Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Fair enough, so humor me a bit. An average Han Chinese person and a Zulu person look very different. The null hypothesis should obviously be that adaption didn't stop with differences in phenotype, and would extend to physical and cognitive abilities as well. Do you believe this, and if not why not?
I’m going to point out that physical and cognitive abilities would be probably be classified as part of the phenotype; but I know what you mean....
The short answer, focusing specifically on the cognitive (though it does broadly apply elsewhwre) is that while I have every reason to believe that various alleles for intelligence are generated through mutation, are selected for, and have spread through various geographic populations via drift and selection, there is no reason to believe that the occurrence and prevalence of these alleles should correlate directly with the presence of certain other alleles for facial structure and skin tone.
The only exceptions to that, would be a very small set of super genes that occurred in only one population recently enough that gene flow rates haven’t allowed spread; some selective pressure that means genes for intelligence are driven by the same selective pressure as skin tone and face structure; or some other factor that geographically correlates. I think the first is the only real possibility - as the latter seems particularly convoluted with no obvious biological mechanism which would allow for it - but we’ve pretty much ruled out the first from genetic studies.
Given this, and given that we can show environmental factors that we have been able to causally establish impact intelligence; it’s way, way more likely for racial IQ gaps to be overwhelmingly the result of the environmental differences. With only a very limited geographical - rather than racial - distributions in IQ attributable to genetics.
The short answer, focusing specifically on the cognitive (though it does broadly apply elsewhwre) is that while I have every reason to believe that various alleles for intelligence are generated through mutation, are selected for, and have spread through various geographic populations via drift and selection, there is no reason to believe that the occurrence and prevalence of these alleles should correlate directly with the presence of certain other alleles for facial structure and skin tone.
The only exceptions to that, would be a very small set of super genes that occurred in only one population recently enough that gene flow rates haven’t allowed spread; some selective pressure that means genes for intelligence are driven by the same selective pressure as skin tone and face structure; or some other factor that geographically correlates. I think the first is the only real possibility - as the latter seems particularly convoluted with no obvious biological mechanism which would allow for it - but we’ve pretty much ruled out the first from genetic studies.
Given this, and given that we can show environmental factors that we have been able to causally establish impact intelligence; it’s way, way more likely for racial IQ gaps to be overwhelmingly the result of the environmental differences. With only a very limited geographical - rather than racial - distributions in IQ attributable to genetics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
If you have no way of validating the accuracy of faith, how do you know what it produces is true?
Created:
-->
@949havoc
When two people’s rights conflict with each other; one or other of those rights are mutable.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
If pregnancy had the heath, financial and social impacts of two doses of vaccine: progressives would all be pro life.
If vaccines had the health, financial and social impacts of pregnancy, progressives would all be anti-vaccine mandate.
Rights are a balancing act; just because we come down one way in a low probability harm vs low impact balancing; does not make it inconsistent for us to come down the other way in a definite harm vs very high impact balancing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
I believe faith is [at least] a sixth sense humans can engage and by which experience, and knowledge, is gained
Just to be clear:
What is “true” is what is concordant with reality. What we “know” is true is that which we can determine is concordant with reality.
Empiricism is basically the understanding that to know something is concordant with reality requires observation of reality.
Empiricism is not limited to any particular set of senses or inputs, only senses from which the accuracy of the information can be known, inferred and determined.
If “faith” was able to make systematic, reproducible, accurate predictions about reality that could be independently validated - then faith would be used the same way as an x-ray, or electron microscope.
But it isn’t, so we don’t.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Imagine, for a moment, that mods were about to ban you for some reason. You were warned about toxicity, crossed some line, etc.
Would you want a President that would tell the mods that this was a bad decision, that the controversy you stir up is critical to the success of the site, that crossing the line is an inherent risk of being controversial, and that we have to temper the need to not be toxic with the understanding that controversy Is necessity of the site; offer alternatives and otherwise temper moderator reaction with argument, and justification.
Or, would you like some one to start a bunch of callout threads with incoherent screeds; utilize his position to air his personal grievances, and advocate the moderators ban people he finds “toxic”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
You've failed to show that systemic racism exists in the US.
False, argument from repetition (65):
As I’ve stated: I’ve offered the first post in my argument - you’ve spent 150 posts trying to avoid addressing it.
If you’re unable to address the first point of my argument without misrepresentation, assertion, and intellectual dishonesty; why should anyone expect you to assess 100?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Yeah dude.
55 IQ is functionally the same as 140 IQ.
Saying otherwise is a real "tenuous association" with "limited correlation".
Nice dude.
This doesn’t appear to be an argument.
The average Black person's intellectual "potential" is lower of that than Whites, Asians, Hispanics and Jews, so those "appropriate allowances" need to be pretty large xD
You're such a bs artist LOL.
"Fundamental limitations" meaning higher real crime rates, lower IQ, lower ability for self-control, lower verbal ability, higher rates of MAOA genes etc? Is that what you mean by the supremely generous euphemism of "fundamental limitations?"
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Let’s ignore the name calling, for a moment let’s broadly explain the fundamental issue with your belief.
We’re given a set of genes from your parents, when you are conceived these genes, together with epigenetic changes in your parents (typically caused by environmental factors and stressors), form the basis of your brains construction.
This is mediated and impacted from a variety of other factors, stress, chemicals in the womb, strongly dependent on diet and macronutrients from your mother, which can modulate your development in all manner of ways.
Once your born, your brain goes through massive stages of development; and is impacted both by the type and nature of the stimulation you receive, various environmental factors such as stress cortisol levels as an infant, strongly dependent on diet, health, etc.
From infancy into childhood; education, and access, continued health and A wide variety of other factors can also impact your intelligence - from exposure to crime, abuse, etc; or from malnutrition.
The presumption that differences between races is solely down to hereditable factors and not the specific combination of all those other factors; is just begging the question
To have a minimal level of confidence for your conclusion; you have to be able determine the genes that account for intelligence and how much - which we can’t (there appear to be many, and their interaction is not we’ll understood), to be able to understand the impact of environment on intelligence, what environmental impacts and effects prevent or promote intelligence (so we can correct IQ for environmental factors), which we don’t; to be able to assess the broad distribution of these genes across racial groups to determine whether there is an actual disadvantage - which we haven’t.
The reality is that the interaction between environment, genetics and intelligence are so complex and difficult to disentangle that it is impossible to validly assert exactly what the true impact of genetics actually is; such that the conclusion that the only valid correlating factor is race is simply an attempt assert ones own prejudice is justified; especially given that we do know there can be a massive impact on intelligence from various environmental factors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
As you pointed out Ramshutu and Orogami, two objectively very intelligent people, didn't actually present any argument against race realism, but instead presented arguments about why we shouldn't discuss race realism
While not phrased explicitly in these terms, I pointed out:
If you try and assert broad causal relationships between race and various social factors; because there is some limited correlation between the two - then use this tenuous association to imply inferiority in order to justify the existence of broad and longstanding inequality - not so much.
At this time, “race realism” as its currently presented by multiple individuals and organizations is primarily a pseudoscientific (and above I broadly explain the why) attempt to justify those groups own prejudice, rather than an honest attempt to determine what aspects of our genes and environment are responsible for our ability to succeed; and how do they differ between different groups.
As I kinda said at the end; the issue with me specifically is not that such actual differences are impossible, or should not be discussed; but that those who promote this form of race realism aren’t actually doing that.
Or in other words; those who are advancing “race realism”, are trying to piss on people’s heads and tell them it’s raining,
Explicitly objecting to that approach, and explicitly calling them out in it does not imply or suggest that I am adverse to talking meteorology, or trying to argue rain cannot exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So let’s start out with addressing something important; the people suggesting race realism, often put forth pseudoscience implying that some small correlations are indicative of causation for things like this.
Right now; there’s is no indication whatsoever that race is even a substantial component in determining what your ultimate IQ is; and yet a lot of individuals are still making that argument and pretending as if these claims are somehow rooted in science.
Regardless of what any biological component of IQ ends up being; this form of argument, built on this type of premise is still clearly unreasonable. Which was my point.
The first issue with your question is that we know the premise isn’t valid. While we don’t know all the inherent genetic factors that predispose intelligence, we do know there is a vast array of genes in involved, and substantial impact of environment in its determination. So we know that whatever the racial gap is right now; we know it isn’t what any definitive racial gap is in the future.
Now; if it turns out that due to immutable biological factors of a given race, some policy can’t work - I think that’s a good reason not to have that policy: but there are so many impractical ifs implicitly involved. For example; there would have to be an implicit genetic issue that is determinative of IQ: rather than giving a predisposition towards IQ - it must be immutable, in that a given intelligence cannot be attained by changing environmental factors; it must be determinable - so one doesn’t simply assume that an underachiever is underachieving because they have the wrong genetic disposition, as opposed to other environmental factors.
The final issue is that various “success” indicators and IQ being fundamentally linked is one example of assuming correlation is causation. While I could probably buy into the claim that no amount of training or learning will make me the next Einstein; and that levels of IQ has an impact on profession and thus earnings; but I don’t think it’s even close to a given that there is a causal link between IQ and things such as criminality, etc, as opposed to sharing broad correlating environmental factors.
Or to summarize; you missed the point, and your question as three inherent premises I don’t think are valid.
Right now; there’s is no indication whatsoever that race is even a substantial component in determining what your ultimate IQ is; and yet a lot of individuals are still making that argument and pretending as if these claims are somehow rooted in science.
Regardless of what any biological component of IQ ends up being; this form of argument, built on this type of premise is still clearly unreasonable. Which was my point.
The first issue with your question is that we know the premise isn’t valid. While we don’t know all the inherent genetic factors that predispose intelligence, we do know there is a vast array of genes in involved, and substantial impact of environment in its determination. So we know that whatever the racial gap is right now; we know it isn’t what any definitive racial gap is in the future.
Now; if it turns out that due to immutable biological factors of a given race, some policy can’t work - I think that’s a good reason not to have that policy: but there are so many impractical ifs implicitly involved. For example; there would have to be an implicit genetic issue that is determinative of IQ: rather than giving a predisposition towards IQ - it must be immutable, in that a given intelligence cannot be attained by changing environmental factors; it must be determinable - so one doesn’t simply assume that an underachiever is underachieving because they have the wrong genetic disposition, as opposed to other environmental factors.
