Ophiolite

 

Who said anything about being unwilling to make the changes?

It is quite difficult to maintain a polite demeanor in the face of intransigent obtuseness. You have been asked to make changes. The suggested changes have been specified. You have chosen not to implement them, but instead to proceed with fatuous arguments.

 

You stated "I don't think that distinction comes out in the rules." and I pointed to the page that summarizes them and ask for feedback. And your response is to get all pissy about it.

No. I am now going to get pissy about it. I gave you very clear feedback. Look at the fucking points made by Anatres in his opening post. Now, you have - by your words an inaction - clearly indicated that you do not see the ambiguity two members believe to exist. I pointed out that if it is thought to exist and can be easily remedied, then why the fuck don't remedy it.

 

At this point it's impossible to distinguish this from someone who wants to give honest feedback and someone who just wants to be contrary.

And at this point is easy to someone who does not realise the function of a moderator is to respond sympathetically to positive suggestions made by members and not make offensive remarks about their motives.

 

Because you brought it up.

Where the fuck did I bring it up? (i.e the discussion thread on forum rules)

 

Which is why I am bringing it to everyone's attention. You participated. One might assume you raised all of the concerns that you had. But maybe not.

 

It was two fucking years ago. I barely remember what I was doing last week and I certainly don't recall what views I may or may not have written two or three years ago. You know, it is not uncommon for peoples views to evolve over time, or for one to recognise an opportunity for an improvement when it is drawn to ones attention, though one may have previously missed it.

It's really very simple. There is an ambiguity in the rules. It has been pointed out. A solution has been offered. You decline to implement the solution and instead argue and patronise. Seriously disappointing and meriting the several fucks that have peppered this post. Let me know when you are ready to apologise for your boorish behaviour.

 

What part of http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ needs to be improved?

The part clearly and succinctly identified by Antares in his opening post. If you do not see the ambiguity, please accept that at least two members see it. I am perplexed by why you are unwilling to make a small change that will remove that ambiguity, but instead seem determined to argue that there is not a problem.

There's even a discussion thread for it

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86721-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions-discussion-thread

And? How is that relevant?

1. The last activity on that thread was in 2014. Members on this and other forums are discourage from reviving long inactive threads.

2. I haven't noticed that thread recently.

3. This is the active thread discussing one specific aspect of the topic.

I don't know but 10 degrees sounds pretty big to me.

And the puddle said, "Isn't it remarkable I should have found a hole that is just the right shape for me?"

Don't you think that trying to use science as best we can is a long way from declaring it the endall of being?

Who exactly is "declaring it the endall of being"? Fools? Yes. The inadequately educated? Yes. Those provoked by stupidity of others to overstate their case? Yes. Richard Dawkins? Oh, wait! We've already covered him with two out of three.

After all, these days I find a very large percentage of people graduating with degrees in some sort of science calling religion "voodoo" or much worse.

If by voodoo they mean "a superstitious suite of beliefs unsupported, and in many cases contradicted, by evidence" then that would appear to be an accurate statement. Your remark could also be taken as a slight on voodoo. Do you not consider voodoo to be a religion? What do you have against it?

This is why some 80% of college graduate never get a job in their major.

In the absence of a citation I take this to be an opinion. It is, however, not a very sound one.

If 80% of graduates never get a job in their major this is largely because the jobs are not available. If they were available then, on average, 80% of science jobs would go unfilled. Do we see this anywhere? In any discipline or geographic area? I rather think not.

A good degree, properly attained, delivers a graduate with an inquiring mind, critical thinking skills, and imaginative problem solving abilities. Those are applicable in a wide variety of professions.

The chances of life ever starting on our beautiful planet even though it is in the 'Goldilocks' zone for life to exist, was extremely remote to put it mildly and yet we are here in all our splendour. This being the case I am still firmly of the belief that it is quite possible that there is no life anywhere else in the universe. We could be totally on our own. What does anyone think about that? - it is a sobering thought and does make me anyway start to think that some kind of higher force has had a hand in our creation though I do think evolution is true and exists.

This is off-topic. It has been discussed in numerous previous posts. I recommend, if you wish to discuss it further, start a new thread. In the meantime note that we are currently unable to place a meaningful number on the likelihood of life emerging. You assert the origin of life on Earth was an extremely remote possibility. Jacques Monod, Nobel Laureate, asserted it was a unique event. Christian de Duve, Nobel Laureate, asserted life is common and abundant throughout the universe. So, at this time, all we can can say is "We don't know".

I agree with Lord Antares that the current rules are ambiguous. The references to "making things up for fun" and - to a lesser extent - "postulate new ideas" suggest it's OK to throw out wild notions for consideration and discussion.

If I am interpreting swansont's post correctly, he agrees this is OK. What is not acceptable is claiming this is true without evidence. I don't think that distinction comes out in the rules. In practice it seems "fun ideas" are never welcomed, but perhaps that's because it very rare for the speculator to accept they may be wrong.

