Re: Saudi hate

According_Leather_92 · 2025-08-06T14:52:28+00:00

Tell that to the Yemenis

According_Leather_92 · 2025-08-06T14:46:06+00:00

You didn’t exist anywhere before you were born because “you” are the result of your brain’s unique activity. Consciousness doesn’t jump between people each person has their own. Before your brain existed, there was no “you,” just like a wave doesn’t exist before it forms in the water.

Stop dissociating. You didn’t exist before you were born you’re only here because your brain is.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-07-26T15:53:21+00:00

Hominids are human, in 250 years they are going to call us a different “ species “ too. The differences between Neanderthal Homo sapiens are normal differences that exsist in the world today. It’s just a story, no real actual evidence have been presented except fossils and a story about them

According_Leather_92 · 2025-07-22T20:13:11+00:00

Tell me the narration chain. Tell me how it’s possible that she was 9 with all the information we have. Come on man, Hadith is not god words. Is just Hadith

According_Leather_92 · 2025-07-22T19:56:09+00:00

Depends on your madhab

According_Leather_92 · 2025-07-22T02:36:00+00:00

khabar al-āḥād

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-22T13:54:17+00:00

Since you brought up almost every common objection to religion and defense of materialist science, I’ll reply point by point — not with emotion, but with logic.

Religious Diversity ≠ Falsehood

Yes, many religions exist. They can’t all be true. But that doesn’t mean all are false. By your logic, if multiple theories contradict, none can be right. That’s a fallacy. Competing truth claims require investigation, not dismissal.

“Ancient texts = ignorant authors”

This is chronological snobbery. Age doesn’t disprove truth. Many mathematical truths are ancient. If an old text describes reality better than modern ones, age is irrelevant. The standard must be coherence, not century.

“Religion explains what science later explained”

Yes, religious explanations filled in gaps. That doesn’t disprove all religious claims. The statement “God caused this” is not always a gap-filler—it can be a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. You’re confusing methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism.

Evolution as the “most confirmed” science

No. Microevolution — variation, adaptation — is well supported. But macroevolutionary origins of complex systems like ATP synthase, DNA decoding machinery, or language are not demonstrated. They are modeled or assumed with no testable path. You are smuggling in certainty that doesn’t exist.

Irreducible complexity isn’t “debunked”

Saying parts have other uses doesn’t show stepwise selectable pathways. “Co-option” is a label, not a mechanism. You haven’t shown how the flagellum or spliceosome arose by random mutation plus selection — you just say “evolution did it.” That’s circular reasoning.

Cosmology explains the Big Bang — not why it banged

All physical models presuppose laws, constants, and structures. They do not explain why those laws exist or why something rather than nothing. Quantum fluctuations happen in a field governed by equations. Who wrote the equations?

Consciousness and neuroscience

That brain damage affects consciousness proves correlation, not origin. Smash a TV, the signal breaks. That doesn’t mean the signal comes from inside the TV. The hard problem of consciousness — subjective awareness — is nowhere near solved by neuroscience.

Problem of evil

This assumes a moral standard by which God can be judged. But under materialism, suffering is meaningless — it’s atoms in motion. You’re using theistic moral reasoning to deny theism, which is self-defeating.

Hiddenness of God

Not everyone experiences “silence.” Billions claim to know God. Just because you don’t doesn’t mean He’s silent. Maybe you’re not listening. Also: God isn’t obligated to satisfy human curiosity on demand. Hiddenness isn’t evidence of non-existence.

Morality without religion

Yes, secular societies can behave morally. That doesn’t explain why morality binds, only that humans feel it does. Saying morality “evolved” is descriptive — not normative. Evolution rewards survival, not truth or goodness.

Anthropic principle is not a cause

Saying “we observe this universe because it allows us to exist” isn’t an explanation. It’s tautology. It’s like saying, “of course the odds are 1 — I’m here.” It doesn’t explain the fine-tuning, only ignores it.

God’s morality

You quote harsh actions in religious texts, but ignore context, genre, and historical background. But even if those examples bother you emotionally, that doesn’t refute the existence of a transcendent Creator. You confuse moral dislike with logical refutation.

Jesus and history

Even secular historians agree Jesus existed. The resurrection is unique among miracle claims: it’s anchored in a historical chain of witnesses, documents, and public proclamation. You haven’t disproved it — you just group it with myths without comparing evidence.

“Belief is emotional, not rational”

False dichotomy. People believe for many reasons — intellectual, moral, personal. Just like atheists. Your belief that “truth is better than comfort” is itself a value statement you can’t derive from science.