The final issue is that various “success” indicators and IQ being fundamentally linked is one example of assuming correlation is causation. While I could probably buy into the claim that no amount of training or learning will make me the next Einstein; and that levels of IQ has an impact on profession and thus earnings; but I don’t think it’s even close to a given that there is a causal link between IQ and things such as criminality, etc, as opposed to sharing broad correlating environmental factors.
Or to summarize; you missed the point, and your question as three inherent premises I don’t think are valid.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Let’s face it. Trump speaks like RM, if RM was conservative, had a vocabulary of a 7 year old, and had a mild-severe concession.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I think it depends. If you’re talking about things like sickle cell anemia, inability to process alcohol, prevalence of lactose intolerance, or rates of skin cancer; no one cares.
If you try and assert broad causal relationships between race and various social factors; because there is some limited correlation between the two - then use this tenuous association to imply inferiority in order to justify the existence of broad and longstanding inequality - not so much.
Indeed; a big part of gender realism is about specifying which aspects of gender are really down to biological differences, vs a product of being taught, brought up and treated as a given gender - so appropriate allowances can be made in social, economic and educational policy to best support all black citizens meeting their potential; I think most people could buy into that - but it never is.
It’s almost invariably about justifying inaction on inequality under the pretence that current outcomes are fine because black people have some fundamental limitations. Which sure as f**k is an attack on dignity.
Created:
Most of Biden’s issue is misplacing words - I have that specific problem a lot; and yet design critical algorithms for billion dollar industrial systems.
While he’s not as sharp as 30 years ago; he’s able to convey some pretty complex stuff.
I think the worst and most incoherent sentence Biden has ever said compared to the worst sentence in one randomly selected Trump interview from the past 6 years makes Biden look like a genius.
“You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things. But nobody talks about that.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
If you don't post your entire argument, then you've failed to prove systemic racism exists in the US.
I will address it if you decide to do that.
It's as simple as that.
False, argument from repetition (64):
Arguments are made up of a set of points and premises that leads to conclusions. You are going to have to deal with each of these points, whether I present them one at a time or all at once.
Your objection has nothing to do with substance, burden of proof, or data: you simply do not like the way I am presenting the argument point by point.
I am unsurprised you are terrified at having a point by point argument; as it leaves little or no cover to be intellectually dishonest: you cannot jumble points together, or obfuscate assumptions; something I clearly showed you are doing when you try and argue the wider point.
If you’re going to lie, distort, misrepresent and otherwise fail to engage a single point I raise - I have no confidence that you’re going to be less dishonest if I give you 100.
Let’s start with point 1 again; let’s even simplify it down to distill the point.
Would you not agree that a racist state, that put in place a series of overtly racist laws for over a hundred years, and is filled with overtly racist people, would be able to systematically disadvantage particular racial groups, both socially, politically and economically, no?
Would you not also agree that inequality could be easily sustained by policies that weren’t explicitly racist, but implicitly racist by enabling the perpetuation of inequality based on socioeconomic factors of a given race?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
You're not.You've whined for 30 odd posts that I'm not helping you build your own argument LOLWhat you need to do is make the argument that forces you to believe systemic racism exists. Starting with "imagine", "hypothetically" and "I believe you're a white supremacist" are insufficient to fulfill your BoP of systemic racism existing. If those are the reasons you believe it exists, then you haven't fulfilled your BoP and the conversation is over.
False, argument from repetition (62): you keep saying this, it’s no less true now than it was before.
Repeat after me: this is not my whole argument. This the starting hypothesis from which the argument will build.
When I build the argument, I don’t have to produce evidence for the parts that you agree are true: so I’m going to determine what those are.
Your disingenuous behaviour and unwillingness to dismiss things for no reason - then refuse to discuss it, makes this necessary.
Because if you’re this dishonest talking about the underpinning hypothesis for any argument - imagine what you would do if I provided the whole thing!
I don't care about your broad hypothesis because you have no argument demonstrating that it's true.Again, make the argument to show that any systemic racism exists.
False, argument from repetition (63): Repeat after me: this is not my whole argument. This the starting hypothesis from which the argument will build.
Building an argument one step at a time is the only way it’s possible to discuss any matter with someone who will go 100 posts repeating the same thing over and over again, and is unwilling to address anything being said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
And I'm telling you: no, make your own damn argument lol.
False, argument from repetition (61):Saying it again doesn’t make it any less dishonest.
I am. If I provided a complete argument demonstrating systemic racism, you’d be weighing in on my hypothesis too... just this way; you can weigh in on one thing at a time, rather than all at once.
This is his arguments on complex issues work.
You're the one who claims that systemic racism exists.You're the one who needs to show that it does.
False, argument from repetition (62): Yes; absolutely; bingo. Let’s start by asking if you have any issues with my broad hypothesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
I'm not going to hold your hand whilst you construct your own arguments. You're a big enough boy to do that yourself. If you can't, you're not worth my time.Up to you.
False, argument from repetition (60):Saying it again doesn’t make it any less dishonest.
As I said - My argument is asking you to weigh in on a hypothesis; to offer objections, questions or point to aspects where you don’t feel things logically follow, and why.
If you accept my hypothesis as logically valid - then we can move forward. Given that you have gone 100 posts without being able to offer argumentation; doing this Is necessary.
I am happy to assume that you fully accept the logical validity of my hypothesis without reservation based on your comprehensive inability to critique it, if you want; but I suspect that’s not the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The Bible is not attempting to be a science book. Science is inferior to the Bible. When the Bible deviates from science, science is wrong. Just as in the case of the thread's topic.
“Science proves the Bible, except where it doesn’t - in which case science is wrong”
This is the cherry picking I am talking about and you were strongly objecting to. Thank you for Conceding my point
was the heavens, the stars, the sun,The sun is a star.
Any, rational, honest, coherent or minimally intelligent human should be able to understand that By “sun” and “stars” I mean “the sun” and other stars that are not our sun”
It seems you’re just trying to object - rather than trying to figure out whether the objection is coherent or relevant.
I’d love to focus on your thought process here: on what basis did you think this was a meaningful argument?
How could verse 15 be talking about lights if God doesn't create the sun till verse 16?
The bible doesn’t say every single last light that is in the sky does it? Again, it seems you’re just trying to say anything just so you can say something. This makes no sense, and you don’t appear to bother to explain it.
What you seem to omit, though, is that everything mentioned in day 4 existed before the things in day 3.
When describing an event, one can flit back and forth between the beginning and ending within the description of the entire event.
Got it: so when there is a conflict between what the bible said and what science says, when the bible is obviously false, you insert interpretation to change the meaning of what it explicitly says, even though the Bible didn’t say any such thing...
The phrase "special creation" is not used in the Bible. And I still don't know how it differs from ordinary creation. Please take ownership of your concepts.
Not my concept - it’s what you refer to as biblical creation - where God created animals - which you’re still ignoring, fixating on this bizarre side issue
The very first sentence of Genesis tells us that the "Heavens" (Stars) were created before the Earth.
It doesn’t say it created the stars - that’s you inserting meaning. It says it created stars on the 4th day
On the 4th "day" the already existing sun became luminous, and was able to penetrate the thick cloudy atmosphere of the early Earth.
Well we know that didn’t happen...
You are just scientifically ignorant. They are not implications, they are your assumptions based on poor knowledge of science and arrogance.On Earth, we can compress water enough for it to cut steel and it still doesn't become steam.
Methinks you need to review some high school physics. Temperature turns water to steam, pressure changes the temperature at which that happens.
Because you don't know geology, you assumed because magma comes out of the Earth, it must contain water, and that must be how the water in the mantle gets to the surface. You didn't even know that magma is generally below the Earth's mantle and must travel up to be in volcanos. You were using magma synonymously with mantle.You need them to be my implications because your science illiterate objections need them to float.Lol!! If the mantle is pushed up, pressure is released and it cools. Below the mantle is the core of hot molten rock. Water cannot be in molten rock genius.Magma and mantle are not the same thing.I am not limited in any way by your ignorance of science. We have a 3 mile deep tunnel in the Earth. One of the problems with it is that water seeps in and must be pumped out. Where is the steam? Where is the magma? It's amazing you can be both so ignorant and so arrogant at the same time!
Oh my Good lord; wtf. I can’t event... I think there is a level of total ignorance that no amount of explanation is going to correct this level of stupidity.
So the earths outer core is molten nickel/iron (not rock). This is followed by upper and lower mantle. These are made up high temperature solid rocks - and melted rock - magma. Magma is not from below the mantle - lol. Magma comes from the mantle melting.
They are high temperature due to the head conducted from the code via first law of thermodynamics and radioactive decay of various isotopes they contain. Whether an area is rock or magma depends on whether the temperature exceeds the melting point of the rock - which is dependent on the pressure it’s under, and what the rock contains. Melting point of rock goes down as the pressure drops; (it has to overcome or reduce the interaction forces that keeps the particles together in solid state. As the pressure of substance increases, particles tends to remains compacted, increasing of pressure during melting hindering in melting process, makes it difficult to overcome the strong force of attraction, i.e. more thermal energy is required.)
The rock is being pulled to the center of the planet; but is less dense than the outer core, and more dense than the upper mantle, so it’s buoyancy forces with respect to the liquid below is in equilibrium with gravity.
The rock is required to undergo a change in density in order to overcome the force of gravity - increase itsBouyancy with respect to the rock pushing down on it. In addition, it must have the viscosity to allow the rock above it to flow around it.
One of the key ways it does this; is through melting into magma. This can be achieved as a result of lowering the boiling point through impurities in the rock (the same reasons that salt drops the melting point of water), a drop in pressure or a rise in temperature. Water molecules trapped in the rock (not liquid water - you colossal numpty), increases the average distance between rock molecules through displacement and drops the melting point enough for the rock to turn to magma.
This is how this water was detected: by observing the melt in the magma caused by the presence of sufficient pockets of water to drop the melting point enough for the mantle to melt...
If the rock in the mantle moves upwards due to Bouyancy forces, and contains water - it will melt.
