Leaderboard

This is only true to an extent. Plenty of people were taught that god exists and leave the church, thinking otherwise. Others who are agnostic or indifferent embrace religion later in life. There’s a wide spectrum of personalities, and they respond differently to indoctrination and to authority.

Ironic that they stole copyrighted info and are indignant that they were treated in similar fashion. It’s like Vezzini complaining “You're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen” (which I’ve taken from a social media post)

Does it matter? He doesn’t necessarily think it’s the actual problem - it’s not like he can track the crash’s fault to an individual - but he needs to blame the problems on somebody. So he blames brown people and women, simply because they have some of the jobs, with the implication that white men are inherently superior. edit: Trump and others were briefed that air traffic control staffing was deficient at the time of the crash, and yet he blamed “DEI” https://bsky.app/profile/maxkennerly.bsky.social/post/3lgyc3msfss2i

Ah, but don’t forget, this is not creationism, no indeedy. 🤔

They speak Spanish? Ban on the vaccines and medicine, and big tariff on the transformers, unless Spain authorizes 50,000 Hispanic deportees to the islands.

Put another way - we’ve seen this behavior long before ChatGPT came along. Blaming stuff on bots is kinda lazy. The only other options here are: life always existed, or life was the result of magic/mysticism. Otherwise, life had to originate at some point, and that’s abiogenesis. Since science’s domain does not cover magic/mysticism, and that avenue was expressly rejected by the author, and also that we can pretty safely rule out life existing on the proto-earth, it’s what we’re left with. IOW, abiogenesis must be accepted. What’s not yet been shown are the mechanisms and steps of that process.

Most of your energy expenditure is basal metabolism. I.e. the majority of your energy expenditure is entirely independent of physical activity.

Let's get real here. You are in no position to "remind" me - from your position of almost total ignorance - of approaches to abiogenesis that do not exist. Nobody, I mean nobody sane, is trying to apply string theory, let alone the holographic principle, to abiogenesis. That's because neither has anything to offer. I have just told you what string theory is concerned with: attempts to develop a mathematical structure to support a theory of quantum gravity. It is obvious that a theory of quantum gravity (if it is ever developed) has no bearing on the study of abiogenesis. Nor are you in a position to make judgements about the likelihood of success of abiogenesis research. You do not acknowledge the very simple reason why it is a hard problem, even though I have explained it to you. And you seem determined to ignore or belittle the progress that has been made, preferring instead to sit on the sidelines and whine stupidly about nobody having made life in a test tube. But I think you are now reaching the stage of just repeating these empty assertions of yours. I for one have had enough of your stubbornly ill-informed opinions on abiogenesis. We'll see what others think.

I should perhaps have mentioned the astonishing ‘auto-tables’ or automatic Riichi Mahjong playing tables which became very popular in Japan from 1988 onwards and feature extensively in the Saki anime series. These contraptions will delight and bemuse any mechanical engineer trying to figure out exactly how they work. (Hint - optical sensors, beam counters, logic circuits, and magnets embedded in tiles). They are not cheap - deluxe tables from the principal Japanese manufacturer AMOS can cost up to $4000. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmDNvqS9QPk

I used to play Contract Bridge in a competitive Duplicate tournament format while at University (after learning it at school), but have hardly touched the game in almost 40 years. When the global pandemic took hold a few years ago in 2020, and many people turned to online games, I took up Riichi (Japanese Mahjong) instead. There are some interesting parallels between the two games which may help explain why attempts to promote digital forms of Contract Bridge in particular have not been very successful. - Both games became highly popular in their respective countries (Japan and USA) in the early 1930s, and again after the war in the 1950s, but both slumped dramatically in popularity towards the end of the 1970s. - By the mid-1980s, Riichi Mahjong had become something of a joke in Japan. It was seen as a game that your parents or grandparents used to play, and of no conceivable interest to younger people. - Much the same was true of Contract Bridge which was by now seen as a dowdy game played by seniors in retirement homes, or social clubs for the elderly - (my nearest Bridge group meets in a local Croquet club). What changed in the case of Riichi Mahjong in Japan was the advent of networked digital gaming and the internet from the mid-90s onwards, which was boosted by the very rapid growth of highly popular Mahjong themed Manga comic and Anime film brands such as Saki (咲) and Akagi (アカギ). The re-awakening of interest in Riichi these aroused among younger players in Japan was quite explosive. Nowadays there are said to be about ten times as many Mahjong players as there are Poker players in the world - the vast majority of them in Asia of course - but with many more beginning to play in Europe and USA too. One reason for the recent popularity of Riichi Mahjong outside of Asia was the advent of two truly excellent global online Mahjong playing platforms called Tenhou (2000) and Mahjong Soul (2018) respectively. https://osamuko.com/a-history-of-tenhou/ There aren’t really any comparable platforms for playing Contract Bridge online. Those that do exist such as Bridge Base Online charge money to play, and are quite restrictive too - (Tenhou and Mahjong Soul are free to play, and open to all). From an engineering point of view, one large problem is that Contract Bridge is a *partnership* game (Riichi Mahjong is not). There are significant practical dificulties in managing partnership play in any form of digital version of Contract Bridge. One problem is that of random network disconnection. When it happens on Tenhou or Mahjong Soul, automata can intervene to enable the game to continue. You simply can’t do this effectively in a partnership game like Contract Bridge. Then there is the social overhead of practising and timetabling partnership arrangements across timezones. It’s so much simpler and rewarding to play Riichi 😉

