-lights definitley exist. I know that hang gliders definitley exist. I know that radio controlled aricraft definitely exist. I know that helicopters definitely exist. I know that small aircraft definitely exist. I know that all of these things have been seen in the airspace over Glasgow I do not know if aliens exist. What conclusion do you imagine I form, based on the foregoing.

Since your concern is to buld up sufficient credits in biology subjects you should enquire of the administrators of the specific masters program you are interested in. Otherwise you will be relying upon well intentioned semantic advice that is irrelevant to your situation.

When 'something' clearly is, that is, exists, it seems fatuous to insist it does not. This renders your interpretation of the Bhuddist solution a non-starter in my eyes.

If by "last quote" you mean everything is relative, what do you find raises you r blood pressure about that? If by last quote you mean "What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. -Jim Downey,final part of the academic decathlon in the movie Billy Madison." then why would your blood pressure be raised by a quotation from a film that forms part of krash661's regular signature? While these questions may seem off topic, I ask because if the first answer interpretation is correct I am intrigued by your distaste for the notion of relative things. If it is the second i think you may have misinterpreted its function in the post.

Epilogue? Did you mean prologue? Either way, it's neither - it's background notes .A prologue should set the scene and raise unanswered questions. An epilogue should wrap things up.

Hi georgi, could you show me the mathematical relationship that would lead to positive and negative waves making a neutron a different mass from a proton.

I don't thing ten years is a long time, especially for a paradigm shift. What's your hurry kristalris? Your response to me was in no way disagreeable. If you were aiming for that I'm afraid you missed.

@PeterJ: I echo swansont's query. I half expected you to assert that, for example, general relativity was clear nonsense when examined fom a metaphysical aspect. Instead you introduce materialism (nothing to do with science, except for usurping and misunderstanding some of science's underpinnings) and theism (again, not just divorced from science, but never really married). I'm confused.

I dare say I shall regret this, but could you give an example of one of those ludicrous views? And if you could, would you?

I am curious Kristalris: have you always been hornery and disagreeable, or did you have to take classes? It is a simple matter: science is a process. On this science site we seek to honour that process. Your objections, ultimately, are to the character of that process. If we change the process it is no longer science. It doesn't matter if it is better, or more just, or more fun, it is no longer science. Very simple. You are clearly an intelligent person so you know this to be true, so I ask again, why so disagreeable?

There are several - I am tempted to say numerous - non sequiturs in the reasoning presented by the author of the second paper. There are also some instances of serious misinterpretation of the facts, or cynical manipulation of them. The two approachs are often indistinguishable. Macma, I suspect your post is what is sometimes known as a Drive-by. You post with no intention of returning to discuss or debate the issue, thus avoiding the risk that faced with a reasoned argument you might come to your senses. If I am mistaken I would be happy to elaborate on the shortcomings of the argument. Your choice.

I thought your qualification heavy to be interesting. would you expand on that? Certainly a study that considered the frequency with which blood traces were found on similar 'alters' and an exploration of where on the 'alters' and how much, all subjected to statistical analysis, might lead to confirmation or refutation of the hypothesis.

Why stop there? What if these are not supervolcanoes, but sites where embryonic planets are flung from Mother Earth in a catclysmic birth? Or, the penetration points of the horns of vast, planetary mass space unicorns? I mean, get real! Please suggest how a gamma ray burst would produce any of the observed features of a supervolcano and, at the same time, explain why such an effect would be localised. Popcorn, your interest in science is apparent. Your ability to think imaginatively is clear. What is lacking is any critical thinking. Ask the questions, by all means, but you should be able to answer these yourself - and thus far, it seems, the answers will be in the negative.

Sadly, you have taken this thread from a rather positive affirmation that success was about cooperation with and care for others, to a cynical view that suspects the generous. It suggests to me a new definition for success. Success is thinking well of others even when they give you reason not to. With that in mind, I am sure you are kind to animals.