Without moving - the water is trapped. The pressure from gravity; allows the water molecules to remain dissolved in the magma or trapped as hydroxyl molecules in the rock. They move with the rock. Again - not liquid water you colloidal numpty.
So the rock has to move; which means it has to melt and rises as a result, or rises and melts as a result.
When it does this, the water remains dissolved in the rising magma due to the pressure of the solid rocks above pushing down. Typically the 25 miles of continental crust (lol wtf are you talking about no magma found in a hole 3 miles below the surface, and 4 miles of oceanic crust preventing a solid barrier preventing the dissolved gasses from escaping the rising liquid rock.
So the rock has to be super hot - due to thermodynamics of having a molten hot core and requiring viscosity to move. It has to melt as it rises due to physics, and remains at high pressure and temperature with dissolved gasses present. I don’t what laws of physics you’re using to suggest that magma can’t contain water - but it isn’t ours. A can of coke shows you that gasses can dissolve in liquids; and remains so under pressure.
If the magma reaches the surface; or a region of the magma is exposed to atmospheric pressure - the gasses dissolved will degas; and the water will expand into steam, as it’s held at a high temperature with only the pressure keeping it within the magma.
If the magma remains under pressure; the water is held in. That’s what pressure is. It’s not going to bubble out, because it’s under pressure; it remains within the magma.
If the magma cools enough to drop below the boiling of water; the water still has to condense out (it’s dissolved gas), so the issue of energy generated is still an issue; but you also have the additional issue that the water is now trapped within solid rock.
In fact the only way to avoid condensation energy is if the entire mantle (where this water is) is less than the boiling point of water.
That’s the laws of physics I’m afraid: the basic laws of thermodynamics, buoyancy, temperature/pressure relationship of electrostatic forces renders it impossible.
What you’re doing, is just throwing out wild and nonsensical claims; and suggesting a set of completely impossible scenarios that can be ruled out by physics; interspersed with a bunch of nonsense about me not understanding science - which I absolutely do.
So while you fixate in this mantle/magma nonsense (which you don’t appear to understand), you’re left with multiple issues.
- It’s only an estimate. There may not be enough water; the lower bound of water is completely insufficient to cover the water.
- Huge volumes of water must be transported from this layer to the surface. The laws of physics, and how this water is trapped mean that the only way is as part of moving molten rock.
- Huge volumes of molten rock must move. To produce enough water, impossible amounts of magma has to move.
- Thermodynamics, and Bouyancy mean that the mantle must be above the boiling point of water in order for water to actually be moved.
- The energy released is impossible ; and would make earth glow...
The whole nonsensical mess is just utterly ridiculous pseudoscientific nonsense; it violates the laws of physics and, as I said, renders the flood story less likely.
Saying that, it doesn’t even really matter; if there wasn’t enough water, you’d find some way to account for it - the earth was less flat meaning less water would have been needed to cover the earth.
It is silly to suggest the biblical account is confirmed when the volume of water present is unnecessarily to the flood myth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
False, argument from repetition (59):Saying it again doesn’t make it any less dishonest.
I’m presenting an argument - you are refusing to engage with it. Arguments are bi-directional. Meaning that the person who is unable to engage in any meaningful argument is yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Show that systemic racism exists or leave.
False, argument from repetition (58):Saying it again doesn’t make it any less dishonest.
I’m trying to present an argument - you are refusing to listen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
So; the scientifically established order of creation, was the heavens, the stars, the sun, the earth, the moon, water/land, bacteria, sea creatures, some land plants, land animals, trees, flowering plants/trees/fruits etc.
Despite you’re weird denials considering that Genesis 1 is literally public domains, the order in the bible is:
Heaven and earth.
Light, day/night (day 1)
Weird firmament (day 2)
Grass, plants and trees (day 3)
Day 4: stars, sun and moon - seriously the Bible is pretty explicit:
“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also”
Day 5: all animals
Day 6: cattle and humans
So even if we assume this nonsense of days/indeterminate age - this Bible has the completely wrong order. Science clearly refutes the bible.
Special creation; is what the Bible said - that animals, plants and living organisms were created directly by God. That is your claim, and definitely did not happen. Don’t be obtuse.
Finally; you don’t seem to be actually attacking any points. So let’s go back.
There is no evidence of any global flood at any point where humans existed. Period.
There is no evidence of any global flood at any period of geological time.
The bible is explicit about the ages of individuals when they had their children, and their genealogy: using these numbers - the flood can be chronologically placed at 4600 BC; geological time of the flood cannot be estimated - as there is no geological evidence of a global flood....
Despite you’re weird denials considering that Genesis 1 is literally public domains, the order in the bible is:
Heaven and earth.
Light, day/night (day 1)
Weird firmament (day 2)
Grass, plants and trees (day 3)
Day 4: stars, sun and moon - seriously the Bible is pretty explicit:
“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also”
Day 5: all animals
Day 6: cattle and humans
So even if we assume this nonsense of days/indeterminate age - this Bible has the completely wrong order. Science clearly refutes the bible.
Special creation; is what the Bible said - that animals, plants and living organisms were created directly by God. That is your claim, and definitely did not happen. Don’t be obtuse.
Finally; you don’t seem to be actually attacking any points. So let’s go back.
There is no evidence of any global flood at any point where humans existed. Period.
There is no evidence of any global flood at any period of geological time.
The bible is explicit about the ages of individuals when they had their children, and their genealogy: using these numbers - the flood can be chronologically placed at 4600 BC; geological time of the flood cannot be estimated - as there is no geological evidence of a global flood....
Lol. No wonder you are so invested in steam. Let the record show that,
1. The water in the Earth's mantle is not in magma. Magma comes from below the mantle. Magma is your claim.
2. Neither magma or steam has anything to do with the Genesis flood story. Those are your claims.
3. The water never became steam. Liquids cannot significantly be compressed. It came out in liquid form. Steam is your claim.
Actually - these are all your claims. They are all the necessary physical implications of what you said.
If you claim the water in the mantle came out as liquid water: then you must claim that it was carried by rising magma. The mantle is at tremendous temperature and pressure. If any of it begins to rise containing water - it melts: becomes magma - due to physics.
If you claim that water in the mantle came out as liquid water - then sufficient magma at 3% water by volume) must be moving upward; and must depressurize; otherwise the water remains dissolved and contain with the molten rock. As magma is over a thousand degrees; when this happens; the water is able to spontaneously flash to steam (it’s only not steam because it’s under massive pressure in the magma and mantle). To then condense to water releases the vast quantities of energy I suggested. This is a product of the physical relationship between temperature, pressure, and volume.
All these things are physically required to happen for your claim to be correct - whether you want to admit it or not.
What you’re doing is like declaring that you can pick up a Boeing 747 with your bare hands unassisted - then suggesting “superhuman strength is your claim, not mine.”
Frankly - it’s idiotic.
Like I said: your fixating only on the existence of water. Water which cannot leave where it is.
So the absence or presence of water here does not make the flood any more or less likely - it’s impossible both ways.
However - if there was no water - people would simply argue (as they have) that it doesn’t matter as the earth was flatter than it is now; or that it came from a firmament and drained away.
Reality is unimportant for those who wish to believe their fairytales.
Indeed, the whole point here, is that you claiming the water in the flood was the deep earth water, makes the flood even less likely than it was before. Because of all the physical implications of that water coming out. Pretending that those implications don’t exist is not the best argument
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not convinced they're being "disingenuous".Try focusing on definitions.Definitions are PRIORITY ONE.
The disingenuousness is actually coming from.
- Refusing to support his accusations or demands.
- Continually misrepresenting what’s happening; despite being corrected multiple times
- Refusing to provide a counter argument to issues raised; and simply restating his claims.
Indeed, I’ve pointed out that he’s stubbornly demanding that I provide him a case; when I start setting out my case - he refuses to listen. He’s objecting to me providing an argument - then refusing to acknowledge the reason the approach is necessary.
In normal cases, I think definitions are a number one priority - but not so much in cases like this; because of the other persons position. Establishing what is actually happening, or likely happening is way more important than what we decide to call it; showing that a big aspect of the disparities we see have their roots in historical racism, and maintained by ongoing social policy - rather than by something inherent in race is the fundamental aim; if their only argument is haggling over whether that meets the definition of systemic racism - they’ve already lost. So may as well leave that to the end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
There are just some minor issues:
Assuming you just need to double the amount of ocean water to cover the earth , you need some mechanism by which 10,000,000,000 cubic miles of magma can move from 400miles below the earth to the surface to de-gas 310,000,000 cubic miles of water (volume of our oceans) in the form of steam assuming 3% water content by volume.
This would, of course, be a total of 510,000,000,000 cubic miles of steam at a temperature of upwards of 400 degrees.
Or, to put that in perspective, earths atmosphere has a volume of 20,600,000,000 cubic miles; so each day of the 40 days, magma degasses 12 billion cubic miles of 400 degree steam - about half the total volume of the earths atmosphere in superheated steam each day... (assuming only water, and no gas, sulphides or particulates are released)
Assuming - somehow - that is not an issue; you have to turn it to water.
When steam condenses, it releases 2.26kj of energy per gram.
310 million cubic miles of water is approximately
1,292,136,371,348,135,000,000,000 grams
Let’s 1.29 x 10^24 grams - or 2.9x10^24 kJ of energy released by all that steam turning to water.
Or as a more manageable number: 693,116,634,799 megatons over the 40 days.
Per square km of earths surface (510 million square km), that works out as 1,359 megatons for every square kilometre of earth surface.
Or 33.94 megatons per square kilometre per day..
Then there’s losing that heat....
To radiate that amount of heat the earth has to lose 2.899999999999016e+27 joules of heat at over at most 120 days - of 11,232,000 seconds; or 2.581908831908e20 watts or 258,190,883 Terrawatts.
We receive a total of 175,000 Terrawatts from the sun....
The sun puts our 3.8x10^26 watts.... so the earth would need to put our 1/100000 of the energy of the sun to get rid of the heat.
So the earth has to put out 1400 times the power we receive from the sun in order to get rid of all that steam condensation heat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It's easy to "win" arguments when you insert your own lies for your opponent's arguments isn't it? I prefer challenges.
