Phi for All

The same store that sells the phones and laptops that will disrupt the plane taking off and landing.

You have it ass-backwards. They didn't establish the thresholds first. They experimented until they found the thresholds, and they also list some factors that merit extra consideration. You make it sound like every single doctor for the last 200 years is incompetent, but the article is pointing out "pitfalls that merit consideration" when confirming the death of a brain stem. IOW, the thresholds have been tested in order to find them. The literature is documentation of the experiments, because that's how science works. The literature doesn't get written beforehand. Who considers this patient dead after a single instant? Not any doctor I know. According to you, they've all been incompetent for centuries. I knew you were going to try to hand-waive your way out of this. You're a waste of time and resources, and I'm sorry I tried to help you with your claims.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551584/ I'm going to ask you now, how many scientific studies and reports do I have to show before you acknowledge that a LOT of research has gone into when someone is clinically dead, and that your claims ignore the evidence that show them to be false? So far, you just hand-waive away what you don't like.

You've ignored every single dispute that's been supplied for the last 5 pages. I don't think you understand enough about the subject to recognize a valid dispute. Every time you've made a claim that's disputed, it's followed by an explanation (i.e. why this isn't the Lazarus syndrome, why calling it a syndrome doesn't make it a medical certainty). The literature says that waiting 5-10 minutes after cessation of resuscitation is recommended, so don't you think more time was spent at some point in order to arrive at the 5-10 minute threshold? Another argument that hasn't been presented yet is simple probability. With so many people having lived and died on Earth, if your claim had any truth to it, probability would ensure that at least a percentage of people we thought had died would come back to life inexplicably. Part of the power of science is predictability like this. It you're right, we should be seeing evidence of it, but we don't.

The latest I've heard is that she and Macron are on course to have a runoff election. She's less than 5% behind him at this point. My impression of the French is that they won't let their ultra-rich take back undue control, but Le Pen's politics are much like Trump's, in that they're designed to erode democratic principals and make it easier to divide the electorate in other ways. I enjoyed watching participation in their election process while visiting because so many of their citizens are political. They've always had a strong left and right so compromise left them with politicians like Macron. It's a real shame to see that tilt so dramatically that they'd put Le Putin in the presidency. And she wouldn't care about what the EU says about leaving NATO and buying Russian arms, because she'll probably start organizing FREXIT as soon as she can.

Yes.

That's why I went on to give examples of how our views determine how we handle death. So your question is answered, yes?

It's no secret she loves Putin. Her party borrowed 9M Euros from a Russian bank to fund local elections in 2014: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/08/vladimir-putin-viktor-orban-eu-marine-le-pen If she could withdraw from NATO, she'd be forced to buy weapons from Russian arms dealers to plug the gaps in French defense. Like Boris in the UK, Le Pen seems to want to ruin publicly funded programs in favor of capitalist opportunities for the wealthy. As an American, it looks all too familiar. Russian will certainly use international hackers to pollute the French elections with praise for Le Putin.

The process of death is the same all over, but how we view death has a cultural context. Muslims believe their god ordains the time of death for each individual, and other cultures believe death can follow death unless certain traditions are observed (iirc, Russians cover their mirrors and stop their clocks when someone dies to keep the living safe). Society's rules don't have to follow scientific methodology. Most of those rules on death concern the transfer of possessions, public safety, and investigating irregularities. Science isn't always the template societies use. Btw - if you plan on copying your own previous posts and pasting them as replies to anything I've said (the way you just did with Peterkin), you can enjoy the conversation without me. I didn't join this discussion for the intellectual laziness.

Literally wrote it yourself, or not an advocate and just using some of their arguments, which is it? Is this an example of a person of faith using bad faith arguments? Or are you beginning to see why all these points were refuted quite some time ago?

As for the first couple that seem to be in your own words: Energy is a property of matter, not a thing in and of itself. DNA is not a molecule, it's a polymer. Your reasoning is that this polymer is really a code, so magically it stops being a part of chemistry and becomes rigidly defined as being created by a conscious mind, therefore blah blah bullshit. It's proof of nothing except that you don't understand what you're criticizing. Are you kidding me? You're cherry-picking terms that fit your argument, while leaving out the rest. Plenty of business, technology, and societal aspects "evolve" without being specifically designed to do so, so they don't "always refers to an intelligent process". What makes you think language evolves according to some kind of overarching design? If this is true, then you should read everything at the talkorigins.org link iNow gave earlier. It's the best source for debunking all those tired, ignorant arguments made by the creationists you plagiarized.

You've plagiarized several already refuted websites to stitch this bullshit together. Why should anyone respond to your idiot copypasta? Great example of how ID has to cheat, deceive, and lie to gain traction with the uneducated.

