|
|
|
minass
New Member
9 Posts |
 Posted - 11/07/2012 : 10:10:54
|
When somebody is studying the phenomenon of viruses ,he can see that when viruses are not coming in contact with a host organism, they are a sum of chemical compounds that not fulfill the criteria to be considered as life.While on the other hand they start reacting with a host, or in other words they start making chemical reactions with the compounds of the host,they become alive.The same thing happens with prions ,which are proteinaceous compounds that while they react with proteins of the host, they become alive in a way.....Lets hypothesize that we make the hypothesis that:No living organism is possible to remain unchanged structurally.Lets hypothesize that this rule is principal in nature and nothing could go beyond it or prove that it is untrue.What would that mean to the way that we see the world?First of all lets make clear what we mean: An organism that would remain unchanged structurally during a very small period of time,would be considered as not living for that period. When we say unchanged we mean of course that there are not taking place any chemical reactions inside it.Maybe there is a single cell inside an organism that is unchanged,but the rest of the cells are changing. We say then that this organism has a dead cell.,but the organism as a whole is alive.Maybe this cell would be able to regain life if it react with the appropriate signals.But maybe not.If we want to see the consequences of our hypothesis in the nature we meet the question:what is the least that can be considered as life?For example, a mitochondrion can be considered life according to what we said, but a simple chemical molecule cannot,unless it reacts with another molecule or substance.At the moment of the reaction these two substances are the least that is considerd life.So, a simple chemical reaction as long as it happens ,is the simpliest form of life, or else, the sparkle of life.That means that the superior organisms as well as all the organism is a summation of chemical reactions.The advantages of the hypethesis that we made is that we can explain successfully the prions and the viruses.
..The new hypothesis also says that life existed before the first cell,in the form of chemical reactions.Scientists have accepted that life was originated from a single cell,which was the first cell on earth, and composed the first thing that was a form of life. The evolution of this cell had as a result the formation of life the way that we know and see today. A problem with this idea is that, as we know, if we had just a single cell in earth right now, and out of it there was nothing, then not only this would not lead to the formation of more complicated forms of life,but this single cell soon would be dead.Despite of that,most scientists accept the single cell theory.The new theory that we introduced claims that the existence a first single cell was not necessary to start the evolutionary process that would lead to life as we know it today, but says that life preexisted , because even a single chemical reaction is a form of life.The creation of the first cell actually is the result of the existence of life.
The property of reproduction in living beings that are chemical reactions seem
s to actually be a result of the energy that forces the chemical reactions to continue happening.Life continues because chemical reactions continue.Reproduction seems to be one of the most ancient properties.
Lets see now another problem: In the beginning, life on earth was simplier than today. That means that there was a system of chemical reactions that gave its place to a more complicated one.This sounds a bit strange because if a system of chemical reactions does not get energy from outside, leads to an equilibrium state. If we accept that our new theory is true, means that there had to be an external source of energy{probably the large quantities of energy that comes everyday on earth from the light of the sun that lead not only to the survival of the first forms of life, but also to their survival of the first forms of life, but also in their evolution.Imagine that with the help of a sourse of light we cultivated in a way,some chemical reactions in a small place.After a period of time,they are getting more and more complicated.Lets hypothesize that someday the whole system becomes extremely complicated.We could not see nothing more but a mixture of colours and shapes.This is life.But human is a part of this complicated system which means that he sees things in a mirror like way,because he is in the system.so it is very difficult for him to see life in an objective way.
living organisms normally are not dying because the chemical reactions that are composing them are continuing happening.if we analyze all these reactions we will have a very good view to their homeostasis.As we said we are seeing the world from the inside , or else in a mirror like direction, because we our selves are part of things, so we appreciate things from its results.We think that homeostasis is a very magical and perfect mechanism, because we are the result of homeostasis, but the theory that we analyzed says that homeostasis simply is the cataloge of the chemical reactions that are still happening, and just because they keep happening, the organism is alive.The complex organic compounds that are composing living creatures probably are the results of many years of reactions, or else they are the fingerprints of the reactions from the beginning of all the reactions till today.