That’s one part of it: what you’re doing is systematically ignoring with all the science that Disagrees with you.
You’re hand waving, dismissing, flat out ignoring, deflecting; everything but explain how all this disparate science - such as palaeontology, evolution, geology and Astrophysics - all contradicts the biblical narrative doesn’t actually contradict it.
This is how you’re cherry picking. It all disagrees with you simply protest that it does not.
Sigh. The liberal once again conflates his posting an opinion for factual evidence. Some of the things you claim above are not even biblical. You don't know the Bible well enough to oppose it
This is an angry assertion - not an argument.
The bible states the earth was created in 7 days. It was not.
The bible states that the trees, fruits, seeds, and a variety of plant life, land and sea was created on the third day.
The bible also states on the fourth day that the lights in the sky, including sun moon and stars were created on the fourth day.
The bible also states that on the fifth day animals, fish, etc were all created.
None of these happened in a day, these things cannot have been specially created, and all the elements are completely out of order and all happened a disparate times. Science disproves this creation story.
The chronology of the flood is based on two things: modern humans have only existed in societies for a few tens of thousand years; and there is no evidence of any meaningful civilization prior much before that. We have evidence of habitation, but no point in time at which there was any massive flood of any kind in the few hundred thousands years of hominids.
This makes the maximum time of the flood a few thousand years, and minimum of 5-6000.
Of course, there’s no evidence of a global flood at any point in geological history at all; so really the objection is barely an objection
The second aspect is biblical lineages which describe descendants of Noah down; with around 10 generations between Noah and the Abraham who is historically placeable to ~4000 years ago.
Of Course we know the flood didn’t happen at any time : but as you fixated on this point, it’s largely irrelevant.
The critical issue though, is that o on the one hand; the Bible makes some Huge and incontrovertible errors that are clearly utterly false.
On the other hand, science seems to show that there is water in the mantle; with a volume low bound That is completely insufficient to cover land; and a high bound possibly sufficient; and despite there being no physical way it could come out without destroying the planet, and no way to get rid of it in 130 dayson the one hand.
This is the issue you seem to ignore; it’s still impossible that the water can get out: the physics of how water comes out of magma is well known and understood - the magma has to reach the surface and depressurize allowing the water to flash to steam with the remaining contained glasses; which would have to happen on a scale so substantial that to occur in 40 days across a large fraction of the earth would both be visible In the geological record (which it is not), and so cataclysmic with so much magma it would destroy the plant.
The reality here is that the biblical account is still just as impossible as it was; you have just traded one impossibility for another.
Or specifically; before there was no evidence that enough water is present to cover the earth (note: the lower bound estimate of how much water there is, is still too low to cover the planet - a point you ignore). Now there *may* be enough water present.
However; if is physically impossible for that water to escape into the planet - or return in a few years - because of basic principles of physics.
In fact, it hasn’t validated the bible - it actually makes it more unlikely for the reasons above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
You currently have not provided an argument that shows systemic racism exists.Stop "building" your argument and get it done already.Show that systemic racism exists or leave.
False, lie (57): As stated : I am attempting to build my argument - you are refusing to engage with the argument on the basis it is not yet fully complete. You’re demanding that I must not engage in structured discussion to demonstrate my conclusion is true whilst concurrently demanding that I provide a demonstration that my conclusion is true.
You’re foot stamping is intellectually Dishonest, inherently disingenuous and demonstrative that you do not want to engage in good faith.
Thus far you have failed to defend this position; with. strategy of defense to simply repeat yourself in the face of criticism.
False, argument from repetition (58): your not defending your claims - you are just repeating them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
No.
False, assertion (51): You seem Unable to offer an argument.
No imagining.Construct your case or leaves
False, misrepresentation (52): I am constructing my case - you’re ignoring it: and ignoring all arguments explaining that it is disingenuous to ignore it. Hence why you’re clearly arguing in bad faith: 52 false/misleading/fallacious statements is pretty telling.
Demonstrate that this has happened or no one has a reason to believe what you say.
False, misrepresentation (53): I am constructing the logical part of an argument. You are aware how arguments are constructed right? Take a look in my previous posts.
I’m asking you which claims you think am would agree are possible, if there are specific parts of the hypothesis you agree are logically valid (not necessarily true) so that we can start off from a position of common agreement.
I have already demonstrated that Blacks commit more real crime and get arrested at the rate you'd expect from their higher criminality rates; there is no systemic racism in criminal justice: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com)
False, misrepresentation (54): As explained, to draw the conclusions you do, you have a broad set of assumptions that you do not explain using a hypothesis you will not share. I’ve pointed out that your hypothesis appears to be based on white supremacy so I can divide our our assumptions for the argument; but instead of arguing with me - you’re resorting to name calling, misrepresentation and assertions.
What you’re demanding enables you to argue disingenuously by sniping from behind these hidden assumptions - and as you’ve gone nearly 100 posts without offering a counter argument to anything I’ve said - offering only the same assertions, repetition, foot stamping, and misrepresentation- there is every reason to believe you’ll keep up that pattern of intellectual dishonesty.
Hence why I am attempting to build up from a common base - and I suspect why you’re refusing to argue - a common base minimizes areas of disagreement and minimizes contested assumptions - giving you less things to argue at a time; but starts of as a logical argument.
Meanwhile, you have provided zero counter-argument and zero argument of your own. Thus, base on what has been presented in this thread, people should agree with me because I'm the only one to have provided an argument that systemic racism doesn't exist in criminal justice.
False, lie (55): At this point - this is simply a lie. Ignoring everything I’m saying doesn’t make it more valid.
I’m trying to build up my argument - you’re refusing to listen to it.
I haven’t got to the point where I have built a systematic case from the ground up, because you have spent 100 posts telling me that I am not allowed to do so.
That's why a lot of your arguments have "imagine" and "hypothetically" -- you don't actually have anything to prove systemic racism exists.
False, lie (56): the hypothetical argument is how you start building a argument. You’re demanding that I build an argument; and then reject the argument I start building, because it’s not finished yet. This is intellectually dishonest.
Show that systemic racism exists or leave.
This is exactly what I’m doing - you’re just spending 100 posts screaming at me to build an argument because I started building an argument.
The appropriate, intellectually honest approach would be to review my hypothesis, and determine which aspects of it you think are not possible or conceptually valid.
That agreement helps us limit the areas of contention and limits the aspects I have to defend (because they’re agreed).
Hell, a deductive argument is a collection of premises - some logic that leads to the conclusion. If you don’t contest the logic, and don’t contest the premises - then you must accept the conclusion: providing data is only necessary for the premises you contest. I don’t even know what those are yet - because you refuse to engage in a reasonable coherent logical discussion about it.
Hence why I’m calling you intellectually dishonest: Your demanding evidence of my conclusion; whilst refusing to listen to my logic, my initial premises, or any of the premises I have arrived at on the way.
Created:
Posted in:
Are those cases secret? Cause you've offered none.
“It all agrees with The Bible”
We who? You mean the "experts" you have faith in?
“It disagrees with the Bible? It must be these phoney experts.“
Cherry.
Picking.
But I can go further.
We know there wasn’t a global flood
We know animals weren’t specially created
We know that animals cannot all be traced back to small founder groups.
We know that the earth came into existence
after the sun and the stars.
We know sea creatures existed before trees.
So on the one hand; the Bible makes some Huge and incontrovertible errors that are clearly utterly false.
On the other hand, science seems to show that there is water in the mantle; with a volume low bound That is completely insufficient to cover land; and a high bound possibly sufficient; and despite there being no physical way it could come out without destroying the planet, and no way to get rid of it in 130 days; your thumping your chest about it. This is ridiculous.
The Bible didn’t predict that the mantle contained vast quantities of water - it didn’t even predict a mantle. It just had a story that we know isn’t true, that claimed the earth was submerged in water which we know it wasn’t - that eradicated almost all life, which we know didn’t occur and now we know that it’s possible there’s enough water locked away in a location that can’t produce floods, or make it to the surface, or return in any great quantities quickly; there’s one tiny aspect that is consistent - with everything else disproving it.
The blindness to all other contradictory evidence - is cherry picking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_inspector self own(45): ignores the provided examples of the universe causing itself that do not require violation of non-contradiction. This example refutes his conclusion. Strike #2.
Whether we are looking at this in time or out of time does not matter. Using those terms is easier to convey the point. But if you prefer, we could use a term like "antecedent," or modify the phrase to say, "Something cannot both exist and not exist." Problem solved.
Fruit_inspector self own(46): it does indeed matter - removing the time component means that causation ceases to have any meaning. Antecedent is something that occurs “before” so has the same problem. The universe cannot concurrently exist and not exist - but that is temporal too; in an atemporal sense - there is no point in time at which the universe does not exist; so without assumed rules of causality - metaphysical assumptions - you can’t assume self contradiction.
Self own 45 notwithstanding - the main issue here, is that your argument is indicating that you purposefully included an impossible option in the list of possibilities - that you are now declaring impossible - with all related possibilities, and all options that seem to be part of 2 swept up into the ambiguously defined #1. It appears that option 2 (other than the example I gave) - is defined so that saying it is false is a tautology.
Fruit_inspector self own(47): this confirms that your list is ambiguous and poorly structured; and needs to be restated (as I argued in #29) - you ignored this point from my last post - strike #2
It also violates the the principle ex nihilo, nihil fit.
Fruit_inspector self own(47) Ex nihilo nihil fit is philosophical in nature - a metaphysical assumption - not a logical principle. But as “from nothing” pretty much means uncaused (nothing is it’s cause) - and as you affirm that as reasonable - you seem to refute your own position.
If option #2 is invalidated as an illogical choice, your premise already fails. There is at least one option that is unfavorable compared to the others.
Fruit_inspector self own(48): strawman: my conclusion is that you cannot logically claim any specific one of the possible options for the explanation of the universe is more likely or more reasonable over the others: NOT that all options are equally likely or that a posited option cannot be false. Indeed this is just a product of ambiguous framing of the list - something I pointed out in #29
Specifically - we’re left with options the universe has a cause (finite or infinite regression), and the universe is uncaused (but maybe finite or infinite)
If we are then left with options #1 and #3, it is still possible that the universe is eternal - so there is no special pleading here.
