Is Earthly life premature from a cosmic perspective?

August 1, 2016, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
This artist's conception shows a red dwarf star orbited by a pair of habitable planets. Because red dwarf stars live so long, the probability of cosmic life grows over time. As a result, Earthly life might be considered "premature." Credit: Christine Pulliam (CfA)

The universe is 13.8 billion years old, while our planet formed just 4.5 billion years ago. Some scientists think this time gap means that life on other planets could be billions of years older than ours. However, new theoretical work suggests that present-day life is actually premature from a cosmic perspective.

"If you ask, 'When is life most likely to emerge?' you might naively say, 'Now,'" says lead author Avi Loeb of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "But we find that the chance of life grows much higher in the distant future."

Life as we know it first became possible about 30 million years after the Big Bang, when the first seeded the cosmos with the necessary elements like carbon and oxygen. Life will end 10 trillion years from now when the last stars fade away and die. Loeb and his colleagues considered the relative likelihood of life between those two boundaries.

The dominant factor proved to be the lifetimes of stars. The higher a star's mass, the shorter its lifetime. Stars larger than about three times the sun's mass will expire before life has a chance to evolve.

Conversely, the smallest stars weigh less than 10 percent as much as the Sun. They will glow for 10 trillion years, giving life ample time to emerge on any planets they host. As a result, the probability of life grows over time. In fact, chances of life are 1000 times higher in the distant future than now.

"So then you may ask, why aren't we living in the future next to a low-mass star?" says Loeb.

"One possibility is we're premature. Another possibility is that the environment around a low-mass star is hazardous to ."

Although low-mass, live for a long time, they also pose unique threats. In their youth they emit strong flares and ultraviolet radiation that could strip the atmosphere from any rocky world in the habitable zone.

To determine which possibility is correct—our premature existence or the hazard of low-mass stars—Loeb recommends studying nearby red dwarf stars and their planets for signs of habitability. Future space missions like the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite and James Webb Space Telescope should help to answer these questions.

The paper describing this work has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics and is available online. Its co-authors are Avi Loeb (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) and Rafael Batista and David Sloan (University of Oxford). Loeb simultaneously wrote an extended review on the habitability of the universe as a chapter for a forthcoming book.

Explore further: Universe's first life might have been born on carbon planets

More information: Relative Likelihood for Life as a Function of Cosmic Time, iopscience.iop.org/journal/1475-7516 , arxiv.org/abs/1606.08448

Related Stories

Image: Hubble gazes at stars of the Large Magellanic Cloud

June 24, 2016

This colorful and star-studded view of the Milky Way galaxy was captured when the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope pointed its cameras towards the constellation of Sagittarius (The Archer). Blue stars can be seen scattered ...

Hubble sweeps scattered stars in Sagittarius

June 20, 2016

This colorful and star-studded view of the Milky Way galaxy was captured when the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope pointed its cameras towards the constellation of Sagittarius (The Archer). Blue stars can be seen scattered ...

Hunting for hidden life on worlds orbiting old, red stars

May 16, 2016

All throughout the universe, there are stars in varying phases and ages. The oldest detected Kepler planets (exoplanets found using NASA's Kepler telescope) are about 11 billion years old, and the planetary diversity suggests ...

Interstellar seeds could create oases of life

August 27, 2015

We only have one example of a planet with life: Earth. But within the next generation, it should become possible to detect signs of life on planets orbiting distant stars. If we find alien life, new questions will arise. ...

Recommended for you

A new neptune-size exoplanet

December 16, 2018

The remarkable exoplanet discoveries made by the Kepler and K2 missions have enabled astronomers to begin to piece together the history of the Earth and to understand how and why it differs from its diverse exoplanetary cousins. ...

Mars InSight lander seen in first images from space

December 14, 2018

On Nov. 26, NASA's InSight mission knew the spacecraft touched down within an 81-mile-long (130-kilometer-long) landing ellipse on Mars. Now, the team has pinpointed InSight's exact location using images from HiRISE, a powerful ...

Video: Enjoying the Geminids from above and below

December 14, 2018

On the night of December 13, into the morning of December 14, 2018, tune into the night sky for a dazzling display of fireballs. Thanks to the International Space Station, this sky show – the Geminids meteor shower—will ...

219 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
1.4 / 5 (26) Aug 01, 2016
We are "premature" in time of development because we are the thesis project of an extraterrestrial.
julianpenrod
1.5 / 5 (37) Aug 01, 2016
"Science" refuses to accept that UFO's can be credible. "Science" suggests that life may be an eminently improbably occurrence on the earth. Now, "science' suggests that life may have arisen on earth prematurely. What no "scientist" will admit is that this all points at life on earth having been placed solely on earth by God and at "science" doing its best to dance around that.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (34) Aug 01, 2016
"Science" refuses to accept that UFO's can be credible
@juli
no, they don't
they just require evidence and not "eyewitness testimony" as it is not only highly flawed, but also known to be subjective
this all points at life on earth having been placed solely on earth by God
one really big reason is because the claims come from people who cling to a known delusion that has been proven to be not only false, but also plagiarized other religions for the sake of popularity and growth

considering the implications and the lack of evidence, absolutely no one can make any claims that there is any god, real or imagined

even the freakin holy comic x-tians use is riddled with inconsistencies, false claims, blatantly wrong information and plagiarized stories... so it can't be used as evidence

are ya gonna quote scripture as proof? ...scripture from a book inspired by a omniscient omnipotent creature who can't comprehend basic physics?

pull the other one
gkam
1.7 / 5 (26) Aug 01, 2016
Wait until they find out "god" is something like a slime mold from another planet, doing an experiment.
Gigel
3.1 / 5 (17) Aug 01, 2016
Now, "science' suggests that life may have arisen on earth prematurely. What no "scientist" will admit is that this all points at life on earth having been placed solely on earth by God
Those two points are not necessarily contradictory. Also, many scientists believe in God. But then science cannot measure God. It can't even give an answer to some more philosophical questions.

Science is precise because it has limited its area of research to that that can be precisely determined by measurement. Some people confuse "science" with "truth", but the two aspects have widely different domains. Science can be part of the truth (a continuously approximating part), but it can't reach the whole truth. Even ordinary questions like "What it exists?" or "What is existence?" are outside the domain of science; more complex ones like "Does existence exist?" can debilitate the scientific method. So, science is not all.
epoxy
Aug 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tblakely1357
2.4 / 5 (19) Aug 01, 2016
When I was a youth it was assumed that the earth was unique and special. As astronomy expanded the universe more and more it then was assumed that there were trillions upon trillions of earths out there and the universe must be teeming with intelligent life. Now the research in the past few years makes it appear that the earth may be a very rare occurrence. Funny how things go in and out of fashion.
SoylentGrin
3.9 / 5 (16) Aug 01, 2016
My thought on if Earth is unique or common or somewhere in between can be summed up in a single question:

When have we ever found one of anything?

(apologies for not citing where I heard it. Kudos to whoever put it so succinctly.)
rderkis
1.7 / 5 (29) Aug 01, 2016
God is the Alpha and Omega!
I defy you to prove I am wrong, while including dark matter and dark energy in your theory. And don't forget to explain how he can't exist in the 94+% of the universe we know nothing about.
No intelligent person would try to prove a negative when we know so very little about the universe.
For example we know nothing can be in two places at the same time. And that one object can not influence another object across the entire universe instantaneously.
Woops both the above statements are true. It seems science has shown that particles can be in two places at the same time and that quantum entanglement can happen across the universe.
Mark Thomas
4.1 / 5 (14) Aug 01, 2016
"When have we found (only) one of anything?"

7 billion humans, only one you. But the essence of your point is valid. If you find a fish in the ocean, it would be foolish to assume it is the only one of its kind. Same thing for finding an intelligent species in the universe, although each one is probably a unique combination of traits.

As the article above suggests, one possible answer to the "Fermi Paradox" as the media calls it, is that we are early to arrive. Meaning, the galaxy is not chock full of space-traveling aliens because we are first or one of the first. If correct, and that is a big IF, one might wonder how long we have until someone else explores the galaxy (assuming we don't) and if that should matter to us.
TopJimmy
4.3 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2016
I've always thought, what if we are the most advanced beings in the universe at this point?Someone had to be the first intelligent life right, why couldn't it be us? I know a simplistic view but who knows. That would be kind of sad though considering our current state.
knutsonp
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 01, 2016
Abiogenesis. A big assumption.
wduckss
1.7 / 5 (18) Aug 01, 2016
Article is hypothesis that arose on the basis of a series of earlier wrong hypothesis. Should be a few days to comment on all the inaccuracies and why is not true, therefore I give up.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (16) Aug 01, 2016
Loeb et al seems consistent with other recent papers.

@Giger, rderkis: "Those two points are not necessarily contradictory. Also, many scientists believe in [religiouThose two points are not necessarily contradictory. [religious magic]. But then science cannot measure [religious magic]."

"prove I am wrong".

That people can hold contradictory beliefs doesn't test the contradiction.

Religious magic is tested as other magic, close the system and study if there is any action unaccounted for. We have done that sufficiently many times to know, even before we recently showed that the universe was one system out of one process. FWIW, street magic works better.

@epoxi: "seeded continuously with viruses from cosmic space".

Observation says it isn't. All viruses fits in our phylogenetic tree, same genetic machinery.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (18) Aug 01, 2016
@tblakely: Human (Earth) exceptionalism is mostly religious derived. As greenoinions notes, the generic default is "we don't know". The astronomical default is the mediocrity principle due to the size of the universe (but it must always be tested).

Our solar system was 'special' as long as we didn't see any planets elsewhere.

