On 4-3-2009 17:13, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>   "Life on Earth came from other planets", after surviving a supernova
>>>> explosion and hundreds of millions of years of intestellar space 
>>>> travel?
>>>>
>>>>   Uh, yeah.
>>
>>> That's why the game is called "spore". :-)
>>
>>> Isn't this the sort of thing we tease Andrew about, tho? When he 
>>> conflates "That's really amazing and I can't imagine how I could do 
>>> that" with "it must therefore be impossible"?
>>
>>   Some kind of proof or even evidence would be nice.
>>
> 
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByUod2VmBQY&eurl=http://brainmind.com/OriginsofLife.html

> 
> 
> good enough?

Nope. The guy does not know his basic facts and merely uses a strawman 
approach to show off his 'superior intelligence'.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 4-3-2009 17:13, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>>   "Life on Earth came from other planets", after surviving a supernova
>>>>> explosion and hundreds of millions of years of intestellar space 
>>>>> travel?
>>>>>
>>>>>   Uh, yeah.
>>>
>>>> That's why the game is called "spore". :-)
>>>
>>>> Isn't this the sort of thing we tease Andrew about, tho? When he 
>>>> conflates "That's really amazing and I can't imagine how I could do 
>>>> that" with "it must therefore be impossible"?
>>>
>>>   Some kind of proof or even evidence would be nice.
>>>
>>
>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByUod2VmBQY&eurl=http://brainmind.com/OriginsofLife.html

>>
>>
>> good enough?
> 
> Nope. The guy does not know his basic facts and merely uses a strawman 
> approach to show off his 'superior intelligence'.

Then: http://brainmind.com/Mars.html

You're just criticizing here, not making much sense justifying your 
point of view, this guy makes *A LOT* more sense than you.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> You're just criticizing here, not making much sense justifying your 
> point of view, this guy makes *A LOT* more sense than you.

  Just because someone "makes sense" to you doesn't automatically mean
he is right.

  For example, some conspiracy theorists have compiled really clever
arguments about how the Moon landings were "faked" or how the WTC towers
were brought down by "controlled demolition" or how it was impossible for
Oswald to have killed Kennedy alone, and to an unprepared person all these
arguments can make a lot of sense. This is the reason why such conspiracy
theories are so popular and so believed.

  However, "makes sense" does not always equal to "is the truth". The
arguments of those conspiracy theories which "make sense" when you first
hear them are actually very easily refutable, and once you understand the
true physics behind them, the conspiracy theory arguments actually stop
making sense and become ridiculous. You were simply misled by clever
mindtricks because you were unprepared to understand them properly.

  Some pseudoscientists also are quite clever at compiling lists of
arguments about their lunatic theories, and if these lists are clever
enough, they might "make sense" to someone, who will then believe them.
However, that doesn't mean that the theory has any basis in reality.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Some pseudoscientists also are quite clever at compiling lists of
> arguments about their lunatic theories, and if these lists are clever
> enough, they might "make sense" to someone, who will then believe them.

Like, say, "irreducible complexity" and such. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

On 5-3-2009 0:12, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 4-3-2009 17:13, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>>>   "Life on Earth came from other planets", after surviving a 
>>>>>> supernova
>>>>>> explosion and hundreds of millions of years of intestellar space 
>>>>>> travel?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Uh, yeah.
>>>>
>>>>> That's why the game is called "spore". :-)
>>>>
>>>>> Isn't this the sort of thing we tease Andrew about, tho? When he 
>>>>> conflates "That's really amazing and I can't imagine how I could do 
>>>>> that" with "it must therefore be impossible"?
>>>>
>>>>   Some kind of proof or even evidence would be nice.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByUod2VmBQY&eurl=http://brainmind.com/OriginsofLife.html

>>>
>>>
>>> good enough?
>>
>> Nope. The guy does not know his basic facts and merely uses a strawman 
>> approach to show off his 'superior intelligence'.
> 
> Then: http://brainmind.com/Mars.html

Sorry, I have not been able to listen to this guy for more than a few 
minutes because of all the uninformed nonsense this guy is telling, so I 
won't try this one.

> 
> You're just criticizing here, 

Yes, deliberately. And I advised you to go out and find the real info.

> not making much sense justifying your 
> point of view, 

yes, deliberately.

> this guy makes *A LOT* more sense than you.

He makes sense in that he is able to construct a consistent story. 
Unfortunately his story mainly consists of attacking other ideas by 
misrepresenting them. He probably could have been a great writer of 
science if he would have read some relevant literature and tried to tell 
what we really know and think in stead of just wanting to tell how he 
thinks things should be.

I don't have much time today but if you want I'll dissect the first 5 
minutes or so of the origins of life video and tell you what is, to the 
best of *my* knowledge, the actual state of knowledge, somewhere over 
the weekend. But of course I'd prefer it if you did your own research. ;)

Post a reply to this message

Maybe, maybe not, I have seen his videos more than once the next day and 
even I picked things I had overheard him assuming too much and giving 
himself righteousness without much justification he does justify very 
well things on other occasions, and since much if not all the posters 
here haven't seen a complete video and/or are not willing to challenge 
the conventionalism of general believes I'd say you don't have an mind 
openness big enough to understand what his POV is and what he is saying 
actually.

  He says in one of his videos that the majority of the scientist 
community would ridicule him and others that dare to think different 
from the big bang followers.