(You mean uncaused...)
Fruit_inspector self own(49): wrong in both possible interpretations - the original conclusion was that #3 was more reasonable than #1. To draw this conclusion one must special plead by suggesting what is impossible of the universe is possible for something that causes it. If you suggest that #1 is equally valid and reasonable as #3, you have conceded your conclusion is false: if not, it is still special pleading: and your conclusion is false: I’m counting this as Strike #2: as you haven’t explained why your conclusion of #3 over #1 is not special pleading.
To say the universe is eternal is also to say it is uncaused.
And you are right that option #3 leaves us with infinite regress or something that is eternal (other than the universe). I would say that it is unreasonable to choose infinite regress, which would leave us with something that is eternal. So while options #1 and #3 are different, they both leave us with something that is eternal.
You claimed that #3 is most reasonable; but now that #1 and #3 fall down onto an identical assumption - that something may exist without being caused:
Fruit_inspector self own(50): You have just refuted your original conclusion that #3 is more reasonable than #1 - by suggesting that they leave us with same thing you have eliminated any possibility that one is preferable over the other.
At this stage there are 4 actual conclusions:
1.) universe is uncaused. (Assumes uncaused causes can exist)
3.a) the universe is caused by a finite chain of things that ends in something uncaused (assumes uncaused causes can exist)
3.b) the universe is caused by an infinite regress. (Assumes Infinities can exist)
X.) There is another option that has not been considered as the laws of logic not applying to reality. (Assumes Laws of Logic don’t apply)
1+3a are the same. And the remaining 2 use different sets of assumptions - for 3 assumptions total. One has no basis to determine which of those assumptions are true, or more likely, or more reasonable as we have no basis for making that determination.
Fruit_inspector self own(51): my conclusion - that we have no basis to conclude one option is more likely, or more reasonable than the other - is affirmed by your own argument.
Created:
Posted in:
Fruit_inspector self own(40): Fruit completely ignores the argument that refutes his point. #10 ignored points
The option “The universe is finite in time, but uncaused” falls broadly under your second element of the list - and definitely doesn’t violate the law of non contradiction; arguably you could claim it falls under the first bullet; but the wording is so ambiguous (the universe is eternal) it is so ripe for equivocation as to be meaningless.
If you want to take “the universe created itself” off the table; you must INSERT - “the universe came from nothing” And/or “the universe has no cause” into your list.
So either your argument here is wrong, and thus your original argument is wrong : or your list is incomplete and thus your original argument is wrong.
Either way - your argument is wrong.
Fruit_inspector self own(40): Fruit ignores “the universe came from nothing” part of his “the universe came from nothing (or was self created)” list item. 11 ignored points
Where did this option go? I have no clue!
Fruit_inspector self own(41) Completely ignores argument that demonstrates that this item doesn’t violate the law self contradiction unless you make metaphysical assumptions about causality . #12 ignored points
For something to create itself, it would have to be before it was. It would have to exist before it existed. Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time.
Fruit_inspector self own(42): I bolded words that require time. violation of non contradiction in your argument requires that the universe exists inside time; or temporal causality still applies without time - this is a metaphysical assumption. This is covered in post #29 and the post you just ignored:
If time is emergent within the universe rather than outside, how does “causation” even work? We have no basis for understanding how causation even works; the words you’re using cease to have rational meaning in that context- so it’s impossible to tell whether there’s any inherent contradiction without assuming our causality in a configuration where we know our causality cannot be applied.
#13 ignored points.
Therefore, option 2 (the universe is self-created) is invalidated as a reasonable option due to the law of noncontradiction.Any explanation of origins that falls under option 2 can be ruled out based on the law of noncontradiction?
What happened to the “the universe came from nothing” part of the second list element?
I don’t know, you won’t say!
Any explanation of origins that falls under option 2 can be ruled out based on the law of noncontradiction?
No: This is NOT incorrect.
“The universe came from nothing” does not violate non contradiction - it simply requires the metaphysical assumption that something can exist without itself having been caused.
If time is emergent from the universe - that the universe is itself atemporal; the word creation has no meaning - so your applying temporal rules to an atemporal universe. Which refutes the claim.
Fruit_inspector self own(43): Torpedoes his own argument. Even assuming all the refutations above don’t apply; Option three is that something caused the universe. The three options of fruits list also apply to any prospective cause of the universe.
This would leave either infinite regress; or that something In reality is “eternal”.
Ignoring that this leaves out a whole bunch of options that fruit chopped out for no reason; the idea that the cause of the universe maybe eternal, but that it’s not possible for the universe itself to be eternal in some way is special pleading. Which refutes his original argument.
Are the Laws of Thermodynamics a metaphysical assumption?
Fruit_inspector self own(44) fruit ignores 4 critical errors in his logic and reasoning; and changes the subject.
Depends on which context - in the scope of our observed temporal universe no - they exist and are observed.
Assuming that they hold either outside time or our universe: yes it is - first law requires time (for creation), the second law requires time (entropy increases with time). So any attempt to apply them outside the universe would be unsupportable speculation from which conclusions cannot be validly drawn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_inspector self own(33) - answer was ignored again - #9
Fruit_inspector self own(34)- after being comprehensively shown that he’s dishonestly and repeatedly ignoring the answer - he “moves on”. Convenient!
Fruit_inspector self own(35) - fruit changes the terms of his list. What he originally said was:
The universe came from nothing (or is self-created)
Now he’s changed that to:
the universe caused itself
The option “The universe is finite in time, but uncaused” falls broadly under this second element of the list - and definitely doesn’t violate the law of non contradiction; arguably you could claim it falls under the first bullet; but the wording is so ambiguous (the universe is eternal) it is so ripe for equivocation as to be meaningless
Note that this was covered in depth in post 29, 33, 94) where I explained why the list was poorly constructed.
Thus:
Fruit_inspector self own(36): You appear to be discounting a number of solutions that fall under #2 that cannot be discounted for the reasons you gave.
Fruit_inspector self own(37): doesn’t specify exactly how or why the universe creating itself violates the law of non contradiction - is unable to provide an argument.
Specifically the universe cannot both exist and not exist - if it did that would violate non contradiction. I think that’s fair. But a future event where the universe exists producing the same universe in the past - violates our understanding of causality through paradox; but not the law of non-contradiction.
If time is emergent within the universe rather than outside, how does “causation” even work? We have no basis for understanding how causation even works; the words you’re using cease to have rational meaning in that context- so it’s impossible to tell whether there’s any inherent contradiction without assuming our causality in a configuration where we know our causality cannot be applied.
Which is my argument that you keep ignoring is so relevant
Fruit_inspector self own(39): continues to refuse to respond to argument:
What we observe Causality is temporal in nature: cause, creation implicitly rely on time in order to have meaning. What we understand of this causality - how our reality works, what we can measure - cannot be applied to the existence of our universe - it can be considered [incomplete/invalid/violated/incorrect/insufficient/etc] as all possible options require additional metaphysical assumptions that cannot be validated against what we see : Therefore your conclusion picking one solution over others necessitates you picking one metaphysical solution over some other one without any valid reason.
What issue due you take with this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Did you ever stop to wonder whether asking a question about metaphysical assumptions would be directly related to addressing your argument about metaphysical assumptions?
Fruit_inspector self own(24) But your not - you’re not asking a question about what metaphysical assumptions are, your asking whether a given law of logic counts - and given that the answer has no relevance - the answer is that it doesn’t matter.
I am trying to address it, but you keep dodging the question.
Fruit_inspector self own(25) flat out bald faced lie. The question has been answered multiple time’s:
Post #174
Let’s say logic is a valid tool (I will cover the alternative shortly - just to prevent you quote mining again) - the logic of my argument still necessarily stands; and your original claim that the universe was created is a more likely explanation is still completely unjustified.Let’s take the alternative - that it’s not a valid tool. In this case, any claims about origins are by default impossible: and thus your original claim that the universe was created is a more likely explanation is still completely unjustified.It doesn’t matter whether it or isn’t, whether it is true or not - you’re wrong both ways.
Fruit_inspector self own(26) - answer was ignored #1
Reposted in 176
Answered in the part of my post that you deliberately cut out:...
Fruit_inspector self own(27) - post was ignored #2
And more in 178:
The conclusion of your original argument - that I’ve been desperately trying to draw you back to - assumes logic applies, or likely applies. If it doesn’t apply, then your conclusion doesn’t follow - which is my point. For your conclusion to follow, you must be able to determine whether it’s more likely for logic to be a valid tool.
Fruit_inspector self own(28) - answer was ignored #3
Directed you back to these answers in post 190
Fruit_inspector self own(29) - answer was ignored #4
Directed back again in post 194 By linking all previous answers.
Fruit_inspector self own(30) - answer was ignored #5
Answered again in 194:
Question is irrelevant - if the answer is yes, my argument is valid on the grounds that it’s an assumption that you must make. If no, my argument is valid as it’s logic is sound.
Fruit_inspector self own(31) - answer was ignored #6
And 196:
the question is irrelevant - as if it is a metaphysical assumption - you’re wrong. If it is not a metaphysical assumption: then my argument stands and you’re still wrong.
Fruit_inspector self own(32) - answer was ignored #7
And 198:
the answer is irrelevant - as if it is a metaphysical assumption - you’re wrong. If it is not a metaphysical assumption: then my argument stands and you’re still wrong. This is the answer to the question I have repeated multiple time’s now over multiple posts.
Fruit_inspector self own(33) - answer was ignored #8
I am not dodging the question - I have answered it 8 individual time’s - you are just deliberately ignoring the answer; because it isn’t the one you wanted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I'm asking you if something is or is not a metaphysical assumption for the purpose of clarifying how your criticism applies to my argument. And you're dodging the question. Whether that is because you can't answer it or because you don't want to is still to be determined.
Fruit_inspector self own(20): the answer is irrelevant - as if it is a metaphysical assumption - you’re wrong. If it is not a metaphysical assumption: then my argument stands and you’re still wrong. This is the answer to the question I have repeated multiple time’s now over multiple posts.