I believe that the problem with those posting on these groups is that being educated gives the better part of them superiority complexes that lead them to believe that they are MUCH better than the citizens of this country.

As opposed to yourself, who simply see yourself as superior to the other members?

So, we are agreed. You have made a bunch of assumptions that have little or no justification.

 

1. It is my understanding that the most likely precursor was Homo heidelbergensis except he was in the wrong area at the wrong time. So be aware that "most probable" is not the same as "is".

 

2. Unless the so far discovered suspected precursors could manufacture and use tools they were no more human than a Chimp.

 

3. https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-dna-subtle-significant-impact.html I would like to know why widely known science requires a citation for people such as yourself? Anyone on a science forum arguing should have the ability to look things up like this for themselves.

 

4. Why do you find it somehow instructive to talk about comic books?

 

Rice can be grown only in a very narrow climate pattern.

1. Do you want to take another stab at answering the question? There are multiple ancestors of humans, since we have a linear progression extending back to the beginning. Are you asserting that the species and genera I mentioned are not part of that progression?

2.You don't get to make up your own definitions of human. Well, you can make them up, but they are going to be ignored by anyone with a knowledge of the subject.

3. Anyone on a science forum making an argument that is contrary to the current consensus should be prepared to provide citations. If they wish to be considered serious and polite they should offer those citations from the outset: they should not need to be asked.

Now, do you wish to provide a citation for your assertion that "The single largest step in mental development was writing." There is zero reference in the link you provided to writing. There is not even a reference to language. And this time, how about a proper citation, not a journalist's interpretation of the original research.

4. You posted a total non-sequitur. I responded in kind. Do you wish now to explain what the hell you were talking about in relation to the Neanderthal DNA? Very few dispute this, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the various claims you have made in your post.

5. Do you intend to address your confusion between genetic evolution and cultural/technological evolution? Or do you prefer to sweep that under the carpet?

My immediate reaction on seeing Columbia mentioned was the Missoula floods. I see zapatos had the same thought.

The tephra explanation from arc also seems plausible. I think you may have misunderstood the nature of tephra. The suggestion is not that the boulder was formed by the fusion of ash and larger crystals into a tuff. The idea is that a fragment of previously consolidated magma was ejected as a discrete piece.

As to the hand specimen, the large crystals appear to feldspar, while the ground mass looks generally basaltic, based upon the colour. How sharp are the crystal boundaries of the phenocrysts? That would give insight as to the extent of disequilibrium/equilibrium between the phenocryts and the then liquid magma.

We do not have any clear evidence of a pre-cursor to Homosapiens.

Really? So, you feel that the remains of Austrolopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis etc. are .....? Figments of the imagination? Misclassified primates? Hoaxes?

And Homosapiens only appears to have been around some 200,000 years in which time he has gone from an animal to landing on the moon and sending a spacecraft outside of the solar system.

While the distinction between animal and human is better placed in colloquial exchanges than one on science, anthropologists would not agree with youe description of our earlier ancestors as animals.

The single largest step in mental development was writing.

Citation required.

That seems to me to be a pretty rapid mental evolution.

You seem to be confusing cultural and technical evolution, with genetic evolution.

Northern Europeans have signs of Neanderthal DNA in them suggesting that there was some interbreeding.

And J.J. Abrams disappointed many viewers of Lost with the weak ending. So what?

.

I must admit I was a little surprised at that statistic . Maybe people are taking the safe bet .! Although there appear to be large differences in statistics found for different regions of the world . Even at its worst it still ends up as 50% beleive in a God .

 

So 50. % of the human race , are eligible to think about it , and ( could ) believe in some form of intervention from a higher power . Namely God . ( as in ' God help us ' )

So many unjustified assumptions:

1. You are assuming that the existence of a god is the same as the existence of an after-life.

2. You are assuming that any god would be interested in humans.

3. You are assuming that any god would do more than create the universe, but would continue to be involved in it.

4. You appear to be assuming that this is how believers would also think.

Don't species have other priorities, for example, survival, rather than wasting time with all this other extraneous human stuff?

What you refer to as extraneous human stuff is simply an expression of the instinctive drives utilising the human skill set.

It has to do with the coefficient of the friction of both the barrel and bullet. The rifling, the time in the barrel and the speed of repeating, meaning that how hot the barrel grows and stays. At one point the repeating actions finds a balance between how fast it can grow with the heat it receives from the time in the barrel, the heat absorbed and that radiated including the time if requires to reload an fire again.

 

In other words - it depends.

And the size of the charge if we are discussing artillery guns.

.Surely this must be indicative of ' something ' . Especially as many ethnic people beleive in some form of a Return .

Many people believe in astrology.

Many people believe UFOs are alien spacecraft.

Many people believe in homeopathic medicine.

Many people believe that they "have theory".

Many people believe in ghosts.

This is indicative that many people have shit for brains.

I've read the book. I have a copy. I have a few of his books.

I still don't understand what coincidence you are talking about, or how his investigations relate to it. Will you clarify.