To the best of my knowledge, these claims have been repeated and possibly misinterpreted by atheists themselves who have a specific agenda (such as those hwo wish to argue in favor of aggressive competition), so even if these claims originated with creationists, they've been repeated and affirmed by masses.

Nothing, what's wrong is assuming you're either, despite the evidence...

I didn't downvote you, I assumed that you'd eat that red shit right up and lick your lips, like a ravenous wolf. Snap, I did the same and guess what? I did not see anything where either of you represented anything remotely close to actual understanding of the subject. Hmmm, I wonder would a green +1 weaken them??? God knows, I wanna try, but it's tooo risky,,,

What is information? Is there any definition? It is just a word, "information", mans concept.

Some physicists, including Penrose, Smolin, and Hawking, have explored the idea that the initial conditions of the universe were set from the very beginning. The more speculative point I’m raising is that, in addition to these conditions, the potential for information and the prerequisites for life might have also been embedded in the universe’s origins. With this, I’m using an example to suggest that a narrow focus on abiogenesis might limit our exploration of life. To be clear, I’m not claiming that this hypothesis is correct, but rather highlighting how it might shape our approach to understanding life.

These are some of my observations: 1. Most atheists only believe in the theory of evolution (whichever version of the theory they're coming from) because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it, such as in schools. (Meaning if they had been born in the Middle Ages, they would be believing whatever the Church had taught them about the origins of humanity). Most aren't evolutionary biologists, and certainly never would have discovered the theory themselves from scratch - they're simply "fans" of the theory because they think it "means" something to them, or because they're attached to whatever they've been taught. Or perhaps they erroneously believe that it supports their atheistic stance (when, in reality, it doesn't, since evolution isn't mutually exclusive to creation, such as how supercomputers created by man "evolved" from simple calculators. Though some may use evolution to counter Biblical literalism). 2. Evolutionary thought is not new and did not originate with Charles Darwin. It dates as far back as the earliest of ancient Greek philosophers, just as materialist philosophy is also ancient (e.x. Epicurus was an early materialist). The belief that mankind simply originated "from nature" with no further explanation needed has been a common belief that has been held over the ages, and is arguably a simple observation which anyone could make even without pre-existing theories of evolution, given that the physical similarities between people and other animals are easily observable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought 3. Many of the beliefs people have about evolution and the origin of the universe are based on a misunderstanding of words. For example, some claim that the universe originated from "chaos", when in reality this is nonsensical (and has more in common with the Greek myth of "Chaos" being the deity from which the universe originated). In science, chaos, to my knowledge, only has meaning within Chaos theory, which, also to my knowledge, has nothing to do with evolution or the origins of the universe. Another example is when people say that life evolved through "random chance". They erroneously use this to imply there is "no intent" (whatever that means) behind life's origin, when in reality "randomness" simply refers to things outside of the evolutionary process playing a role in the development of life (such as how Chomsky attributes the development of language to a "miraculous mutation"), which, of course, does not require a lack of intent (and if anything could very well imply one). Some also use evolution to advocate for "aggressive competition", when I'd argue that biology is primarily cooperative, and more or less debunks this notion. (Such as how organs within the human body are not only viewable as "individual organs", but are collectives comprised of living cells, and for the body to function, the life of individual cells is far less important than the life of the whole organ). So I'd argue that biology and evolution more or less debunk individualism and render it either a pseudoscientific concept, beyond the fact that the organs need their autonomy for the entire body to function. (The existence of aggressive competition could therefore be seen as a defect, similarly to if an organ became cancerous and posed a threat to the wellbeing of the entire body). 4. Atheists often refer to people as "animals, apes", etc in a way which is intentionally or unintentionally reductive and devaluates the human condition to the level of animalistic behaviors associated with those less complex animals. (Such as the pursuit of materalistic needs which are low on Maslow's hierarchy compared to higher human needs). In zoology, terms like "animal, ape" and so on are merely arbitrary zoological classifications that group things based on similar traits, but are in no way exclusive to differences. (Much as how you could classify both a calculator and a supercomputer as a "calculating machine" based on a shared function, but the differences between those two devices would be striking, regardless of how they're mutually classified).

I am not a troll. My question is about attitude towards ONE ANOTHER. This question concerns politics also. I just wanted to mention. Let's look at France. It's a good country, they help others a lot. But let's remember Olympics' opening. It was quite rude towards Christians and values at all.