mooeypoo

Think of this question: "If it's so easy to throw a ball straight into the hoop, how come basketball games don't just end within 2 minutes?" The above question is flawed in the following ways: It assumes it is easy to throw a ball straight into the hoop. It might not be that easy. It assumes that the act of throwing a ball into the hoop is enough to end a game. There's a lot more to a game. The same is true of the original question. The original question is, in itself, flawed, because It assumes the formation of life is easy. It might not have been that easy, which would explain why (perhaps) it didn't happen again. It assumes that the formation of life is enough for that life to take over enough "space" for it to be noticeable. Life might have actually formed independently again (as some people on the thread pointed out) but either was overtaken by the life that is already way more evolved, or died off at some point. In short, the question ITSELF assumes conclusions that aren't necessarily true. And other posters in that thread showed a few examples of the two misconceptions and how they might not be true. Which only shows how - in science - it's so important not only to ask questions, but to be weary on how to phrase the questions, so that the question itself doesn't imply a conclusion before one can even be tested. ~moo

No.... those are only the theories *you* find popular. There were quie a few other explanations given. The least of which is that many of us actually *don't* find these people in that picture a symbol of "attractiveness" nor do any of us find the parents a symbol of "ugliness". To be perfectly honest, they all look quite average to me - parents and kids alike. Myabe. But so do their parents. I see no significant difference. And I'm not the only one. Also, read what Phi and I wrote about the psychology of 'attractiveness' and the points about relatively small improvements in the visible parts (for instnace, a slightly smaller nose) making a HUGE difference visually. Also, you might want to check up a bit on the concept of 'recessive' genes. People don't get traits *JUST* from their parents. ~moo

The problem isn't about getting outside the borders - that's how revolutions happen, and they *do* happen - the problem is to make sure the 'new ideas' and 'mental exercises' fit reality, follow the scientific method and accurately predict behavior in our universe. Otherwise, they're kept in the realm of imagination rather than science.

God is said to be the 'first creator' or 'initiator', whichever. Do you not notice, though, that you're putting this god under a different set of rules than *everything else* ? How's that not special pleading?

Yes, I agree, my point is consistency. If one needs a cause,the other needs one too and vise versa, otherwise it's special pleading (coming back to the topic of the thread).

No. Opening a closed thread is against the rules. It's time you read them.

Might be fair enough, but that's misrepresenting the usual argument. I do agree that god doesn't necessarily need a common cause *just like the big bang doesn't*. In which case, I see more scientific and rational value to prefer to theory of the big bang - which ahs more proof to it and predictions and helps us actually UNDERSTAND the world around us - to the concept of a god. Again, tho, that's a bit of a misrepresentation of the usual argument. When this 'primary cause' argument usually comes up, it USUALLY comes up as special pleading. As for your test, I usually do try to ask people if other theories do require a cause (unlike god), and if they answer positive, then I definitely point out that it's special pleading.

Though I might tend to agree with you intuitively, my point is that you can't make that statement 100%. You don't know that numbers always existed. But that's besides the point; special pleading is about removing a specific 'subject' from a set of rules that is valid to ALL. The claim that 'god always existed' is only special pleading when the claimant makes that claim *while* claiming everything else *must* have a cause. The claim that god is different and that it's the ONLY thing that can't have a cause is special pleading. If a person makes a claim that NOTHING should have a cause then adding god into it is not special pleading, but the reality is that religious folk who make this claim *do* set God out of the equation, more often than not. Much more often than not. ~moo

Wrong type of question since numbers aren't particularly a phenomenon, they're a definition. People 'caused' numbers by inventing the definition of the concept of numbers. Why does that concept exist? Because of the properties of the universe. And I will say again (because I do believe we've had this as a very short back-and-forth in the other thread, which I suspect was the cause of starting this one) that the fact we may not *know* a first cause of something doesn't mean it has none, nor does it mean that we are CLAIMING that it *can't* have any. In the usual question of the special-pleading related to God, it's not like it's equated to the Big Bang (in which case I have no problem with it) but that while the person evoking God claims that the Big Bang *MUST* have a cause, God does not have to have one -- which is absolutely special pleading. The Big Bang's "cause" is unknown (for now?) but it's not defined that there is no cause. We just don't know it.

I have to point out that it's worth noting "Attractive" is somewhat subjective. First off, it can be totally different in different societies - what's considered attractive in eastern Europe is not necessarily what is attractive in the United States, or Africa, or Japan or China. Second, "Attractive" is not just how you look, it's how you present yourself. Have you never seen "Ugly Betty"? seriously, though, it's very likely that those "ugly parents" produced offspring that had marginal difference in facial features that slightly improved the looks (since children don't look *the same* as their parents, ever, they just look similar) and the children carry themselves better and look more attractive. ~moo p.s: I actually started writing this post, ran off to a short meeting, and came back. Phi - brilliant minds, eh?

