mooeypoo

If it's so mainstream, you will have no problems finding papers asserting that the solar system exists by chance. And persists by chance. Link to them, please, or write the sources so I can find them. That's not quite how astronomers and astrophysicists explain the formation of the solar system or its behavior. "Chance" is not a word they use. But I am open to change my mind with the right sources. Provide your evidence that this is what modern science says, and we can continue. Otherwise, it seems you again strawman the actual theory.

Yes, I know. That's why I phrased my claim as I did: The opposition that was made was against a particular claim that evolution isn't making, and then making it poorly. The connection in the first post, though, the first sentence that I have quoted, is written as a disagreement with the current understanding -- and yet, that's not what current understanding SAYS. To be fair myself, we can't really say it is true or not. Abiogenesis (which is NOT evolution, as you know, and has little to no connection with evolution) has a few common explanations. None of them is completely supported. This is part of the logical fallacy extravaganza I was trying to make a point out of. That's why I said the problem isn't necessarily what the CLAIM is about, it's more about the method and what was done with it. From *your* first post: YOU make this claim, no one else is. This is not what "science" would have us believe. It's not even close. You claim mainstream science is being ridiculous by claiming X, when mainstream science claims no such thing. Enough with the quibbling and the goal post changes. ~mooey

The problem is that you're making claims about the theory that the theory is not making. The reason people agree with this particular claim is not because you convinced people, it's because that was never a point of contention at all. You're not making any new claims with this particular statement, and yet you keep making it seem like you're arguing against the mainstream perception of the theory. It's not about taking sides, it's about reminding you (again) that there are rules you are obligated to follow. This is the claim you are making RIGHT OFF THE BAT in post #1: Great. Only, no one claims that's how life evolved. You make this claim in the context of the theory of "variance and existence of life on Earth" -- which is currently being explained by Evolution. And yet, evolution does NOT claim that life exists as a result of chance. You make it sound like the theory claim it, and then you argue against that claim. It's called "Strawman", and you seem to repeat this a lot. You set forth what you THINK scientists claim about evolution but it's not what scientists actually claim about evolution. You did the same thing to support your idea of an "explosion" with regards to the big bang, which isn't an explosion. The problem here is not so much your claim, it's that you seem to make a case against mainstream science by arguing against something that isn't at all scientific claim. Beyond that, you're moving the goal post (changing your 'goal' assertions), you don't seem to give actual evidence (analogies, even if they don't fail, are not evidence), and you continue strawmanning (misrepresenting) people's claims so you can argue against them. That's why moderators tell you to lay off the attitude. It's also part of the rules, so I suggest you go over them. In a previous post I gave you a few links to take a look at. I think you should go over some of them so you can see what it is you seem to be misrepresenting when you talk about how science explains life on Earth. Here they are again: Have a try in reading them, I think it will shed some light as to why people are so frustrated arguing about this. It's not what you think. ~mooey

Emphasis mine. Quote is yours, and it is a summary of many other quotes you are making on the same topic. Everyone agrees that evolution does not happen "by chance", you seem to still argue against everyone that it didn't happen by chance, even though we all agree with you that it did not happen by chance. No evolutionary biologist will tell you that evolution is "by chance". You're the one who claims people claim it, when they don't. You are misrepresenting the actual scientific theory. ~mooey

You're either not reading or you insist on being the hero despite what people write to you, but everyone on this thread agree with you that evolution is not due to chance. It's due to an accumulation of small adaptations through time. You decided to misinterpret evolution, and then you use your misinterpretation to claim the theory is wrong. But the theory isn't wrong.. your misinterpretation of the evolution is wrong. We all agree on that. The reason people tell you that poker is a bad analogy is because you're talking about chance, and (a) poker isn't just about chance, it's also about talent, and (b) evolution isn't about chance. You insist on making your point despite what people reply to you. You haven't defended the theory because you're not listening to what people answer. This isn't a blog, it's a discussion forum, you seem to insist on lecturing to show you much you "win" the argument, rather than discussing the points. I think you should go over this article, here: http://www.newscient...r&nsref=dn13620 Or this one, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&page=1 And of course this very good resource site: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html Perhaps then we can conduct the debate starting from the same point, and talking the same language. So far, that's not what's going on at all. ~mooey