It might have set a poor tone, but it's not the reason you're viewed as a troll. I don't think you understand the purpose of a science discussion forum. We can't possibly help you with your mental health, other than to help you learn some science through discussion. Constantly bringing up problems we can't help with is frustrating for EVERYONE. If you're looking for more internet friends, it's not a good tactic to start out complaining about how you were stalked on the internet and lost all your friends. It's not a good tactic to join a conversation and then make it all about you. It's not a good tactic to base your whole forum style on things we can't possibly know or check on. If you actually listened to the feedback you've gotten in various threads, you wouldn't need to make threads like these. You could read the room and realize nobody wants to discuss "the work of the Lord" on a science discussion forum. Unless your life experiences give context to the science discussion you've chosen to join, you don't need to mention it. Focus. Stay on topic. Remember that this is like sitting around a table talking. What you've been doing is jumping up on the table and screaming, "But what about THIS!"

This is certainly misinformation being pushed on us by you. There are two FB posts mentioned in this Wikipedia article, and one is allegedly fake. The translation doesn't mention "Russians" (but you know that better than I do), but instead it calls out the "inhumans" (or the perpetrators of observed attrocities). It can't be "murder", because this is a war, no matter what Putin says. Russia has been using foreign troops known for their inhumane approach to warfare. Given the overall hatchet-job look of that Wiki (more scandals space than bio space), I'd say this is more Russian propaganda. What makes it even more insulting is trying to hide obvious genocide (bombing maternity hospitals and train stations full of fleeing families) with your manufactured version. Fuck you, Putin!

! Moderator Note You need to stop putting words in other people's mouths. It's a bad faith argument tactic, it's intellectually dishonest, and it makes it very difficult to discuss science with you in an amicable manner. If you can't use actual quotes from other members, perhaps focusing on your own arguments would be best.

koti has been suspended for 3 days for bad faith posts encouraging personal attacks.

mistermack has been suspended for two weeks for continuing to violate our rule against disparaging whole groups of people.

! Moderator Note If we could discuss complicated issues with you within the rules, it would be best. Since you continue to thumb your nose at our rule against disparaging groups, we're going to carry on without your input for a couple of weeks.

Yes, the oppressors would prefer it if their victims would just shoot themselves, too, to save money. How much does being a disinformant pay?

You make so many bad assumptions while praising your own "logic"! Nobody said "worthless reading". The comments are only "unnecessary" because you disagree with them and refuse to consider them. The comments aren't "offensive" since they're attacking your idea and your writing style, NOT YOU PERSONALLY. One of the situations we face a lot here is robot posters. As I mentioned, you have an overly verbose style that tends to clutter up what you're trying to convey, and we're instantly suspicious. You've made up a lot of terms which you don't bother to explain, and it makes reading your ideas a bit of a slog. You make claims about software that needs to be developed but it's clear you're assuming it hasn't been already. Coupled with your assumptions that nobody had done what you're suggesting, you've developed this idea that we need to test something until it gives us the results we're hoping for, and that's really questionable methodology.

Let's not send the wrong message. It's not a wall of text that represents a lengthy commitment to learning. It's a wall of leafy green word salad that's difficult to chew because it has very few recognizable scientific definitions in it. And many of the words don't really go together, or were perhaps abused by a thesaurus, like "indelible dogma".

It looks like, when we can take your assertions one at a time instead of dealing with a shit-flooded zone, they're much easier to deconstruct.

Can we have a brief overview, please? If you only had two fairly short sentences to describe your idea as clearly as you can, or if I gave you twenty seconds to give me your best elevator pitch, what would you tell me? Edit to add: There's a 5 post limit on your first day to weed out robot spammers, so thanks in advance for coming back tomorrow.

What's happened to your objectivity? Of course many of them had a basis in rational thought. The creators of Gobekli Tepe constructed a place of pilgrimage that must have required an unprecedented amount of cooperation and skill for Stone Age humans 12,000 years ago. They used the knowledge they had at the time to explain their world in the form of stone pillars and megaliths carved with wild animals. Every damn bit of what they were doing AT THE TIME was rooted in rational thought.

That sounds like "brainwashing". Ritual has nothing intrinsic to do with untruths. Ritual is just a ceremonial form of conduct, usually repeating the same words/movements in unison or along with a speaker. They're usually special words and movements, words everybody wants to get right, sacred words that aren't supposed to change based on individuals (not sacred in a religious sense). Weddings, swearing-in ceremonies, pledges of allegiance, vows & oaths, clubs, leagues, lots of non-religious folks use ritual to mark the importance of an event. Memorizing the words and saying them together ideally creates unity and brotherhood. Like any tool, ritual can be misused. Any form of teaching can be misused. Doesn't mean the tool is evil.