John Cuthber

Disprove "The universe creates energy by creating life." OK Energy was here first.and thus it can not have been created by life. QED.

TL;DR Can you provide a summary?

Just plain wrong. It may be in some cases- like bacteria But it isn't in all cases- like any multi cellular organism- for example- us. So, just as soon as you show the earth's offspring growing up into copies of the earth (Incidentally that producing the earth again which is why it's called re-producing) you will have shown that the earth can reproduce. Until then there's no way it can be sensibly considered to be alive.

Go and see a doctor.

Simple yes or no question: Is this video evidence of space ship racing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_krCKECpzrU

I think that triangular state only exists at very high energies which would destroy life instantly.

If the link says that then the link is wrong. You seem to not realise there's a difference between cell reproduction within an organism and reproduction of the organism as a whole. You also seem not to realise that having a liver cell that suddenly starts reproducing isn't usually a good idea- they call it cancer.

"Why does offspring have to "resemble" the parent," They don't Plenty of animals and plants have young that don't seem much like their parents. But the important thing is that they grow up to be like their parents. And that's why life can't be the offspring of the earth. We won't grow up to become planets. "We are like the seeds of earth who will one day travel to the stars and and carry earths/our/lifes dna to other worlds that we will terra form, " And we still won't grow up to be planets. And nor will anything else. That's because planets are not alive. Why are you even trying to pretend that they are?

I suspect that the reason why people use drop tubes is their simplicity. An empty tube is a very easy concept to grasp and a fairly easy one to engineer. Your increasingly complex design reminds me of this cartoon http://pages.uoregon.edu/ftepfer/SchlFacilities/TireSwingTable.html

Has anyone checked that the original assertion of this thread is true, i.e. that there are more physics cranks than other sorts? I ask because the notional biology question "Earth is a living organism" is currently up to 6 pages which ought to be a record given that the clear answer is two letters long. My unevinced hunch is that the theology cranks are the commonest and engage in "equal opportunity" crankery because they can be spectacularly wrong in a large number of fields- notably astronomy and biology but also almost any bit of science.

If there was no friction between the back wheel and the ground the bike wouldn't move. However for the front wheel the friction force is the only thing making it turn so the force must act the other way.

And again Why would science want to join religion? (And I remind you that the forum's rules require that you answer that)

You seem to be trying to ignore the fact that living things have offspring and the earth doesn't so it's not alive. Why is that?

One wheel pushes the bike. The bike pushes the other wheel.

So, it's not reproduction. So the earth is not alive. To be alive the earth has to make little earths that grow up to be adults. It doesn't.

The important thing about a baby is that it grows up to be an adult. Just as soon as you can show one of those baby earths growing up into a big earth and having babies of its own, you will have shown that you are right. Until then, everyone will know that you are wrong.

Let us know when you can actually answer the question. Why would science want to join religion? Just asserting that they " have their data but it's experiential not experimental and worse, can't be" doesn't help- because it's simply lying about the meaning of evidence. It "can't be"- because it's not really evidence (BTW peace on Earth has nothing to do with the issue- why did you raise it? )

Lance, there's only one pertinent question Does the Earth reproduce? Well, if it does then that's easy- show me the baby Earths. Without that the last 3 pages don't matter. If you can't do that then it's also very simple. If the Earth does not reproduce, then it is not alive, Your decision to "redefine" a few words in the mean time doesn't affect that.

While some scientists may gain something from religion, there's nothing that religion has to offer to science. Vague notions and old books just don't help science. Why would science want to join religion? Since science doesn't seem to have anything to gain from this "unification" it will only happen if religion decides to move to join science. What would it gain, and what would it lose by doing so? Well, it would lose all it's authority and power. Is there any great surprise to the fact that religion isn't rushing to join up with science?

For a start, it's NaCl. Anyway, adding salt to ice causes the ice to melt; it doesn't prevent it.

The question was already asked, but you don't seem to have answered it. Do you think a wart is an example of human reproduction? Does a mountain grow up to become a planet that can have mountains of its own (in the way that happens with the offspring all other sorts of life)? Surely you must see that a mountain is nothing to do with reproduction. The way to report a mod note is to go to the mod note and click the bit underneath it where it says "report". If you think that this forum's rules are a breach of free speech then (1) you shouldn't have signed up to them and (2) feel free to start a new thread to discuss that issue. Please don't discuss it here because it has nothing to do with the topic.

If the patient died it rather suggests that they didn't mount an adequate immune response so their blood probably isn't the best place to start. On the other hand, people who survived ebola may well have valuable antibodies (etc) in their blood.

Why?

The whole Ormes story is bull shit. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/ORMUS