swansont

Yes Who has suggested it doesn’t? Yup. What are the viable alternatives? We keep asking. But you can’t seem to explain what this angle is. You just stated you weren’t presenting alternatives. Just a few sentences prior to this So you know you said that, and also that these aren’t “viable” Life can’t be defined this way if it exists independent of matter.

How is any of that tied to DEI programs in the US? Bollocks. Show actual evidence that this is the case, rather than parroting GOP talking points. Also show that casting a wider net to hire better people is a bad idea in coming up with solutions.

Prevailing scientific knowledge is “we don’t know how it happened” so in that perspective how can there be alternatives? As far as prevailing scientific knowledge of what we do know, what is an alternative to that? It’s what we know! For there to be an alternative, what we know has to be wrong. Have you shown anything science has discovered to be wrong? And as alternative lines of investigation goes, what have you offered along those lines? I don’t see any posts discussing the details of e.g. quantum biology from you. We’re not discussing it because you aren’t, in any substantive way. You have the option of not participating.

That points to a problem we’ve seen - not defining your terms, or using lay definitions instead of more precise scientific ones. Most people understand that “magic that entertains children” is not actually magic, and that what we’re discussing is not sleight of hand or illusion (stage magic) and what it refers to is paranormal magic. The term you want to look up is “analogy” That might clear up your confusion I can’t help but notice that you have not actually offered the third option that would rebut my claim. Keep in mind that Luc has been adamant that they are not promoting creationism, so God has already been excluded as an option. If multiple people allegedly miss the point, perhaps you should consider that the point was not clearly made. But when you claim “science people think that magic started life” I have to wonder how in the world you can reach that conclusion based on what was discussed. Peterkin answered it

When one brings up a science topic, it’s disingenuous to claim that anyone else has changed the topic to be about science. abiogenesis is firmly within science. The religious version is referred to as creation.

It’s because the science people are responding, as in “what you propose is magic”and how many instances are tied to a negation (e.g. “not magic”)? I don’t see what all is so interesting about that. It’s like going into a crackpot’s thread and finding that only the science folks are saying “perpetual motion” because crackpots know to avoid the phrase. But it’s perfectly legit to say perpetual motion violates the second law of thermodynamics. We don’t have a large enough sampling here to conclude anything about what religious people think, and if you conclude that scientists think magic started life you have a serious reading comprehension problem. (edit: I see I’m not the only one to make that observation) That make an excellent argument for all of this being a thread hijack, but I think the original topic was asked and answered,

The internal report notes the deficient staffing. Trump does not.

It’s pretty clear it’s being used as an analogy, and how that informs ways of responding to it, rather than an actual disease that falls under germ theory “This paper will clarify (1) how violence is like infectious diseases historically by its natural history” (emphasis added)

Seems to me that such a thought should be able to be backed up with actual facts. DEI was implemented in some cases to ensure that illegal discrimination was not taking place, and to avoid lawsuits. Did that happen? It was also implemented to ensure qualified candidates weren’t being overlooked by systems that might have biases hidden in them. Did that not happen?

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)

Regarding that second argument - was that me? Because that’s not at all what I argued. I never insisted that it happened in a “very particular way”. Not even close.

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

Because they are bigots, and it’s both a dog whistle and convenient scapegoat for their own failings. They rarely take responsibility for their actions and failings, and somebody has to be blamed. It’s the same playbook as when Hitler blaming everything bad on the Jews et al. 90 years ago.

Not really, no. RFK’s confirmation will have predictable results - more people will get sick and die than would otherwise have happened. What’s unknown is the breadth and depth of the damage, but that depends on specific policies implemented or rescinded, and without that knowledge you can’t make an accurate assessment

I will ask again: Are you asking what it actually is, or how it’s treated by the GOP?

You again fail to distinguish whether something happened with how it happened. If you deny that it happened, that’s the act that limits research. If you acknowledge that it did happen, only then can you investigate how it happened. There’s no gotcha if you know what you’re talking about. Can you explain how, especially without defining what information is?

Or you could, you know, NOT DO IT AT ALL, since it’s off-topic. I refer you to the cartoon iNow recently posted. You’re using “information” as a hand-wave, and it doesn’t actually change anything. But here you admit that life didn’t exist at the time of the big bang, so it arose later. Thus, abiogenesis happened. How can you demonstrate that? What is your evidence that anything was guided? Energy is a property, not a substance. Energy can’t carry information. It’s whatever has that energy. You’ve just described chemical reactions, and the laws that govern them As you’ve done before, you’re asserting something without a solid definition, in this case of information, and trying to construct a nebulous argument based on it. You might as well call it magic. The notion that the laws of physics were put in place at the time of the big bang brings nothing new to the conversation, despite your attempts to sensationalize it.

You have to be more specific, and accurate, in your descriptions. You mean a which-path experiment, which is also not compatible with a hologram if the photon only travels one path. There would be no interference if you know the path. No interference, no hologram.

The reason for this is that you have recorded the phase difference of the two beams. In a double-slit, the phase difference at a given point is fixed. The two situations don’t seem to be compatible.

Since you followed this with a quote from Exodus, you lose all benefit of the doubt that you’re not trolling. As you sow, so shall you reap. How ‘bout them cherries you’re picking.

So I have to provide evidence, but you don’t? I don’t even know what a “non-physical state” is supposed to mean And this doesn’t actually address the issue that you require that life existed at the moment of the big bang (of which, again, no evidence has been provided)

And this supports the notion that Luc is not understanding/misrepresenting the situation; evidence as @Gees requested

You say evidence (which is what science relies on, and not proof) but if there’s no abiogenesis, then life must have always existed. So tell me, what kind of evidence supports that notion - that life existed before the universe was cool enough to even form neutral atoms, and only hydrogen, helium and lithium were around? Because that’s a binary situation. Either life always existed, or it started at some point. (the latter is the occurrence of abiogenesis) You seem to be saying there’s a third option. What is it?

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.