We are the results of all these , and so it is normal to think that if something was not the way it is, WE would not be there, the way we are!So we think that they are essential for us and everything was arranged perfectly, and if something was a bit different ,we would not be there, but as i told everything depends on who is the observer.We are a changing complex, and everything that happens lead to us.We see things from the opposite side though.
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2012 : 10:37:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by minass
When somebody is studying the phenomenon of viruses ,he can see that when viruses are not coming in contact with a host organism, they are a sum of chemical compounds that not fulfill the criteria to be considered as life.While on the other hand they start reacting with a host, or in other words they start making chemical reactions with the compounds of the host,they become alive.The same thing happens with prions ,which are proteinaceous compounds that while they react with proteins of the host, they become alive in a way.....Lets hypothesize that we make the hypothesis that:No living organism is possible to remain unchanged structurally.Lets hypothesize that this rule is principal in nature and nothing could go beyond it or prove that it is untrue.What would that mean to the way that we see the world?First of all lets make clear what we mean: An organism that would remain unchanged structurally during a very small period of time,would be considered as not living for that period. When we say unchanged we mean of course that there are not taking place any chemical reactions inside it.Maybe there is a single cell inside an organism that is unchanged,but the rest of the cells are changing. We say then that this organism has a dead cell.,but the organism as a whole is alive.Maybe this cell would be able to regain life if it react with the appropriate signals.But maybe not.If we want to see the consequences of our hypothesis in the nature we meet the question:what is the least that can be considered as life?For example, a mitochondrion can be considered life according to what we said, but a simple chemical molecule cannot,unless it reacts with another molecule or substance.At the moment of the reaction these two substances are the least that is considerd life.So, a simple chemical reaction as long as it happens ,is the simpliest form of life, or else, the sparkle of life.That means that the superior organisms as well as all the organism is a summation of chemical reactions.The advantages of the hypethesis that we made is that we can explain successfully the prions and the viruses.
..The new hypothesis also says that life existed before the first cell,in the form of chemical reactions.Scientists have accepted that life was originated from a single cell,which was the first cell on earth, and composed the first thing that was a form of life. The evolution of this cell had as a result the formation of life the way that we know and see today. A problem with this idea is that, as we know, if we had just a single cell in earth right now, and out of it there was nothing, then not only this would not lead to the formation of more complicated forms of life,but this single cell soon would be dead.Despite of that,most scientists accept the single cell theory.The new theory that we introduced claims that the existence a first single cell was not necessary to start the evolutionary process that would lead to life as we know it today, but says that life preexisted , because even a single chemical reaction is a form of life.The creation of the first cell actually is the result of the existence of life.
The property of reproduction in living beings that are chemical reactions seem
s to actually be a result of the energy that forces the chemical reactions to continue happening.Life continues because chemical reactions continue.Reproduction seems to be one of the most ancient properties.
Lets see now another problem: In the beginning, life on earth was simplier than today. That means that there was a system of chemical reactions that gave its place to a more complicated one.This sounds a bit strange because if a system of chemical reactions does not get energy from outside, leads to an equilibrium state. If we accept that our new theory is true, means that there had to be an external source of energy{probably the large quantities of energy that comes everyday on earth from the light of the sun that lead not only to the survival of the first forms of life, but also to their survival of the first forms of life, but also in their evolution.Imagine that with the help of a sourse of light we cultivated in a way,some chemical reactions in a small place.After a period of time,they are getting more and more complicated.Lets hypothesize that someday the whole system becomes extremely complicated.We could not see nothing more but a mixture of colours and shapes.This is life.But human is a part of this complicated system which means that he sees things in a mirror like way,because he is in the system.so it is very difficult for him to see life in an objective way.
living organisms normally are not dying because the chemical reactions that are composing them are continuing happening.if we analyze all these reactions we will have a very good view to their homeostasis.As we said we are seeing the world from the inside , or else in a mirror like direction, because we our selves are part of things, so we appreciate things from its results.We think that homeostasis is a very magical and perfect mechanism, because we are the result of homeostasis, but the theory that we analyzed says that homeostasis simply is the cataloge of the chemical reactions that are still happening, and just because they keep happening, the organism is alive.The complex organic compounds that are composing living creatures probably are the results of many years of reactions, or else they are the fingerprints of the reactions from the beginning of all the reactions till today.
