Phi for All

Moderator NoteWe attack ideas here, not people. You are making this personal, and this is supposed to be objective science. Don't do this again, you're on thin ice here. Your discussion style is demeaning and provocative, and it drags most subjects off topic.

You're posts seem less helpful and more baselessly critical these days. Are you OK? Please take care of yourself.

You're ignorance of what I've studied is displayed so provocatively, it makes me think there's nothing really to talk about with you. I read the Bible three times all the way through before reaching my conclusions about it. The first time I was a believer, the second an agnostic. By that time, I'd come to realize there were a LOT of people like you who wanted to interpret away the unpalatable and ignorant parts, and tell me how wrong I was and how right they were. The book is designed like that, to be ambiguous and open to interpretation but also sacred and infallible, with no provisions for changing times and people. Enjoy your beliefs, I find them untrustworthy. As long as science continues to let us proceed with such accuracy (we can land on asteroids, which I find much more awesome than your omnipotent sky fairy), I'll take experiment over interpretation.

Well, since you haven't studied evolution to any extent, it makes sense that agreeing with what the theory says would be hypocritical and ideological for you. But what about those of us who have? What if we understand the mainstream explanation and have reviewed at least some of the mountains of evidence available to support it? You're right, science isn't a belief system. It's provisional, and always represents our best current explanations. Most of us think that makes it more trustworthy than your "studies" that center around a single collection of Iron Age literature. And I notice you dodged the question of how the JWs accelerate evolution in an unscientific manner. I'm used to the creationist bob and weave, so please just explain it without all the epithets and vitriol. Be calm and rational, even though someone disagrees with your beliefs.

Moderator NoteMoved from Science News to Computer Help.

Estimated by the Jehovah's Witnesses, who somehow are able to accelerate evolution while simultaneously denying it. Do you have anything credible? Or do you want to double down on millions of species evolving in just a few thousand years?

This is a bad habit. If you have no good arguments, it doesn't help to sit on your high horse and denigrate those who disagree with you. It just makes your poor arguments seem more so.

We're still trying to develop policy on this. There's room for the technology here if it's used to help someone express their thoughts more clearly. Unfortunately, we see a lot of folks who misunderstand it, and think the AI is taking the seed of their idea and turning into scientific reality, math and references included. I hope you'll bear with us. We need you to help keep it fun.

Your references mean nothing scientifically. They're opinions about biblical theology, and their opinions about the soul are just opinions, not fact, certainly controversial from a scientific standpoint. The soul is NOT blood, it's not life. We know what constitutes those things, and a supernatural soul simply isn't necessary. Your scriptural references are circular arguments, like the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. There's no need to attack anything but ideas here. Leave the personal attacks in your head, please. We've already attacked your argument and found it lacking. If you want to concede that you misspoke or used fallacious reasoning, that's up to you. I think your arguments suffer from an overabundance of vitriol. It doesn't help them at all.

This is unreasoned, unclear, and unhelpful. Conversation with you online is difficult and unrewarding. Off-topic, this might be a small part of the reason why you've had problems at other discussion forums.

I second this. You argue fallaciously then cover it up with rants you think make some kind of point. I see no decent arguments from you so far about this topic, only denigration of your detractors from a very high horse. You argued that science denies religion while agreeing with me that science isn't the right tool to use with religion. Do you see the conflict? Science explains the natural world. You're basing your arguments on misconceptions, and you're not the first.

Definitely not the way it came off to me. Your mileage may vary. You seem too reasonable to use an obvious strawman argument like this. Science hasn't determined the soul doesn't exist, it just classifies it as supernatural because they can't find one no matter how much people believe. Similarly, I don't have to claim pixies don't exist when I can simply ask you to show me one before I agree with you.

What I read here is frustration that you have no evidence to back up your arguments, so you seek to devalue the mountains of evidence that support every mainstream scientific theory. I don't see a conflict with science and religion. Science can safely keep asking for supportive evidence before acknowledging religious beliefs. If it's supernatural, science isn't really the right tool to use. You'd have to define what you mean by soul, but it sounds supernatural, something we guess at but can't actually observe, measure, or quantify. For scientific purposes, I'd start with psychology. Physics and biology agree that what you call a "soul" doesn't seem to exist. Personality? Character? Psychology might have some answers.

What you posted looks like a lecture rather than an attempt at conversation. It's all opinion. Discussing your opinion isn't as interesting as you might think. We're a science discussion forum with a Religion section, and we still like some evidential support for any claims or arguments.

It's NOT a theory, as swansont pointed out. Theory has a very specific meaning in science. It's the hallmark of explanations. It doesn't get any better than theory. And theories start with hypotheses, which are then rigorously tested and observed, experiments are developed, and conclusions are used to predict further concepts. Only after there are mountains of evidence in support and not a single bit of evidence to contradict it does an idea like this start getting called a theory. You say you're questioning whether we know the real story behind wind. I understand you may not know much about it, but what do you think mainstream science has wrong about it? Where is the mystery that science can't explain? What is lacking in our accumulated knowledge of wind? Is it simply that it sometimes behaves in an erratic fashion that resists prediction? What gaping hole does your overlooked dynamic fill?

Seriously, you toss out pressure and temperature variations that are easily testable and observable for some kind of extra-dimensional hocus pocus? Also, you put this in a mainstream section so please don't bring up religion. Do you have any mainstream scientific support for this? If you don't, we'll need to move this to Speculations.

The Report function is working.

That's not what you claimed though. Earth as the universal center is an example of something people had wrong, not something that was perceived and later confirmed by observation. Also, the guesswork of gravity also doesn't count as an example of perception later being observation. Meteorites were myths? Do you have a citation for this? It seems like there is ample evidence once it's here on Earth.

Can you name one?

I didn't ask about equations. You used the word "designed" wrt to humans, and I wanted to know if you meant "developed" or "evolved" as opposed to "created by a designer". Also, I asked about your use of "equilibrium". Isn't it true that everything seeks to find its own balance within its environment? Why is it so special that humans do it too? Where did these materials and minerals come from, if not from the universe, which is the technical boundary for everything that exists? Theory has no place for "certainty", that's not how science works. Your hypothesis should stick to what you can explain through observations backed up by supportive evidence. I recommend you focus more on exploring how you can support these ideas, and leave some of the more speculative areas (alternate realities, etc) out of it.

It would be best if you can copy/paste it here (I tried and it was taking forever for just 3 pages). Designed, by a designer? And can you give me an example of something, anything in the universe that doesn't seek equilibrium? Or are you defining that word differently? The only references I can find for vibrational energy are trying to sell me crystals and woo. Is there any science behind this?

You Fucking Guy, The smart people who don't like you aren't going to be fooled by trying to declare martial law this weekend. The governors won't be fooled. The courts won't be fooled. Can you trust Congress to back you up on this, the ones who aren't on the list with you? The red state reps find it hard to spin big government interventions, especially when your tariffs messed up so many farmers and blue-collar families. You've been acting like their greatest nightmare: a government run amok with power, interfering in everyone's business, and preying on ordinary citizens who just want to live in freedom.

I've seen: You had me at calculus... Data or it didn't happen. Or maybe custom: Nothing is cooler than absolute zero. Except MigL.

Moved to The Lounge. We exclusively sold Cheese Nips in the store up until the end of 2022 when Kraft recalled them all due to harmful plastics in the product and then discontinued them. I think @swansont is working on an alternative recipe, but tariffs are steep on the equipment he needs.

Moderator NoteNo more medical advice, please. We discuss science here.