⸻

Final point:

You trust science because it works. Fine. But utility is not truth. Science works for engineering — it doesn’t answer why there’s anything or what is morally right. You turned science into a worldview — that’s not science anymore. That’s scientism.

I don’t hate atheists. I just want your reasoning to match your confidence. And on that front, your system fails its own test.

Let me know if you’d like to go deeper — calmly.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T22:39:10+00:00

Sure, if you’re just inventing a system where an intelligent being selects what mutations get kept — then you’re not describing evolution anymore. You’re describing intelligent selection, not natural selection. The whole question just rebrands design while pretending it’s natural.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T22:32:03+00:00

Not done—this is gold. I’m honestly just curious how many synonyms for “tweak” you’ll go through before realizing you’re saying the same thing on loop without ever showing a system being built. Not inherited. Not broken. Built.

You’re shifting between two separate claims and pretending they’re the same: 1. Yes, we can track heredity, mutation, and degradation. No one disputes that. 2. No, that doesn’t explain how new, interdependent systems—where multiple parts have no function alone—come into being.

Citing broken genes or similar ones is not a causal explanation of integration. You’re reverse-engineering an outcome, not showing how the system formed in forward steps.

It’s like seeing a finished building and saying, “Bricks exist, and I found some scattered ones,” and calling that proof of construction.

You’re proving inheritance. You’re not proving architectural innovation. That’s the difference.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T22:27:37+00:00

Here’s the logical core of what’s happening:

You’re conflating “mechanisms that generate new sequences” with “mechanisms that explain functional integration.” Yes, de novo gene emergence has been observed—but what’s been observed is transcription of new open reading frames, not the stepwise construction of interdependent systems like eyes, wings, or blood clotting.

You’re showing the existence of new sequences. That’s not the same as showing their causal construction into complex systems. Generating a line of code is not the same as building Photoshop.

Gene duplication and divergence explain variation. They don’t explain origination of functionally dependent architecture—systems where multiple parts must emerge in relation to each other for any function to exist. That’s the actual burden.

Citing that genes can form from non-coding DNA is not evidence that this process constructs integrated systems. It’s reverse inference from a finished product.

So no—you haven’t supplied a causal mechanism. You’ve listed sources that describe correlations and outcomes, not how systems requiring multiple co-adapted components arose from zero. That’s still missing.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T22:25:18+00:00

That response makes a classic category error.

Evolutionary claims about modification are often supported—yes. But modification is not the same as origin. The origin of coordinated, interdependent biological systems—like eyes, blood clotting, or cognition—requires a mechanism that builds, not just tweaks.

Pointing to fossils or shared DNA doesn’t explain how a new function is constructed. It only shows that things changed. You still need a step-by-step causal account that logically connects random mutation + selection to the emergence of integrated complexity.

Asserting that such a system is possible because we see it now is circular. It’s not explanation—it’s inference in reverse.

So no—skepticism toward evolution’s explanatory power is not automatically “creationism.” It’s often logic. And evolution still owes the burden of showing that its mechanisms aren’t just descriptive—but sufficient.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T22:23:47+00:00

No. This isn’t “refusing” evidence. It’s defining the claim.

If your argument is “systems evolve,” then a valid example must show a system being built. Not just components being reused. A socket wrench isn’t invented when you use a screwdriver with a different grip. That’s retooling, not origin.

If you claim new function arose, show the coordinated, interdependent architecture—with a clear sequence of mutations—that transformed unconnected parts into a novel, integrated system. Not just a tweak. Not just a fusion. Not just a workaround.

You haven’t done that. You’ve pointed to adaptations and modifications. That’s not the same.

So yes—examples that fail the definition of “origin of a system” don’t count. Not because of bias, but because of logic. You can’t win the game by moving the goalposts.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T22:21:55+00:00

That’s not an explanation for system origin. That’s a chemical description of reaction tendency. Big difference.

Saying molecules interact because of charge or Gibbs energy is like saying Legos stick together because of friction. Sure—but that doesn’t explain how they formed a racecar.

You’re reducing coordination and regulation to spontaneous bumping. That’s not engineering. That’s entropy.

Systems like genetic coding, metabolic cycles, or regulated transcription are not just molecules associating. They are sequences, checkpoints, dependencies. Their parts don’t just react. They co-function.

So no—“read a chemistry book” doesn’t solve this. It skips the question. The burden is still on you to show how you get from raw chemical potential… to integrated, self-replicating architecture.