@knutsonp: Abiogenesis has long been an observation of a process, ever since we saw that early earth was hot and sterile, and of course now it isn't. So the one possible alternative - that Earth always existed as it is now (as already the classic Greeks suspected wasn't the case) -. is definitely out. [Note that I simplified by removing "spontaneous generation" since it is a historical variant on abiogenesis in that perspective.]
EyeNStein
1.4 / 5 (16) Aug 01, 2016
Regardless of whether we are early or late. The Drake extra terrestrial probability equation includes a factor for lifetime of a civilisation so this profoundly affects the likelihood of civilisation nearby.
My point being that only 7 human lifespans (7x70 years) ago Henry the Eighth was on the barely civilised throne of England. And within the last human lifespan we have gone from ecological balance with nature to nearly double what nature can sustain. (We will have used a whole years worth of resources by 8th August this year)
If all 'civilisations' also abuse their planets and go on pretending civilisation is all about growth, consumption and low taxes then we are likely to find smouldering embers, not living civilisations, if their lifetime is a short as ours.
The existance window of a detectable living civilisation is very short on cosmological timescales.
rderkis
1.9 / 5 (21) Aug 01, 2016
God is the Alpha and Omega! ---That statement means nothing to me rderkis. Could you explain what you mean - and also maybe how you know this thing that is meaningless to me. thx.


So you admit your ignorance of the subject and that you can't prove a negative.

Anyone saying "God does not exist" is using just the same kind of blind faith as someone who does believe in God.
nilbud
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 01, 2016
Magic isn't real, grow up. Stupid aphorisms and dimwitted slogans are not proof of a magic dude with super duper powers. Idiotic childish fools. The lifespan of the universe is many many trillions of times ten trillion years.
If people want to project their own personal mediocrity onto the universe that might well be therapeutic for them but it's irrelevant.
As far as the facts go we are the only intelligent life in the entire universe and as far as physical distances go we will never meet any aliens even if the skies were to be full of them.
diligentdave
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 01, 2016
All this talk of other planets somewhere in the universe being inhabited—perhaps by creatures like ourselves.

Although the "scientific community" appears to be nearly unanimous of its acceptance of Darwinian evolution (from species to species; and genus to genus), I have long found the extreme complexity of life, when considered in terms of how fast evolution, and even co-evolution (of species that have symbiotic relationships) had to have occurred, I am left shaking my head about all those who suppose that the prospects of life forms having been designed by an intelligent being or beings to be so incredible (and unacceptable).

As a 'Mormon' (a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), I have long read of "life" (even like ours) on other, distant planets, somewhere in the universe.

Revelations we believe were received by Joseph Smith back in the 1830's, when he was 'retranslating'—or, correcting the Bible with divine help (cont'd next post)
diligentdave
1.2 / 5 (23) Aug 01, 2016
(divine help = revelation from God), the following is an excerpt of a 'restoration' made to the book of Genesis by Smith—

31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.

32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, ....

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine

(cont'd)
diligentdave
1.2 / 5 (23) Aug 01, 2016
Note that last verse (in my last post). ...There are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine

Things like that God lives in "everlasting burnings", and whose appearance to man is attempted to be described here, "When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air."

(Joseph Smith—History 1:17)

In the book 'Return from Tomorrow', when George Ritchie, in a 'near death' experience he had during WWII, at an army basic training camp in west Texas, Ritchie, who claims to have seen a personage during this experience, to whom it was 'telepathically communicated' that he was standing in the presence of "THE Son of God" (i.e., Jesus Christ) said that he knew he could not be seeing him with his bodily eyes. Because, Ritchie added, (cont'd)
diligentdave
1.2 / 5 (22) Aug 01, 2016
(cont'd from last post), he (Jesus) was "brighter than 10,000 arc welders' lamps!" (given that arc welding was completely unknown in Joseph Smith's lifetime—a comparison to "brighter than 10,000 arc welder lamps" would have been impossible). However, Ritchie's description is a more modern attempt at describing that light (glory) that certainly would be at least a subset of Joseph Smith's attempted description "...whose brightness and glory defy all description."

Furthermore, if God lives in "eternal burnings", and can do space travel, what would be so hard about standing a few feet above the ground?

That fantastic manifestations sound too 'other worlldly' shouldn't surprise us, since, apparently, they evidently indeed ARE!

We scoff at a God who can know details of events far, far into the future—while we 'diss' supposed professional scientists who cannot accurately predict the outcome resulting from certain 'inputs'. Can one know the future, or not? If so, why not God?
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (23) Aug 01, 2016
^^^Sorry, where is the existence of any god proven? News to me. Or is it just one particular god? Shiva, perhaps?
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (23) Aug 01, 2016
Hey, guys, show us your god. Not the stuff he supposedly made, but the god himself.

Even I could invent a better and more likable and more rational god than the ones we hear about. Or more fierce and hateful?, . . no, can't compete with the evil minds who invent religions.
diligentdave
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 01, 2016
@jonesdave

Where is the non-existence of god proven?

Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley said it well—

To prove the negative (that is is no god), you'd have to be able to look behind every spec, rock, asteroid, planet, star (etc), and do so simultaneously to prove that there is not a god (for, if there is a god, and he chooses to be undiscivered by you, he/she can/will). But, if you can do this (look everywhere at once), ironically, you, yourself, would be god—thereby, disanulling your theory or claim!

@jonesdave, give me a scenario detailing the likely path of co-evolution of symbiotic organisms whose lives co-depend on each other.

Or, tell me how a creature evolved from one form to another, giving probably interim organisms that bridge the large differences between organisms, that are highly probable, with evidence as to why it is highly probable.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
malapropism
4.2 / 5 (21) Aug 01, 2016
The existence of the true living god is proven.

No, it's not; it is believed by those people who are religious. Belief is clearly not the same thing as a proof however I invite you to provide this proof of which you write so that all here can assess it. Most of the rest of your post is, IMO, garbage.
Too many people place their own words over the truth and then obscure the proper understanding with their words based on their own misunderstanding.

This however, is a worthy statement and applies very clearly to religious people, or at least the religious people who tend to comment here.
Truth only exists with life, therefore life MUST also be eternal.

This is tantamount to saying that if nobody sees a tree fall then it doesn't. While there is a physics hypothesis that the universe exists only when observed, it's debatable whether this represents reality. If not then we'd have to say that the universe could, and probably would, exist without life to observe it.
guptm
3.9 / 5 (14) Aug 01, 2016
We are indeed premature, rather primitive. We still drop bombs on same species, we still behead each other, we still shoot people, we still love violence of every kind. We are ignorant, primitive, immature biological species!
gkam
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 01, 2016
"life is most important in life"
----------------------------------

Wow, that's fascinating.

I was just thinking, . . sludge is most important in sludge.

Without it, you have none.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (27) Aug 01, 2016
Where is the non-existence of god proven?


Is it a rule to prove that? It should be a rule that the existence of something should be proven.

But now that you mention it. I want somebody to prove for me that the grunches don't exist and the chupacabra too. Your momma ever tell you about the grunches when you was little?
HTK
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 01, 2016
RROFL. UFOs....

beings that can manipulate space time and travel light years but have technical issues preventing cloaking or making things out of thin air...
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 01, 2016
HTK, are you making fun of the "History" channel?
tblakely1357
1.6 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2016
"Not at all - and your statement suggests to me that you have no clue about science."

Ease up cowboy. I probably know more about science and the scientific method than you do. Nothing I said was 'unscientific', quit the contrary. It's rather common in science that somebody does some research and reaches some conclusion and then somewhere down the road somebody else does another study and comes to the opposite conclusion.

While it's all good science (assuming the studies weren't cooked) it is rather ironic and it's why I despise the 'science is settled' arguments to cut off debate about certain untouchable 'science'.
seth553
4.6 / 5 (18) Aug 01, 2016
How on earth did we go down the religion rabbit hole?

Dear adherents: do any of you actually believe the earth is 6000 years old? If so I don't even know how you found this website. And if NOT then every single religious belief is subjective so can we kindly move on??
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (22) Aug 01, 2016
When you ruled out the truth you condemned your life to not having the truthful answer.

I suppose that is dependent on which truth you are acting upon...
Since you appear to have more than one, it must be confusing...
Edenlegaia
5 / 5 (11) Aug 02, 2016
I've always thought, what if we are the most advanced beings in the universe at this point?Someone had to be the first intelligent life right, why couldn't it be us? I know a simplistic view but who knows. That would be kind of sad though considering our current state.


Well, even if it's sad, if it's the case, we're pioneers of what should be a civilzation. Sure, to our standards, it's far from perfect, but there's hardly proofs of anyone (anything) ever trying to do the same at such scale.
We can't dismiss the possibility of other species evolving on their own somewhere else in the universe...or even closer. But we should keep living on our own and do our own business like nothing else exists anywhere else. And if something pops up....well, change of plans.
thingumbobesquire
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2016
"Life will end 10 trillion years from now when the last stars fade away and die." Hmm. So in ten trillion years we (noetic life) will not have found a way to change that fate? Why not?
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (18) Aug 02, 2016
But we should keep living on our own and do our own business like nothing else exists anywhere else.

With the small exception that it might be prudent not to make ourselves too obvious while we're still confined to one planet. It doesn't pay to advertise if what is out there is hostile.
It's unlikely, but the possibility of some fanatical ideology species or some out-of-control genocidal weapon out there is not nil.

Where is the non-existence of god proven?