We are the results of all these , and so it is normal to think that if something was not the way it is, WE would not be there, the way we are!So we think that they are essential for us and everything was arranged perfectly, and if something was a bit different ,we would not be there, but as i told everything depends on who is the observer.We are a changing complex, and everything that happens lead to us.We see things from the opposite side though.
|
Wow.
Ummmmm..... The Earth has been and continues to be an open system. It gets a lot of energy (I believe the technical term is an ass-load) from the Sun. There is no new hypothesis here but instead the reintroduction of an old strawman argument that the Earth is a closed system. It also falsely claims that single cells die like viruses outside a host. It fails to take into account hardier single cell critters which last for days and (shocker) reproduce.
Does this new hypothesis have a name? Does it have any documentation?
Otherwise, this isn't a hypothesis. It is unvarnished conjecture with no grasp on reality. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 11/07/2012 : 10:46:22 [Permalink]
|
minass, are you plagiarizing somebody else's posts or are you spamming us and other forums?
A simple Google search can show this post is not original.
It is considered much less dishonest when you point out that your post exists in other places, and if you let us know if the other copies are also yours.
What are you trying to accomplish with this post? Are there questions you'd like our help answering or do you just want us to tear your premises and conclusions apart?
Oh, and by the way: Welcome to SFN! |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2012 : 18:47:18 [Permalink]
|
minass, interesting username. How did you come up with that one? Would the first three letters be short for "minimal"?
It seems you under rate yourself. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 11/08/2012 : 11:09:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
There is no new hypothesis here but instead the reintroduction of an old strawman argument that the Earth is a closed system. It also falsely claims that single cells die like viruses outside a host. It fails to take into account hardier single cell critters which last for days and (shocker) reproduce. |
I read the post twice, and I still don't understand what minass is trying to say. In fact, I read it as minass actually agrees that the Earth is an open system with the sun as an energy source (but somehow believes that we and/or scientists don't think so). Which only adds to the confusion.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2012 : 11:40:53 [Permalink]
|
That is some sloppy writing there...
Scientists have accepted that life was originated from a single cell...
...
The new theory that we introduced claims that the existence a first single cell was not necessary to start the evolutionary process that would lead to life as we know it today, but says that life preexisted , because even a single chemical reaction is a form of life. |
Given that there is no clear definition of what life is, I seriously doubt that "Scientists have accepted that life was originated from a single cell" is some sort of consensus view - or even a minority one. Especially given the fact that origin of life hypotheses often start with simple chemical reactions that no one really would consider life (apart from some people-that-can't-write that consider all chemical reactions life). |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2012 : 05:59:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
That is some sloppy writing there...
Scientists have accepted that life was originated from a single cell...
|
|
Indeed. In more than one way.
When people say all life on earth have a common ancestor, as in we all trace back to one "cell", they don't necessarity mean that this one cell in the beginning was all alone on planet earth. It was just one cell among billions, which had the fortune of being the one who's decendants survived to this day while the other billions died out after an unspecified numbers of generations. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
energyscholar
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2012 : 17:26:52 [Permalink]
|
Hi Skeptic friends-
I notice that this discussion of Origin of Life issues makes no mention of the ideas of Biologist Stuart Kauffman, or of Complex System Biology. Kauffman was probably the most important contributor to evolutionary theory in the 20th century. I wish to correct the oversight.
Professor Stuart Kauffman essentially founded the scientific field of Mathematical and Theoretical Biology, which later branched into Bioinformatics, Complex System Biology, and two other main branches. His life's work involved studying the Origins of Order, Life, and Intelligence. Kauffman is still alive, but is now very old. Kauffman published many scientific papers in his career. Oddly, he was also portrayed by actor Jeff Goldblum in a series of major motion pictures. Kauffman's work encompasses Darwinian evolution, but also demonstrates additional scientific mechanisms for evolutionary behavior.
Kauffman published two books in the 1990s which summarize his life's work:
1. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution, 1993, Stuart Kauffman. This very technical book is a compilation of many scientific papers. It has lots of math, and is most approachable to scientists with a background in Biophysics. Of particular note is that Kauffman demonstrates how and why a particular 'poised' complex system is also a Neural Network, thus demonstrating a plausible evolutionary mechanism for developing intelligence.
