ydoaPs

Put up or shut up. I'll grab a bingo card while you browse photobucket.

Put up or shut up. And show maths.

Imagine I had a time machine and I brought into our time an ancestor of ours from a million years ago with whom we can successfully breed. We are H Sapiens. This ancestor would then, by your definition, would be H Sapiens. Thus, according to you, they have all the same rights as us because they are of the same species. Now, I use my time machine to bring to our time a descendant of mine with whom it is possible for me to successfully breed. Since I am a H Sapiens, this future descendant with whom I can successfully breed is a H Sapiens. This means, according to you, we treat them how we treat all H Sapiens. Now, my ancestor and my descendant, whom I brought here in my time machine, cannot successfully interbreed. Thus they are not the same species and one or both of them MUST NOT be H Sapiens. Which one is H Sapiens? Who gets the rights and who is a mere beast? I maintain that species membership is not morally relevant. And what criteria are these? There is a qualitative difference between an average H Sapiens and a mentally retarded H Sapiens; does the mentally retarded H Sapiens qualify for person status? So, you effectively want an "all or nothing" qualification for personhood? Now, which human is the standard for this comparison? Who must one at least match mentally to be counted? NO! And here is where you either don't understand or are strawmanning. Species membership not being relevant!=all creatures being on equal footing morally. There is a gradient of morally relevant properties and thus a gradient of personhood. Thus there is a gradient of how much ethical consideration one gets. Ethical consideration is based on morally relevant properties of the individual. Species membership is not a morally relevant property. Basing ethical consideration of an individual on species alone(as I said before, species membership can, in some cases, be used as a thumb rule) is nepotism. If your ethical decision affects a large population of a single species rather than an individual(or small group) it is permissible to use species membership as a thumbrule basing the ethical consideration of the population on the morally relevant properties of the average healthy member of the species in question. This is NOT the same as saying species membership is a morally relevant property of an individual. NO! If you don't understand, ask specific questions. If you do, then stop strawmanning. It not having a brain? It not having morally relevant properties? We should NOT ditch science. Most good philosophy is rooted in science. What good is philosophy if it isn't based on reality?

"Only a dollar???!! That's a 20 minute phone call with 10-10-2-20!"

We've seen it and posted about it.

What do you think I've been offering to do? I can't falsify all ZPE(or perpetual motion) claims with one experiment, but I can falsify one at a time. YOU said you had(and were willing to give if asked) plans for a perpetual motion device I could build with a $50 trip to Radio Shack. I asked for the plans and now you refuse to give them? Exactly. Which is why I want to experimentally verify the design you claim works. I'm not asking the media for your plans. I'm asking YOU. Must I quote you? I must have seriously misconstrued that. Documented experimentation? Are the ones you built still running? Are you still hooked to the power grid? What do you think I've been offering to do? Actually, electric repulsion causes friction. How did the device overcome friction? What about the fact that permanent magnets eventually demagnetize?

Play by the rules! You have to post a link to your card and a description of how you won.

Experimental verification of a revolutionary technology is the wrong approach? What is the right approach? You were just telling me to investigate it myself. You even said you would provide a detailed diagram of a working device. If you're not interested, they why make the thread? Why are you still posting in it? Smart questions? What do you define as smart questions? Is "How did the device overcome friction?" a smart question? If so, what is the answer?

You said you'd provide the diagrams. I need to use yours so you can't claim I picked a fake one to build.

Vishal, can I get those diagrams too?

Vishal, I will send you $1000USD via paypal for a working perpetual motion(and/or ZPE) device.

If ZPE(and/or perpetual motion) technology was feasible, SOMEONE would be making loads of money off it.

That's not the whole equation. E2=(mc2)2+(pc)2 where E is energy, m is rest mass, p is momentum, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. E=mc2 assumes whatever system you are analyzing is at rest with respect to you.

It's about time for some SFN Crackpot Bingo. You can get a card here and an explanation of terms here.

Oh snap, was one of those three properties charge?

Magnetic rings make you immortal.

What about charged BHs?

Did you actually read the agreement when you signed up? Did it guarantee you freedom of speech? Just asking.

Can you imagine what the CDesign Proponentsists would do if we gave Evolution it's own forum?!?! For gods' sake, man, think of the children!

Why would he do that? You don't even defend your own crackpottery anymore. Got any maths yet?

Pseudoscience goes in the pseudoscience forums(not in mainstream science threads). Don't hijack threads about real science with your pseudoscience. There's a whole forum for your pseudoscience; when you post maths and evidence, you can get it moved out. How hard is that to understand?

“Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.” – Robert Park

Is it any better than the usual Christian rubbish that comes out after a new book with which they do not agree is printed?

PM Cap'n Reffsmat. He's usually on irc at night(well, night here).

What about invisible creator unicorns?