> Well, first of all, you don't know that anything is possible I said "let's assume (...) that anything is possible", a completely different thing, so your arg

> Well, first of all, you don't know that anything is possible I said "let's assume (...) that anything is possible", a completely different thing, so your argument that " we don't know if it's possible" is moot, and a classic case of a straw man argument. > "while 'we don't know' is a perfectly acceptable position, it does not lead to,'therefore my pet idea is worthy'" Again, you are mostly having an argument with yourself, as this is somewhat a misrepresentation of what I'm saying. My main point is that it behooves to be a bit humble when it comes to dismissing ideas that are possible albeit without firm evidence and that offhanded dismissal should be discouraged, unless one can actually disprove the claim. It is after all the stuff from which new knowledge is made. That doesn't mean that every scientist must engage and clamor to inspect the evidence for each fantastical claim (but I do believe that an active interest from the scientific community would help cleanse the scene of some of the more outrageous theories). > "If you want people to take it seriously, you need to provide evidence." Really? so all scientific endeavors must produce evidence before they are allowed to posit something? I think you will agree that this is an untenable position hold as a general principle, and you probably mean that any layman should not be allowed to posit anything without having the proper education and academic standing. Be that as it may, such ivory towers of academic snobbishness will fall, eventually.