2. At Home in the Universe, 1995, Stuart Kauffman. This popular science book contains many of the same ideas as Origins of Order, but in a more accessible format with minimal mathematics. It discusses Origins of Order and Life, but skips Intelligence.
Kauffman's thesis is that Origin of Life is not the highly improbable event postulated by earlier Biologists. Kauffman explains how origin of life is a likely, almost inevitable event, and demonstrates natural mechanisms by which it can occur. DNA need not be involved. Thus, the title of his popular science book, "At Home in the Universe". We, the life on planet Earth, are at Home in a universe probably full of life.
Creationists sometimes (correctly!) point out that Darwinian evolution alone is not adequate to explain certain organs, such as the Eye. This is one basis for 'Intelligent Design'. Kauffman provides a scientifically sound evolutionary mechanism for the origin of such organs. This is one reason real Biologists scorn ID.
If Kauffman's ideas are correct it will bring about a scientific revolution (per Thomas Kuhn) in Biology. This seems to already be in progress, although it's hard to tell until we're firmly on the other side. Kauffman's work remains controversial. I have both inside information and a wealth of open source circumstantial evidence which implies that Kauffman's theses has been experimentally verified on a grand scale, in secret. While 'inside information' about science might initially seem like an oxymoron, a bit of thought proves it is not.
For example, the project scientists of the secret Manhattan Project (E.g. Oppenheimer, Teller, Feinman, Szilard, et cetera) had secret inside information about the detailed behavior of certain atomic reactions, information which did not become public for decades. Similarly, the project scientists who worked on ULTRA I, the secret WWII project that developed electronic computers to crack German military codes, had inside information about the history and science of computation that did not become public until 1975. The entire concept of proprietary technology is about hoarding scientific information. Most scientists dislike such restrictions, but generally abide by them when they must. Leaks do happen, though, and certain evidence gets harder to hide as the years pass.
I am looking for a few highly intelligent scientific skeptics willing to review the evidence and attempt to debunk my thesis. A member of this Skeptic Friends board referred me here. This is a big story that involves possible future Nobel Prizes (and, historically, the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics ), a fascinating tale that Historians and Ethicists will write about at great length, and a probable Turing Award. I am just one scientific journalist who happened upon this odd, but seemingly real, conspiracy. It's too big for me, and I need help telling it.
My thesis is that there was a secret government science project in the 1990s, which I call ULTRA II, that got a lucky breakthrough at the intersection of the scientific disciplines of Solid State Physics, Complex System Biology, Information Systems, and Neuroscience. This topic remains quasi-secret. I say 'quasi-secret' because the multiple new technologies developed by ULTRA II are so useful that the results of using them are becoming harder to hide. It seems project ULTRA II invented a new General Purpose Technology (e.g. fire, agriculture, metallurgy, wheel, writing, chemistry, combustion engine, electricity, radio, computer, atomic power, internet, ...). This new general technology does not yet have a name. I have a name that may stick. The genius project scientists, and everyone who learned about it through official channels, seem to be bound by some sort of Non Disclosure Agreement. I am not so bound, and I learned about this topic mostly through open source research. It's quite important, for the general best interests of humanity, that this topic not remain secret for too many more years (18 Nov 2012). It is a sensitive topic that threatens certain sacred cows. Several major world religions may take offense, as one notably took offense at Galileo. It is best if this knowledge diffuses gradually, starting with scientific skeptics and atheists. A challenging and subtle ethical predicament was involved, and remains relevant today.
Unfortunately, the cross-disciplinary nature of the scientific aspects makes it difficult to learn or teach. Knowledge and understanding of the above named four scientific disciplines helps a lot. I already knew two and a half of them when I first began to suspect what was going on. Eidetic memory and mathematical ability both help a lot, if you happen to have them. A thorough knowledge of the History of Science and Technology is also a big plus. After nine years of study I am still no expert. That would require insider status, which I lack, and is also why I'm free to discuss it. Earlier in 2012 I was offered, and politely declined, insider status, because I was not willing to sign an NDA. I am now confident enough about it that I'm ready to make a fool of myself by publicly discussing it.
