mooeypoo

Are you reading any of our actual points? Instead of answering, you seem to just post more and more points and ignore what we're putting up. This won't work if you're here to preach.

Because you're not giving evidence, you're ranting, and not very well. Evidence is not just explanations. You need actual... EVIDENCE. The mechanism for astrology is quite known to be bunk -- from the fact that the "forces produced by planets" are hardly even affecting anything here on earth, to the fact that it was shown to be over-generalized enough to fail blind testing. Evidence is not ranty youtube videos. Do you have some REAL evidence? Here, stuff for you to read, about real science: Double-blinded experiment to prove astrology (fails, repeatedly): http://www.astrodivi...oa/ncgrberk.htm Astrology, is it scientific? A full explanation of what you would need to do to show us astrology is science. http://undsci.berkel...ology_checklist Also, if we do YouTube videos, you should watch this: And this: Enjoy actual science.

You have a weird way of presenting history, but alright. If that's what you go by, then you're forgetting the other religions, too. Not that "Nonreligious" are 16%, you should include that, and if you go by size, You should include Hinduism too. That said, you ignored my point. The benefit of religion doesn't surpass its harm, and whether there's benefit in religion is not a good enough reason to belong to a religion just for the sake of belonging to it. ~mooey

Astrology is not mainstream science, and you have not proved it yet. When and if you do, and the scientific community accepts it as established science, ti can go back to the mainstream science forums. Your videos didn't prove much. Do you want to cooperate and lay out your evidence in the post so people can actually comment on them?

It's not trash, it's speculation. And to be honest, the wall of text is a bit intimidating to read. Maybe when I have a bit more time. I put forth a few points for you to consider in the other thread, let's stick to one topic at a time. ~mooey

! Moderator Note Moved to speculations. I think you should go over the definition of "scientific evidence".

Okay, I'm sorry, I am completely at a loss here. In the other thread (in which you linked back to here for your "proof") you seem to be claiming that ancient aliens had something to do with this discovery, and here you claim it was Jesus. Are you claiming Jesus was an alien, or that he spoke to aliens? I'm a bit confused as to your proposed message. No, they didn't, they gave him a Nobel Prize.

... Did you just give the bible as evidence? I'm not quite sure what exactly it means, especially since "I'm the alpha & omega" is quite a vague statement that could mean a whole array of different things. You seem to misunderstand what "evidence" means. You propose casual connections between various objects as "evidence. These aren't evidence. They might be good enough to "enhance" the evidence-base in case you had real evidence to support the case in general, but they are not sufficient on their own to prove it. Evidence are examined independently. In this case, you're showing a relationship that *you* make between the written text (in one vague passage, that may or may not mean that) and the atomic model that was actually discovered almost two millenia after. Let me propose an example to show you why this evidence is completely insufficient. Let's say I propose that there are invisible unicorns around us that lead us to our "destination" in life. A sort of "karmic guides". You, naturally, will ask me for evidence (I hope). I will then explain why this idea makes sense. That's fine, and wonderful story-telling, but it's hardly enough to prove the concept, is it? I will then propose a list of quotes from various sources of scripture (and if you actually want me to, I can do that for the sake of showing this example) -- that tell something about karma, the karmic purpose in life, and unicorns, and some connection between them and our lives. Those are great for mythological debates, but they're not quite sufficient to prove the claim I put forward. Part of the reason is that I am missing the point. Before I can show that karmic guide unicorns existed throughout history, I should first show karmic guide unicorns exist at all. And then, of course, I need to show that they interact with human beings at all, and that this is measurable and detectable. Only then can I show how it has been done throughout history. You seem to fall into the same logic pit. You try to show how aliens have helped humanity throughout ancient times, but your evidence is not quite on point. You first need to show that Aliens of this specific type (similar to humans enough to not be, say, a blob of goo made of antimatter) exist. That these aliens came to planet earth and interacted with human beings at all in a detectable, observable matter. Stating conspiracies is fine up to a point; at some point, you'd have to support this with some sort of concrete evidence for us to follow you on that one. Otherwise, how are we supposed to differentiate between real conspiracies and fake ones? There has to be some sort of real evidence, especially after such a long time, and supposedly such a long and global intervention by said aliens. No one is *that* good in hiding evidence to such a thing, and by the claims, it seemed the aliens didn't really try to hide it either. That the structures you speak of, and the events you describe, could not have been done by human beings, and were instead led or done by those aliens. Number three is a toughie, by the way. Many of those (including the pyramids, and things like crop circles) were shown to be possible to be built by humanity, and were actually described in history by the process of building them precisely by human workers and slaves. That's also true for many of the Mayan relics out there. So as you can see, we seem to be speaking a bit of a different conceptual language. We don't just dismiss you off hand -- if we did, we'd just not waste our time debating with you at all. Instead, we are open minded to be exposed to new evidence, but the evidence need to be concrete enough to match the claim itself (Which is quite bombastic, you have to admit, and must depend on the three conditions above, neither one of them proven). The main issue with science is that you have to have proper evidence, otherwise you might accept theories that are fundamentally wrong, and that will throw off a lot of the point of doing science and doing research. We do have an open mind, but we're also being careful not to have too much of an open mind as to let our brains fall out. I think what we're asking for is reasonable, don't you? ~mooey

Yeah, that's a good point. But I still think that this particular issue doesn't affect the underlying topic of the ethical behavior. I mean, at least for me, I am not claiming it's ethical to eat cows because they're dumber than us, I am aware they're sentient beings, and my reasoning is different. So while it's a great point to make and I enjoyed reading the article, I wouldn't say it affected my ethical consideration in terms of meat consumption. Also, I don't know if you noticed, but I like cows. They're cute (my nick says some of it), and I used to visit a dairy farm in an Israeli Kibbutz almost weekly when I lived there. Cows are awesome. They're also tasty. If we treat them humanely (both for meat *and* milk consumption by the way) I don't quite see an ethical problem. We just need to make sure the big corporations hae stronger oversight so they consider the humane part and not just the profit part. ~mooey

I just saw this article today: http://www.psycholog...ay-animal-minds It is definitely an interesting psychological angle, but it doesn't QUITE have any bearing on the actual ethical problem (if it exists), only a point about the psychology of meat eaters. But, to it, I answer:

... And that's a strawman. Alright, the reason I keep "throwing" these definitions out is to show you how your claims break apart. In this particular case, your claim is moot because the possibility you claim science holds is not quite the possibilty that science holds. Also, the possibilities you're talking about are included, they're just in a very very "unlikely" position. We keep an open mind, but not all options have equal weight. Sure, I keep an open mind as to the possibility that we were burped out of a humongous alien. That's hardly in the same "level" of plausibility as other speculations, especially ones with supported evidence. See what I mean? I think we've said this multiple times, but you really don't know what singularities mean. Before you go all out against a current theory, don't you think it makes sense that you know what the theory *REALLY* means rather than what you think it means? It's very hard to debate and answer you when you misrepresent singularities and the theory (hence "strawman".)

The fact you can't think of possibilities does not mean they don't exist. No one could think about the possibility that mass twists space, either, 200+ years ago. That doesn't mean that the option itself didn't exist, and that it shouldn't have been searched for. (And discovered by Einstein) Again, this is a good example of Argument from Incredulity, and it's a fallacy. (source: http://en.wikipedia...._from_ignorance) Another good source to go over concerning all these logical fallacies and why they are not helping you deliver your points, is here: http://www.theskepti...lfallacies.aspx

Perfect example of False Dichotomy. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

Okay, enough. We're not going to make individual notes to people to follow our rules. Stick to the subject, to the *mainstream* subject. No one prevents anyone from opening a new thread in Speculation and discussing whatever you feel like about whatever alternative theory of creation or the lack of merit in your opinion of the Big Bang. We do NOT allow for non mainstream science theories as answers in MAINSTREAM science threads. This isn't a request, it's our rules, and we don't need to go and point at every individual to make them stop doing it. Get back on the scientific topic, please. ~mooey

In terms of animal abuse, there is no difference. Just remember that one animal's living conditions do not necessarily equal another. While fish might "swim with others' feces" and it's just fine (the water need to be clean though), this is not fine for cows or chickens. Treat the animals fairly and humanely, that's what I'm saying.

That's a very good point. Actually, I believe chickens in general don't exist in nature, they're a bred animal (out of pheasants I believe?) http://en.wikipedia..../Red_Junglefowl There are no "wild" chickens in nature. BTW, this is a bit off topic, but that's part of the reason this whole trend now of "free range chickens" annoys the living hell out of me. It's a total bunk concept meant to charge extra money. The fact we need to treat the animals better (not lock them up in tiny tiny cages and in their own feces) does not mean their natural state is "roaming the meadows". That's a complete false dichotomy that makes it sound like chickens would be best free in nature and we're terribly abusing them to begin with by domestication. (and before I get flack for being inhumane, I am against the method and bureacracy of the certification "Free Range", not the idea that chickens should be treated well and allowed to go out of their cages. For information about how silly and bureacratically misleading this certificate is, you can see the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_range ) </rant>

Great. And in the spirit of a science forum, care to elaborate? We might be able to make a conscious choice to avoid eating meat, but that's not to say we weren't initially built to consume it. We can argue that the ethical aspects of meat consumption should tell us to *avoid* meat now that we have the sense and free will to, but in general, we evolved throughout the ions while consuming both meat and vegitation. That much can't be argued. I do agree that in today's world we *are able* to avoid meat and switch to either supplements or just a different type of balanced diet, but I used the fact we have been consuming meat products throughout our evolution as an explanation to why I see this as a natural process, and hence don't quite have a problem with it in general. I have a problem with the *way* we do it; the fact many companies fatten up the animals unnecessarily, keep them in deplorable conditions, kill unhumanely, treat the meat badly or mishmash meat and bone as feed to the living animals, use excessive amounts of hormones, force-feed, etc etc. That much I'm completely against, but I am not against the idea of consuming meat (even if it means killing a santient animal). The two principles are completely different; one is about general natural ethics (in my eyes) and the other about how we ABUSE nature. We can set better rules and regulations to make sure the abuse doesn't continue. In my eyes, that would make the entire point of ethical meat consumption perfectly fine. Also, as to the health problem, just like anything else, meat products shouldn't be abused and over-consumed. You can get fat from eating sugar, that doesn't mean sugar is bad for you, it just means that you should take good care of a balanced diet and not abusing sugar. Same goes to meat, dairy, chocolate, and cookies. ~mooey

Photosynthesis creates the *byproduct* of oxygen, but the main product is energy. The idea of photosynthetic power cells is not all that "out there". In fact, it's being discussed as a means to improve power cells in general, seeing as plants do a good job transforming energy from the sun. Examples: University of Rhode Island, "Photosynthetic Solar Cell": http://www.ele.uri.edu/courses/ele282/F06/Will_1.pdf EIR Science, "Solar Cells vs Plant Cells: In Defense of Chlorophyll: http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2010/2010_30-39/2010-36/2010-36/pdf/56-63_3736.pdf ScienceDaily, "Improving Photosynthesis? Solar Cells Beat Plants at Harvesting Sun's Energy, for Now": http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110512151408.htm

! Moderator Note This is not the place for you to share your non-mainstream hypothesis, JohnStu. You've been told this before. The mainstream science threads are for mainstream science only. If you want to discuss your speculative theory, you should feel free to do that in the Speculation forum. Please don't hijack threads, and go over our rules once more to see what might happen if you continue disobeying them.