If you don't understand about "proving a negative" then you have no business on a science site.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is no more extraordinary claim than saying: "there is a god"
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (23) Aug 02, 2016
Anyone saying "God does not exist" is using just the same kind of blind faith as someone who does believe in God
@rderkis
i gotta challenge this (speaking specifically about the abrahamic religions)
no, they're not, if they've taken the time to review the elements and they're students of human behaviour
for starters: we can see from historical record that the foundation of all the abrahamic religions is not only deeply flawed, but also plagiarized other texts for the sake of popularity & numbers
lets not even talk about the feasibility of said myths in the book, because they've been demonstrated to be false (ark? walking dead?)
it would be the exact same thing if the TV/Movie shows & mags were found by future archeologists from another planet: is the Walking Dead and Lord of the Rings myth or was it filmed live?
we can test stuff like that to determine if it's real
JongDan
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 02, 2016
Oh boy, the discussion up here...

God is irrelevant to science, because existence or lack of existence of God doesn't change the rules physical world follows. And science is only interested in those.
JongDan
1.8 / 5 (17) Aug 02, 2016
We are indeed premature, rather primitive. We still drop bombs on same species, we still behead each other, we still shoot people, we still love violence of every kind. We are ignorant, primitive, immature biological species!

Oh wow, a value judgement.

Let me remind you that life has evolved from less to more aggressive due to principles of natural selection in a world with limited resources and size... So violence is indeed a sign of higher evolution.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Edenlegaia
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 02, 2016
So violence is indeed a sign of higher evolution.


I wouldn't be so sure about that. Let's imagine a "normal violent" civilization who evolved enough to build bridges, turning full aggressive because of limited resources and size. The people butcher each others because they couldn't find a way to organize proper "sacrifices" or find a better way to manage what they had. In the process, what bears no strength but only knowledge gets rekt because they're weak and knowledge is defined as useless.
You get a civilization with a -1 malus in the evolution ladder, but a +2 in the aggressive stance.
Violence is hardly a sign of higher evolution when it's void of sentience, at least. When you're a beast and need extra fins, horns or wings to hunt more efficiently.....well yeeha violence and the way it boosts evolution.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
geokstr
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 02, 2016
Gogel - total gish gallop. If something cannot be known - then how can it be known?

That's not the "Gish Gallop". It's a single logical fallacy.
.
The Gish Gallop is a rapid-fire string of such fallacious arguments, outrageously false statements and trick questions about scientific theory that are stupid, unanswerable, and/or take too much time to explain or refute in a live debate format, used by creationists as a "debate" strategy. "No one has ever seen a dog give birth to a cat, therefore speciation is a lie." Life is too complex to form from rocks, chemicals and lightning. Can a tornado whip through a junkyard and make a functional 747?"

They also never, ever answer the "evilutionist's"(sic) questions or defend creationism's own "scientific" "theory", because it's all laughable nonsense, and all these "debates" are in front of a hand-picked packed house of ignorant yahoos.

Religious frauds like Gish claimed they'd never lost a "debate".
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (19) Aug 02, 2016
Although the "scientific community" appears to be nearly unanimous of its acceptance of Darwinian evolution (from species to species; and genus to genus), I have long found the extreme complexity of life, when considered in terms of how fast evolution, and even co-evolution (of species that have symbiotic relationships) had to have occurred, I am left shaking my head


In other words, all you have against science is a strawman on how religious magic would be implied if science would say its default "we don't know", a gods-of-the-gaps argument, and an argument from incredulity.

That is theology, not fact based knowledge of reality.

torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.5 / 5 (17) Aug 02, 2016
The existence of the true living god is proven.


This thread is abandoning the search for knowledge (say, on religion) for rejected dogma. Why it is rejected, see my previous comments. I note that no believer in magic tried to stand up or their belief by responding to, and analyzing, its failure.

The proof (moral ground) of a religion is its believers - since that is all it has - and we find it worthless.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.5 / 5 (16) Aug 02, 2016
Let me remind you that life has evolved from less to more aggressive due to principles of natural selection in a world with limited resources and size... So violence is indeed a sign of higher evolution.


Actually, parasitism and later predation wasn't possible for emergent early life, it had to be mostly autotrophic.

And there isn't any 'higher' evolution, I assume you mean "later evolution", which allowed for evolution of parasitism/predation after the initial conditions were void. Early evolution was likely more aggressive in the sense that it happened faster and had more genetic drift, since the biosphere had less stability (had less control and recycling of elements) and the evolutionary tool kit was less capable (less genes).
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.5 / 5 (16) Aug 02, 2016
"Life will end 10 trillion years from now when the last stars fade away and die." Hmm. So in ten trillion years we (noetic life) will not have found a way to change that fate? Why not?


"Noetic" is supposed to translate to something quantifiable, like language capable populations, I take it?

Because the hydrogen supply that liberates nuclear potential energy will be used up despite any feasible effort, which would be based on the energy release of said supply. I.e. anything large scale we would do would just make the end come faster.

Sure, we can start to throw dead stars into black holes and live a bit longer from the released heat. But star life time is a good measure of habitability, and it is a good measure for simple life biospheres that interests astrobiology.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 02, 2016
LBL, please stop this semantic jibberish.

You speak nonsense.

Are you trying to pimp for a god, or what?
Protoplasmix
4.5 / 5 (15) Aug 02, 2016
LifeBasedLogic was home-schooled and spent much time locked in a small dark closet for committing the slightest infractions, is the only thing I can think of. Is that the truth, LifeBasedLogic?
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
vaire
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 02, 2016
I also don't believe that "life is truth".


Of course it's not. *Beauty* is truth (and truth beauty). Read it on a Grecian Urn once.

Also, that's some grade-A gibberish he's spouting. I would be impressed... if I hadn't been in the interwebs long enough to have seen even worse.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (19) Aug 02, 2016
@LBL
One word: insane.

Pretty much one way to stop the LBL trainwreck. Hit the report button on his comments...
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (17) Aug 02, 2016
@daveW/LBL fanatic
You have yet to make even one response that is not nonsense

When you can make your point that Science is most important in Science is not true, without using Science, then and only then do you have a valid response that claims gibberish

You have not done that. However you do keep making insults without a foundation

You are attempting to argue the things Science has said are not true. However, they are and are proved such

That puts you in the position of arguing against the truth for the sole purpose to promote evil

As long as you argue that it's not true or treat the truth as such, then you have no evidence
You say things are true with Science then say Science is not truth. It's called hypocrisy (lying).

proved yourself lying
You can't state something of Science is true and also say Science isn't true and not have hypocrisy (lying)
You come here to lie and cause a hard time for all huh? Truth doesn't matter etc., just your ego right? So childish
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (18) Aug 02, 2016
You come here to lie and cause a hard time for all huh? Truth doesn't matter, lives, etc., just your ego right? So childish.

Man, if you're not describing yourself, I have a vagina....
You're lying not only to others, but to yourself - which could be considered even more egregious...
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (16) Aug 02, 2016
Of course it's not. *Beauty* is truth (and truth beauty). Read it on a Grecian Urn once
@vaire
ah... John Keats
https://www.refer...Articles

I would be impressed... if I hadn't been in the interwebs long enough to have seen even worse.

are you a /b/ro too?

i score him low on the scale... mostly because of his fanaticism, though it demonstrates tenacity, it also demonstrates his lack of clarity and refusal to accept reality

or drugs

drugs are up there too
Protoplasmix
4.5 / 5 (15) Aug 02, 2016
You proved yourself lying. You can't state something of life is true and also say life isn't true and not have hypocrisy (lying).
LifeBasedLogic – hey, the serial-liar Republican nominee for president has called the infamous liar to her own people Hillary "Rotten" Clinton the actual devil – what on Earth are you doing here arguing with lowly science minions when the world so desperately needs you there? Get to it, LifeBasedLogic, let us know if you need any help.
vaire
4.3 / 5 (16) Aug 02, 2016
Can't say I much care for the romantics but even Byron makes more sense than LBL. Hell, even Coleridge on opium makes more sense ;)

@CaptainStumpy (et al) It certainly looks like he's having some sort of psychotic episode and I would normally feel sorry for him, because mental illness is sad... only, mental illness doesn't generally turn one into a hateful prick (religion, on the other hand...)

But as far as gibberish goes, one can find even worse on pretty much every atheist forum or page there is (and most science ones, too). Which really boggles the mind, at least mine - when I was religious (not proud of it, but at least I've got immunity now ;)) I never ever proselytised and/or went to sites that were clearly not aimed at me. I might as well have gone to my neighbours' house to yell at them for not watching the programmes *I* like.

It was entertaining for a bit but I'm getting rather sick of the hordes of babble-spouting lunatics on pretty much all science sites I visit.
Edenlegaia
5 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2016
It was entertaining for a bit but I'm getting rather sick of the hordes of babble-spouting lunatics on pretty much all science sites I visit.


Well, there was no Klingons, reptilians or Goau'lds involved at least. If that was the truth, it would be a huge shock.
At least, it's Life he's talking about. We know about it. We know it all....probably.
Would it be simple and cheesy to simply claim Life if Life?
JongDan
1 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2016
So violence is indeed a sign of higher evolution.


I wouldn't be so sure about that. Let's imagine a "normal violent" civilization who evolved enough to build bridges, turning full aggressive because of limited resources and size. The people butcher each others because they couldn't find a way to organize proper "sacrifices" or find a better way to manage what they had. In the process, what bears no strength but only knowledge gets rekt because they're weak and knowledge is defined as useless.

Now let's look at historical examples. We see "savage barbarians" defeating Roman Empire, several times defeating Chinese Empires, and in America we see Aztecs. So who wins the natural selection game?
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 03, 2016
Never mind LieBasedLogic...he's throwing one of his rage-voting tantrums again...*sigh*
Hand him another shovel. The hole he's digging for himself must be all the way to China by now.
Edenlegaia
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 03, 2016
I have claimed: Life is a truth, it's real.

