Phi for All

Can you SHOW any of this, rather than just repeat the assertions? And I think you're misusing "objective" in several instances where you combine "objective" the adjective with "objective" the noun and try to justify it. Then you really screw it up by using "object" as a verb. How can a binary treatment be "foundational" to mathematics when we had robust maths long before we started using binary languages for computers? Please don't just claim it's this way, persuade us, show us why you believe this, using evidence we can all agree with.

It still doesn't tell us about whether the universe came about "from nothing". Perhaps that's the problem, assuming there was nothing, then something? Also, Intelligent Design has been famously debunked, so if they're calling their whole page that, I wouldn't take it too seriously. Most of those folks think the universe is only about 6000 years old.

This is exactly as meaningful as numerology. You're assigning importance for a modern word by using an ancient language that has no correlation. It's exactly as meaningful as translating "Th-E-O-Ry" into Klingon and finding out it means "Battle-Fight-Scream-Stronghold". We observe that they're always present, and things don't change significantly when we aren't observing. Always there? We don't know, can't know at this point.

Most of the posts are old at EVERY forum.

It doesn't matter if you avoid the singularity. The density and heat of the early universe destroyed any evidence of what might have happened "before", as swansont said. If I give you a puddle of molten steel and tell you it used to be a forged item, how would you go about figuring out what it used to be? Is there anything about the molten metal that could tell you whether it used to be a sledgehammer or part of a car frame or a manhole cover? You can guess all you want, but you can't know what that steel used to be because melting it destroys all the evidence. In the early universe? Why?

You're becoming even more vague after 13 pages of this. Fundamental? The universe did just fine for billions of years without life. Life is just better at absorbing and dissipating heat from the sun. I suggest you drop using the words "fabric of the universe". It's been proven to derail many people trying to understand various scientific principles. I'm still assuming you're here to learn something. So, we should pay attention to how "reality" makes you "feel"? And you don't think machines and living people can be interconnected? What's wrong with machines? Have you never driven a really well-made automobile? Have you never watched someone compete at basketball from a wheelchair? I think you suffer from "man isn't natural" syndrome. You seem to think we aren't part of the nature we observe.

If you let them shenan once, they'll shenan again!

Oh, Otto.

I can't help drawing a parallel between the stories I'm hearing about TFG supporters who are happy he's going after Obamacare, as long as he leaves the ACA alone, and all the misinformation surrounding DEI. People in democracies in general are in favor of initiatives aimed at supporting people from all walks of life, that try to be just and fair with everybody, and allow everyone a seat at the table when it comes to important decisions that affect them, yet many of those same people have been told it's bad when you call it DEI.

More deflection. NOBODY made it personal until you started ignoring or trying to sidestep established science. You were corrected, ignored it again, tried to quote some articles that you thought supported your stance but didn't, and in general kept implying that science was falling down in its job without actually supporting that with evidence. Normally, when posts start attacking another member, it's after several pages of crackpot behavior, and it's a sign to staff that a thread probably needs to be closed. You didn't start this thread, but we've tried to give you every benefit of the doubt, and allowed you to continue NOT explaining why your concepts have merit. We've been attacking your ideas, and you've been claiming the attacks are unjustified because you're just quoting other people. But you're the one using those quotes to argue for things other members have shown to be false, or just wrong-headed. I'll warn everyone not to attack the person who has the idea, but you keep insisting these aren't your ideas, and you keep failing to support them when questioned.

I disagree. There seems to be a certain threshold of knowledge and understanding that critical thinking skills require. Once past that threshold, no matter what you've been taught, you can reason your way through fallacious arguments and unsupportable beliefs. I think the Amish leadership knows this, and they don't want their children attending schools that might teach them these skills.

Still don't know why you insist nobody is enquiring about other areas. And abiogenesis is a process of development. We don't know exactly how it happened back then with primordial ingredients, but we know it's one of the strongest possibilities we have. Even if Earth was seeded from somewhere else with the building blocks for living organisms, those had to have come from inorganic matter at some point. We know the early universe was NOT hospitable to our kind of life.

Sitting on the fence, shouting that something's wrong, not sure what. Not a skeptic's stance. How long are you going to stick with "might shape our approach"? It's pretty weak but you seem to think it's important.

! Moderator Note Next time, lose the bolded Title case and it will seem less like you're soapboxing. Also, this is a discussion site, so blog posts like this trying to preach at people aren't appreciated. Science is also a plus.

You need something that likes to stick to both garlic and hot potato. I'd go with Parmesan cheese.

How is looking at war as a disease helpful in understanding how to combat it? Is this eventually going to end with some kind of "immunization"? We can avoid analogy. We're led to war these days for profit, backed by an impoverished citizenry who've been made fearful by their leaders. Figure out how to stop our leaders from profiting from war and war becomes too costly for everyone.

It seems like the perfect word for what you're doing here. You're denying that abiogenesis is a fact, with some of the worst arguments I've ever seen. Get off the fence and try to learn some science rather than trying to find bits of it that seem to support this inanity.

! Moderator Note In case you forgot, you can't make threads requiring that members go offsite or watch a video in order to participate. Can you make your case AND stay within the rules? If you can't, this needs to close.

NO! It can safely discard the unfalsifiable and the inane.

One of the main differences between science and religion is this: religion holds its truths to be sacred and unchanging. Science discards that which isn't observable, testable, or falsifiable, so it seems pretty natural that science studied what your god "created for us" and found it wanting as a theory. I mean, look at how much science has progressed compared to religion over the last 500 years or so. So why were Trurl's words good? Or my big human brain tells me that constant conflict and persecution is pointless when decency and respect aren't that costly and work so much better where humans are concerned. It makes more sense to embrace diversity than it does to eradicate it. Are you saying this religion is beyond normal ethical and moral concerns somehow?

Which values do you mean, the ones they espouse or the ones they follow? For instance, the OT quite emphatically urges us to treat immigrants well, and the NT talks a lot about loving thy neighbor, yet Christians in the US are very vocal and supportive of this anti-immigration push, and are often behind all the hateful speech against neighbors who look a bit different or love a bit different. For me, it's easy. If the behavior seeks to help others with fairness and not judgement , it's generally ethical. Religion isn't a prerequisite for morality, as we're seeing unfold right now.

Difficult to see how whispering would become a dominant form of communication among a social species.

! Moderator Note No. You need to give us an overview of what you're talking about, without requiring members to watch videos or go offsite, per the rules. We need some direction if you want a discussion about this to be meaningful.

! Moderator Note We do believe chemistry is exciting, but we're a science discussion forum. If you're willing to stick around and talk about your posts, we'd love to take advantage of your experience, but posting factoids by themselves is not what we're here for. It's considered soapboxing if you aren't interested in talking about what you post. Hopefully you're interested in some give and take. Welcome to SFN!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-not-confident-gaza-deal-will-hold-through-all-three-phases/ar-AA1xyk8J It's OK, because the Gaza people are dead, right?