CrazCo, As with any question in math, try to break it down to smaller chunks, so it gets less scary and easier to handle. Start piece by piece. Point of discontinuity means that at some point the function is undefined. Is there such a point? When x=4, you simply have a zero inside the absolute value, and your function remains f(4)=16. That's not a discontinuity. Is there any other point of discontinuity? For vertical tangent you need to calculate the tangent first, then equate it to zero -- it is the same as finding maxima and minima... do you know how to calculate a tangent line? I don't know if it's a language barrier, but I have no idea what Cusp or Corner mean in the context of algebra, so I can't help you there. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBTW, if a "corner" means a point where the function "Breaks" sharply (hence, not continuous) you should be able to do that with tangents as well. Which means your next step is to calculate the general tangent line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml What's not known, truedeity? ... WHAT? We know quite well how sunspots are formed and what causes them. The wordsalad you posted above is just a mishmash of random words semi-related to solar activity. What's unknown and what do you want to fix?

Stop with the attitude, please. Discuss science, not mutual insults.

You might want to check it out, it's a great question to research. Seriously, I'm not trying to be a pain - it's a great example.

pywakit KNOCK IT OFF!!! Good lawrd, my friend, enough. Okay, you had your say, and we're not giong to beg you to believe us that we don't mean anything bad. You asked why I say we are walking on eggs -- it's becuse you nitpick our answers, DECIDE that we're against you, and choose to get all offended. I am not going to have a discussion with you if you choose to pluck my emotional string every time you disagree with me or vise versa. Knock it off. ENOUGH with the melodrama. ENOUGH. We don't mean to order you around, we actually mean to LISTEN to your theory and see if it is valid, but to be fair here, this is a science forum, in which we are staff. We actually *can* "order around". When a debate goes awry, it's our job to bring it back on the right track or CLOSE IT. Enough with the personal stuff, enough. It's time to debate your theory or move on. ~moo

That's because you took some convincing to answer that one properly too. timo asked you a question. Are you going to answer it? It's a fundamental question, and it seems would allow all sides to finally get to see where the problem lies. You challenged timo's equation because of units. He asked you, then, to tell him what units he should be using. Your reply was that his question shows he doesn't know -- and you have, by that, evaded the answer. I am simply reminding you that you've evaded it. Regardless of your link, timo's question stands. He asked of the units, you should answer.

You are avoiding the question you were asked, and it seems that verifies timo's estimation that you do that to hide the fact you don't know the answer yourself. You're the one making the claim, it's up to you to explain it. You were asked this question about units (and your approach as to an absolute frame) quite a number of times. Your inability to answer it is not a reflection on timo's lack of knowledge, it's a reflection on yours. Will you ever answer these questions? This diversion tactics, purposeful or not, is getting quite tedious. ~moo

pywakit, if you can't handle people talking to you, then seriously, take a breather, take a breath, and come back when you're calmer. The fact your theory is not mainstream - a fact you conceded to - doesn't mean people offend you. I'm getting a bit weary from your insistence to take everything so personally. I feel like there's a need to walk on eggs when a point is presented to you, and that's never good in debates. Chill. No one has their lifetime mission to beat you down or offend you, and swasont's note was *explanatory* not rude. He came here to post a note because I asked him to. He is a physics expert, and I wanted someone who participated in the debate to tell you why the theory is not mainstream, seeing as I *didn't* participate in the debate and could only give you general explanation. Stop having us walk on eggshells when we debate you. Always assume people mean GOOD before you are offended, that's a good rule for life in general, not just a science forums. ~moo

Well, the first thing I'll do with it is move the thread to Speculation which, for you, is one step closer to the trash can. You teach wonderfully, mastah.

You took some drugs as you were watching it orbit, didn't you? Of course it's what I'm saying. Because unlike you, I actually speak clearly, know what I'm talking about, am sane, and am not on drugs. You're totally high on the pipe, aren't you? I can hear it.

Astrology was at the time where "scientists" back in the day treated disease with drilling holes in a person's brain and, essentially, killing him. Good thing we got rid of *THAT* bad science, ain't it? If you ask an actual question, sure. In the sense that it orbits it, yes. Your point?

Off your meds, eh? So.. let's assume, for a second, that I'm blind and can't see your photos. How 'bout you try explaining in words (OMG BUT YOU CANT SEE WORDS AAAAAAA) -- try.. try.. -- what the hell it is your statements are saying? 'cause as it goes at the moment, you stopped being amusing, which is probably the only reason that kept you around here.. give us a reason to keep you?

If you're so enlightened, you'd be able to speak basic English and convey what the hell it is you're trying to say. As it is now, you're not even being a successful troll.

a post from a /b/ troll?

I'd also like to point out that you can measure the speed of an electromagnetic wave (and hence, of light) at home, quite simply, without trusting the collective judgments of remote laboratories. Shameless plug, sure, but in good context. Try it out, it's fun.