It's mooeypoo, have some respect. You're not just using the term wrong, you're using the concept wrong. You say an explosion doesn't create order, but the Big Bang is not an explosion. That makes your entire assertion irrelevant. Now, it's one thing arguing about facts and evidence, it's quite another insulting anyone who answers you. If you keep this up, this thread will not live much longer. Have some respect to the people who spend their time participating in this debate with you. That, if it's not clear, is not a request; you chose to come to this forum, you agreed to its rule, and you better start following them. Not to mention that this condescending rude attitude doesn't help convincing anyone in the validity of your points. ~mooey

Just a note here, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what "The Big Bang" actually is, as opposed to what it may sound like. The Big Bang is NOT an explosion, it is, with lack of better term, a rapid expansion. It isn't even remotely similar to explosion, not in the least because of the simple fact that it did not explode "into" anything. Please stop calling it an explosion. http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/

! Moderator Note Please remember our rules and be civil in the discussions. This personal attack and insulting attitude is unacceptable. The "speculation" forum is not some punishment limbo, it's the place we use for discussions about non-mainstream science. Your thread is non mainstream. Whether you can substantiate your claims or not is a different issue - this is YOUR job here in the thread, to bring forth the evidence and support your assertion. But until mainstream science accepts this idea, it shall remain outside the mainstream science threads. Please do not derail this thread by arguing about moderation decisions. We welcome you on this forum and wish you enjoy it, but you should read our rules and follow them.

But the information is about the matter, isn't it? Most teleportation 'tech' I've read in sci-fi so far seems to describe the process as "reading the atomic structure", transmitting it, and rebuilding it. If that's the case, then the information is about matter, and should involve quantum mechanics, no? Lawrence Krauss has a good video about transporters in "physics of star trek" lecture: The problem seems to be the engineering -- the process of reading, storing, transmitting -- rather than "strictly" the quantum mechanics itself. This type of information is just insanely huge.

! Moderator Note This thread is in the mainstream science forum. Farsight, you know this already, keep alternative speculations OUTSIDE of the mainstream science threads. Open a thread in the Speculation forum and discuss as you please. Stop hijacking threads and stay on topic, and on mainstream science.

Maybe, but the premise he seems to be making is that there's a way to cooperate/communicate/interact with this "consciousness" or "brain waves", and that this interaction can be done through a fairly large distance (like between two people or more). It's not that consciousness itself is unproven (though, philosophically speaking, it is an interesting question) -- it's that the interaction between "consciousnesses" is completely unproven. Not just that, but there doesn't seem to be any *means* by which to test it or predict it. That's the problem. Alright. That's your hypothesis, which is great, but you're missing a few steps before we can accept your hypothesis as true. First, you should try and describe what these waves are and how they interact with natural objects or other such waves. By describing this you then need to find a way to detect them. Propose an experiment by which we can test not only the existence of these waves, but also the way they affect their surroundings, like you propose. We can then test it, and see if your hypothesis is right. That's science Reason and observation are good for the hypothesis step, but for you to actually prove that it's a correct (or at least supported) hypothesis, reason and logic are insufficient. You need to show the interaction, you need to explain what those waves are physically, how they interact, and how we can detect them. Then, you can have an experiment. So, to be clear, I'm not saying you're *wrong*. I'm saying that we don't have enough information to conclude that you're right. I personally have a few doubts about this hypothesis because of previous experimentation and because the phenomena you describe is mostly unproven to exist (ESP, etc, was repeatedly shown to not exist under scrutiny) --- but I'm completely willing to check and see if your hypothesis has any merit. We just need to devise the background for it and then an experiment. In science, we need to keep an open mind. But we also need to make sure our mind isn't open to a level where our brains fall out. Devise an experiment, test it, prove your hypothesis. That's how science is done.