Fruit_inspector self own(21): I have already answered the question and in detail - in a set of posts you ignored; and I provided as links. Your inability to deal with the answer is not my problem. Please go back and re-read the answer
Fruit_inspector self own(21): Stamping your feet and repeating the question because you don’t like, or won’t acknowledge my answer is cretinous.
Fruit_inspector self own(22): continues to refuse to respond to argument:
What we observe Causality is temporal in nature: cause, creation implicitly rely on time in order to have meaning. What we understand of this causality - how our reality works, what we can measure - cannot be applied to the existence of our universe - it can be considered [incomplete/invalid/violated/incorrect/insufficient/etc] as all possible options require additional metaphysical assumptions that cannot be validated against what we see : Therefore your conclusion picking one solution over others necessitates you picking one metaphysical solution over some other one without any valid reason.
What issue due you take with this? How does your question fit? It’s not clear - and you refuse to say.
Fruit_inspector self own(23): Fruit has ignored multiple posts, refused to answer multiple questions, has been systemically dishonest in refusing to address any arguments, failing to acknowledge criticism. He can’t even acknowledge that I have already answered his question; and have responded to the question in the last half dozen posts.
I am unable and unwilling to give you a pass on your systematic inability to make a rational or intelligent counter argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_inspector self own(15): continues to refuse to respond to argument:
What we observe Causality is temporal in nature: cause, creation implicitly rely on time in order to have meaning. What we understand of this causality - how our reality works, what we can measure - cannot be applied to the existence of our universe - it can be considered [incomplete/invalid/violated/incorrect/insufficient/etc] as all possible options require additional metaphysical assumptions that cannot be validated against what we see : Therefore your conclusion picking one solution over others necessitates you picking one metaphysical solution over some other one without any valid reason.
What issue due you take with this?
If you cannot clarify what is or is not a "metaphysical assumption," then your criticism is worthless. I need to know what you are talking about.
Fruit_inspector self own(16): Your not asking me to clarify what a metaphysical assumption is - you're taking a specific example and asking whether it counts.
Fruit_inspector self own(17): the question is irrelevant - as if it is a metaphysical assumption - you’re wrong. If it is not a metaphysical assumption: then my argument stands and you’re still wrong.
Fruit_inspector self own(18): I have already answered the question and in detail - in a set of posts you ignored; and I provided as links. Your inability to deal with the answer is not my problem.
Fruit_inspector self own(19): Stamping your feet and repeating the question because you don’t like, or won’t acknowledge my answer is cretinous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
You've spent well over a dozen posts and thousands of words not providing any evidence for the existence of systemic racism, but instead used all of space and effort to explain why you shouldn't.
False, assertion (51): hurling accusations without any justification, is not a sensible argument approach
False, repetition (52) : you’re just repeating the same false arguments again and again.
False, lie (53): I have been spending these thousands of words dedicated to trying to get you to not ignore the argument.
I presented a starting point for us to work up from - to allow honest engagement, repeatedly justified that stating point - you in response you have lied, misrepresented, name called, asserted, straw-manned, ignored everything said, and have engaged in what can only be described as systematic intellectual dishonesty; and profound bad faith.
If you put this much effort, time and energy into arguing so dishonestly about a single, logical question that forms the starting point for an Enquirey - I shudder to think the lengths to which you will go if I present 100.
You’re clearly here in bad faith; and your inability to argue, and continued dishonesty just makes it more necessary that we start at the beginning. Once more :
Imagine, for a moment, a systemically racist system over a period of more than 100 years that puts policies in place to overtly criminalize, financially and politically disadvantage, and facilitate the social decohesion of a given race.
When those overt policies are taken away; you can replace them with policies and behaviours that maintain that criminalization, financially and politicial disadvantage, and the social de-cohesion; - identical effects on those races - and simply blame it on non race related things
Have you caused the loss of generational wealth in a race, tied schools to the local area, precipitated white flight? Will the cycle of poverty will keep that going?
Did you over police black neighbourhoods because you criminalize being black, and overtly criminalize drugs used by African Americans over those used by whites, and used it to precipitate a period of mass incarceration; that damaged the generational social fabric? Well now you don’t have to pretend that blacks are dangerous criminals; the poverty, lack of schools and break down of the social fabric of many cities - that one will keep taking care of itself too. Right?
I mean: if you overpolice where there is most crime, arrest innocent people in that area that fit a description, or fit a criminal profile, or police them in a way that is more likely to lead to a detection of a crime , force them to plea bargain because they’re poor; send them to prison, give them tough parole conditions that makes it hard to hold down regular inflexible jobs they could find as an ex-con once they leave; then throw the book at them if they then turn to crime, or violate parole; breaking up families, leading to social de-cohesion that then increases poor behaviour at school, and can increase criminality - you only have to do it for so long before you can say you’re only criminalizing them because they’re criminals - ignoring that the criminality is in part historically because they have been criminalized...
Which aspect of this hypothesis do you find illogical, and why?
Created:
Posted in:
No Sir. I said science validates one claim of the Bible, that there is enough water on Earth for Noah's flood. You are trying to insert an argument for me...
Yes - so science agrees with the Bible - except of course for all the cases where it doesn’t
The Bible needs no validation.
And yet you are here....
It's more than one study. Your ignorance doesn't make the others not exist.
By all means share these other studies; I wasn’t able to find more than the single study after a brief search...
In this case, we do not currently know the mechanics of Noah's flood, but we are getting clues.- There IS enough water on Earth- the rainfall was augmented by water from below the surfacethese are consistent with our current running theories.
So the first is theoretical - the second is rank speculation.
Like I said - to get the water out from where it is, it requires magma to overturn; that would be catastrophic, for example at 3% water by volume would require volumes of magma hundreds of times the volume of water covering the ocean to be reaching the surface... that would be .. noticeable.
As I said, we can also rule out a catastrophic global flood on the grounds that it would be detectable - as I described - and it isn’t.
Invalidating is biblical lineages (or assuming people leaves to be tens of millions of years old) aside - the issue is that a stopped clock is right twice a day.
The Bible makes all sorts of claims we can invalidate - but there are some where it’s able to by right by accident. Like this one.
No validation of process, whether anything the Bible said occurred, no way of telling how it happened (and indeed the issues seem insurmountable), and no indication in genetic evidence that it ever did.
However - because a study makes a claim that there *may* be enough water trapped under the earths crust hundreds of miles below the surface - you’re posting as if they discovered the Higgs boson.
I mean: you know you’re clutching at straws when the “validation” of a global flood is that there maybe sufficient water within the entirety of the earth, to potentially cover the land. Yet you are here sounding like you found the bible version of the higgs boson.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Like I said, the starting point has to be a hypothesis.
Why are things the way they are; what aspects of the past can be or are effecting the present. The US looked very different 80 years ago - how have the policies of the past impacted the current social fabric today.
With the hypothesis outlined - you can hammer out whether the premises and logic of the hypothesis are valid.
No point me searching up a billion data points if you don’t agree with my logic, or premise, right? or if you don’t contest a particular event or condition I’m talking about, no?
From there, we can determine what data points are necessary; all without adding up so many points discussion is impossible.
On the other hand; you omitted to mention your underlying hypothesis (which is white supremacy as I proved - which is why calling you a white supremacist is critical to understanding the underlying argument you’re making. You haven’t defined what you mean by systemic racism, and you have limited your discussion to only one broad aspect of the larger picture.
The issue is that arguing too down, you have built up a framework of total ambiguity in which your underlying assumptions or terms are not specified ; demanding I launch a huge top to bottom argument with a thousand individual points.
Your actions start you off at a point where even in good faith, an argument is near impossible.
However; you refuse to clarify anything, you’re not offering anything more than assertion and repetition, and have not really provided any contradictory rebuttals to anything I’ve said.
We’re I to offer a complete argument; given your current demonstrated behaviour of ignoring anything you don’t like; shouting , name calling, assertion, repetition, straw men, and flat out rejecting arguments on perceived technicalities - on what basis do you expect me to believe that you won’t also act so comprehensively disingenuous if I provide a full argument? Especially one that is so easy to argue if one were being disingenuous.
Your behaviour is clearly dishonest - not providing arguments, comprehensively disingenuous responses; hiding behind ambiguity, hand waving away entire arguments you don’t like.
If you were here in good faith; you’d be taking me up in my offer, and actually arguing at a deep level the causes of the inequalities we see.
The only valid conclusion is that you’re doing any of this in good faith; hence why I am trying to herd you into arguing in a way that will not allow you to be disingenuous.
You obviously realize this, and are terrified of engaging in an argument Structured in a way that does not allow you to be disingenuous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Is the law of noncontradiction a metaphysical assumption?If you can't answer the question, that's ok.
Fruit_inspector self own(11): continues to refuse to respond to argument:
What we observe Causality is temporal in nature: cause, creation implicitly rely on time in order to have meaning. What we understand of this causality - how our reality works, what we can measure - cannot be applied to the existence of our universe - it can be considered [incomplete/invalid/violated/incorrect/insufficient/etc] as all possible options require additional metaphysical assumptions that cannot be validated against what we see : Therefore your conclusion picking one solution over others necessitates you picking one metaphysical solution over some other one without any valid reason.
What issue due you take with this?
If you can’t answer the question, that’s okay.
Fruit_inspector self own(12): question was already answered (see posy above)
Fruit_inspector self own(13): question is irrelevant - is the answer is yes, my argument is valid on the grounds that it’s an assumption that you must make. If no, my argument is valid as it’s logic is sound.
Fruit_inspector self own(14): you cannot go 20 posts consistently and repeatedly ignoring Everything your opponent says, ignoring swathes of posts, arguments, points, justifications - then complain when they refer you back to a post you ignored.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_inspector self own(9): continues to completely ignores his opponents argument because he has no answer!
What we observe Causality is temporal in nature: cause, creation implicitly rely on time in order to have meaning. What we understand of this causality - how our reality works, what we can measure - cannot be applied to the existence of our universe - it can be considered [incomplete/invalid/violated/incorrect/insufficient/etc] as all possible options require additional metaphysical assumptions that cannot be validated against what we see : Therefore your conclusion picking one solution over others necessitates you picking one metaphysical solution over some other one without any valid reason.
He is unable to find any issue with this argument.
Is the law of noncontradiction a metaphysical assumption?
