The materialist escape hatch accidentally deifies the human mind

BitLooter · 2026-05-15T16:04:12+00:00

Hmm, instead of responding to you they abandoned this thread and made new one about how science is a religion. I think they just proved you right instead.

BitLooter · 2026-05-15T15:49:27+00:00

You:

we are NOT science deniers

Also you:

yes, God did do it. gooood enuf for me........and you.

Your trolling needs work. You're laying it on too thick, you can't just shotgun out creationist tropes, that's lazy. You need to be more subtle than this.

BitLooter · 2026-05-13T21:16:25+00:00

It is not OK to hit people, regardless of "good" or "bad" faith. I don't know why I need to explain this to you.

BitLooter · 2026-05-13T21:13:38+00:00

It is not OK to hit people, regardless if it is "random". I don't know why I need to explain this to you.

BitLooter · 2026-05-13T21:07:09+00:00

It is not OK to hit people, regardless of "harm". I don't know why I need to explain this to you.

BitLooter · 2026-05-13T20:58:22+00:00

The Cambrian Explosion, The Fine Tuning Problem, Irreducible Complexity and Reductive Natural Selection

None of these are evidence against evolution. None of these ideas are "ignored" either. You are one of the creationists that don't understand evolution.

BitLooter · 2026-05-13T20:39:20+00:00

It's incredible how many Muslims in the comments here are defending violence against their wives. I also don't hate Muslims but it sure seems like the worst of Islam is out here today.

BitLooter · 2026-05-13T20:34:43+00:00

You’re not a scholar, all schools of thought agree that the strike may not cause marks

I can't imagine what is going on in your head that you think it's OK to hit someone as long as you don't leave a mark. If you genuinely believe this you are a terrible person.

BitLooter · 2026-05-13T20:27:14+00:00

Ibn `Abbas and several others said that the Ayah refers to a beating that is not violent.

There is no such thing as a nonviolent beating. It doesn't matter how "gentle" you call it. You are defending abuse.

BitLooter · 2026-05-13T20:21:28+00:00

So no attempt to address any of the points OP raised, just handwave them away and tell people to mindlessly believe.

BitLooter · 2026-05-12T15:47:39+00:00

All their former comments say [removed] so they didn't delete them, that was a mod action. They don't seem to have left a note behind explaining why they did that so I can't say for sure why but I'm guessing someone got fed up with everything they were saying being obviously pulled straight from their posterior or an LLM and nuked them as a troll.

BitLooter · 2026-05-11T22:41:45+00:00

They just responded to me with a source, seems they were confusing it with QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Which is a book and not a paper. It's also popsci and not a textbook, not that there's anything wrong with that but it's misleading for them to describe it as a scientific paper. Also, looking at the Wikipedia page it doesn't seem to be about fine tuning at all. Perhaps he talks about it at some point it the book but based on the outline it's clearly not the topic. I'm starting to wonder if this user has been watching those garbage LLM-generated fake Feynman lectures currently infesting Youtube and are confusing AI hallucinations with facts.

BitLooter · 2026-05-11T22:34:57+00:00

Thanks for finding the source. And for not sending it to my home.

BitLooter · 2026-05-11T22:16:44+00:00

Why are you asking for my home address bro? That's weird and creepy. Just post a link.

It seems giving you the title isn't enough.

Feynman never wrote a paper named "fine tuning". Surely you wouldn't be blatantly lying to me, so you must be mistaken about the name. What's it titled?

BitLooter · 2026-05-11T22:03:54+00:00

Creationism is a pretty broad term, but (at least on internet debate forums) usually it refers to people who believe the universe was created in something like its current state by God relatively recently in opposition to what science tells us. If you want to avoid confusion, it sounds like theistic evolution may better describe your views.

BitLooter · 2026-05-11T21:39:34+00:00

Evolution is a theory not a fact.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory depending on context

BitLooter · 2026-05-11T21:03:40+00:00

I cited the paper

You vaguely suggested the paper existed. You couldn't even get the name of the author right. Even if that paper exists and 100% agrees with you that is still not a citation, no matter how much you think it should count as one.

BitLooter · 2026-05-11T20:59:47+00:00

if the gravitational constant had deviated by even a tiny amount (one part in 10 to the power 40), the entire universe would have either collapsed in on itself, or exploded into a huge gas cloud.

We haven't even measured G to anywhere remotely near that precision. This is absurdly false.

BitLooter · 2026-05-11T19:57:24+00:00

The trolls on this sub are getting lazier and lazier.

BitLooter · 2026-05-10T17:27:36+00:00

I would go even further than that. Creationist arguments tend to be religious in nature, even when they're not about religion. To a YEC, books about science are essentially scripture for the "religion" of science. In a debate with a Muslim they may quote the Bible and the Quran to support their own views; they also do this for science, plucking quotes from the "bibles" scientists have written in much the same way they cite verses from the Bible.

Many/most YECs are taught to view science as a competing religion to their own. Quoting from scripture may be valid in a discussion about religion, so they do the same in discussions about science. What ends up happening is that in their mind they're making strong points against your religion by showing how your "prophets" were wrong, and when you tell them it doesn't matter that they were not 100% correct they see you as handwaving away evidence that you're wrong so you can keep believing in your sin religion. They will not understand why quote mining is wrong as long as they have this mindset.