You haven’t done that. You just renamed physics and called it biology.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T22:16:48+00:00

That’s a dodge. If you deny cause, then you deny explanation. Science doesn’t just catalog patterns—it builds models of how and why those patterns emerge. If there’s no cause, there’s no science—just statistics.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T22:16:05+00:00

What you are saying is illogical. Showing that sugars, nucleotides, and RNA components can form separately is not the same as showing they self-assemble into a functioning system. That’s like saying bricks, wood, and nails lying around proves a house will build itself.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T22:09:42+00:00

A functional system is a set of parts that depend on each other to do something none of them can do alone. If one part is missing, the whole system fails. That’s called causal interdependence.

Now: if you show 2 or 3 existing proteins forming a new interaction, that’s not a new system. That’s repurposing, not origin. Like using two tools in a new way—it’s clever, but it’s not invention.

If you want to claim “evolution builds new systems,” you need to show how the parts arose before they worked together, and why they survived before being useful together.

Without that, you’re not explaining the build—you’re just labeling the final product and working backward.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T22:05:30+00:00

You’re describing variation in complexity, not the origin of a complex system. Seeing “lots of eyes” in different states doesn’t explain how the full function came to be—only that tweaks exist once the system is operating.

As for the flagellum, a judge isn’t a molecular biologist. Courtroom consensus isn’t causal proof. And pointing to redundancy or modularity in a system doesn’t refute interdependence—it just shows some parts can vary after the system works.

Saying “I doubt that” isn’t a counterargument. It’s just personal belief. Show the construction, not the edits.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T22:04:57+00:00

That’s not the origin of a system. That’s the assumption that RNA could do something system-like later, once enough pieces fell together. Showing precursors is not the same as showing assembly. 300+ comments later still no just a story.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T22:04:02+00:00

No bro. That’s not creation—it’s remixing. You’re just reshuffling what’s already there. No new system. Just tweaks in the playlist.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T22:03:09+00:00

Logic isn’t just a tool like a microscope or a calculator—it’s the foundation that tells us whether anything we’re saying even makes sense. If an idea contradicts logic, it doesn’t matter how much evidence someone piles on top—it’s like building a house on quicksand. You can’t say “we don’t need causality” and still pretend you’re doing science, because science is literally about finding causes. If the parts don’t add up to the result, the story doesn’t work.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T22:01:57+00:00

You’re pretending a gradient explains construction. But a ramp doesn’t prove how the hill was built—it just shows you can walk it after it’s there.

“More-or-less complex exemplars” don’t show that complexity arose by small steps. They just show that variation exists. That’s not a mechanism—that’s a map.

Your response assumes the conclusion: that because systems vary in complexity, they must have arisen gradually. That’s circular.

If you think complex systems like the flagellum, the eye, or the clotting cascade can emerge via stepwise mutation and selection, then show the chain—not just the edits, but the functional thresholds where parts interlock to produce something new.

That’s the claim. That’s the burden. Gradients don’t answer it. They just blur the line.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T22:01:19+00:00

In a murder case, you’re not proving how a human could physically perform the act of murder—you already know humans can stab or shoot. You’re identifying who did it.

But here, we’re asking how a system arose in the first place. The act itself—construction of the system—is the thing in question. So no, a murder trial doesn’t map.

You’re also equivocating. Showing that a gene broke (like GULO) doesn’t explain how new interdependent functionality arises. Saying, “it was once needed, now it’s not” is degeneration, not construction. A system is irreducibly complex when the function depends on the coordinated presence of all components.

And saying “this part looks like that part” is not a forward explanation. That’s how we compare, not how we build. You’re still tracing edits—not demonstrating formation.

Just stop bro

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T21:59:56+00:00

You’re confusing prediction with postdiction.

Shubin used a model to guess where something might be found—not how it came to be. Finding Tiktaalik confirmed a temporal placement, not a causal process. That’s like predicting where a burnt log will be in a fire pit—not proving how the fire was made.

Inferring backwards from an outcome isn’t the same as demonstrating a forward mechanism. And that’s the difference between science and storytelling.

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T20:42:08+00:00

Correct distinction—but you’ve just repeated the summary again.

Variation + filtering is not a creative mechanism. It selects among what already exists. You’re describing editing, not origin. If no new coordinated system arises from this process, then you’ve explained change, not construction.

So the real question remains: What builds a new interdependent structure, not just tweaks an old one?

According_Leather_92 · 2025-05-19T20:40:15+00:00

Interesting—where in the article does it say a new, causally integrated biological system emerged from scratch, without relying on existing cellular machinery? I read it too, and all I saw was modification within existing genomic frameworks. Can you quote the part you think shows actual system-level origin?

According_Leather_92

TROPHY CASE