Thus? What again about that? I can hardly imagine something like "Life is true" when we don't even know 100% what reality truly is, but "Life is truth".....?
That means what's true in Life is....err true?
Edenlegaia
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2016
Now let's look at historical examples. We see "savage barbarians" defeating Roman Empire, several times defeating Chinese Empires, and in America we see Aztecs. So who wins the natural selection game?


The savage barbarians defeated people with little care about their own state. But....yeah, let's admit that.
As for the Chinese Empires, your computer, chairs, windows and maybe even food may prove they survived, somehow, the trials of barbaric attacks from....barbarians. Violence lost here.
As for Aztecs, they got rekt by Europeans, because those needed new lands, preachings to share and probably felt sick about sacrifices to the Sun because the Sun and the Holy Cross have different forms.
Hmm....
Oh man, Europeans were violent. But well, given who we sent and the situation back then....
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (17) Aug 03, 2016
@LBL
One word: insane.

Pretty much one way to stop the LBL trainwreck. Hit the report button on his comments...


"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
- William Shakespeare

You need to re-visit that statement.
Your previous statements are protesting everyone else's view. Notice how you have many protesting comments compared to others. Not to mention - your "1" voting (as a form of protest)
NOW who do you think is protesting "too much"?
You need to up your librium dosage...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2016
"life is most important in life"
----------------------------------

Wow, that's fascinating.

I was just thinking, . . sludge is most important in sludge
"One very interesting aspect of the psychopath is his "hidden life" that is sometimes not too well hidden. It seems that the psychopath has a regular need to take a "vacation into filth and degradation" the same way normal people may take a vacation to a resort where they enjoy beautiful surroundings and culture. To get a full feeling for this strange "need" of the psychopath - a need that seems to be evidence that "acting human" is very stressful to the psychopath - read more of The Mask of Sanity, chapters 25 and 26."

-George kamburoff is so transparent. His entire life is a freudian slip.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 04, 2016
Did Whydening Gyre attempt publicly devalue the most important truth in life? Yes.
Did Whydening Gyre encourage and support others that attempted to devalue and dilute the most important truth in life? Yes.
Did Whydening Gyre encourage and support others here who clearly do not value the truth? Yes.
Did Whydening Gyre encourage and support others here who lied and had it proved so? Yes.
Did Whydening Gyre encourage and support others that incited hate. Yes.

Did Whydening Gyre state the truth is real? No.
Did Whydening Gyre attempt to defend the truth that protects life? No.
Did Whydening Gyre attempt to truthfully define her position to avoid possible ambiguity? No.

It's all on you. You have chosen your path of supporting evil. This is what you have factually done. All innocent blood shed is on your hands. I witness this as true

Wow. All that on me? I'm flattered.
Keep in mind that (as a veteran) I have even shed blood for you...
I witness THAT as true.
FredJose
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 04, 2016
Real life factual test:
Can stars form from out of clouds of gas all by themselves?
Can planets form out of clouds of dust all by themselves?
Can life arise from the dust/ground of planets through purely random physical and chemical processes all by itself?

I would like to ask that those who believe these things to be true please supply concrete, documented evidence with verification that it has and can happen. No speculation required because these statements are being bandied about as if they are hard fact.

If you cannot provide the real hard scientific evidence that these things actually has happened or can happen then your belief is based on pure blind faith. In other words, you are practicing a religion. Know this to be true. Which also then raises the question as to why you are denigrating anyone else who espouses a belief in a god or God when YOUR god is the Big Bang and evolution with abiogenesis.

antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (20) Aug 04, 2016
Can stars form from out of clouds of gas all by themselves?

Sure, we know how gravity works and how fusion works. We see dust spiralling into regions and we see the infrared signature of protostars in all kinds of stages (Since dust is collapsing to form a star 'first light' is hidden by dust.)
Can planets form out of clouds of dust all by themselves?

Sure. Gravity works for plantes just as well as for stars
Can life arise from the dust/ground of planets through purely random physical and chemical processes all by itself?

Chemical processes aren't random. They follow a pretty strict set of rules.And yes: life can happen...because I'm typing this.
why you are denigrating anyone else who espouses a belief in a god or God

For the simple reason: you say that nothing that isn't directly observed should be believed - but your god hasn't been directly observed and yet you say he should be believed in. Inconsistent people should be denigrated.
FredJose
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 04, 2016
@Antialias:

You cannot supply ANY scientifically observed and confirmed evidence that stars can form all by themselves, only speculation at this stage.
Nor can you supply ANY scientifically observed and confirmed evidence that planets can form by themselves at this stage.
Nor can you supply ANY scientifically observed and confirmed evidence that life can arise all by itself from purely physical and chemical processes.
There just ISN'T ANY!!!
Please get that into your head.
Whatever it is you believe about these statements, just know that it is NOT confirmed FACT.
So to repeat - you are believing in fairy tales at this moment - and I can say that with true scientific backing according to the accepted scientific method.
Yet here we have YOU proclaiming things as fact which are not. Are you privy to information that the rest of the scientific community needs to know? If so, a NOBEL prize is in the offing.
Please do supply the scientifically accepted evidence.
FredJose
1 / 5 (15) Aug 04, 2016
@Antialias,
It would seem that you are blind to the fact that your belief in self-creating stars, planets and life is based on sheer blind faith at this moment.
It seems that you simply cannot accept that the three statements I've put forward are simply a great wish with some observations which are interpreted to make them "fact".
I would expect someone who is truly trained in the scientific method to at least be humble enough to admit that there is CURRENTLY ZERO evidence to corroborate those statements.
I do not see this coming from you. Instead you lambaste anyone willing to challenge your blind faith.
gfirl
4 / 5 (16) Aug 04, 2016
Unfortunate that what should be an interesting discussion gets highjacked by religious fanatics. Surely they must realize that proselytizing scientists is bad business?

The suggestion that life on earth is premature doesn't make sense. The solar system formed only 4.5 BYA, and the universe is 13 BY old. Our sun will only live about 8 BY. So human life appeared about halfway through the expected lifespan of the planet, and long after other systems have gone through multiple cycles birth and death.

A more interesting suggestion was made a couple decades ago: that while the evolution of single-celled lifeforms may be common (based on the early appearance here) the evolution of multi-cellular life is more uncommon. Single celled life developed soon after the earth cooled to allow liquid water, but multi-cellular life took 4 BY; approximately the same duration as the lifespan of the planet. It may be that particular characteristics of the earth system accelerated that development.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (19) Aug 04, 2016
There just ISN'T ANY!!!

It's like with evolution. Do I need to see every intermediary form to be alive to think that evolution wotks? Not really. If there are enough examples in all kinds of stages (for evolution this would be fossils, for stars this would be the billions upon billions we observe in the night sky) then it's a pretty good guess that stages are part of a greater chain.

When I give you snapshots of a person at different ages you also don't refuse to believe that the person did grow up between the snapshots - even though you never observed them.

And again: If you really follow your own line of thought, you must immediately ditch your belief in any kind of god. Otherwise you're just schizophrenic about how you apply evidence.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
FredJose
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 04, 2016
@Greenonions.
Sorry to deflate your balloon friend but just so you know - so far there is ZERO verified evidence that stars can form by themselves, no matter how much theory and interpreted observations are thrown at the problem.
So unless and until it is actually CONFIRMED and accepted by the scientific community that such an event has occurred, you are sucking air. If such confirmation had been made, I can guarantee you that the people involved would be awarded the Nobel prize.

So right now, YOU and anti-alias and anyone else who accepts that stars can form by themselves out of clouds of gas are doing so on the basis of blind faith.

You simply have to accept that that is how it is. No amount of mudslinging is going to change the fact.

The same applies to planets forming out of dust by themselves or life arising out of the ground by itself.

Get with the real, hard facts, already.
FredJose
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 04, 2016
FJ is reasoning like someone who looks at the grass for a while and then concludes it does not grow.

Phys1 is reasoning like someone who looks at clouds of gas or dust for a while and then concluding that stars and planets form by themselves......without actually having a shred of evidence that the conclusion is valid!!!!!
FredJose
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 04, 2016
@gfirl
Single celled life developed soon after the earth cooled to allow liquid water

Please explain HOW this life developed all by itself. Since you use this statement as FACT, please point us to the research that confirms that life can arise all by itself from the ground/water/air by purely physical and chemical processes without any outside help.

Where is the SCIENCE that you so deeply revere is this statement you are making?

Please show us. I repeat : A NOBEL prize is waiting for the first person who comes up with a confirmed and thoroughly verified documented observation that life does indeed arise from the earth all by itself.
Until now it's just been a pipe dream.
FredJose
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 04, 2016
@antiphys
Not really. If there are enough examples in all kinds of stages (for evolution this would be fossils, for stars this would be the billions upon billions we observe in the night sky) then it's a pretty good guess that stages are part of a greater chain.

It's pretty bad logic and even worse or in fact non-science to make an observation and immediately jump to conclusions.
When I give you snapshots of a person at different ages you also don't refuse to believe that the person did grow up between the snapshots - even though you never observed them.

Quite simply it's historic fact that billions of parents have OBSERVED and can verify that their children have grown up from babies into adults.
The same cannot be said for stars or planets. NO Human being has observed the formation and birth of a star all by itself. NO HUMAN has observed the formation and birth of a planet from a cloud of dust all by itself.
Your analogy demonstrates really poor science.
FredJose
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 04, 2016
@anti-physics
for evolution this would be fossils,

Fossils are the remains of once living creatures. All it shows are now-dead bodies. Nothing more. There is no connection between one fossil and another, even of the same genus or species. One cannot make the definite link between one fossil and its predecessor or successor, no matter how hard one tries. This is because no one was there to observe, document and confirm that indeed one kind of organism went thru the travails of death and disease to form the next or different kind of organism. Please spare me the germ story.

Given the incredible amount of lifeforms on earth, for Darwinian evolution to be true would require that we actually see the transformations from week to week, highly visible right in front of our eyes.
Instead what we find is either a handful of disputable [among evolutionists no less] fossil specimens or more pertinently, NO links whatsoever.
KaFaraqGatri
Aug 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
john berry_hobbes
3.6 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2016
LieBasedLogic sounds straight out of the Perry Mason episode, "Case of the Jaded Joker", with the angst resolved by some kind of pantheistic being. We're "the squares". Take home lesson would be that Buzzie becomes a murderer because of his beliefs.

Great cinematography! After killing the bloke he folds his body up into a desk where the chair goes in a fetal position (square...born again...).

Great scene with Tragg getting MJ smoke blown in his face. JB sezs check it out!

Here. Tell me this isn't LieBasedLogic. Oh, and his name is "Buzzie". lol

(cont)
john berry_hobbes
3.6 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2016
Buzzie: The cool ones take the tail out of their faces. A lost tribe of rejects. Slobs go for smash. Maybe wind up in the island doin' five to nine for jostlin'. But the squares. Oh, the squares.

Perry: Tell me about the squares.

B: Go, go, go. Run through the ruts. Splash mud on clean little people. Stay in the muddy rut, splash mud at the sun, wear a mask to hide a muddy face. Squares? Ask me about the squares. I'm Madam Berta. Mystic reader. I understand it better than anybody. I put 'em down. Liars. Hypocrites. Slaves.

P: What are you,Buzzie?

B: I'm beat, daddy. I'm beat. No past. No present. No future. Alone, me. Nothin' else except chaos and confusion...and squares. Who's me? I don't know. Where am I? I guess a hipster said it best: "At the bottom of my personality, lookin' up."

P: What gives with the squares, Buzzie?

B: They don't make it, baby. They don't swing.

P: No chance?

B: Only a chance to be born again.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2016
Given the incredible amount of lifeforms on earth, for Darwinian evolution to be true would require that we actually see the transformations from week to week

Transformation doesn't happen from week to week. It happens from generation to generation (that whole 'genetics' thing, you know?). And we do observe this (in the lab AND in the wild). So what's your point? That you just aren't aware of all these observations?

Just google for "observed evolution". You should get plenty of hits for recorded occurences.
With a minimum of hardware you can actually do evolutionary experiments at home.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2016
The same cannot be said for stars or planets. NO Human being has observed the formation and birth of a star all by itself.

No human has observed god - why do you believe in this fantasy?

We see accretion happening all over the place in the universe. There's nothing 'magic' about coming to the conclusion that gravity works. You can test this yourself.

That's the real thing here: you can test stuff (bei it adaptation, speciation, gravity, accretion, fusion, etc.) we don't see quarks, either - but the theory of quarks is a highly successful one. So we're fairly confident that there is something to it. We have billions of observations that fit (same with stars and planets). So the confidence in the models is extremely high.

Science doesn't say how something definitely is. It says how something is most likely (given all we know). Saying that something ISN'T (because it hasn't been observed) is choosing the LESS likely alternative (i.e.: dumb).
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 04, 2016
Semantic nonsense.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (13) Aug 04, 2016
so far there is ZERO verified evidence that stars can form
@fredj
ok... lets explain this in another way using your exact train of thought and logic above

.

there is also ZERO verified evidence you are not a paramecium

there is evidence that something typed a post here on po, but there is no valid evidence you aren't a pedophile or rapist-sociopath seeking a situation to justify mass murder, therefore, "unless and until it is actually CONFIRMED and accepted by" valid evidence & secondary sources, we must accept that you're all of the above mentioned things, because that is what is believable

it's irrefutable and uses the exact same logic you just used, therefore we now, using your own logic and pattern, know for a fact you're a paramecium pedophile rapist-sociopath attempting to justify mass murder

.

now do you understand the flaw in your logic and why what AA_P said is correct?
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (13) Aug 04, 2016
@fredLiar cont'd
It's pretty bad logic and even worse or in fact non-science to make an observation and immediately jump to conclusions
you mean like believing a holy comic of oral fables passed on from generation to gen. from illiterate sheep-herders and eventually written down is scientifically accurate, based upon "love" and the infallible word of an unseen, unproven and immeasurable deity despite all the glaring inconsistencies, blatant failures, rape, mass murder, slavery, hate and contradictions inside?

...tell us more
LMFAO
billions of parents have OBSERVED
but are said children exact duplicates of the parent?
do they all have the exact same attributes of said parent?
are they the exact same height, weight and have the same allergies and abilities?
are they clones?

...tell us more

i am positive you don't understand the relevance or connection... that would mean you have to, by your own words, refuse to accept your own religion
LOL
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Aug 04, 2016
@fredthefanatic last
Given the incredible amount of lifeforms on earth, for Darwinian evolution to be true would require that we actually see the transformations from week to week, highly visible right in front of our eyes
you mean like this?
http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

like AA_P said, it's change every generation
life does indeed arise from the earth all by itself
so... just because we haven't found it yet it must not exist?

when you lose your car keys is it evidence your keys don't exist?
you have evidence of a car by it being parked in your garage/driveway, papers, taxes, etc, but the keys must not exist until they're found?

... what kind of logic is that?

the god of the gaps argument always fails
for proof see: gravity, heliocentric earth orbits, oblate shperoid earth, medicine and much, much more
https://www.youtu...kg4hMRjs
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (17) Aug 04, 2016
@ David-Skippy. How you are Cher? Never mind, that is the rhetoric question with me being polite.

Could you please tell me just what it is that you are trying to get across to everybody? What is the point and what it has to do with everything on physorg? I am serious me, I really do not understand what you are trying to tell.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Aug 04, 2016
@davidW TROLL
is that what you consider irrefutable logic?

is your comment some sort of lame excuse for your behavior?

Is your mind so wreaked that you really believe calling people liars without evidence in a public forum is in the best interest of Science or truth itself?

both require validation - see any court or the scientific method

To lie to someone, by calling them a liar when they are not, is to try to make them believe the lie that they are less than important and somehow, their actions will not really matter. It's a very, very foolish thing to do because it is not backed by the truth

But you take it a step further like fred, bschit and the rest.
You deny reality and proven validated facts itself publicly and then think things have not changed

Your comments are here as evidence. It changes everything.
Anyone can now correctly call you on nonsense and easily prove it.
Enjoy
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (17) Aug 04, 2016
To Whom it may concern,

Captain Stumpy has publicly denied the truth that he is truthfully alive as defense to call people names (lie).

Do not take anything he says seriously.


Okayeei Cher. Thanks for the heads up. I would have missed it.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
Aug 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (17) Aug 04, 2016
To Whom it may concern,

Uncle Ira has publicly denied the truth that he is truthfully alive as defense to call people names (lie). He is stating that he doesn't understand what the words truth, life, and most important mean, again in defense of telling lies.


I did not mean to do that in public. I apologize for that.

Do not take anything he says seriously.


Well you at least got that part right. That is good advice Cher.
gkam
1 / 5 (11) Aug 04, 2016
"to call people names (lie)"
-----------------------------

Oh, no!

Who would do something so nasty? Will they say that face-to-face?

Or hide like you-know-who?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Aug 04, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR liar-kam
Or hide like you-know-who?
you mean "gkam" is the only name on your drivers license?
so... who's paperwork did you send me to be publicly posted?
(here: http://s1027.phot...p;page=1 )

i see you don't believe in science or the scientific method by your voting tactics... is there something wrong with the empirical evidence? (the links/references i posted here: http://phys.org/n...ity.html )

i didn't see any actual scientific content from you nor did i see a refute for the information contained: why is that?
the links have references and empirical evidence in them

please share your experience in STEM and with the scientific method so everyone can learn from the master

after all, you stated experience is more important than reading facts
please show how your experience outweighs the experienced Ph.D in the links

THANKS

PS- no science/evidence; no reply
gkam
1 / 5 (11) Aug 04, 2016
I repeatedly told you to take down the social security number on my DD-214. But you are too nasty, and have insufficient character.

The other stuff, the performance reports from the service are okay. I want folk to see them and compare them to yours. Oh, you have none? No service?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Aug 04, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR liar-kam

repeating a lie doesn't make it more true

no science/evidence; no reply
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 04, 2016
Meaning the above apology is satire.
What that means Skippy? If you did not like it, just give me the "1" karma vote and move along.
Estevan57
4.3 / 5 (16) Aug 04, 2016
So gkam, you repeatedly told him to take down the number that you purposely sent to be displayed online?

You are truly the biggest dumbass on the planet, gkam. : )

But I am an anonymous sniper because I don't do the same? ha ha ha.

You are a 71 year old child.

I publicly state that I am truly alive.
Enthusiastic Fool
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2016
Damn, LBL has a shibboleth to rival even the $cientologists.

Communication is completely impossible and the gaps in logic remind me of Jared Loughner's videos. The sentence structure and meaning of words is non-standard. I wonder if this is something LBL came up with in his own secluded psychopathy, if there's more like him, or if it's the result of some trauma. He's not an individual I'd trust to walk behind me - scary stuff.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2016
So gkam, you repeatedly told him to take down the number that you purposely sent to be displayed online?

You are truly the biggest dumbass on the planet, gkam.
@Estevan57
and apparently she is illiterate and can't read either
[redundancy intended]
LMFAO

.

.

The sentence structure and meaning of words is non-standard. I wonder if this is something LBL came up with in his own secluded psychopathy, if there's more like him, or if it's the result of some trauma. He's not an individual I'd trust to walk behind me - scary stuff
@Enthusiastic Fool
i am with you on that - never trust him anywhere near you

apparently it is all part of his psychopathy more so than some other indoctrination as the search for his key phrase brings you back only to his own pontification on various sites he's been banned from (including here on PO as davidW)
Shootist
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2016
When I was a youth it was assumed that the earth was unique and special.


the Earth hasn't been thought of as unique and special since Copernicus. Dang but you're old.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2016
Our scientist will still be up for a number of great surprises, starting with basic assumptions such as the time of the BigBang and thus the beginning of our specific universe. Chances are that this had happed already 46 trillion (US way of naming the numbers) years ago.

ow.ly/yeXW302Zpdr
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2016
Frustrating to read about the phantasy God figure in such a science article. There is not enough space here for putting all the rational arguments up that contradict its possibility of existence. Let me just state two: if we analyze and understand the laws of nature around us, it is evident that each and everything follows the cause and effect principle. The evolution being one prime example. So how could one possibly assume that somehow, sometimes those laws are not applying because a weird figure meddling with matters? Absurd. And let us assume that a perfect, flawless being is located somewhere. That being in total perfection had been so sick to create a universe packed with imperfections? Plausible? A perfect being bearing imperfection. Silly.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2016
it is evident that each and everything follows the cause and effect principle
@student
only in the macro - see: Quantum Mechanics

not sure where you are going with the rest of that, though i agree there is no "perfect, flawless being" as well as the argument that said being created the universe

StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2016
Wait, Captain. The fact of us not yet having discovered and understood a cause in Quantum Mechanics and elsewhere does not mean that there is none. There are also still several subatomic particle levels below our current awareness, and additional laws of physics to find out about. For the same reason there are no miracles, it is just lack of knowledge.
tblakely1357
1 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2016
"The line about 'settled' science cuts off debate is just a denier trope."

For a 'trope' I sure have seen a lot of Global Warming adherents trot that line out. In fact to some of them it's so 'settled' they've proposed taking 'deniers' to court and prosecuting them for crimes against humanity. You might try reading the news occasionally and get out of your echo chamber.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 06, 2016
@ All above:

great entertainment.......... Next stop, Differential Equations.
komone
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2016
you can't prove a negative.


Given your statement, it seems the burden of proving a negative is now on you.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2016
...The fact of us not yet having discovered and understood a cause in Quantum Mechanics and elsewhere does not mean that there is none
@spiritual
my point: you can't make a prediction based on faith and expect an evidence based analysis system to accept it as being legitimate

and using a link to known delusional pseudoscience/alien Plejaren Federation/Meier telepathic contacts with extraterrestrial beings bullsh*t link as evidence is kinda like attempting to predict the lotto with goat droppings

1- billy aint got no evidence

2- http://occupytheo...ebunked/

need more?
it's not like there isn't plenty of Meier debunked links out there

science doesn't run on faith... it runs on evidence: reproducible stuff that can be validated

this is something woefully absent in the argument you made, and it doesn't help that you've included a debunked delusional geriatric on the con
ThunderDolts
Aug 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Aug 07, 2016
science doesn't run on faith


you mean like Perpetual Motion? Like how can "infinite gravity attraction" exist on the surface of a finite BH stellar mass that may only be a few miles in diameter ?

it runs on evidence


You mean like producing evidence that "infinite gravitational attraction" can exist on the surface of a finite stellar mass?

reproducible stuff that can be validated


You mean like reproducing "infinite gravity" to validate claims by Astro-physicists for the existence of Black Holes?

Of course we could go a long way proving the Black Hole Perpetual Motion Machine can actually exist if only Schneibo would break loose & post those pictures of BHs he claims to have seen.

And hey Stumpo, I'll just bet a dollar for a donut that you have "faith" in a lot of other "dark & black" stuff that the Funny Farm Science crowd of Astro-physics likes to dream up, where neither Conservation of Energy or Gravity exists, only Perpetual Motion.
ThunderDolts
Aug 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 07, 2016
science doesn't run on faith


Like how can "infinite gravity attraction" exist on the surface of a finite BH stellar mass that may only be a few miles in diameter ?


How is seeing something that clearly exists (gravity)


Wheeeeee..........here we go again, now you can see "gravity" !!!! OK, show us the PICTURES!!!!!

and wondering about it - considered 'faith'.
.........Schneibo has pics of BHs & now you have pics of Gravity.......next you'll be telling me you've seen?????? Dark Matter?

Seems Benni wants to project a psychological insecurity on to the rest of the world
......lack of faith in your Funny Farm Science of believing in so many things you neophytes claim to have so much proof of, but refuse to share with the rest of us on PhysOrg, tells a tale all of its' own.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 07, 2016
BHs follow from GRT and you have no proof against their existence


OK, Copy & Paste the section straight from the text of General Relativity if you have so much PROOF for your claim, so far you've been unable to do that which is "proof against their existence" because Einstein never conjured up such an hypothesis & you can't prove differently

you keep repeating the same argument. BHs are a hypothesis following from GRT. Proof for or against the existence of an event horizon, and therefore GRT, will be delivered by the EHT.


......and you keep "repeating the same argument" but never producing the text of the section in which it appears, you simply keep repeating what someone else writes about what's in GR but NEVER going to GR to find the text for it, only neophytes swallow such gobbleygook & you're a classic case example.

StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2016
Captain and Fellows,
I respect the readers of this site, as they certainly belong to the group of people that are curious, want to learn and develop, are unsatisfied with the status quo on this planet. I guess that a large portion of you has some very serious still unanswered questions. Anyone, who can answer me the question on the purpose of life? Are there reincarnations? How does that work? At the classical science level: How do things like telepathy work? Are there energy and wave forms still unknown to earth scientists etc.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2016
That said, would it be doing justice to the intelligence level (by the way, there are still some surprises to come in that scientific domain) of the average reader over here to discard the Billy Meier material, because being too lazy to challenge the Internet slander and pseudo-proves posted out there by the ufologist crowd? Copying and repeating that trash does not make it any truer. You should for example give a look to the change history on the English Billy Meier Wikipedia page. Pretty serious counter arguments from hundreds of eye witnesses etc. have consistently been suppressed. So, I invite you to check things for yourself: http://www.theyfl...evidence
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2016
Further searches over there for: Asket, skeptics, WCUFO, etc., will reveal that the skeptics at IIG etc. lied, falsified information and were easily defeated, as were ALL the claims that Meier ever hoaxed any evidence or lied about anything. If in the USA, I would suggest to contact Michael Horn (theyfly.com), the Authorized American Media Representative for The Billy Meier Contacts. He will be glad to debate, refute etc. any of the defamatory claims that pass your eyes.
Urgelt
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2016
I am guessing the deluded anti-science Xtian nuts have come out in force on this comment thread. I don't know for sure. I block those idiots as soon as I see them.

So whatever they're on about, I'll pay no attention. Instead, I'll remark about the article.

The argument presented in this study is similar to the Drake Equation - which has a string of variables whose values are unknown - except in one respect: it *is* early in the life of the universe, and we can pretty closely show where we are, in this moment, relative to that timeline.

Still, it leaves unanswered the questions most interesting to humans: is there life elsewhere coexistent with us? Are there civilizations elsewhere coexistent with us?

It's just speculation.

Now speculation is good. I like speculation. It's a fun game. But it isn't evidence of anything at all.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2016
Captain Stumpy 5 / 5 (3) 1 hour ago

this is something woefully absent in the argument you made, and it doesn't help that you've included a debunked delusional geriatric on the con


Aw, that's pretty sad, quoting RC.
@Thunder
actually, he was quoting me ... he has been for a long time in various ways

.

.

And hey Stumpo, I'll just bet a dollar for a donut that you have "faith"
@benjiTROLL
1- i don't have faith: i follow the evidence

2- you have yet to bring any evidence to the table that isn't considered either:
anecdote
opinion
argument from authority (self - Dunning-Kruger based)
pseudoscience
OR an outright false claim

until you can actually link or reference something other than your own opinion, you can't prove anything other than you're a blowhard attempting to con some sucker into believing your delusion, just like any other religious fanatic nut-job

Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2016
Captain and Fellows,
I respect the readers of this site, ...on this planet
@student
i respect only what can be validated (which doesn't include claims of aliens communicating by telepathic means when there is no empirical evidence for aliens *or* telepathic communication)
the purpose of life? Are there reincarnations? How does that work?
1- why does there have to be a purpose? what is the purpose of e.coli's life? why is there air (besides to fill volleyballs)?

2- not unless you can provide empirical, repeatable, valid (and able to be validated) evidence proving it

3- god of the gaps argument: just because we don't know everything now doesn't mean we wont know: 20 years ago the appendix was a "vestigial organ" and we still don't know a lot about it
http://www.webmd....appendix

How do things like telepathy work?
there is no empirical evidence that this exists at all on any level

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2016
@student cont'd
being too lazy to challenge the Internet slander and pseudo-proves posted out there by the ufologist crowd?
ok, here is the problem
for starters, slander is verbal, it is considered libel if it's in written published format

for two: you (or billy) make a claim - just because you made the claims doesn't mean it's true
it requires evidence... you know, that stuff you (and billy) can't actually come up with?

the arguments against you (and billy) are based upon evidence, whereas your arguments for something are based upon your belief and things like this
counter arguments from hundreds of eye witnesses etc
the absolute worst kind of evidence in science is eye-witness testimony
it isn't even reliable in any other investigation unless it's validated...

so what makes you think it's ok for something as extremely extraordinary as aliens or telepathy?