I'd love to find a few courageous Skeptic Friends willing to humor me. I know it's logically impossible to prove a negative. Really, my challenge is to learn enough about the topic to determine whether my thesis seems plausible and/or likely. This is not easy. Some of the evidence is rather conclusive, once one knows enough about the topic. Few people seem to have sufficient interest and topical knowledge to even approach the problem. I am aware of confirmation bias, so I'm looking for other people to objectively assess my work. It's weird, which is why I bring it here looking for a good debunk. I have a huge quantity of additional information, available upon request, and will try to answer any question asked.
Thank you for your time and attention, skeptic friends. The gauntlet has been thrown down.
Regards.
EnergyScholar
P.s. If you decide to play along, the first thing you should look up is Quantum Teleportation. Seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
It's impossible to have a productive discussion about my thesis until one has a firm grounding in this technical topic. For example, did you know that banks (in Switzerland and Luxembourg) already use this technology to protect high value financial transactions?
|
"It is Easier to get Forgiveness than Permission" - Rear Admiral Grace Hopper |
| Edited by - energyscholar on 11/19/2012 01:35:27 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2012 : 20:27:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by energyscholar
If Kauffman's ideas are correct it will bring about a scientific revolution (per Thomas Kuhn) in Biology. This seems to already be in progress, although it's hard to tell until we're firmly on the other side. Kauffman's work remains controversial. |
The above seems wildly hyperbolic. Kauffman doesn't seem to be regarded among biologists as a highly controversial revolutionary. Much of his work on self-replicating molecules is so uncontroversial as to be the subject of widely used textbooks. Dressing the guy up as some sort of underdog maverick seems a completely inappropriate caricature that would reduce people's appreciation of the importance that his work has already had on evolutionary biology.| It's impossible to have a rational discussion about my thesis until one has a firm grounding in this technical topic. |
 It'd also be impossible to have a rational discussion about your thesis if you suggest that nobody here is sufficiently studied to do so. Why not just start a new thread, and see what happens? If you're willing to make a fool of yourself, then you've got nothing to lose. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2012 : 08:23:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
It'd also be impossible to have a rational discussion about your thesis if you suggest that nobody here is sufficiently studied to do so. Why not just start a new thread, and see what happens? If you're willing to make a fool of yourself, then you've got nothing to lose.
|
So you ended with "Thank you for your time and attention, skeptic friends. The gauntlet has been thrown down" what does that mean???? It remains to be seen if your are ever going post here again. Instead of hijacking this thread, you should open a new one as Dave suggested, to discuss what you want. You have no idea how many times a new person shows up here out of nowhere and does what you did only to disappear to whence they came but we do. Any sincere poster who wishes to have a sincere discussion who has any ability to support their beliefs would follow Dave's suggestion and have at it. Let's face it, there is no need for anyone here to get all worked up or waste much time at all if your incapable or unable to hold a conversation. Good luck to you. IMO |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2012 : 10:05:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by energyscholar
I know it's logically impossible to prove a negative. |
You know wrong.
| I am aware of confirmation bias, so I'm looking for other people to objectively assess my work. |
Your writing is just as confusing as minass', so that might prove difficult. Are you the same person, btw?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2012 : 10:52:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Your writing is just as confusing as minass', so that might prove difficult. Are you the same person, btw?
|
 |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2012 : 12:28:07 [Permalink]
|
| Unfortunately, the cross-disciplinary nature of the scientific aspects makes it difficult to learn or teach. Knowledge and understanding of the above named four scientific disciplines helps a lot. |
Fortunately I have a pretty good understanding of Solid State Physics and Information Systems, and there are a few here with a good understanding of Complex System Biology and Neuroscience. I'd say that's a good start, eh?| I already knew two and a half of them when I first began to suspect what was going on. Eidetic memory and mathematical ability both help a lot, if you happen to have them. |
These gifts would help in any intellectual endeavor, wouldn't they? Why would you include this? Bragging? Attempting to pique somebody's interest?| A thorough knowledge of the History of Science and Technology is also a big plus. |
I also have a pretty good understanding of that.| After nine years of study I am still no expert. |
Then it must not be all you've studied during those 9 years. Why is the amount of time you've spent on this important?| That would require insider status, which I lack, and is also why I'm free to discuss it. Earlier in 2012 I was offered, and politely declined, insider status, because I was not willing to sign an NDA. I am now confident enough about it that I'm ready to make a fool of myself by publicly discussing it. |
Care to explain what you're talking about now? I recommend you start a new thread in the Conspiracy Theories folder.| I'd love to find a few courageous Skeptic Friends willing to humor me. |
You'll find many of us. Go nuts.| I know it's logically impossible to prove a negative. Really, my challenge is to learn enough about the topic to determine whether my thesis seems plausible and/or likely. |
So far, it seems plausible but unlikely. Care to expound?| This is not easy. Some of the evidence is rather conclusive, once one knows enough about the topic. Few people seem to have sufficient interest and topical knowledge to even approach the problem. |
Uh oh. It sounds like yo're setting up for the "your conclusion is wrong because you don't understand the subject matter as well as I do" defense.| I am aware of confirmation bias, so I'm looking for other people to objectively assess my work. It's weird, which is why I bring it here looking for a good debunk. I have a huge quantity of additional information, available upon request, and will try to answer any question asked. |
Please, defend your thesis.| Thank you for your time and attention, skeptic friends. The gauntlet has been thrown down. |
You're welcome.P.s. If you decide to play along, the first thing you should look up is Quantum Teleportation. Seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
It's impossible to have a productive discussion about my thesis until one has a firm grounding in this technical topic. |
I have a pretty good understanding of quantum mechanics, shall we continue?
Originally posted by Dave W.
It'd also be impossible to have a rational discussion about your thesis if you suggest that nobody here is sufficiently studied to do so. Why not just start a new thread, and see what happens? If you're willing to make a fool of yourself, then you've got nothing to lose. |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2012 : 19:12:25 [Permalink]
|
I thought you folks were discussing this movie . . .
 . . . and I was about to join in. But now I realize you weren't. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2012 : 12:55:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by energyscholar
It is a sensitive topic that threatens certain sacred cows. Several major world religions may take offense, as one notably took offense at Galileo. It is best if this knowledge diffuses gradually, starting with scientific skeptics and atheists. A challenging and subtle ethical predicament was involved, and remains relevant today. |
Religion can survive any threat from evidence because they're faith based, and they already take offense at the rise of us atheists criticizing their dogma and outmoded institutions.
Originally posted by energyscholar
I am now confident enough about it that I'm ready to make a fool of myself by publicly discussing it. |
What Dave said. Let the vetting begin! |
|
|
|
energyscholar
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2012 : 14:49:00 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for all the excellent and critical responses. I shall follow Dave's advice and start a new thread. As a noob here I was hesitant to start a new thread, but I now see that is the best approach. I didn't know people had a habit of doing 'drive by posts' here.
Yes, I am interested in a real discussion, and will GLADLY put in the time and effort to keep it going. It's GREAT to see people come out of the woodwork with constructive commentary. The more people can blast my ideas and writing, the better! It's also GREAT to see people mention they have skill and knowledge in the various topics I mentioned. I really AM looking for a good debunk.
My main worry was that I'd get either little or no response, or a bunch of dorky and ignorant responses. Glad to see I was wrong on both counts. I am still unfamiliar with this community. Sorry to 'hijack' the thread, that WAS rude. My intent was to feel out the community.
I'll start a new thread very soon. I think I'll put it in 'Conspiracy Theory', as I appreciate the humor of denigrating my topic with that 'loaded' label. I do also have a blog, but there's not much there yet. I'll post links to assorted scientific papers, et cetera. It will be a huge relief to share what information I have with other scientific skeptics.
Please be warned that what I have is very much a work in progress. Word choice will sometimes suck. Since I'm quite willing to be thought a fool, I have nothing to lose. Please bear with the rough edges. I hope your combined intellect and contributions will serve as an ideal fiery crucible. If, at the end, all that's left is a puddle of melted ingots, that will be nice to know, too.
Thanks for your time and attention, Skeptic Friends. |
"It is Easier to get Forgiveness than Permission" - Rear Admiral Grace Hopper |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
origin of life
