Quote from: protokol on October 08, 2017, 10:13:38 AM

Your quote about sea salt and oil, having an effect on our bodies can easily be considered an anecdotal quote caused by the placebo effect.

There is no evidence that ORMEs works as a placebo, that is just your assumption.
There IS evidence for wide-ranging application of ORMEs in their many forms.
The effects are fairly consistent, just like with any other substance.
I did my own experiments to come to my conclusions, you should do the same.

Quote from: protokol on October 08, 2017, 10:13:38 AM

Chopra's idea about consciousness driving evolution could be true, but the evidence is lacking.

There is abundant evidence and you simply do not wish to discuss it with me.
Look through my posts and read the sources, then you can truly critique the evidence.
What is lacking is an adequate rebuttal to the ideas of Hameroff and Chopra.

Quote from: protokol on October 08, 2017, 10:13:38 AM

Also like I said, he is considered a laughing stock in the science community, because he misunderstands actual quantum theories, that have been proven by actual quantum physicists.

If that were true then why exactly is Hameroff agreeing with Chopra? The explanatory power of Orch-OR is greater than any other theory of consciousness. Evidence is in favor of Orch-OR, and evidence is in favor of consciousness as a primary force in the world. You can read about the relationship between consciousness and the quantum world in "Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Mechanics" by Higgo.

Quote from: protokol on October 08, 2017, 05:14:26 PM

Also don't get passive-aggressive with me, if I don't reply to you, you think that means I agree with you?

You claimed that I was wrong to believe Hameroff's Orch-OR, then you stopped posting.
It is true that you did not address the evidence I presented.
If you commit to a discussion and then stay silent then you are consenting to what is said by others.

Quote from: protokol on October 08, 2017, 05:14:26 PM

Such an assumption is a sign of huge arrogance.

My character is not being debated, only the evidence is in question. I would like you to compose a rebuttal to my claims, so I am simply asking you to finish the debate.

Quote from: protokol on October 08, 2017, 05:14:26 PM

Perhaps I just didn't log in for a few days,

I saw that you wrote replies to others. Please don't be facetious, let's just get on with evaluating the evidence.

Quote from: protokol on October 08, 2017, 05:14:26 PM

or maybe I just couldn't be fucked to talk to someone who doesn't recognise actual scientific evidence.

What evidence did you post? Which evidence did I fail to recognize?

Quote from: protokol on October 08, 2017, 05:14:26 PM

That's not how science works, sonny jim.

You did not make a claim on the basis of science, but I did, then when you refused to address my evidence, I told you that I am right and that you should prove me wrong. I am totally open to being proven wrong but the proof must be based either upon hard evidence or an adequate rebuttal of my claims.

I have identified your fallacious argument:

Quote from: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#dismissal

Argument By Dismissal:
an idea is rejected without saying why.

Dismissals usually have overtones. For example, "If you don't like it, leave the country" implies that your cause is hopeless, or that you are unpatriotic, or that your ideas are foreign, or maybe all three. "If you don't like it, live in a Communist country" adds an emotive element.

There is evidence to support Orch-OR and survival; whether you think it is "enough" evidence or not is just a matter of subjective opinion.
You never gave an objective scientific reason to doubt any of my claims.
You used a double standard explained here:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection#skeptical_misdirection_double_standard