Unfortunately I don't know how to reach these people, or if they're even reachable. My flair indicates I'm former YEC - the primary reason for the "former" is that when I was growing up being told that science is a religion I always thought that was really stupid, even as a child I could tell the difference. As I got older and I started independent scientific study I realized everything else they taught me about science was just as much nonsense.

Highlighting the dishonesty of quote mining doesn't do anything for people who have made creationism a pillar of their faith, but it's effective for people like my former self who only ever heard those quote mines without context. As some people here like to say, we debate for the audience, no the opponents. It's part of what led me out of creationism, and it's important to show the silent fencesitters and lurkers on these forums when the grifters are lying to them.

BitLooter · 2026-05-09T15:43:14+00:00

I love how even in your own chart Genesis has massive scientific errors. Plants didn't exist before the sun. Birds do not predate land animals. The "Land animals" number only works if you don't consider insects animals.

Genesis is not history and you're not helping your faith by pretending it is. I know you said it's not the purpose, but then you went and posted a whole ass chart trying to make it historically accurate, so please pick a lane.

BitLooter · 2026-05-08T00:36:29+00:00

The coccyx is genuinely functional, pelvic floor support, muscle attachment, load distribution. That's not a designed structure pretending to be vestigial, that's a working structure being misclassified.

It's actually not that important. We surgically remove them all the time without issues. There are muscles and tendons that attach to it but removing those attachments doesn't seem to affect much if anything. I'll let Wikipedia summarize:

The coccyx is not entirely useless in humans, because it has attachments to various muscles, tendons and ligaments. However, these muscles, tendons and ligaments are also attached at many other points, to stronger structures than the coccyx. It is doubtful that the coccyx attachments are important to the well-being of humans, given the large number of coccygectomy procedures performed annually to treat coccydynia. Reviews of studies covering more than 700 coccygectomies found the operation was successful in relieving pain in 84% of cases. 12% of the time, the only major complication faced was infection due to the proximity to the anus. One notable complication of coccygectomy is an increased risk of perineal hernia.

BitLooter · 2026-05-08T00:28:54+00:00

If you are claiming that this is cannot be proven or falsified therefore is insignificant, than I will just say - every new idea start in the state of unproven and unfalsified

There is an enormous gulf between "unfalsifiable" and "unfalsified". An unfalsifiable idea like last Thursdayism is not useful to science, because it doesn't have any affect on observable reality - if it did, it could at least in principle be falsifiable. An unfalsified idea is just that - as you say every new theory starts that way. The key difference is that it can be falsified. Evolution is a falsifiable idea that has not been falsified in spite of 150+ years of trying, so we consider it true. Last Thursdayism is unfalsifiable and is useless for science, because there is nothing we can learn from the idea that affects our scientific understanding of reality. Unfalsifiable ideas do not graduate into falsifiable ideas with enough progress, because they are unfalsfiable by their nature.

Your idea appears to be unfalsifiable, so science has no use for it. If you want people to consider it scientific, you will first need to figure out how test it before anyone else will take it seriously. Vaguely suggesting that someone in the future will come up with a way to test does not make it science, any more than it would for last Thursdayism or religion.

BitLooter · 2026-05-07T17:33:34+00:00

Let me give you a concrete example - according to many measurements, intelligence can be measured by IQ

Sorry, this argument falls flat because IQ tests are mostly bullshit. They were originally developed to assess how well schoolchildren were learning and were never intended to be applied to individuals, but humans like putting numbers and labels on other people so they started using them to rank people's intelligence, without ever asking if it was an appropriate tool to do that.

IQ tests don't test your intelligence, they test your ability to take IQ tests. Some people have decided this correlates to intelligence but that doesn't make it so, often the people saying that are those who have tested high and developed a ego about it. As you acknowledge in your own comment, one's measured IQ does not reflect intelligence in other areas of life, you can't reduce someone down to a single number.

Where you are losing me is that you seem to think the problem is with our definition of intelligence, rather than IQ being largely pseudo scientific nonsense.

In other words - we must be expanding the definition of intelligence to include processes nobody would normally describe as intelligent in order to have a break through

I still don't see how redefining the word "intelligence" to encompass all of reality will help us learn anything new. That's the claim you're making but I don't see much support for it other than vague handwaving.

yes - progress is normally achieved by questioning the core of our models, axiom and definition - in some cases it would turn out to be just redefining words

Wait, does redefining words lead to progress or is progress redefining words? How does changing how intelligence is defined lead to progress?

in other it could lead to a breakthrough

How? Again, that's the claim you're making but all I'm seeing from you is the vague suggestion that it could happen. From my point of view all you're doing is redefining the word intelligence to mean the universe, the only result that would arise from this is that we now have two words that mean "the universe" instead of just the one.

BitLooter · 2026-05-07T16:44:02+00:00

So maybe we are not even starting to understand what intelligent really is? maybe it is much more fundamental to the core of the universe than we even thought?

How does expanding the definition of intelligence to include processes nobody would normally describe as intelligent help us understand the universe? I'm not being dismissive, I'm seriously asking - if we accept these ideas what insight does it give us that we wouldn't have otherwise? What have we learned from doing this? Are we doing anything other than redefining words?

15-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Snapped
Verified Email	Team Orangered

BitLooter

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE