For the alternative theorists:

[wellwisher]

"I smoked for sixty years and I never got lung cancer, even though my doctor said I probably would!" - I guess that disproves the theory that smoking can cause lung cancer.

This is a good example, where consensus science theory makes use of liberals art theatre, for a one size fits all theory, which does not fit all. This one exception should be enough to disprove the theory, right, but it lingers anyway because liberal arts is the fiction part of the sales pitch and does not have to fit the data.

A good science theory should be worded in a way that accurately fits the data. The data in the quote below says that that roughly 1% of those who smoke, will die of smoke related disease including second hand smoke. How many thought the way the liberal arts promoted the theory, everybody who smoked would die of smoking? How many knew the data says 99% we're exempt? Accurate data will not sell as well as creative liberty.

Sometimes alternate theorists are needed for the truth in areas of science promoted with liberal arts and political theater, when even consensus science is under the spell of the political theatre, has fear of speaking out, or is compliant for mercenary purposes. Statistical studies are a favorite area of science where liberal arts can used to exaggerate the sales pitch. The buzz words of risk narrows the mind, even if the data says 1%. .

An estimated 42.1 million people, or 18.1% of all adults (aged 18 years or older), in the United States smoke cigarettes.1 Cigarette smoking is more common among men (20.5%) than women (15.8%).1
Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, accounting for more than 480,000 deaths, or one of every five deaths, each year.2

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I find it really dumb, for people to side against the status quo, the mainstream, or the establishment, just for the sake of trying to project an Image of being able to think for one self and to wear it like a badge of honour...

So...paddoboy, how many "people" do you personally know that "side against the status quo, the mainstream, or the establishment" ONLY BECAUSE of "trying to project an Image of being able to think for one self and to wear it like a badge of honour..."??

Conversely, paddoboy, do you personally know any "people" who side WITH "the status quo, the mainstream, or the establishment, just for the sake of trying to project an Image of being able to think for one self and to wear it like a badge of honour..."??

....Invariably, they just project how stupid they really are in ignoring many decades of observational and experimental data, while having nothing to falsify the incumbent model........Real dumb.

paddoboy, I find it really interesting that it took 24 Pages of this Thread for you to finally express your true intent for starting this Thread : You seem to believe that ANYONE who "side(s) against the status quo, the mainstream, or the establishment," are, in your view, doing it " just for the sake of trying to project an Image of being able to think for one self and to wear it like a badge of honour..." and are "...Invariably", again, in your view, simply "stupid".

But hey, paddoboy, at least you seem to have fully summed up your Post #478, with your last two words!

 

[PhysBang]

One way to see the impact of liberal arts on the science, is to look at the impact of manmade global warming predictions. Name me one other theory in entire history of science, that allowed constant bad model predictions, yet still maintain the consensus? Part of the scientific method is the theory needs to make predictions. This helps to verify the validity and utility of the theory since clever illusions will fail the prediction test. In most of science, one bad prediction can doom a theory. But with manmade global warming, bad prediction don't count.

But global warming has been greatly supported by the available data. For a science about a system with a lot of variable inputs, it is doing spectacularly.

If someone found a single anomaly within a prediction of relativity, all of physics would a buzz, since just one thing out of place can change everything. With manmade global warming, maybe the criteria is it has to stay under 100 bad predictions.

Generally, people who study physics look at studying the simplest systems that they can. However, there are many anomalies discovered in relation to relativity theory. They are just dealt with reasonably (except, perhaps, by cranks like Farsight).

The question is, in the history of science, name one theory that has had as many bad prediction outcomes, yet lingered with a consensus?

The idea of male superiority.

It may not be possible to name one, since liberal arts only recently invaded science.

This "liberal arts invaded science" thing is your own personal hang up. Perhaps you are severely autistic, but most of the rest of us enjoy emotions and other human beings.

A good science theory should be worded in a way that accurately fits the data. The data in the quote below says that that roughly 1% of those who smoke, will die of smoke related disease including second hand smoke. How many thought the way the liberal arts promoted the theory, everybody who smoked would die of smoking? How many knew the data says 99% we're exempt? Accurate data will not sell as well as creative liberty.

I suspect that you are the one presenting stats-based deception here. First, nobody thinks that everyone who smokes will die because of smoking. Second, what about the very next line of the CDC sheet you are quoting: "More than 16 million Americans suffer from a disease caused by smoking." You seem to be deliberately avoiding some of the important statistics about smoking in order to focus on the deaths alone.

 

[leopold]

I find it really dumb, for people to side against the status quo, the mainstream, or the establishment, just for the sake of trying to project an Image of being able to think for one self and to wear it like a badge of honour.

on the other hand it's equally just as dumb to side with the status quo just so you can "walk with the herd".

 

[leopold]

So lets look at the methods for dating that were outlined in the PDF:

1. The Uranium dating method should be used for the time frame of 1 million to 4.5 billion years, not 20,000 year old material!! Of course they got strange results.
2. The fission track method should be used for the time frame of 100,000 to 2 billion years. So again using this method to date 20,000 year old material will give bad results.
3. The Uranium series method has severe reliability problems when used on bone due the solubility of the bone (it is not a closed system) to uranium. These issues were know and studies starting in 1963 documented the unreliability in systems that were not closed (such as bone and teeth).

actually the scientists used 4 different methods for dating the artifacts.
uranium series dating, fission track dating, tephra hydration dating and mineral weathering study.
The four tests concluded unanimously that the objects found were around 250,000 years old.

 

[Russ_Watters]

The four tests concluded unanimously that the objects found were around 250,000 years old.

Yeah, that isn't true.

 

[paddoboy]

So...paddoboy, how many "people" do you personally know that "side against the status quo, the mainstream, or the establishment" ONLY BECAUSE of "trying to project an Image of being able to think for one self and to wear it like a badge of honour..."??

Hi dmoe!
Let's see, Personally none, but on this forum, at least six, probably a few more hangers on also.
Especially the three claiming to have ToE's.

Conversely, paddoboy, do you personally know any "people" who side WITH "the status quo, the mainstream, or the establishment, just for the sake of trying to project an Image of being able to think for one self and to wear it like a badge of honour..."??

What you need to realise is that the mainstream position in anything, comes about because the vast majority supports a certain position. In regards to science, that position is based on available observational and experimental evidence.
So most people, [including myself] align with mainstream science because of that obvious logic and sensibility, plus of course in regards to science, the knowledge of giants of the past, the scientific method and proven peer review, supports that position.

paddoboy, I find it really interesting that it took 24 Pages of this Thread for you to finally express your true intent for starting this Thread : You seem to believe that ANYONE who "side(s) against the status quo, the mainstream, or the establishment," are, in your view, doing it " just for the sake of trying to project an Image of being able to think for one self and to wear it like a badge of honour..." and are "...Invariably", again, in your view, simply "stupid".

Obviously and evidently, this thread was started during a period of high "alternative hypothesis" content in Physics and Maths thread, probably for reasons of obtaining some air of respectability by alternative pushers that were obviously just pseudoscience, especially those three claimings ToE's.
Some have now been banned, others have now been shifted to more appropriate fringe sections.
If this thread has helped secure that correct position, then I thank all those who have expressed their support for obtaining that Improvement.

But hey, paddoboy, at least you seem to have fully summed up your Post #478, with your last two words!

Sad to say dmoe, that once again, you are wrong.
The claim and opinion in regards to those that oppose anti mainstream science by me, does not apply to all...
In fact in posts past, I have praised one particular alternative hypothesis pusher, and have come up with a couple of doozies myself.
But that particular pusher, plus my own hypothesis, were not ever encased in 100% faitre complei certainty, as has been with respect to those that oppose mainstream just for the sake of it.
That position is supported in the fact that the inferred alternative hypothesis pushers, were all claiming to rewrite 20th/21st century physics and cosmology.
That questionable quality, along with overly self inflated egos and tall poppy syndrome, makes those last two words "real dumb" as quite applicable to those troublesome few.
And the success of this thread and support, shows your claim to be no more then sour grapes.

 

[paddoboy]

on the other hand it's equally just as dumb to side with the status quo just so you can "walk with the herd".

Despite your attempted reverse of logic, it really does not effectively apply.
The mainstream is the mainstream because that's the position most supported in most cases, by the majority.
In other words, in most cases, it is a simple exersise in deductive logic and common sense, in following the most logical position supported by observational evidence.

But to keep yourself abreast with the real purpose and success of the thread, and the post in contention please read my post to dmoe.

 

[leopold]

In other words, in most cases, it is a simple exersise in deductive logic and common sense, in following the most logical position supported by observational evidence.

there is exactly ZERO evidence that says life comes from non life.
as a matter of fact science hasn't seen life coming from anything BUT life.
what is the so called mainstream view in this area paddoboy?
and you don't have a problem with that?

 

[PhysBang]

there is exactly ZERO evidence that says life comes from non life.

Not true.

as a matter of fact science hasn't seen life coming from anything BUT life.

Not really relevant to the question of whether or not there exists evidence.

 

[paddoboy]

there is exactly ZERO evidence that says life comes from non life.
as a matter of fact science hasn't seen life coming from anything BUT life.
what is the so called mainstream view in this area paddoboy?
and you don't have a problem with that?

Why would I have a problem that?
I'm not exactly proficient in life and how it arises, but what little I do know, is that the mainstream theory of Evolution, is not about where life actually came from, and how it actually arose, but how it evolves.
The evidence supporting the theory of Evolution of life on Earth is irrefutable.

