swansont

As I pointed out before, the numbers matter. "Faster" is relative. If humans are able to create life, even if it's 100 years from now, they will have done so at least a million times faster than nature did. How many people do you think are actively trying to do this in a lab? Right. That should have been 10^-16

This, like the black lives matter vs all lives matter, misses the point. Could it be that women face a higher risk of death from heart attack than men? https://newsroom.heart.org/news/women-found-to-be-at-higher-risk-for-heart-failure-and-heart-attack-death-than-men Or maybe because there is an existing health care gap https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/08/womens-health-gap-healthcare/ https://mcpress.mayoclinic.org/women-health/working-toward-gender-equity-in-womens-health-care/ It is a medical issue, and political one (though not the political issue your tone suggests)

Saying harder just makes the same mistake. And the response is still "So what?" That there is a better realization of how difficult it is should make it less prominent of an issue (edit: x-post with zap)

That's religious faith, i.e. definition 1 But that's not the only definition of faith. No, that's not what I referenced

! Moderator Note “Neurodivergent” is rather vague, since it’s not some binary condition (i.e. a number of ways to be atypical) and with a simplistic answer of “it depends on the environment” just like with any trait. Without a narrower definition to focus this, I don’t see that there’s much real discussion to be had

You’re confusing perception with reality No, I don’t think this is true. We don’t know what the conditions were, and chemical combinations are, in a sense, trial and error. Some events have low probability and rely on a large number of attempts. proton-proton fusion in the sun, for example, has a probability of somewhere around 10^16 10^-16 per collision - on average a proton would fuse once in a billion years. But there are a lot of protons, so we get fusion. Similarly an event that’s got a low probability of happening in a day in a 1L flask, is going to have that probability enhanced by the number of liters of water under the right conditions (10^15? 10^20?) and the number of days of the reaction (there being around 10^9 days in 300 million years) The math doesn’t agree with your unsupported assertion

2021 was anomalously high, but it's been >20 since 2019, which still lands it in the top 10 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2022/maternal-mortality-rates-2022.pdf

No, I don’t see how that follows, and given all the events observed at accelerator/collider labs, not having any evidence whatsoever of this continuum means this is pretty much already experimentally falsified You say the events differ and that they are the same. This might make sense to you, but not to me. You still haven’t explained how this is an issue of causality. An event happens. Causality only enters into the situation if you look at what caused the event, and you haven’t done that.

Unless we have lost knowledge, I don’t see how we have gotten farther from the goal. Being more complex than we thought means the goal is farther away than we thought, but we have not moved away from it. It took many millions of years and the whole earth was the laboratory, so is this really a surprise? It’s like complaining you aren’t world-class at something even though you’ve been practicing TEN WHOLE MINUTES!

True of pretty much anything we haven’t figured out. Or even stuff we did; humankind has been around for a few hundreds of thousands of years. What’s a decade, or a century, on that time scale?

This might seem profound but in fact is not. If you list everything we have figured out, there was a time for each one where we had not figured it out. So it really doesn't mean anything beyond it being a complicated issue.

This doesn't work when you measure something cyclical, because it can be the same even though time has passed. In fact, lots of things can be the same even though time has passed. Even if you use radioactive decay; time passes and yet the nucleus can be the same. But this, and the rest, are not considering light "with respect to itself" as is asked in the OP. They are from the view of an observer, which is not traveling at c.

Yes. It’s still EM radiation. We can answer questions based on observations from valid reference frames, i.e. ones an observer (with mass) can be in.

For those who do this. There are species that lay eggs and then take off.

Why jiggling? (The sinusoidal depictions of E & M fields are the field strength, not their trajectory, if that’s what this is a reference to)

It’s undefined. You can’t use the Lorentz transform to shift between an inertial frame and that of a photon, and back.

Relativity doesn’t afford us the ability to say; light is not in an accessible frame of reference, so the transforms do not work.

In addition to these points, we have no way of knowing what has been said privately, either directly or through proxies.We aren’t privy to some of the diplomatic pressures. Things said publicly are mostly for the masses. Putin’s saber-rattling is to prop him up with his own people and make people abroad worried, so they will influence their governments,

That’s not what invariant means There isn’t a continuum of options between a photon and a muon. Just saying this does not make it true. What is the transform that changes a photon into a muon? Not at all clear how that can be the case if “events in different IFRs are the same”

But where do you draw the line? Who decides? it’s an arbitrary decision, and you end up “removing” people that just rub you the wrong way.

Maybe it’s because you didn’t answer the question. Worse, your response is self-referential, so it’s not even helpful.

Again, I ask how important is radial movement?

I read the first talk.origins one. Or rather, I re-read it. I’m quite familiar with the points, since I used to be involved with the discussions back in the USENET days. The summary is good, since it gathers refutations from multiple creationist arguments, and rebuts multiple misconceptions. Didn’t see a need to read more from t.o. The SciAm one is paywalled

The two that pointed out that the idea was crap? What about them. You obviously don’t understand them. It’s not clear you make an effort to. You also don’t assess the credibility of thecsource. Because this isn’t a two-sides, equal-consideration situation. Science is based on empirical evidence, and the merit of ideas is related to the depth and breadth of evidence there is to support them. Creationist ideas have been thoroughly debunked. There is no merit in them. As Stephen Gould wrote “I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.” And the “just asking questions” tone is known as sea-lioning, which is a bad-faith tactic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

The home page is “A Creation Perspective” As you should have. When you copy-paste a question like that, it takes almost no effort. Yet you expected someone to put forth the effort to debunk it, yet again. That’s not engaging in good faith. Variation exists. Neutral mutations exist, too, which might become useful when the environment changes. Nothing should be surprising about it. It’s also possible that it becomes a negative, and is selected against. It’s a matter of contradicting yourself, which gives the appearance of trolling. And when your sources are of dubious quality, or don’t actually say what you imply they do, this becomes indistinguishable from the Gish gallop.