P.S. As for Chandra, he is just going to have to go down his own path in his own way and at his own pace.

He knows where he stands.

He ain't no Monty anyhow.

I'll be getting on with my existence as best I can anyhow....

A

Martin

"No idea how or when the term originated. But pretty obviously it's because of the belief that they originate from the remains of plant or other (animal/bacterial) lifeforms that got trapped in geological deposits many millions of years ago in similar circumstances to those where real fossils are formed."

Aye, thank you for that . I was extremely rushed with my comment but what I was trying to get at is that if the end result of plant/animal decomposition or whatever is methane/ethane etc then why is there humungous quantities of it OFF the planet?....

A

Radical Rodent
Nothing against Narrow Boat Enthusiasts just that, when "restoring" a derelict canal which nature is reclaiming, they are potentially a minority. I wonder what the reaction would be if someone proposed building a brand new canal rather than restoring an old one?

I think we're in general agreement about the subject though.

In the midwestern US, the term "fossil water" is applied to extractions from wells into the Oglalla Aquifer. Obviously the originally deposited water has not been replaced by rock of the same shape -- as we use that term regarding bones, leaves, and trilobites. The term "fossil" as used for coal, oil, water, and appears to be a metastasized metaphor for ANYTHING laid down in the rocks a million or so years prior to being dug up, pumped up, extracted, examined or exploited.

As an aside, in the US Senate a few members of extraordinarily long tenure deserve the appellation, in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

AJ: perhaps it is the explanation of my own ideas that is a bit muddled; in the example you gave about being cold then warm, the facts about the particular environments did not change; one was cold, the other warm (or hot); it was just a matter of your perception – your awareness of the environment. Usually, if the air temperature is “just right”, we are not aware of the temperature; we are only become aware when we become uncomfortable.

As for heliocentricity, the facts have never changed – the Sun is, was, and will always be (as far as we are concerned) the centre of our Solar System, and the planets and associated debris will always move around it. It is the human interpretation, our various theories, of this phenomenon that has changed, not the facts.

As for a flat Earth, I thought that idea had been debunked a long time ago – it was mooted by some Victorian writer as a joke, that ancient people thought the Earth was flat. Somehow, that idea took a hold on popular imaginations, and has clung there ever since. It is known that Columbus knew the Earth was a spheroid, though a bit smaller than it is – hence his short-cut westwards to India bumped into the Americas, which he was convince was India, hence the name for native Americans being “Indians”. Odd, that, as the Piri Reis map upon which he based his adventure does quite clearly show America, so why he should misread that is anyone’s guess (it also showed Antarctica as a continent in two halves, and that was not confirmed by “science” until the 1950s – how is that explained? As usual, by ignoring it…). Even the Romans and, I believe, the Phoenicians, new the Earth was round, too, so the “Flat Earth” idea is actually quite a modern one.

As we humans are the biggest influencers upon the environments of this planet, we should take some consideration for other species; we really do not know the complex inter-relationship of many of the species, so should be more circumspect in the destruction of any one of them (except cockroaches, of course – loathe the little beggars!). You never know, there might be the cure for some terrible disease hiding in the chemistry of one of them (quinine, anyone? Or aspirin? What about penicillin? All good examples of natural solutions to old problems).

I suspect most of us have this awareness in us, whether by education, indoctrination or instinct, I cannot say, but there is little doubt that this awareness is being used for, as you so rightly state, a power-grab by people with more nefarious intent.

As for “fossil fuels”, there is crude oil now being found at levels below – like, way, way below – where rocks fossils are known to exist; in other words, the likelihood of it being from another life-form is really not very high. Indeed, the term “fossil fuel” was first used as an off-the-cuff explanation; having no other explanation for its existence, it was assumed to similar to coal in origins, with absolutely no scientific validation; to the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge, there has been no scientific investigation as to its origins, at all. While I cannot explain the origins of crude oil or LNG, etc., all I can say is that none appear to have origins solely in life; perhaps their description as a fossil is as valid as that of Pouncer’s “fossil water”.

SandyS: please forgive me; while I may be in agreement, I often like to prod for a reaction.

(Apologies for all the typos – a few too many margueritas!)

Radical Rodent
Me too, I like to ask the dumb question, as it's a bad day when you don't learn something new.