The comparison you made above is moot because of the way you did it. You might BELIEVE the statement you just made, but it's not a good enough statement in the context of requesting evidence. I can simply say I don't believe in a God, therefore it's not needed, and your statement is turned over on its head. On top of that, there are other things except "substance", like energy, radiation, and quantum mechanisms. I'm not sure what you mean about there being nothing but substance without God. We never needed "God" as a variable in physical explanations, we explain reality quite well without him, so apparently, he's not "needed". He might be "wanted", but that's a different issue. The fact *I* can't explain it doesn't mean that the explanation you're giving as an alternative is necessarily true. Your explanation needs to be valid on its own right, independently, regardless of the alternatives for people to accept it. There's not a shred of evidence for hte existence of God. There's quite a lot of evidence for Evolution, and the Big Bang. Sure, there are things that we don't know yet, but that doesn't automatically makes "god" to be true, it just means we need to continue researching. Replace "singularity" with "god" and answer the same questions. Can you? Here: How did God come to exist? If there was an initial God, then how was there ever a first action to inact creation? Does God just act on their own? Why is it logical for the above to be "yes" without evidence, but it isn't for the singularity issue to be true? Also, the question itself is misleading, since there was no "initial action", and no "inacting" of "creation", but I think you should go over that link we supplied and read it again.. you don't QUITE seem to have the correct idea of what the big bang actually *is*, no offense. It's not my view, but it's the general name for that "singularity" (albeit a misleading name, I agree). I wonder, who is your authority that the big bang was a reaction? We don't *know* what "caused" the Big Bang (which, again, doesn't mean that a particular alternative answer is true, it just means we don't know. Answers need to be independently validated before they're accepted. There *are* more option than these two. ... The thread did...? But okay, if you lay out your belief in creation, we can see if there are gaps in it. If your belief in creation follows science but just "adds" a god to it, then it seems to not really matter much. But you sound like you're not accepting the scientific explanations and instead you take the position of "god created",... that might lead to conflicts with reality. I won't be able to answer it, however, until you lay out your belief. How do *you* think the universe -- and our world, and the life on it -- was created. And what's the evidence to support this theory? Again, this is a fallacy. Even if science doesn't "offer an alternative" it doesn't necessarily mean that YOUR theory is true. Theories are judged independently. If there's no alternative, it just means we don't know, not that the theory is correct by default. I will wait with the answer to the second part of your question until you answer the previous one I asked (About laying out your full theory). You are right in that I shouldn't assume wha your theory is, so I'd like you to just say it clearly, so we all know we're talking about the same thing. ~mooey

Says who? It doesn't work like that in nature. Cows are prey that is eaten by predators. Nature is a bastard. It's also lacks ethics either way, it just is. I don't think there's an ethical problem killing cows for food, especially since human beings seem to (in general, and naturally without additives) require meat products. What I am against, however, is animal cruelty. If we kill the animals humanely and don't abuse our environment too much, I don't see a problem with it. The trouble is that a lot of companies take their profit margins way too far, and we get unethical behavior. That doesn't mean the entire thing is unethical, it just means we need to make sure the WAY we're doing it is ethical.

Not all beef causes the increase risk of heart disease, it's mostly the way you cook it that has that effect. I agree with the above though, I see no ethical problem in eating beef or raising it for this purpose, I think we should just do it right. There are places that do, by the way, or at least that are on-the-way to, so it's absolutely possible. Like many other things, I believe it will only improve with *some* regulations.

This is circular logic, and it doesn't work. You said you can't find out about God's ways outside the bible, but then you said it's not God's existence but his laws. How can you tell it's his laws without knowing he exists at all? You can't use the bible as proof for the bible being true. It doesn't work like that.

I beg your pardon? Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. Job 42:2 I know that thou canst do everything, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Jeremiah 32:17,27 Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee: Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me? Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. Revelation 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

It's a bit better than a YouTube video, but it's not proof on its own. On the other hand, you should go over the references at the end. Example: http://www.theness.com/index.php/the-starchild-project/ (AND its OWN references at the end). That said, the one who needs to bring "proof" forward is the one making the claim. That is -- you. The evidence is then scrutinized; if it passes, great. If it fails, the burden of proof reverts to you. That means that the claims in those articles require your answer. We are not the ones who need to prove you wrong -- you need to prove your own claim right. That's the way things work. ~mooey