I had the same doubt than you Warp saying how life can resist the 
inferno of a life forming planet conditions but he has proved that in 
the previous video and if that wasn't enough here is other proof: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16zeA-c-3vw&eurl=http://brainmind.com/Astrobiology1.html

Note that he mentions that evidence has been collected already by other 
scientist so is not just he and his pseudo scientific personal world, 
there is actual evidence that support his theories and suggest that as 
the logical explanation.

I'm also aware that we, as humans, have limited resources to know what 
really happened or will happen in terms of millions/billions of years, 
we may be getting to what it happened but maybe is just a fraction of 
the explanation and/or a fraction for sure of what things influenced as 
factors for such conclusions and further and more complete answers will 
come in time completing/correcting current explanations.

If you know a better plce for astronomy videos, for free, I'd appreciate 
the link(s) and visit them right away, mean while his theories makes 
perfect sense to me.

Post a reply to this message

I'd appreciate links if you have them.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> are not willing to challenge 
> the conventionalism of general believes I'd say you don't have an mind 
> openness big enough to understand what his POV is and what he is saying 
> actually.

>   He says in one of his videos that the majority of the scientist 
> community would ridicule him and others that dare to think different 
> from the big bang followers.

  You see, that's very typical pseudoscientist talk: Basically, there's
a world-wide conspiracy between scientists to have only one true theory of
everything, and any alternative theories are shut down and ridiculed for
the sole reason that they are incompatible with the one true theory.
Scientists are very closed-minded and are not willing to even consider
alternative theories.

  Of course pseudoscientists like to talk like this because it gives them
more credibility. They want to give the layman the impression that the
"scientific community" consists of old farts who are fixated into one
single old theory, have a strong resistance to change and are not even
willing to consider or study alternatives. The pseudoscientist wants to
give an impression of himself as being an innovator, someone who thinks
out of the box, who is not stagnated by historical (and often untrue)
theories, and that he is fighting the good fight against the "scientific
community" who is ridiculing him and shutting him down.

  But naturally this is just a bunch of lies, and has nothing to do with
reality.

  The scientific community consists of thousands and thousands of different
people from around the world, from different cultures and different
ideologies. They are not just one single entity who are brainwashed by
some central organization to believe in one scientific theory without
question. They are individual, rational people, and most of them are from
countries and cultures which have absolutely no interest in advocating
some theory from some other culture (eg. the US or Europe) if they know
or suspect that the theory may not be believable in the scientific sense.

  And most of them are certainly innovators and open-minded, who are very
ready to consider and study alternatives. Nothing would reward a scientist
more than being able to publish a paper about a brand new hypothesis or
even theory, which other scientists could study, measure and test, and
as a result of this could be considered scientifically sound.

  The main problem with pseudoscientists is that they usually present
hypotheses which are not measureable, testable nor falsifiable. These
hypotheses are of little scientific value. The pseudoscientist will then
complain that the scientific community doesn't take him seriously because
of this. Then they will just start ranting how the scientific community
is stagnated and doesn't accept new ideas.

  However, science just doesn't work that way. Hypotheses must be based
on measurements and must be falsifiable. Experiments must be repeatable
and their results verifiable. Else it's of little use.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   You see, that's very typical pseudoscientist talk: Basically, there's
> a world-wide conspiracy between scientists to have only one true theory of
> everything, and any alternative theories are shut down and ridiculed for
> the sole reason that they are incompatible with the one true theory.
> Scientists are very closed-minded and are not willing to even consider
> alternative theories.
> 
>   Of course pseudoscientists like to talk like this because it gives them
> more credibility. They want to give the layman the impression that the
> "scientific community" consists of old farts who are fixated into one
> single old theory, have a strong resistance to change and are not even
> willing to consider or study alternatives. The pseudoscientist wants to
> give an impression of himself as being an innovator, someone who thinks
> out of the box, who is not stagnated by historical (and often untrue)
> theories, and that he is fighting the good fight against the "scientific
> community" who is ridiculing him and shutting him down.
> 
>   But naturally this is just a bunch of lies, and has nothing to do with
> reality.

Well... there *have* been scientific theories which were considered 
ridiculous for a long time, which eventually turned out to be correct. 
And in some branches of science, there isn't a whole heap of evidence to 
go on, and so opinion starts to dominate over evidence and hence you do 
get scientists who are kind of set-on a particular theory and don't want 
to look at other theories.

On the other hand, this is the exception rather than the norm. Sometimes 
there is a certain reluctance to accept a new theory, but science didn't 
get where it is today by ignoring available evidence. Any true scientist 
would at least consider the possibility that another theory is right 
given hard evidence to support it.

>   The scientific community consists of thousands and thousands of different
> people from around the world.
> 
>   And most of them are certainly innovators and open-minded, who are very
> ready to consider and study alternatives. Nothing would reward a scientist
> more than being able to publish a paper about a brand new hypothesis or
> even theory, which other scientists could study, measure and test, and
> as a result of this could be considered scientifically sound.

Indeed. This is what scientists live for. (Not to mention getting paid 
for...)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Just because someone "makes sense" to you doesn't automatically mean
> he is right.

String Theory "makes sense". In fact, a while back, there were actually 
half a dozen slightly different version of ST, and they all appeared to 
make sense. What nobody could figure out is which of them - if any - 
actually apply to the Real World that we live in...

Newton's Laws of Motion make perfect sense. Being able to accelerate an 
object to unlimited speeds makes sense. But the Real World doesn't 
actually work that way, it turns out.

Post a reply to this message