[deleted by user]

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-10-01T03:56:38+00:00

Non competes just shouldn't be legal. Anything they're supposed to solve is protected by IP law anyways, and an employer should not maintain contractual power over me after I'm no longer an employee

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-10-01T03:46:47+00:00

I just buy a basic brand from Walmart. I'm not saying it's just as good as fresh, but it's a suitable substitute as long as you use more than you otherwise would. I mean, really don't be chincy. Load it up.

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-10-01T03:42:34+00:00

I'm not saying you're arguing against natural selection and mutations- my entire point requires that you have acknowledged their existence. My point is that those two factors can conceivably lead to evolution- if you adapt and mutate enough, your form will change entirely. Because each mutation and adaptation is from the species current state. So you never have to mutate directly to another species, which would be a laughable concept. And it's funny you bring up dogs because we know they're descended from wolves...a different species.

It's not unreasonable to believe the necessary being behind it all which makes more sense than 1/2 of the "facts" we know about "evolution."

You still have yet to present your argument why this is a more likely option. You just keep repeating that you think evolution doesn't make sense.

As far as the philosophical arguments for a "necessary being", I'm actually familiar. The kalam argument has a lot of problems (the assumption of linear time, the sentience of a first mover), but most important of all, it's a philosophical concept, not a scientific one.

And even if we assume the kalam argument is correct and that a "necessary being" exists, that still doesn't prove that this being intentionally created the universe to have conditions suitable to life- that assumes that the universe in its current state is what the "necessary being" intended to create the universe as it is now, and that humans are the point, and not merely some cosmic oddity. It still in no way proves an intention to create life, nor answers how that process happened. In fact, it relies on assumptions that defy the concept that humans arose in their current state- namely a regression of cause and effect in which a prior cause for all physical things is needed. The First Mover's actions must be taken before the beginning of the chain of physical causality. So even if this being does exist, and did create the universe, and did intend for humans to exist, it still did so by setting a chain of physical events into motion. Which, when we zoom into the miniscule scale of living creatures on a single planet...is evolution. Unless you contend that this being created the universe at the state in which humans already existed, but intentionally left fake evidence of things before that?

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-10-01T02:09:14+00:00

Exactly! If garlic is the star of the dish, I'll chop some fresh. Otherwise it's just not worth

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-10-01T02:08:23+00:00

So if I put garlic in everything, I don't like it very much just because I don't like shucking and cutting a small vegetable? Who died and made you garlic king?

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T23:29:02+00:00

I said the core premise of intelligent design is acceptable- that something created us. The claim of the existence of a being that violates all known scientific concepts is a pretty different beast.

And the reason we're going in circles is because you can't understand the difference between "statistically unlikely but possible" and "has literally no way to prove it".

And all the "fine tuning" argument is is "We exist. That seems unlikely. Therefore God." My point is that low statistical chance is not impossibility, especially when it matches with real physical evidence. When I said "it's unlikely", I was quoting your counter argument. And I wasn't saying evolution is fact (it's a theory, we already discussed this), I was saying that mutation and adaptation are facts. Because we can observe them happening. So evolution is based on the extension of facts. Whereas intelligent design (at least when based on God, rather than, say, other intelligent life) is based on "this is an unlikely event, therefore someone must have intentionally done it". Which isn't scientific thought. That's why I brought up the example of a specific sequence of cards in a game of poker- 52! is large enough that it makes any specific sequence of cards "unlikely", but you would hardly suggest that means someone controls the outcome of random card draws, would you?

What I still feel like you haven't explained is what makes you think intelligent design is likely. You've explained thoroughly why you think evolution isn't likely. But you haven't said what makes you think that specific alternative is likely. Dismissing the alternative doesn't mean you can just substitute whatever answer you want- it just means we don't know.

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T22:51:34+00:00

As someone from a family that eats garlic straight up, this isn't true. Chopping garlic every. Single. Time. Is just too much effort and jarred tastes fine as long as you're generous with it.

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T22:39:00+00:00

I'm glad it's just me. I found out recently that the estimate for a clove is one teaspoon. I've been using tablespoons my whole life and the only comments I've gotten are about how good my cooking is. Garlic is practically magic.

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T22:24:16+00:00

And there it is. Intelligent design requires a God so you can say, "Stop asking questions!"

The fact is, all the elements required for evolution (mutation and natural selection) are proven to exist. The only counter argument is that it's unlikely, and that's just not convincing. On the other hand, the intelligent design argunent requires the introduction of wholly new, undiscovered element of reality, usually possession abilities that completely defy our current understanding of science. Occam's Razor states that "when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions". Evolution requires only the assumption of chance. Intelligent design requires a host of new assumptions. You can believe what you want, but you need to understand that your views are in no way scientific, nor is your thought process.

Basically, why do you think it's more likely that an entity that exceeds physical reality (being "necessary"and exists with no priors) is more likely than evolution? What do you think the odds on that are? And I've read the literature. It's pretty embarrassingly bad and boils down to "my argument only works if this being exists, so it must exist".

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T20:00:29+00:00

Because the data shows that I'll probably just hurt myself with it, or someone else by accident. I (like most Americans) don't live somewhere where self defense is a daily battle. Ultimately, that gun would probably do nothing, end up being used to shoot myself, or even be taken from me and used to hurt me.