Just to clarify, do you want to test whether adding solubles to the water affects the temperature, or whether temperature of the water affects the solubility of substances that are added? (see the difference?) First thing to do when you devise an experiment like that is choose your aim (which you did, just clarify it for me), then try to think about your hypothesis and prediction -- do you THINK the temperature will affect anything? Why yes or why not? Next, we'll try to see how we can devise a good way of testing things -- can you tell me what level you're in? Are we talking about highschool, middle-school, college-level experiment? It will just help us guide you. Can you clarify your aim? In your text intro you wrote something a tad different than the actual aim, so I want to make sure I understand what you want to achieve before we start devising the experiment itself.

Try. We are a science forum, and this is a mainstream science forum thread. We don't expect people to be robots, but we expect them to argue decently, with civility, and use evidence to support their claims. We expect people to at least attempt being rational rather than emotional when discussing scientific topics. We also expect our members to not bring up other threads into unrelated threads, that's called "Thread Hijacking", and is especially frowned upon when the hijacking is a political one. Leave politics to the political forum. ! Moderator Note This is a mainstream thread, where science is to be discussed and not politics. That goes for everyone, please. Get back on the topic of the science behind that question.

! Moderator Note Personal attacks of any kind are unacceptable, Hal. You know this. Personal attacks that come as an off-topic attempt to hijack a thread is even less acceptable. I recommend you refresh yourself on our rules, in case you forgot them, and start following them. Don't make things worse by arguing about moderation notes. You're supposed to know better.

"Brain waves" are detectable (although this is a bit tricky, since they're only detectable up-close and personal, very very close range, which is why this is attached to your skull). The term "EEG" ("Electroencephalography") is relevant here. It's a device that records electrical activity in the brain. It does NOT recognize different "types" of activities (emotions/memories/feelings), but just electrical activity. As you can see from the picture in the wiki entry, the device must be attached to the skull, and only works in close range. Also, since it can't recognize the different "types" of brain activity like thoughts or emotions, we attach multiple sensors so we know where the activity is when we test EEG. We use it medically. These toys use it to do cool stuff. It has to be very close to your head, and it goes by electrical conductivity which we can explain, detect, experiment on, and predict. Taking this aspect and concluding that there are "brain particles" is a stretch, at best. Taking this device and concluding these "brain particles" can be used to communicate or detected by other people is a huge leap seeing as the EEG (and these toys!) only work close-range. You are concluding without having evidence. We are a science forum, which is why you're being asked to produce these evidence. It's a really nice idea, but there's zero corroboration for it, unless you want to pitch in here and produce a reliable method of detecting and using these "brain particles" the way you suggest they can be used. I'm sure you realize that this is far from being evidence of anything. You can find a lot of conspiracy theories about the invisible people controlling our government, the alien abductions that sexually molest farm animals, and cockroaches ruling our planet. Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories; this here is a science forum, and whether the information is "hidden" from the public or not, these brain particles should be detectable at some levels, even theoretically. I recommend you suggest a means in which we test it, and we can go from there. ~mooey

You're not being misunderstood, you're being asked to supply evidence for this. The difference in your analogy is that the sun's energy is detectable by instrumentation, measurable, and we can perform observations and experimentation and predict the levels of radiation / energy output through various scenarios. Your proposed "thought particles" are none of the above. So the analogy falls flat on that, and you are being asked to produce some sort of evidence or even proposed evidence that any sort of "particles" or "energy" exists at all. ~mooey

What are "thought particles", how do they interact with anything, and how did you detect them? You speak of them as if they're proven, and they're not. You need to supply evidence for the existence of these "thought particles".

! Moderator Note Title of this discussion was changed to avoid confusion and due to OP's request.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please feel free to go over this thread and follow it. Mainly, you seem to be in dire need to supply some evidence to your theory.

! Moderator Note Greg Boyles, please remain on topic in this discussion. If you want to discuss your own topic, start a new thread. I further advise you read our rules. People pointed out your use of some logical fallacies; you should address these remarks rather than dismiss them. The repeated use of logical fallacies to make your point is also against the rules.