One of the first things a geologist does when faced with a sample, either a hand specimen like this, or a rock outcropping, is to hit it with a hammer to expose an unweathered surface. The problem wiht identifying your specimen is that it is thoroughly weathered - based on the degree of rounding it has spent time as a pebble in a river. Now as to observations: generally brown; some small pock marks, possibly arranged in planar fashion; an irregular, lighter brown patch, free of such marks; couple of large 'holes'. Not much to go on. Provisional guess - sedimentary clastic rock (clastic -composed of fragments or clasts). Poorly sorted (i.e. wide range of grain sizes). Conglomerate, or very coarse sandstone deposited in lower reaches of meandering river. Where was it collected?

This may seem negative. It is not intended that way. It is simply honest and accurate. Earth Day means nothing to me. Why? Showing concern for the planet one day out of three hundred and sixty five is better than nothing, but not by much. I prefer to think about environmental issues every day. I prefer to take actions, or encourage inaction, in order to improve the environment and to make others more aware of the issues. Earth Day makes as much sense to me as having an Eating Day. Let's see how far that would get you. We live on this planet permanently, bar a handful of astronauts who carry parts of it with them. Earth Day? No. Earth year? Possibly Earth Century! Now you are talking.

arc, I come back to my original concern: you object on the basis that you think such and such a mechanism would lack the energy to move the plates, or that the drive from ridge push would be inadequate, or the thermal effect would be sufficient. But nowhere is there a single piece of maths to back this up. Without that I don't see how your proposal can be taken seriously. Geology is no longer a refuge for those of us who cannot do arithmatic.

Your speculation is so vague that demonstrating its invalidity is almost impossible (and pretty pointless). However, in order for any object to penetrate solid rock, that rock must be compressed. With the velocities and dimensions you are speaking of compression waves will spread out from the point of impact and coesite and stishovite must be formed. These have routinely been found at impact structures, therefore you must account for their absence in the environs of a supervolcano. So far you have failed to do so. You mistakenly believe that the quantity of these minerals that is present are dependent upon the depth to which the impactor penetrates. This is not the case. The quantity is dependent on the mass and velocity of the impactor. Since you are postulating a high velocity the quantity of these minerals will be correspondingly higher. The magma rises through discrete channels, leaving the bulk of the country rock (which contains the coesite and stishovite) intact. Therefore the magma will not be able to melt these minerals. Neither coesite or stishovite are combustible and even if they were no free oxygen would be present in the bedrock to support such combustion. I made no comments on the devastation or otherwise caused by such a hypothetical impact, so your remarks that it would not need to be devastating is irrelevant. In summary, your idea remains clearly refuted by the absence of coesite and stishovite around supervolcanoes. Please note that there are many other reasons why the idea is baseless, but most would require a more complex explanation. I recommend you abandon the speculation and view its value as having introduced you to the concept of mineraogical changes in impact events.

I understand that is what you would say. Can you give me an example of a fact?

Then what makes you think you are entitled to pontificate on matters such as these?

Oh dear. Oh deary me! The old 'it is only a theory argument'. It is difficult to avoid deep feelings of frustration that could boil over into anger and contempt. I'll do my best to hold these in check. Theory in science is as good as it gets. Nothing trumps theory. Theory is the end product of the scientific method. Theory is the goal of science. Theory is a combination of hypothesis and observation and experiment and validation and confirmation, the latter done multiple times, in diverese ways, by different individuals, until it is clear that the theory offers a sound, solid, detailed explanation of a phenomena. It is called evolutionary theory because two centuries of observation, experiment, validation, questioning, consideration, argument, debate, analysis, prediction and the like have led to a comprehensive, deep, integrated, insightful, well substantiated explanation, that supercedes, or subsumes all previous explanations and does so with a conviction and a finess that no other hypothesis can offer. Until you understand and accept that your observations will be treated much as they deserve to be.

Popcorn, is it your intention to ignore my questions in post #4? If you do not intend to address thos questions will you acknowledge that your hypothesis is flawed?

If and when I present some ideas I have been incubating for some time I would be offended, enraged, sadly disappointed, mortified, exasperated and seriously pissed off, if those ideas were not attacked harshly, vigorously, persistently and rigorously. If I sensed people pulling their punches I would be strongly inclined to lose respect for them. Any other attitude bespeaks disrespect for science and a grossly inflated ego. (Mine is large, but it is certainly not that large.)