Same applies to the mainstream theory of the BB/Inflationary model of Universal/space/time evolution.
Nothing gives us the why and/or how.....but supporting evidence shows us space and time, as we know them, came into existence at t=10-43 seconds after the initial event.

So again, why would I have a problem with the theory of evolution?
And why would you raise that in light of the fact that this thread is about how alternative hypothesis pushers need to maintain some semblance of logic and sensibility, if they want any respect for themselves and their hypothesis?

Instead of the usual derision of peer review and the scientific methodology, and the 100% certainty that some of them claim with their hypothesis.
Of course in mainstream science no theory is 100% certain, although as further and further evidence continues to support them, they obviously obtain some degree of concreteness.

 

[origin]

there is exactly ZERO evidence that says life comes from non life.

Early in the history of the universe there was no life, or even matter, now there is life. Life MUST have come from non life. That is evidence.

 

[paddoboy]

Early in the history of the universe there was no life, or even matter, now there is life. Life MUST have come from non life. That is evidence.

or...Or....OR, some big fat all powerful, almighty omnipotent deity did it all!!!!

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

there is exactly ZERO evidence that says life comes from non life.

Early in the history of the universe there was no life, or even matter, now there is life. Life MUST have come from non life. That is evidence.

Indeed. We don't yet have the evidence of how this happened, but we certainly have the evidence that it did happen.

Leopold is no scientist. But I guess everybody already knew that.

 

[leopold]

Indeed. We don't yet have the evidence of how this happened, but we certainly have the evidence that it did happen.

it's a good guess (hypothesis) it did but there is NO evidence for it.

Leopold is no scientist.

what does this have to do with what i post?
are you calling me a liar or something?

heh, it's really funny.
no one offered any kind of evidence it did.
they just stomp their feet and say "fuck the evidence, mainstream says it did dammit!!!!"

 

[paddoboy]

it's a good guess (hypothesis) it did but there is NO evidence for it.

It's the only guess, other then a magical all mighty deity.......Panspermia would also naturally fall under as arising from non life......

what does this have to do with what i post?
are you calling me a liar or something?

Well let's just say misinformed, or being deliberately obtuse, who knows why you can't accept the obvious.[although I have given a few possible reasons in various posts]

heh, it's really funny.
no one offered any kind of evidence it did.
they just stomp their feet and say "fuck the evidence, mainstream says it did dammit!!!!"

Seems to be that it is you ranting, raving and stomping your feet in displeasure at being shown to be wrong again.

 

[Trippy]

it's a good guess (hypothesis) it did but there is NO evidence for it.

what does this have to do with what i post?
are you calling me a liar or something?

heh, it's really funny.
no one offered any kind of evidence it did.
they just stomp their feet and say "fuck the evidence, mainstream says it did dammit!!!!"

Please stop misrepresenting peoples posts.

 

[wellwisher]

there is exactly ZERO evidence that says life comes from non life.
as a matter of fact science hasn't seen life coming from anything BUT life.
what is the so called mainstream view in this area paddoboy?
and you don't have a problem with that?

This is true, since nobody has created life in the lab from scratch, or witnessed life appear from just molecules and atoms. I was looking for someone, speaking on behalf of the consensus, to give proof of life from nothing, or be honest about the consensus being an alternate theorists in this area. A dual standard appears to be in effect, when the consensus needs slack with its half baked theories.

The truth of lack of proof, would be helpful to the discussion, but the fear is, it but would open the door for alternate thinkers, since alternate thinkers will be more justified making an attempt, while finally sharing the same standard reserved for the consensus.


Life from scratch has what it needs in the universe. The seven most common atoms in the universe are hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, neon, iron and nitrogen. While the two most common molecules are H2 and H2O, which just so happens to be the outer bandwidth of life's energy supply; O2 +H2---->H2O. Life is mostly water and therefore makes use of the number two molecule, extensively.

Carbon following oxygen in atomic abundance, makes organic molecules containing hydrogen and oxygen, very common. Nitrogen is less common, so life tends to use less of that compared to hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. Below is a diagram of reaction paths for other universal molecules seen with radio telescopes. This does not make life, but shows that life takes advantage of what is common in the universe, as though the universe was designed with life in mind.

 

[leopold]

Please stop misrepresenting peoples posts.

please define.
whose post am i misrepresenting and how am i misrepresenting it?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

...Panspermia would also naturally fall under as arising from non life......

Wrong...again!! Panspermia is NOT life arising from non-life!!

Seems to be that it is you ranting, raving and stomping your feet in displeasure at being shown to be wrong again.

So...,paddoboy, will you now be "ranting, raving and stomping your feet in displeasure at being shown to be wrong again"?