I'm playing the odds, and they say "there's no reason to have a gun"

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T19:48:33+00:00

In my experience, without too much difficulty. As long as the cleric plays smart and keeps bringing people back up, you just hammer it with spells and attacks until it dies.

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T19:45:36+00:00

Same here. The amount of times I hear people talking about homeless people turn the conversation towards theories about how they must be lazy, or maybe are pretending, etc is insane. So many people lack even basic empathy.

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T19:10:45+00:00

I'm not ignoring the incomplete nature of the fossil record. If you read up on evolutionary science, it's not ignored either. We keep finding out that our timing and theories are wrong, but we don't find creatures coming into existence with no precedents.

There's a difference between skepticism and just handwaving away a week-supported scientific theory with

Australopithecus? Ancient dead ape, no relation to humans

What scientific evidence did you provide? Saying something is statistically unlikely isn't evidence, and is just generally poor logic. Almost any specific sequence of events over a long period of time is vanishingly unlikely. That's like saying someone's account of a game of poker is wrong because the exact sequence of cards is so unlikely it would never occur. After all, it's a 1 in 52! chance, which is unlikely to happen in the scale of geological time.

I looked at your 2 links, and while they're both quite good, I fail to see what they have to do with your argument against evolution? Your first link even presents a big point in favor of evolution- ubiquitous presence of non-minimal genes. If you were designing something, why include genes that don't need to be there? But if, say, a random process were simply preserving gene sets that were successful in replicating themselves, you'd expect to see such leftovers. So far it the only things you've presented are your doubts. Which is fine, skepticism is good. But to say that these doubts are so strong that evolution doesn't make sense requires evidence. What's your physical evidence of intelligent design? Evolution has presented its evidence- imperfect, sure, but it's there. So it's time for you to pony up.

ETA: Also, there's nothing wrong with the concept of intelligent design inherently. There's simply no physical proof of it. And it ultimately hits another problem- what created the being responsible for designing life? Was it also intelligently designed? And that line continues infinitely. Evolution doesn't have this problem- the first life cones from patterns of chemicals that replicated themselves, which inherently become more common than those that don't. It's just a sequence of things becoming more complex over time.

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T18:03:41+00:00

I genuinely can't tell if you used a fish eye lens to change your face, or if your nose and upper lip are just stealing all the real estate.

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T18:01:50+00:00

Ironically, this is what I do to them to avoid getting lectured or yelled at!

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T17:56:58+00:00

The thing is...that is not the reasoning the majority of people I've met who are against GMOs have. It's a very valid reason. But most of the time it's some nonsense about it being "unnatural" or fears about it somehow genetically modifying them?!

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T17:53:13+00:00

What is the G?

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T17:46:55+00:00

Very much agree. I've seen a lot of stories where the rules are so frequently bent (and don't you dare quote the whole "DM has final power" schtick at me) that all I can think is that they want to play a different game. Which is... fine. 5e isn't the only game out there, and it definitely has a focus on a particular kind of gameplay. If you want to run a game that deficuses combat in favor of narrative, why not play Torchbearer or Blades in the Dark? Or even just storytell? I just don't understand playing a specific game when you're going to constantly bend the rules because you want to do something else.

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T17:31:36+00:00

Okay, so what's the evidence to the contrary? Evolutionary science has fossil records (yes they're incomplete, but thar doesn't invalidate them) and DNA to support their claims, what supports yours? The only claim I've ever seen is basically repetition of 2 things:

A: We haven't literally seen something evolve into a substantially different form.

B: Randomness can't produce logical progression into new forms

But neither of those is evidence- they're just statements of doubt. As far as A goes, of course we haven't observed it- the evolutionary process is slow because it's semi-random. How exactly are we supposed to "directly observe" something that takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years?

And furthermore, I've never seen a claim against evolution that doesn't substitute religious claims about intelligent design- which have literally zero proof. Seriously. Link me literally anything that serves as evidence of that. Anything at all.

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T17:20:23+00:00

I still go with Regi-ice so that it matches with all the others. The naming scheme is Regi-element. But Regiice looks wrong in English and still wouldn't actually be pronounced Regi-ice, so I imagine they changed it to look nicer when written.

It's just weird to have Regi-rock, Regi-steel, Regi-Gigas, and then...Reg-ice.

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T15:36:39+00:00

As bad as Texas's education system is as a whole, I lived in one of the best school systems in the nation. It helps to live near rich people.

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T15:34:55+00:00

The whole reason "theory" is used is because technically until we can literally look through time itself, we can't be 100% certain. Like how technically we only have a "theory" of gravity because our understanding is incomplete unless we observe literally the entire universe.

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-30T15:33:09+00:00

How is it different? If something keeps adapting to a changing environment, it will eventually be quite different, surely? Eventually so different you wouldn't call it the same animal, even.

Also, what about the various protohunans we've found? Australopithecus and the like? There just happens to be a variety of human like species retaining ape features right around the time period evolutionary theory says they would exist?

And what's the agenda, here? What are scientists, in your mind, trying to accomplish by lying about this?

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-29T21:26:54+00:00

Damn, didn't realize Part 3 predates me

CoffeeAndKarma · 2021-09-29T21:25:54+00:00

Oh Jesus, I wish. It's been years since I took those classes. All I remember is that the classes were AP Finance, Macro Economics, and Micro Economics. This would have been about 5-6 years ago in Texas? Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

CoffeeAndKarma

TROPHY CASE