PROTIP: it aint

until you can bring in more than "billy said" it's a pseudoscience fiction CON
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2016
@student cont'd
lied, falsified information and were easily defeated, as were ALL the claims that Meier ever hoaxed any evidence or lied about anything
if it can't stand up to the same level of scrutiny of at least a court of law, which is a few levels below science, then you're making what is called a "false claim"
http://www.auburn...ion.html

more to the point: you've chosen to pick a singular name out of your hat as proof of lies but just making the claim isn't enough
evidence over claims - it is how science built the world around you and it's the last line of defense against being conned or following a deluded narcissist seeking self-aggrandizement etc

so far you're not making a very good case at all

no evidence, pseudoscience links that are easily debunked with a cursory search, your opinion, and posting & intimating that eyewitness testimony is credible evidence over physical findings
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (14) Aug 08, 2016
@ Student-Skippy. How you are? I am good, thanks for asking. I'll have a choot at your questions.
I guess that a large portion of you has some very serious still unanswered questions.
Not really a large portion if you mean these, unless you are the crankpot.

Anyone, who can answer me the question on the purpose of life?
You come to the wrong place for that one. You got to go to the religious or philosophy place, they will have lots of answers for that one there.

Are there reincarnations?
Probably not.

How does that work?
Probably it don't.

At the classical science level:How do things like telepathy work?
The same way unicorn mares get pregnant.

Are there energy and wave forms still unknown to earth scientists etc.
Hard to go looking for something unless you have some idea of what you are looking for. Looking for just any old thing that might come along is a bad way of doing science stuffs.

How I do with your questions?
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2016
Wheeeeee..........here we go again, now you can see "gravity" !!!! OK, show us the PICTURES!!!!!
So Benni thinks things don't exist if you can't see them. What age do children learn that one? Magnetism/electricity/radioactivity/centrifugal force - all non existent - cuz Benni cant see them.


......but you & Schneibo have pictures, or know how to take them. So Greeno, lay the controversy 100% to rest & put them them up. Of course we want to see pics, a pic would be worth an "infinite" quantity of words, but I guess you'd rather just post words just so you can have the argument of the narrative, retirement life for you old men is just so boring isn't it?

You overaged Trekkies are just so cute. When you post your pics of BHs & Gravity, please include alongside them the ones with you guys all decked out in your Trekkie costumes that you wear to the Trekkie conventions.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 08, 2016
OK, Copy & Paste the section straight from the text of General Relativity ...


Which "text of .." ? Do you mean any textbook?
.........you have an impediment with reading don't you? Here, I'll repeat it again: "straight from the text of General Relativity".......and when you do this the reader bypasses the filter of personal opinions about what they think the "text" within the document means. I'm never interested in someone's OPINION about the "text", just the words (text) contained within the document.


StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2016
@stumpy
I see, you are certainly not (yet) interested in non-materialistic matters. Men's free will is to be respected. Here a suggestion to the astrophysicists reading the article: bookmark this page and come back to it in 10 years or so. Before Friday 13, April 2029 or latest on the same day in 2036 hell will break lose, as asteroid Apophis will approach earth on collision course. Its trajectory will be so to hit central Europe, ripping land apart between North Sea and Black Sea, with lava eruptions and massive devastations. The only realistic way to prevent it will be an atomic explosion in proximity to Apophis. Today's scientists sleep in ignorance: http://neo.jpl.na...apophis/
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 08, 2016
So Greeno, lay the controversy 100% to rest & put them them up. Of course we want to see pics,


Mmmmm - you missed the point - which was that you think that things don't exist - if you can't see them
.......yeah, Black Holes to be specific.

If you believe things exist that can't be seen, smelled, or touched.....that is faith, I'm a Scientist/Engineer whose professional aspirations have nothing to do with faith. Faith is more a description of yourself as believers in something absent the three qualities of reality, Yourself, Stumpo, Schneibo, etc, you just don't label your fantasies what they really are.

I (an old arthritic working man -r - with no scientific credentials)
......and it shows through very clearly.

or is it the one about Bennie thinking that things do not exist - if you can't see them?)
......or "smell" or "touch".
Urgelt
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2016
"Before Friday 13, April 2029 or latest on the same day in 2036 hell will break lose, as asteroid Apophis will approach earth on collision course. Its trajectory will be so to hit central Europe, ripping land apart between North Sea and Black Sea, with lava eruptions and massive devastations."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Thanks for the belly-laugh, Student.

You have a wonderful life ahead of you in comedy. Good thing. You don't have a wonderful life ahead of you in science. For that, you'd have to be able to understand some of it.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2016
I see, you are certainly not (yet) interested in non-materialistic matters
@student
actually, quite the opposite: however i am not interested in your opinion on how you "think" it should be investigated, only in what can be proven using the scientific method
history is riddled with charlatans and con men taking advantage of the sucker who is open to "non-materialistic matters" and accept someone's word without evidence
hell will break lose
there is always someone predicting doom and gloom, too, especially WRT asteroids, comets and century turnovers
the fact that you're using it as an argument is indicative of delusion and religion, not science
The only realistic way to prevent it will be an atomic explosion
this depends on how you focus said explosion as well as the makeup, density and consistency of said asteroid

if it's a loose light not very dense asteroid, nuking near it might make multiple asteroids to screw up our day
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2016
2student cont'd
this may work in the movies (Armageddon comes to mind) but that doesn't mean it is always going to work in real life... it's not a matter of "just nuke it" and we're ok
there are a lot of real world factors involved, from delivery to execution... but given the fact that you're arguing from a point of delusion, i can understand why this didn't occur to you
Today's scientists sleep in ignorance
every day's scientists are ignorant
the difference is that they actively research to alleviate said ignorance, unlike the choice you are making to sleep with delusion and religion as your safety/security blanket

just because you believe it doesn't mean it's true: ask any schizophrenic about that one (or religious fanatic, if they're lucid enough to comprehend that reality differs from belief - which rules out benni and the eu cults)

PS - do ya got anything based in validated facts to share?
or are ya gonna keep pulling a benji?
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2016
If you believe things exist that can't be seen, smelled, or touched.....that is faith
@benji
so, you don't believe in nitrogen, oxygen, diatomic molecules, everything in QM, air in general, and the EM spectrum that isn't visible?
ROTFLMFAO
I'm a Scientist/Engineer
well, you've already proven this is a blatant lie

not only can you NOT validate the claim, you can't do ODE's as claimed
http://phys.org/n...s_1.html

http://phys.org/n...and.html

http://phys.org/n...ood.html

http://phys.org/n...ity.html

ya can't do basic math either, let alone take 2 seconds to look up terminology: http://phys.org/n...als.html

and ya plagiarize without reference
http://phys.org/n...dio.html

so, we know you're a liar and aren't in any STEM field at all
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2016
Unfortunately, they got the size of Apophis wrong. The beast is 350 metres. Deflection, not blow up is the right answer:

http://en.tsu.ru/...teroid-/
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 08, 2016
so, you don't believe in nitrogen, oxygen, diatomic molecules, everything in QM, air in general, and the EM spectrum that isn't visible?


Stumpo, give it a rest old man. Everything you listed above can be seen, smelled, & touched. When you over-the-hill Trekkies lose it, you really go for it bigtime. Are you one of the ones who wears a tin-foil-hat at the Trekkie conventions?
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 08, 2016
Yeah right, but why don't you read Schwarzschild's paper ?
........because it doesn't appear in Einstein's General Relativity just like you have never appeared in a 2nd semester classroom or you would have known that.

Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2016
LBL,
Since you have so graciously seen fit to go back and 1 everyone of my comments in every thread thru at least thru June, I feel it only appropriate to "report" your last 20 or so comments here in this thread. A practice I usually only use for the "I made 6000 dollars last week" kinda people.
I hope you get to read this before they ban you from the site...:-)
I also highly encourage using the "report" button for other members who've had enough of YOUR truth...
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2016
@LifeBasedLogic

I must admit that I have in the last 2 years checked almost every article on phys.org for staying up-to-date on new research, without taking the time to read the comments. Am thus unaware of your apparently bitter disputes with some other commenters. Why such an emotion? It makes no sense trying to convince others. They need themselves to find things out. No shortcut.

What makes me curious in your last postings is your frequent use of "life" and "truth" as central concerns. Do you know the full and long name of the Spiritual Teaching? It is "teaching of the truth, teaching of the spirit, teaching of the life".
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2016
I hope you get to read this before they ban you from the site...:-)
@WHYDE
laudable and i agree with your decision: i will also go back and report them like you have
however, i doubt it will do any good as LBL likely pays the site to stay here with a sponsored account, so he will be able to spew regardless of content

.

.

Everything you listed above can be seen, smelled, & touched
@benjiTROLL
you cannot see/smell/touch them without the aid of modern tech, you idiot

you can, however, using tightly controlled validated technology, measure them (WRT what i mentioned)

this is where you and i differ:
-i require evidence constrained by the scientific method and it's techniques

-you require only belief in something and your delusional claims which you can't validate
not once have you been able to validate your own math skills (even tried plagiarizing) or any other comment you made, including your supposed engineering experience
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2016

1. Voting is allowed
2. many others got up votes
3. there is nothing that says I have to vote right away

Same goes for the report button...
4. the rules of this website says that comments need to be science based.

None of yours have EVER been, so why do you remain?
Being as you and the rest of the troll brigade refuse to admit that life is a truth,

life is a product of previous events. Shit happens. Truth.
you can't any evidence, ever, and as such there can be no science and your comments are about your ego and never about science.

Better my ego than your babbling.
5. because your comments are never really about what we call science, you deserve nothing more than a down vote

Interestingly enough - that's the reason you only get 1's...
And since you display no cognitive awareness of science, you get what you deserve, as well...:-)
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2016
Now remember Whydening Gyre,

You said you have bleed for me.

Really? Now why would I believe that is in anyway true?

I don't care what you believe.
What you have done is band together with a bunch of people using sock puppets, calling names, lying, and inciting hate here,

Present proof.
which is of course, the opposite of defending the truth, honesty, and quality of the comments in regard to science and its only valid use, the betterment of life in general.
...
I am not done down voting you. I will always down vote you until you apologize to the community for supporting hate and lies.

I publicly apologize to the community for not doing more to shut down your constant stream of babble. Thereby supporting your spiteful vendetta, in a manner of speaking.
You've had problems and defeats in life? They're only yours for YOU to contend with.
Now. Go get some help.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2016
On that strange discussion, can you help me to learn something from it? Leaving feelings of hurt and anger aside, is it fair to summarize the 2 camps and motivations as…

A) Science must remain clean and untampered with

History has shown what it means, if sciences is manipulated and distorted by interest groups. It slows down or even stops progress for mankind and societies, it destroys credibility. See what happened with Galileo etc. Believes in no matter what shape (religious, sectarian, political dogmas etc.) must be banned and shunned. Uncertainties in the form of hypotheses, assumptions and models are fine as instruments. It is scientific duty to at earliest objectively validate, verify or disprove them.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2016
B) Any science must at its core respect ethical standards

Science must respect nothing but the reality and logic (call this truth), as shown to us in nature and its laws, which we are gradually discovering. One of the many natural laws is about rewards for so called high values such as respect, honesty, caring for and even deeply loving fellow beings and any life forms, even nonliving objects, oceans, planets etc. Scientific work needs thus to watch out and align the way it is conducted and the way it is applied. Take working on biological weapons, producing half-humans combined from pigs and men for serving as soldiers as examples.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2016
Is that coming from someone who publicly lies and calls people names? Yes.

Provide ONE comment of mine where I have called you or anyone else a name.
Is that coming from someone who publicly dismissed the need for life and truth in science for science to even to exist. Yes.

Provide ONE comment of mine where I have publicly dismissed truth in science.
So, that person doesn't have a real axiom to even define science, let alone talk about it with any honesty. Oh, that's you.

Learn a new word, did ya? You are not even using it correctly.
Is all that coming from someone only posting here for their ego? Yes

Nah... I just post for fun.
.... It an excuse to ignore sane, science based thought.

which - we're all still waiting for from you...:-)
Ciao.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2016
I might have misunderstood the whole discussion. But for my description of A) and B), I do not see a conflict of approaches. For me they are both right and need not to contradict each other.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Kelly_From_Killane
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2016
I didn't babble.


You did Boyo. Why don't you take yourself and your truth to hospital and let the docs have a look at you?
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2016
Whydening Gyre, you lied about the vote count meaning something for your side. You knew all along that most of the accounts voting for you were fraudulent. You took the bait and knew what it was lies and ran with it.

You prob'ly haven't noticed (being so caught up in promoting your "all-important" opinions and all) - I've never even voted on any of your comments.
Who votes on mine, I have no control of.
And - 100 years from now, it won't matter...
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2016
I've never even voted on any of your comments.


LIE

promoting your "all-important" opinions


LIE

Who votes on mine, I have no control of.


LIE

And - 100 years from now, it won't matter...


LIE

You're acting as a spoiled child lashing out at the only person who doesn't downvote you. Making you look a coward, too...
Now.... what's REALLY your problem?
Not enough attention in real life?
Estevan57
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2016
@LifeBasedLogic Would it be out of line for me to tell you I think you are a whiney little bitch?

Scientifically deduced from your interactions with others, of course.

Captain Stumpy
Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2016
Shut up Ira, Stumpy, etc.


I'll let the Captain-Skippy speak for him self, or shut up for him self too if that is what he wants to do. But I got to ask Cher, did you really think I would "shut up" just because you wrote that up there?

I realize this "life is better than dead and when you are dead the truth don't matter any more" stuffs is really "most important" to you. But Cher, you really ought to work on getting your truths into some kind of orderly pile.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. You must be dead now because you lie when you say Whydening-Skippy down votes you. You actually must be dead and dust because you lied when you called him a liar about him telling you he didn't.

So put on this silly looking pointy cap and sit down over there in the corner for a bit until you learn some manners.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2016
P.S. for you Lively-Skippy. You can down vote me all you want to do. It's lets me know you are paying attention. Whenever I get the down karma vote from a couyon, it lets me know I said something good enough to be understood,,,,, like I am doing a good job.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2016
Those were lies.


Well good for you Skippy. At least now I am starting to understand how you base your logics.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2016
Those were lies
davidW
yeah, we already know you were lying, but at least now you can admit it

Look dude I'm still waiting for you to say something that isn't a lie and can back anything up you have said here.

You tell lies

I have proved my point, and now that you, and NONE of your troll crowd has been able to prove me wrong, you cry with terrorist bullying attacks. So sad for you

It's totally obvious you had your ass handed to you publicly

You keep using lies, tell me that I am lying, and deny Science is a truth

You continue your blathering contradictions and have no basis for the the use of science whatsoever. Same as the rest

Does it hurt good that someone showed you really didn't have a single legitimate point to make, here or anywhere else and actually proved it lol

You enjoy your sadness of complete and total public failure though

it's an epic religious fundie terrorist fail
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2016
I'll let the Captain-Skippy speak for him self
@Ira
thanks!

funny thing... he keeps claiming to have handed everyone else their ass but yet he hasn't noticed that my logic is completely irrefutable per his own claims!

i mean... considering his arguments, and that i copy/paste them with a few changed words, there isn't a possible way at all in hell he can refute the arguments that i make against him without then refuting his own delusional rantings!

LMFAO

i've been doing it for a while now, so there is no way he can state it is a lie or in any way wrong

if he does, just point out that the same argument applies to his own rants!

ENJOY

i'm out for dinner and a movie
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2016
Look dude I'm still waiting for you to say something that isn't a lie and can back anything up you have said here.
Is that what you are doing? Waiting? Well this a silly place to spend waiting.

Does it hurt good that someone showed you really didn't have a single legitimate point to make, here or anywhere else and actually proved it. lol
Non, did not hurt even a little Cher. Was it supposed to hurt? It might be the coonass thing, but I usually don't spend a lot time where I am getting hurt. Do you do that?

You enjoy your sadness of complete and total public failure though.
I enjoy the total private failure too me.

I will have to admit, I have read almost everything all of you have ever written here.
You are easily amused Cher. You should try to find a hobby.

The extent of your nastiness is simply evil.
Skippy, I don't have to take that from you or anybody. I have you to know my nastiness is not simple. I put a lot of work into it.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2016
Sorry about that everybody. It was not good enough to postum two times so I am putting this in where that one up there was here too..
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2016
... because you don't agree life is a self-evident truth. It starts there.

Unless you're just an entertaining simulation for a real life somewhere else...

Only the people with insanity say they make a point , ...

You're finally getting a glimpse... Keep workin' on it...

And it doesn't apply to me because I admit I am alive and that life is a self-evident truth.

That you're alive is pretty easy to figure. It's a word we choose to describe our existence, but that's the only self evident part of it. Never did get what you mean by the other babble.
I brought evidence and I can present it.

Is this gonna be like RC's TOE?

Tell me again how you speak without life! ahhaha

Well, duh... Haven't you ever heard the axiom "Dead men tell no tales?"
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2016
There is your friend Whydening Gyre who has followed you on almost every post you have made. Or is that you? hmmm. They will figure it out if they want to keep the advertisers.

Nah.. Ira and I are just country boys from the opposite ends of the country who know BS crap when they see it...
If PO was worried about advertisers, you wouldn't even be here (truth)
The admission comes out, again!

Just exactly why I have been saying what I have been saying all along.

Hearing the little voices, again, are we?
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2016
They will figure it out if they want to keep the advertisers.
Cher, "They" had me figured out before I got here. I've made the couyon out of my self, and a lot of other people all over the interweb.

Just exactly why I have been saying what I have been saying all along.
But you do not bring in the advertising dollars like I do. So maybe you might want to not keep saying it as much as you have been saying it all along, eh? Just sayin',,,,,,,

LifeBasedLogic
Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2016
Whydening Gyre,

You hanging with someone that says:

I have you to know my nastiness is not simple. I put a lot of work into it


is the same as saying it yourself.

He's not even nasty. He just uses good ol' fashioned cynicism (Almost as good as me...)

Only the people with insanity say they make a point without ever using life to do it.

Fixed your typo for ya.
Hate to break it to ya, but insane people are alive,too...
And they usually attempt to make their point by shoving it in the faces of whoever is around.
Whoa, waitaminit!
That kinda sounds like - you?

Captain Stumpy
Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Enthusiastic Fool
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2016
LBL

The "Lawsuit" against PO for people being mean in the comments is hilarious. Don't forget to sue ISIS afterwards for actually killing people. Keep fighting the good fight. My great regret is that I wasn't able to make the list of Whydening's sock puppets. I am remiss for not upvoting Lord Captain Gyra. May God have mercy on my soul.
Captain Stumpy
Aug 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
Aug 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2016
Phyorg has been contacted.

They have a few days to properly respond. After that, the letter goes to their advertisers. There are many more steps planned, if necessary.


I hope you did not leave out the part about your lies being full of important truthful life and how it important it is for you to live the truth about the lie.

To Whoever It Is A Concern: That is the truth and the most important part of life is mostly true.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2016
@ Living-Logic-True-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good and still here like you are not, thanks for asking.

They will figure it out if they want to keep the advertisers.
Cher, "They" had me figured out before I got here. I've made the couyon out of my self, and a lot of other people all over the interweb.

Just exactly why I have been saying what I have been saying all along.
But you do not bring in the advertising dollars like I do. So maybe you might want to not keep saying it as much as you have been saying it all along, eh? Just sayin',,,,,,,



So how you like me now Cher? I try to advise you about saying that stuffs too much. Now you don't get to say it at all.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.