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?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Some kind of proof or even evidence would be nice.

Proof that life *did* come from spores through space? Or proof that spores 
can survive indefinitely in space?  I imagine we'd have heard if they found 
the former, but the latter isn't difficult.

I didn't actually watch hours of the guy's video. I just know it's not hard 
to freeze-dry spores and revive them decades later with no apparent harm, so 
there's no reason to believe it's impossible that (say) RNA wouldn't last 
indefinitely if caught in a crevasse of a meteor blown away by solar wind.

Of course, the video game at this point has made it difficult to come up 
with search terms that'll find anything useful. Especially when you start 
getting things like NASA spokespeople demoing the video game.

-- 
   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

Darren New wrote:
> 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"?

On the other hand, the cool thing about science is it keeps progressing.

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Natural_Selection_General_Force_Behind_Formation_Of_New_Species.html

For most everything a fundamentalist says "has no evidence", evidence turns 
up surprisingly promptly. :-)   {Which is not to say Warp is a 
fundamentalist here.}

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> For most everything a fundamentalist says "has no evidence", evidence turns 
> up surprisingly promptly. :-)   {Which is not to say Warp is a 
> fundamentalist here.}

  Seemingly your definition of fundamentalist is someone who doubts that
life on Earth came from outer space?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> For most everything a fundamentalist says "has no evidence", evidence turns 
>> up surprisingly promptly. :-)   {Which is not to say Warp is a 
>> fundamentalist here.}
> 
>   Seemingly your definition of fundamentalist is someone who doubts that
> life on Earth came from outer space?

Um, no?

Suspecting something like this would be your first reaction, I *explicitly 
disclaimed* that I was talking about anything you'd said. I'm not sure how 
much more clear I can be.

As far as I know, there isn't any good evidence that life came from outer 
space. As far as I know, there *is* good evidence life *might* have come 
from outer space. Neither of these statements have anything to do with the 
link I posted that you replied to.

My definition of "fundamentalist" is (in part) someone who takes the 
statement "You don't know yet" and replaces it with "therefore I must be 
right, even tho I don't know yet either."

-- 
   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 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