And still you miss the point. While some PhD's are also a dab hand at carpentry and plumbing and car mechanics, many are completely inept, yet brilliant in their own field. I hired skilled tradespeople to repair my roof, rewire the electrics, install a new kitchen, plaster some walls and lay carpet. But not one of them - and I doubt any current member - could adequately recommend a specific bit and associated drilling parameters for any oil and gas well on the planet.

No one is disputing the different skill sets and knowledge bases possessed by individuals and groups. You seem to think some here are. You are mistaken.

I notice you have failed to respond to my suggestion you consider the two words empirical and theoretical. Scared?

Two points.

1. Proximity is an aggressive, argumentative prat.

2. However, his fundamental thesis is valid. There is an elite within the membership who tend to overlook behaviour in fellow members of that elite that they would not tolerate in others. This is such basic and typical behaviour and is certainly present here that it routinely astounds me that almost none of the elite are aware of it. (Or are willing to acknowledge it.)

I would think an expired cough medicine would be just fine for an expired cough.

1. Goecentric

2. Anthropomorphic

3. Value judgements

4. Not much science.

I still don't get the analogy (?) of bedrock. That confuses more than clarifies, at least for me.

 

Then you wouldn't mind telling us in mathematical formula how these drains clog. You have yet to explain how you have ANY idea of how plumbing works even though Paris was plumbed in the 1700's. Hadrian's wall has guard posts that are outfitted with plumbed toilets. Which quantum physicist do you suppose it took to design those?

Here are two words:

Empirical

Theoretical

If you cannot see how these relate to your misperception then, like Lord Antares, I probably cannot do much for you.

Edit: I suspect the block for you is not intellect, but obstinacy.

I want to know the reason life has originated on Earth.

A worthy goal.

It is certainly something more than Physics and Chemistry of this planet.

This is a strong assertion. Do you have any actual evidence to support the claim?

Keep in mind that many scientists have offered a variety of plausible explanations of how life may have arisen, all of which use only physics and chemistry in their explanations.

Scientists have conclusively failed to create any micro organism imitating conditions on Earth when life forms originated.

I am not aware of any scientist that has ever attempted to create a micro-organism by imitating primeval conditions. (Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.) You seem to be misinterpreting the sort of experiment that began with the Miller/Urey work in the 1950s. If that is what you are thinking of, then I suggest your background in the subject is not sufficiently strong for you to have a worthwhile opinion on it.

There is something more to evolution.

Evolution and abiogenesis are related, but wholly different subjects. Again, you are revealing a very limited grasp of the basics. I understand your interest in the subject. It is a fascinating one. However, you need to get a more solid background before making wild ass guesses.

The discovery of this force will surely be startling.

Since there is almost certainly no such force, its discovery would be more than startling.

@ 121

 

 

 

 

Basically, my view is that the terms of the rules of behavior in these discussion fora are rather vague and that this is only partly due to the inherent nature of language itself. It's also partly due to the fact that vague terms allow the site's moderators and decision-makers to apply rules with a convenient arbitrariness that makes a comfortable seat for their own biases.

 

In short, they and those ((ETA) other members) who are reliably their silent or vocal supporters constitute what amounts to a de facto “in-group,” here with a self-protecting culture that perpetuates the biases. Those of the in-group will typically deny their its existence and their part in it, seeing themselves as “just like everyone else here,” but they defend what amounts to a little closed-shop rule which keeps those who are “in,” “in,” and keeps the rest—especially those who don't openly conform to dominant opinion here—on the back foot, second-guessing what is allowed and what is not allowed.

 

This does not mean that in the rules and their application there's a complete and total lack of any clear idea of what is not allowed. It means, rather, that there exists a double-standard of interpretation and application by which those who are seen as friendly and supportive get easier, less strict and more forgiving treatment in the supervision of the content of their comments, the rigor of their arguments and reasoning which others, not viewed as friendly and supportive are denied. It is very hard for me to escape the impression that if they're treated differently it is because they are not regarded as among the “in-group.”

 

Nor am I claiming that it's impossible to find any exceptions at all in a site the homepage of which cites, at this writing :

• 926,277 Total Posts
• 83,845 Total Members

. There are bound to be a relative few cases which serve as tokens to which the staff can point and claim that these (rather rare) examples prove that there isn't any such systematic bias or double-standard at work here. The point is that, even if taken all together, these cases fall very far short of demonstrating the typical practice. They demonstrate the atypical because they are not the same as what is usually done the great majority of the time.

 

I don't mean to suggest that the above completely exhaust all the aspects of my views on the topic but it presents the essentials as I see them.

Agreed.

I don't think CharonY is suggesting you need to pick a PhD advisor. Rather, if you can look at the publications and hence specific fields of study of the faculty members, you can get a clearer idea of which different aspects of the degree topic will receive most attention. In turn that will give you a feel for the course you may prefer. It may also give you insight into the research or work you may be interested in doing. (I'm sure CharonY will correct me if I misinterpreted.)

So, 50 years away. As always.

Damn! You beat me to it. (As always.)