Phi for All

And this is a science forum, and scientifically we're classified as Animalia, along with about a million and a half other organisms. Each are different, with different characteristics. You've never watched an orca pod play with a seal, have you? Your reasoning here is very flawed, perhaps due to ignorance of the science involved. Animalia includes the insects too, you know. We have people (let's call them humans), and we have apes. Both of us share a common ancestor and, oh, why am I even bothering with you? Well, I think that's a meaningless definition of intelligence. We classify many animals based on intelligence, but not using love or words as determinators. Only a few animals can use words, and without those it's difficult to assess how much love plays a part in their behavior.

The bots say, "You're welcome!"

I agree with that, but LuckyR claimed atheists were copying religious morality, so I'm not sure we're all in agreement.

Well, I'm a biological organism, and evolution is a process that acts without direction. Why would the two have any equivalence? You're comparing apples to evaporation, it makes no sense.

How is there intelligence in evolution without an external force acting "intelligently"? How can a biological process that affects every living creature be "intelligent", without making the definition of intelligent meaningless?

How is this different from Intelligent Design? I'm not interested in semantics, I remember your other threads.

I don't understand why that's "funny". The default for humans is not murdering each other, and that predates all religions. Same with stealing, you aren't supposed to take things that aren't yours. We didn't need Abraham's god to tell us this. There is an awful lot of evidence that we survived our prehistory just fine without the 10C. Perhaps the moral codes of the early atheists were copied by Judaism, then Christianity, then Islam?

From what I've seen of the novice use of LLMs, it's a breeding ground for confirmation bias and cherry picking. The programs seem to care less about the accuracy of the answers they give you and more about how much you like the answers.

I'm an animal, and unlike you, I'm not afraid of that in the least. I'm part of the ecosystem of a planet that holds abundant, diverse life, the only planet we know about that does. My species, over vast amounts of time, developed a high-functioning intelligence while other animals developed other traits. The changes in allele frequency among these populations over time has led to our own understanding of evolutionary theory. Nothing you can say can deny that evolution occurs, and no matter how ignorant you wish to remain about the theory (you obviously still don't understand the strength of the term), it still explains far more than your magic sky wizard, and has the benefit of mountains of evidence to support it.

It's rare that anything meaningful comes after these five words.

All of my friends are animals, so I've got THAT going for me. Which is nice.

All that studying, and you came to this conclusion?! I think you're really harming your studies by holding on to this idea that evolution is directed by your deity.

Moderator Note We attack ideas here, not people. Using Down Syndrome as an insult is unacceptable, and has earned you a three day vacation. IF you return, no more of this behavior will be tolerated.

As long as we're discussing topics with you, we're happy. As long as you realize that LLMs are often wrong, have no math skills other than copying, and focus more on making you happy with an answer rather than being correct, we should be OK. I will say this. This forum has some outstanding science educators, all volunteer, and rather than try to answer questions using AI, I suggest you ask questions of our membership. They really are quite knowledgeable and friendly, as long as you don't try to explain something without evidence to back it up. Welcome to SFN!

It's costly to move a satellite, and they only have so much fuel. Orbital debris is already a big problem, and a grain of sand can tear up a lot of equipment travelling thousands of miles an hour in orbit. We track everything we can, but it's not getting better since the pieces collide in orbit and create hundreds more pieces. Here's a simulation. The red bits are debris: https://platform.leolabs.space/visualization

Moderator NoteIn a discussion about YOUR ideas, you are responsible for persuading those involved that they have merit. You've done little to persuade, and instead have ridiculed your critics for their inability to comprehend. They didn't start the thread, you did, and chose not to participate in discussion in favor of standing on a soapbox preaching. Thread closed, don't bring this up again.

Moderator NoteWord docs aren't allowed for security purposes. Please use the PDF format, or better yet, give us an overview of your idea, posted here so we can quote parts of it. That's the best way to get input in discussion. Thanks for understanding.

Moderator NoteWe have a rule against creationist arguments since they continually use misunderstood or misrepresented information, logical fallacies like strawman, and obfuscation based on sheer ignorance and a need for your extremist beliefs to be correct. You've done all that here in just a few posts. You keep parroting the same tired, ignorant arguments I saw 20 years ago here. You folks purposely misrepresent knowledge you don't have, and it's very, very sad to those who've studied this. I'm restricting your content instead of banning you, since I know creationists notch their belts with forum bans. You should learn with an open mind and let go of the hate in your heart.

Moderator NoteWhen given evidence "on the naturalistic theme", you ignored it in favor of many tangents and red herrings. We're just not going to do this dance anymore, Wigberto. You claim to want evidence, then you use every tired creationist argument and tactic to brush off the rest of the people in the conversation. We have rules against all of this, including the soapbox stance you've been taking on a subject you clearly know nothing about. Thread closed. Don't try this crap again.

Moderator NoteWe need to lose the snark immediately. Those who can't be bothered to observe a minimum of courtesy don't need to participate. Asking for definitions doesn't need to set an ugly tone.

I said his law is used to calculate the radius. Over time our data has improved, and so has the calculation.

It was figured using the Hubble Constant, which he published in 1929 but was based on earlier maths and observations by lots of other luminaries of the time.

Moderator NoteYou should start your own science discussion forum, because this one has some standards.

Moderator Note We discuss science within parameters which include all the evidence needed to trust an explanation, and all you're saying is "try this". That's not scientific, and we've run out of ways to discuss how unscientific it is. Thread closed, and if you'd like to stay to discuss science, don't open it again.

I've seen some beautiful work with stucco, which is the same mixture plus clean sand. Not on interior walls, though, only exterior, mainly because it's weather resistant and has a bit of texture to it. Anything concrete is going to have some problems with cracking when the house shifts inevitably. Fortunately, it's a pretty inexpensive solution to maintain.