Fruit_inspector self own(10): he completely loses track of all the irrelevant side tracks and obfuscation by asking a question that has already been answered but which he deliberately ignored multiple time’s here:
And here
And here
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So you do not dispute that all explanations of the origin of the universe can fall under one of those three categories. Just to be clear, are you saying that none of the categories be eliminated without metaphysical assumptions?
Fruit_inspector self own(6): He completely drops his opponents argument again - demonstrating he is unable to offer any answer.
What we observe Causality is temporal in nature: cause, creation implicitly rely on time in order to have meaning. What we understand of this causality - how our reality works, what we can measure - cannot be applied to the existence of our universe - it can be considered [incomplete/invalid/violated/incorrect/insufficient/etc] as all possible options require additional metaphysical assumptions that cannot be validated against what we see : Therefore your conclusion picking one solution over others necessitates you picking one metaphysical solution over some other one without any valid reason.
He is unable to find any issue with this argument.
Fruit_inspector self own(7): fails to address that his argument is irrelevant; is not able to offer any argument.
Fruit_inspector self own(8): asks a question that has been answered in the part of the argument he keeps ignoring!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_inspector Self own (3) completely drops his argument, demonstrates inability to defend his claim.. Here it is for a reminder:
What we observe Causality is temporal in nature: cause, creation implicitly rely on time in order to have meaning. What we understand of this causality - how our reality works, what we can measure - cannot be applied to the existence of our universe - it can be considered [incomplete/invalid/violated/incorrect/insufficient/etc] as all possible options require additional metaphysical assumptions that cannot be validated against what we see : Therefore your conclusion picking one solution over others necessitates you picking one metaphysical solution over some other one without any valid reason.
Can you give an explanation of the universe that doesn't fall into one of my categories?
- The universe is eternal
- The universe came from nothing (or is self-created)
- Something caused the universe to come into being.
Fruit_inspector self own(4): forgets what the argument is - the argument is not that his list is incomplete - but that all elements require additional metaphysical assumptions that cannot be assessed.
Fruit_inspector self own (5): drops the entirety of his previous argument - asks new question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I’ve never seen someone so singularly dedicated to avoiding the other persons point. Right?
Created:
-->
@Slainte
Anti-vaxx and vaccine hesitant people ask the same questions : but the former often don’t ask the question in good faith or are not interested in listening to the answer. The question is often simply a canard or talking point used to sound reasonable.
I would class the difference between anti- and hesitant as those whom it is possible to convince with data, or science, and those who it is not. While I would class myself right now as vaccine hesitant with relation to my 1 and 4 year old daughters - as there is no safety data, I could be easily convinced when the data comes out.
For others, you're hesitant if you don’t understand the data, or have questions you haven’t heard the answer to; or are scared of the arm pain, fever, but could be talked into it - your anti-vax if you’ve made up your mind.
In terms of vocal debaters, arguers, etc that you will meet; the latter are louder and more vocal - but as the questions are the same it becomes easy to lump them together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You specifically stated that we have to violate our notions of causality in order to explain the existence of reality in post #29. If your understanding of how reality worked was correct - specifically your understanding of causality - you wouldn't have to violate it to explain why reality exists.
Fruit Inspector self-own (1): Unable to find a logical error in my argument - he is resorting to trying to find inconsistencies between what I said in my first response days ago - and what I just said - finding only minor phrasing differences.
I’m keeping track of these now lol.
Objecting to object - peanuts out of poop; sifting through a 100 of my posts to find some way of splitting hairs in all the posts you ignored; let me plug what I said into my argument:
What we observe Causality is temporal in nature: cause, creation implicitly rely on time in order to have meaning. What we understand of this causality - how our reality works, what we can measure - cannot be applied to the existence of our universe - it can be considered [incomplete/invalid/violated/incorrect/insufficient/etc] as all possible options require additional metaphysical assumptions that cannot be validated against what we see : Therefore your conclusion picking one solution over others necessitates you picking one metaphysical solution over some other one without any valid reason.
Can you please cite where I argued that the universe having a cause is a more likely explanation than the others? As opposed to being the only logical conclusion?
“I would say the only reasonable choice is option 3.”
I took that to mean probability.
I am very happy if you meant “the only logical conclusion” - as that means that you’re argument is Deductive rather than inductive - which means you are assuming as true all the metaphysical assumptions you can’t possibly know, vs assuming them as probable. The issue is exactly the same and would render your conclusion invalid in both cases:
Fruit Inspector self-own (2): Asking a question in which his own conclusion fails for all answers.
Created:
Posted in:
By your own admission above, neither can… you?
Maybe, maybe not. One of us maybe correct, maybe neither of us. That’s why we’re here? I can tell you the tools I use to try and eliminate bias if you want.
I, too, feared reprisals from North Korea. So I’m with you up to this point. When those reprisals never happened, and tensions de escalated, MSM did not reflect upon their failed analysis.
But their analysis wasn’t wrong. The reporting and speculation both ways was not unreasonable. It’s not like, say, when new information about lab leak came out and the media self flagellated for a month; indeed after the NK settled down, there was a lot of opinion, experts and expression that I saw about how setting up 1:1 talks could work, because nothing else had.
There was the question of whether it would give KJU legitimacy, and hand a propoganda victory, or that Trump would hand out concessions that NK wanted with nothing in return (which is what happened with respect to military exercises)
If the media went back and explained why their speculation on how events could pan out was wrong - there’s be little else.
But saying that, I don’t think it was particularly bad, and the media do go back and assess what they said more often than I think you give them credit for.
Says your presumption…
If we agree on what was appropriate agree on what they did - then how far away they are is east to agree upon - Then it’s no longer just my presumption.
You seem to agree with what they did; and Agree with their reporting - and simply think they should have reported on why they got their opinion reporting wrong.
It is a perfect example of MSM taking a poorly worded phrase out of its larger context and unashamedly embellishing upon it. UV light can act as a disinfectant, by the way. Thanks for exemplifying my point, but I actually would find it more compelling if you addressed the second half of that post re: the timing of the Hunter Biden story.
It wasn’t “poorly worded”; it was simply and inarguably dumb. It showed a specific level of ignorance and willingness to just blurt out that ignorance that should not be coming from a president.Even in context. Factual reporting nailed what he said on MSM - many left leaning channels used the word bleach (but then context was wider forms of disinfectant), with almost every other mention using it flippantly - which I don’t begrudge on such a dumb statement.
Hunter Biden is simple. The New York Post article absolutely unbelievably stank. Various other organizations passed on it. NYP reporters wouldn’t put their name to it; it was passed to them by Guiliani, based on a laptop handed to a partially sighted repairman. There’s no part of that story that appeared credible to any degree - and no part of it that could be independently verified.
It seemed about as credible than the steel dossier appeared - and that was circulating prior to Trumps election without being reported on.
The key difference though; is that the laptop was supposed to show this huge corruption of Biden and Hunter - specifically trading influence for money, they couldn’t be corroborate, and the only things that we’re in the ballpark could be simply explained by Hunter Biden being a fuckup, and pretending he could do things he couldn’t.
That claim hasn’t gone anywhere meaningful.
What happens, is that in the midst of these charges against Joe Biden, if turns out Hunter was under investigation- something that no one was aware of - not even the right wing media for tax issues. But as it was credible - it was reported.
This is to say that your point would be more valid if the laptop was used to point to Hunter being under investigation for tax fraud; that was dismissed, and it turned out to be true - but even saying that - even if the claim was Hunter was an idiot - something upon which all sides agree - Such an obvious partisan plant should not be touched with a bargepole.
Saying that, both the laptop and the case was reported in the media but with the extra context that was missing; reported as if the veracity was in question - which it was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
If your premise, brought to its logical conclusion, makes it impossible for reality to exist as you have repeatedly claimed, then you are left with two options:
- Reality exists and your premise is wrong
- Reality doesn't exist and your premise is right
My premise is.
“Our understanding of how reality (specifically various aspects of causality) works is not sufficient to explain the existence of reality”
If Reality exists and our understanding is not sufficient to explain it. Then reality exists and my premise is correct. Boom.
How in the good name of holy loving fuck did you manage to mangle that into claiming
“My premise means that reality cannot exist?“
You keep repeatedly confusing my premises, my conclusion, and the concept of what our understanding of reality is. I would love to know, as this argument makes literally no sense.
To add to this however: your problem is that you drew a form conclusion. That something was probable.Which conclusion are you talking about?
The conclusion of my original argument that I have continually posted, repeatedly, in multiple posts - that I even mention repeatedly in the parts of my post you chopped out. I am unable to read for you.
How do you assess the likelihood that logic does or does not Apply?Where have I talked about the likelihood of logic applying to something?
The conclusion of your original argument - that I’ve been desperately trying to draw you back to - assumes logic applies, or likely applies. If it doesn’t apply, then your conclusion doesn’t follow - which is my point. For your conclusion to follow, you must be able to determine whether it’s more likely for logic to be a valid tool.
How do you assess the likelihood that infinities can exist - that something may not have a cause?Have I claimed the it is likely that infinities can exist? Or that it is likely something may not have a cause?
Your argument - was that the universe having been caused is a more likely explanation than the others - the universe not having a cause, causing itself, or being eternal.
So yeah - your argument is BUILT upon probability claims on infinities, things not having cases, etc...
I mean - how on earth can you say anything is more likely than the universe being eternal - if you cannot deduce the probability of the universe being eternal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
So let’s cut through the substantial mess above.
I wanted to first correct you on some things:
Specifically that some drugs, specifically ketamine and LSD that change brain chemistry can indeed invoke similar feelings and experiences within NDEs - not the entire experience - but the same feelings of connectedness.
Out of body experiences - one aspect common, but not universal - can also be triggered out of NDEs, they’re also not specifically real - tests that would confirm the reality by showing a picture in a location visible by an out of body person, but not their body - have failed to show anything.
Likewise - while EEGs - which measure brain activity at the surface are shown to be flat in various scenarios; this is not the complete absence of all activity - other ways of measuring show bursts of neural activity before death.
So In this respect, the only two examples you gave that are indicative of the experience being real - are not valid.
The best explanation for these events; is that the brain goes through a process when it dies; that involves various low level neutral activity; the brain interprets this in a way shaped specifically by your experiences and memories; because they shape the connections in your brain. The experience is a collection of various perceptions, many of which are similar to - and even the same as - other forms of experience. Or in other words, indicating what is happening is not far outside the expected behaviour in other extreme circumstances.
Importantly- there are no key indicators that demonstrate that the event is true or real:
- Perceptions of things the person should not be able to see
- Knowledge Gained of things the person should not be able to know.
Created:
Posted in:
*Our understanding of how reality works.Of course it can’t be correct: That’s my entire point.This is what you said previously. Your entire point was that our understanding of how reality works - that a cause and effect must be temporally related - can't be correct. So how is it inconsistent to say that "our current and collective understanding of reality that cause and effect must be temporally related is not correct"?
Peanuts out of poop.
Our understanding of how reality works is not sufficient to explain the existence of reality: in the sense of a solution to existence - it is not correct.
However; a correct solution to existence could definition allow for a temporal relationship between events as we observe them; if unprovable metaphysical assumptions are added.
In this sense; I mean “not correct” to mean “insufficient to explain”, rather than “inherently invalid”
Like Newton’s law. Newton’s laws are not correct in that they are insufficient; but they’re not false - they still apply with modification...
This is like the third time I’ve corrected you on this - it would help if you paid attention.
Are logic and reason valid tools for assessing claims - even those regarding metaphysics?I have Absolutely no clue whatsoever.If you have no clue, then how can you claim that there are "metaphysical assumptions which cannot themselves be validated or assessed"? If you don't know, then the possibility is open that they can be assessed by logic and reason, and your criticism is invalid.
Answered in the part of my post that you deliberately cut out:
For example - let’s take that assumption about logic.Let’s say logic is a valid tool (I will cover the alternative shortly - just to prevent you quote mining again) - the logic of my argument still necessarily stands; and your original claim that the universe was created is a more likely explanation is still completely unjustified.Let’s take the alternative - that it’s not a valid tool. In this case, any claims about origins are by default impossible: and thus your original claim that the universe was created is a more likely explanation is still completely unjustified.So to summarize - I have no idea, and no basis for finding out. But any way you could answer that question invariably leads to your Original conclusion being unjustified - which is my whole point.
To add to this however: your problem is that you drew a form conclusion. That something was probable. We can assess the logic of your assumption - are they logically sound - but whether they are correct or likely are based on whether the premises and assumptions are likely. How do you assess the likelihood that logic does or does not Apply? How do you assess the likelihood that infinities can exist - that something may not have a cause? You can’t because there is no basis to test or validate those premises... which would make your original claim false...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The big issue with your response is related to bias.
You’re biased, I am biased.
To establish the validity of the behaviour of the media in terms of your list; one needs to correctly qualify the exact nature of media portrayal of the events at the time: And qualify whether that portrayal was reasonable, in the context of that time.
The issue is that if you’re biased you can’t do either of those things properly.
Your perception of overall portrayal of events by the media is going to be massively biased By the sources you consume telling you they were biased; both before and after the events.
Secondly, your perception of what is reasonable will also be specifically coloured by those same sources.
Both are massively impacted by the fact that the events are 1/2/3/4 years ago.
This is all to say that for each item, are you able to correctly quantify the specific way the media reacted in broader context - or is your opinion on what they said coloured by what Fox News, or various conservative sources told you they did?
Are you able to quantify the window of reasonable journalistic behaviour for those given events. Or are you simply portraying their behaviour as unreasonable because biased sources you consume persuades you that the correct interpretation of events was something else?
For example on your list: North Korea.
The media, widely reported on escalating tensions and rhetoric when NK had a deliverable nuclear weapon; Trump talked about fire and fury. The factual reporting suggested was bad and made the prospect of hostilities more likely, and that it could lead to further destabilization. I don’t think that was unreasonable. You also had a bunch of talking heads and opinion writers saying it was a bad idea, and could cause hostilities; and some saying it’s about time - and a lot of opinion conversation about how NK Has been going on for so long that perhaps this type of talk and unpredictability could lead to beneficial results as the status quo had failed.
In this respect; while I won’t say the MSM was straight down the middle; they were way closer to the middle than to your interpretation of events.
The bleach one is a perfect example.
Trump suggested that they should look into disinfectants into the body to cure COVID
That’s one of the Dumbest things I have ever heard coming out of someone in powers mouth.
He was rightly blasted for it; the MSM were pretty accurate - using the word disinfectant - when I searched last; MSNBC occasionally mentioned Injecting bleach; and there examples of commentators and left wing politicians being flippant with comments about drinking bleach. There wasn’t that much of a difference between how dumb what he said was vs how dumb it was portrayed.
I do remember though - an article from some Anonymous right wing woo factory saying that “The MSM is being too harsh on trump because when he said ‘disinfectant’ he actually meant ‘medicine’
This is a source of a huge amount of perceived media bias - that the media treats what Trump does worse than you think it should - because you think Trumps behaviour was more reasonable than it was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Ok I'll bite. So now with that added content,
Yay! Finally! Also more: this is what I’ve been saying all along..
our current and collective understanding of reality that cause and effect must be temporally related is not correct.
No - our current collective understanding of reality works fine for what we see and observe - but is not sufficient to explain their own origins on its own. It’s either not correct on a universal scale (requires replacing with another metaphysical assumption), or is correct but incomplete : (requires supplementation with another metaphysical Assumption in order to work)
And, the only way to coherently explain why our perceived reality exists is to assume there is some metaphysical aspect to it, rather than strictly temporal.
No - the only way is to add metaphysical assumptions that can’t be validated - such as “infinites can exist” or “things can exist without a cause” or “creation can occur without time”, or any one of a trillion arbitrary and unsupported conjectures. As I explained in the posts you keep ignoring - causality could still be strictly temporal, but for that to be coherent, you need to make assumptions about how reality works.
Are logic and reason valid tools for assessing claims - even those regarding metaphysics?
I have Absolutely no clue whatsoever. Why do you think it matters? Have you applied it to my argument? In what manner do you think my argument breaks down? Why does either specific answer (or the answer you want me to give) impacts position.
This is what I refer to as picking peanuts out of poop: your focusing on making an objection - Any objection (the peanut) - without any apparent reasoning about why the objection is even valid; or how it extends to their broad argument or point (the poop)
For example - let’s take that assumption about logic.
Let’s say logic is a valid tool (I will cover the alternative shortly - just to prevent you quote mining again) - the logic of my argument still necessarily stands; and your original claim that the universe was created is a more likely explanation is still completely unjustified.
Let’s take the alternative - that it’s not a valid tool. In this case, any claims about origins are by default impossible: and thus your original claim that the universe was created is a more likely explanation is still completely unjustified.
So to summarize - I have no idea, and no basis for finding out. But any way you could answer that question invariably leads to your Original conclusion being unjustified - which is my whole point.
Created:
Posted in:
Good lord, you are obtuse.
So first of all. You are 100%, definitely, absolutely cherry picking.
You are cherry picking the science that agrees with the bible; ignoring all the other science that does not; and then claiming science validates the bible. Cherry picking
Flying off in to odd tangents; line by line is hilarious, but meaningless. What you’re doing is a form of quote mining - splitting up the proof that you’re cherry picking into lines and responding to each line in a completely different context Than it was clearly meant is intellectually dishonest.
In this case; evolution can rule out the concepts of specially created kinds through generic means. We can rule out a global flood 5-6 thousand years ago by various means ; historical and geological - cataclysmic floods tend to be, well cataclysmic: and leave cataclysmic evidence. We can see, for example, massive extinction events by correlating mass die outs with volcanic activity, and signatures of massive climate change that came with it - or layers of iridium At the K-T boundary radiating out from Mexico where we see geological indications Of a massive meteor strikes (tektites, etc). If a flood happened 6000 years ago, you could go into your garden - any garden and just dig down a few Meters and find evidence. You’d see it in the genetics of all populations - reducing number of individuals to a few founders creates massive genetic issues that can be traced to particular times.
In this respect ; a global flood can 100% be ruled out as plausible.
Secondly. The water under the surface - is based on a single study (that I am aware of), which uses the existence of >>magma<< : melted rock at depths of up to 400 miles to infer the presence of water at those depths. When ocean zones subduct, water in the ocean and the rocks are melted into >> magma << creating a reservoir of water (in the form of hydroxyl molecules) transported into the deeper layers of rock. This water is trapped under the crust of the earth until the medium containing it moves to the surface - this is the form of melted rock containing water reaching the surface. Molten rock contain many various gasses dissolved within - water, sulfer dioxide, carbon dioxide. High gas content magma releases these gasses when the pressure drops enough for the gas to undisolve - think shaken can of coke.
We have a name for what’s happens when the pressure of magma drops sufficiently to allow the gas it contains to undissolve: a volcanic eruption.
In this case, the high pressure of magma - even a few km below the surface can keep gases dissolved within; even through temperature of thousands of degrees.
Of course - you seem to not actually understand this given the hilarious quote below:
“Any water in Rock would be squeezed out under the tremendous pressure needed to make it hot enough to melt, and any water would immediately vaporize out as soon as the pressure dropped long before the magma reached the surface.”
This is absurd for a number of reasons. There is so much wrong with this lol:
- If water in rock is squeezed out under pressure as it melts - then where the hell did all this water you claim was on the surface go? You’re claiming it can’t go back below the surface.... where... it was ... found.. or in other words - you are arguing the water that was found cannot have been on the surface.
- Water below the crust is not in water form, it’s in dissolved form. It can’t be “squeezed out” unless there is a high pressure gradient. Lol
- Water trapped in various rock layers will only vaporize - aka flash to steam - if the force the water exerts on its surroundings exceeds then amount of pressure the surroundings are able to contain. Just as a FYI, a water droplet trapped under 2km of Non porous rock is not going to turn to steam....
I suggest you read the study your nonsense is based on :
- one study.
- amount of water is merely a speculative conjecture based on one inclusion in a diamond.
- the presence of water is assumed based on inferred dehydration melting
- the Upper and lower mantle rocks themselves do not appear contain much water.
So it’s kinda odd that this is the hill you want to die on.
Created: