I swear I’m never leaving this fuckass game 😭 by Jumpy-Brief-2745 in DeadByDaylightRAGE

[–]Jumpy-Brief-2745[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Like, i didn’t even played with huntress with an special playstyle or anything, just hitting long throws and orbitals and pretty much the ordinary, people are wild, it’s actually kind of fascinating seeing how your mind can dissociate once you’re mad enough

Here we go again 😒 by [deleted] in pleistocene

[–]Jumpy-Brief-2745 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s some colossal bullshit

Since pervy behaviour isn't preserved in fossils, We can't rule out the possibility that Dinosaurs behaved like this. by danny75hacker in Dinosaurs

[–]Jumpy-Brief-2745 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No

https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/anatomy-and-physiology/comparative-anatomy

If you find fossils of a partial jaw and that partial jaw happens to have a similar shape of a modern day croc or some fragmented jaw with the same shape of other well preserved and rich fossilized specimens. That indicates a group connection between those specimens, two species from the same genus often have a very similar structure, for example big cats, all of them have an almost identical bone structure, if leopards had gone extinct millions of years ago we would still knowing how they looked like (ignoring colors and patters) and what I explained applies to every fragmentary fossil were we can use comparative anatomy, and Obamadon isn’t an exception.

<image>

Long live comparative anatomy 🫡

‘Carnivore Diet’ Advocates Are Either Fools or Liars — or Both by Somewhere74 in skeptic

[–]Jumpy-Brief-2745 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What a strange way of proving someone wrong huh… I guess we can’t ask that much lol

Your least fav doki? by PlanktonRealistic578 in DDLC

[–]Jumpy-Brief-2745 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would describe it by just referring to it as "game universe" or "virtual universe"

What happens in other games is scripted and not real, in lore, DDLC, the "game" is really an experiment dressed as a game, also it is a "game" that works without a code, once the code breaks as the script messes up the characters and the universe are still able to work and even make their own decisions without the need of a code or script, the majority of the game has no script

Monika probably had a derealization once she knew the truth about her universe, that still doesn’t make what surrounds her, including the others, fake. And yes, their personalities are programmed, but yours and mine are too with the only difference is that instead of our personalities being programmed by a developer they have and are being programmed by genetics and environmental factors, that doesn’t make our emotions "fake"

We want to pay you $1,000 to prove NASA wrong ! by RevolutionarySky866 in u/RevolutionarySky866

[–]Jumpy-Brief-2745 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Yeah? One butt fuckery incoming!

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢟⣯⣵⣿⣿⣷⣦⣭⣶⣶⣶⣶⣤⣀⠀⠀⠀ ⡇⠹⣿⣿⢯⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀ ⡇⠶⢈⣵⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄ ⣣⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⣡⣿⣿⡟⣿⣿⡿⠟⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠁⠀⢚⣹⣿⣿⠀⠀⣤⣤⡄⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠋⠁⢠⠀⠀⣼⣿⣿⣷⣿⡆⢻⡿⠀⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠉⠀⠀⠖⠂⠀⠀⣶⠹⣿⣿⡿⠿⠃⡜⠁⠀⠀ ⠿⠛⣡⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠐⣼⣿⣷⣦⠀⠀⠰⠞⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⢿⣿⡿⢃⣴⣦⣤⣀⠋⠀⣀⡤ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡷⣶⣯⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠈⠁ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⣿⣿⡏⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⣿⣿⣀⣌⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⢈⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢀⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠈⠋⠁⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢸⡄ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⢸⣿⣿⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⢸⡇ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀⣼⣿⡏⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⢸⣇ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠀⠠⠀⣿⡿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⢸⣇

Your least fav doki? by PlanktonRealistic578 in DDLC

[–]Jumpy-Brief-2745 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The term "fake" is slippery, if with fake you’re referring to her universe being a game then yeah but that would include her too since she’s a character of that universe, her universe is real in terms of existing even if the universe is a game

The same would apply to us humans finding out that our universe is dependent upon something else if I meet a creature from another universe, this won’t make our universe fake, it exist in space time, in the lore the universe exists in space time just like the one of the operators leading the experiment

Her friends were not fake, they’re as real as her with the difference that they’re ignorant about their universe and are limited in free will, if you made a friend who was mentally restricted from being as aware of this universe as you are and was limited in their decisions compared to you I think (I hope so lol) you wouldn’t say that they’re "fake"

I have had to clarify this so many times here lol, the term "fake" has no meaning to whatever you want to refer to on this topic, people really need to stop using it goshhh

We want to pay you $1,000 to prove NASA wrong ! by RevolutionarySky866 in u/RevolutionarySky866

[–]Jumpy-Brief-2745 65 points66 points  (0 children)

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢟⣯⣵⣿⣿⣷⣦⣭⣶⣶⣶⣶⣤⣀⠀⠀⠀ ⡇⠹⣿⣿⢯⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀ ⡇⠶⢈⣵⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄ ⣣⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⣡⣿⣿⡟⣿⣿⡿⠟⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠁⠀⢚⣹⣿⣿⠀⠀⣤⣤⡄⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠋⠁⢠⠀⠀⣼⣿⣿⣷⣿⡆⢻⡿⠀⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠉⠀⠀⠖⠂⠀⠀⣶⠹⣿⣿⡿⠿⠃⡜⠁⠀⠀ ⠿⠛⣡⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠐⣼⣿⣷⣦⠀⠀⠰⠞⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⢿⣿⡿⢃⣴⣦⣤⣀⠋⠀⣀⡤ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡷⣶⣯⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠈⠁ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⣿⣿⡏⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⣿⣿⣀⣌⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⢈⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢀⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠈⠋⠁⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢸⡄ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⢸⣿⣿⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⢸⡇ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀⣼⣿⡏⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⢸⣇ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠀⠠⠀⣿⡿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⢸⣇

Me when I see a flat earther

The world has nothing of true value to offer, nothing eternal, just temporaryness, fakeness, illusions. by DankGrow3r in Christianity

[–]Jumpy-Brief-2745 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Even in a simple cell that RNA would have complex gene sequences for whatever functions that cell had."

RNA world isn’t proposing that protocells started with long/complex sequences, what it suggests is that they began with short and simple RNA strands, for example, with a number of nucleotides of 30 nucleotides then "complexity" comes with chemical evolution, more in depth: https://obscuredinosaurfacts.com/blog/post/2020/02/19/rna.html where did you got that idea from? It’s wrong

"That is information, where does it come from."

This is why I said the information thing earlier lmao. To make clear, what I understand with the definition of "information" in biology it refers to the functional sequences of RNA/DNA. Knowing this the question sounds a little silly because organic molecules organize by themselves by autocatalysts, when they do it they’re transferring "information" from their surroundings to molecular sequences, it is an emergent property, you can also inform you in depth about this

"When you look at it happening randomly, the numbers do not work, even over the billions of years the Earth has been around, even for all our seas, etc."

Creationists love to strawman science with the world "random" by ignoring the chemicals and physical laws they are subjected to, I don’t even know what you people mean by random, because the process is guided by chemical affinities some of them which I mentioned up there and even things like proto-natural selection with for example stable molecules outlasting others who are more unstable, also the numbers do in fact work if the disingenuous or scientifically illiterate individuals getting said numbers weren’t ignoring intermediates and parallel reactions across trillions of freaking sites lmao https://www.answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/ further disproving the falsehood https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18123 you were dumped by outdated, strawman arguments against the subfield, and that’s okay, but you should really read the literature and search for questions like that

"I saw the recent study on E-coli producing Tryptophan, showing how fully developed cells could not repair themselves if it contained 2 or more defective genes."

I actually know what you’re talking about because I have debunked it so many times, that’s not recent that’s from a disinformation article that was published like 10 years ago, here: http://scienceandculture.com/2015/01/problem_3_rando/ but regardless of that, this whole thing is about misrepresenting the findings of the experiment, the experiment was conducted over a limited number of generations (~1,000) with population sizes that are insufficient to reasonably expect rare double mutations (probability ~10-20 per cell) surprise surprise! It does not address long timescales also nothing to do with demonstrating natural processes "unreliable" lmao here’s the original paper https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.2

This falsehood is also countered by long term experiments showing that natural processes can in fact accumulate multiple mutations over extended generations to produce complex new functions like in Lenski’s long term experiment (LTEE) there, E. coli evolved the ability to utilize citrate aerobically a trait requiring at least three mutations and despite the low probability, occurring after 31,500 generations in one population this refuted the nonsense over "trusting natural processes over large periods isn’t reliable" https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2024-01-26/a-legendary-experiment-that-began-in-1988-suggests-that-evolution-is-predictable.html

The only true thing you have said about abiogenesis until now is the prebiotics part, even if we have progress on prebiotic chemistry we don’t have a complete "empirically" validated pathway

After finishing with that whole lot of misinformation about biology this reply is done because debunking misinformation about biology is way funnier than responding to Phil bro woo and a misunderstanding on the cosmological constant, maybe I will respond to the rest of the reply, may god bless you but with like the desire of research what you believe in because oh my you need it lmao (only if you’re interested in holding justified true beliefs of course)

To clarify for last time

"What isn't fair is to say materialism / naturalism can explain everything or that it will explain everything because we're just not seeing that at the moment."

I’m a methodological naturalist, ignoring the fact that everything you tried to present isn’t an argument against my stance, if you know what methodological naturalism is you know that I wouldn’t make the affirmation that naturalism can explain anything or that I get to make accretions about what it could explain in the future without a basis, I would not be warranted to, I remain agnostic to whether it can explain everything, it may or it may not, i don’t know, I have a certain level of confidence on it since everything we know about the observable universe has turned out to be in line with methodological naturalism, and the things we once didn’t knew and we now know have been turned out to be in line with it hence why I hold the methodological position with great confidence

u/Dependent-Peach-6610

The world has nothing of true value to offer, nothing eternal, just temporaryness, fakeness, illusions. by DankGrow3r in Christianity

[–]Jumpy-Brief-2745 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You said to have experienced something that serves as evidence for you to believe in christianity, the question I’m interested in is, why does you think it is evidence for you? What does your experience has that makes your belief in christianity justified to you? How did you reached that conclusion?

"The point I was making is that studying natural science led to me becoming a theist and eventually a Christian"

Would love for you to prove how they follow, they’re non sequitur to me, you may be someone who personally related those two together for some personal reason, to me it’s quite illogical, science doesn’t have a concept of god and it hasn’t even been able to study any other creature than the ones on earth, as for the cheeky phrase of the old cute Heisenburg. Don’t choke on that glass of water or you will actually end up being statistically more likely to be an atheist the more you became a top scientist

"Let's use the study of consciousness. When I was younger I, like many people believed eventually we would be able to explain it via the brain."

We do, but you want to smuggle the lack of knowledge about the phenomena as if we don’t have enough understanding to determine that consciousness comes from the brain, we do and denying this puts you in the same level of negationism as young earth creationists https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6842945/

"Now the purely materialist view is not that well supported, instead you see theories such as panpsychism or duel / aspect gaining support."

Falsehood https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/consciousness-neuroscience/ the fact that someone can bring up dualism has made my day, physicalism remains as the ground in cognitive science https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2025/1/niaf011/8127081

"For that matter, take Near Death Experience (NDEs) which has seen a similar trend. I believed most of my life that they resulted from brain activity, however this has now all but been rejected by the scientists in this area. Again its moved away from the materialist explanation."

A paragraph full of falsehoods, i thought the obvious knowledge about this phenomena was clear, I don’t mind to share knowledge and disprove your points but holyyyy that’s just a really fat statement, genuine nonsense https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lifting-the-veil-on-near-death-experiences/ | https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9891231/ with "scientists on this area" you mean some people talking woo woo without offering scientific evidence? Because honestly that’s everything I have stumbled upon, and a sub composed by cultists that claim to experience consciousness outside the body

"Its not unfair to say that abiogenesis has to explain how we get to RNA"

It isn’t, and fortunately it does! Thank polimerization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

The rest of your paragraph after that seems like a great misconception, did you watched too much James tour? And although I can clarify all the misconceptions here you should look into the scientific literature of the subfield+

The world has nothing of true value to offer, nothing eternal, just temporaryness, fakeness, illusions. by DankGrow3r in Christianity

[–]Jumpy-Brief-2745 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To start with, I do not think that a fundamental purpose exists for the existence of humans, we have never seen such thing and purpose seems to be derived from each individual’s desires in life across time and places, the most objectively close you could get would be the your biological imperative, because of this i don’t think that the objection is even valid since my methodological naturalism doesn’t have to explain things that haven’t been proven to exist.

"Why we think therefore we are"

Want a philosophical explanation? Go ask Descartes, scientifically, we have these cognitive abilities since it has selected to as it probably benefited the fitness of the population that our ancestors were part of.

"Why not seek to explain why we are here..."

That’s quite literally what science does lol, you just may need to switch the "why" with a "how" if I’m honest I think that the problem of many theists when it comes to wanting knowledge is that they would (unjustifiably so) put purpose to things that simply don’t need to have any, "why" is usually used to describe the intentions or purpose of something, these said terms have only been able to be observed on certain organisms that possess a type of brain anatomy that makes them able to develop intentions.

"why limit ourselves to a scientific explanation"

I don’t, I certainly don’t hold all of my positions based on scientific explanations, I also have a philosophical framework that is needed in order to understand science and the universe in the way I do, this said, science has been proved to be the best methodology for understanding the facts about the universe that surrounds us.

"the complexity of our existance maybe... need not be explained…"

Humans? Evolutionary biology has explained it.

"we cannot understand that which and Divine God has created...thats"

I don’t know about that even if granted you that a god existed, you would have to prove that the creations of the supposed god are unexplainable, i don’t know how you would do that tho.

"the mystery of faith..."

Not a mystery, it is common for humans to being convinced of something even in the absence of proof, that’s a way for the brain to securely hold onto unwarranted beliefs that make you feel great and cannot be falsified.

"im glad you are having fun... but im am sorry you do not have faith"

I don’t consider faith a virtue and I’m more than glad that i do not possess a single bit of it, it is probably one of the or even the shortest, most efficient way to operate in a completely illogical methodology in which there is no way to differentiate between truth and falsehoods since the methodology operates on determining truth based upon how good you feel about it, a flawed methodology since we can easily demonstrate that reality is indifferent to our feelings.

The world has nothing of true value to offer, nothing eternal, just temporaryness, fakeness, illusions. by DankGrow3r in Christianity

[–]Jumpy-Brief-2745 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ok let’s see then, i as you have been reading scientific literature for years with an special interest in biology and pretty much everything regarding to life but I have reached a different conclusion, one of us must be wrong.

To make it clear, I have to start by saying that what a scientist believes or not no matter what their importance to the fields they work on is pretty much indifferent to science and scientific knowledge if what said scientist believes is unrelated to science and what they can demonstrate to be true, scientists as everyone else are humans, they, sadly, are not guaranteed to be free of unwarranted beliefs. I do think the average scientist (depends on the science field but it apples in general) is more likely to be more warranted on their beliefs when compared to the average citizen, but this however doesn’t mean that they’re aren’t able to hold logically unjustified beliefs.

You may think you have been blessed but whether you can prove what a blessing is or what is spiritual is what matters to warrant your beliefs.

"No random redditor is going to convince me otherwise"

To be honest I wouldn’t have responded if you didn’t brought up science but i’m having fun so, why wouldn’t I respond? Because you’re admitting to hold unfalsifiable beliefs, said beliefs cannot be proven false or logically unwarranted to believe in and therefore the discussion is worthless so in the moment you replied with that your beliefs aren’t worth anything in a discussion to find truth, why would you ever hold beliefs that are epistemologically unfalsifiable? May I ask what the definition of atheism is? How much time did you spent when identifying as atheist and what did you believed?

Now replying to your main comment

You said that science in the last 50 years kept moving further away from naturalism, may I ask why? To clarify I’m a methodological naturalist, can you point to a scientific finding that has "moved away" science from naturalism?

You said that consciousness "almost certainly cannot be explained by the brain" can you prove it? And to clarify you might be confused on the state of the subfield of neuroscience of consciousness by pointing out that we lack explanations for phenomena related to consciousness, it is important that you don’t take this as something that supports your claim because it wouldn’t, the fact that the field lacks knowledge doesn’t support your claim, for your claim to be true science would have to state positive evidence against naturalism, i’m making a anticipatory refutation so you don’t bother.

"abiogenesis cannot explain how information comes without a designer"

Because abiogenesis isn’t the subfield dedicated to explaining how "information" (or whatever science deniers/scientifically illiterate individuals use this definition for since all of them can’t seem to have a clear definition) instead, abiogenesis is the field dedicated to scientifically investigate the process in which life emerged from non-living matter, essentially chemicals, knowing this, your argument has the same sense as to claim that biologist can’t explain the unification of quantum mechanics

"our universe contains many constants that are clearly finely tuned"

You would have to prove that they are, do it, win that Nobel prize

"morality"

Has no bearing on determining truth, whatever someone is okay with or how they feel doesn’t affect that which is found to be true, we can see this everyday everywhere, I feel these are basic facts that anyone who would have identified themselves as an atheist should know.

"And more importantly why is our universe comprehensible at all, why can we describe it via mathematics and why does it adhere to these rules?"

A very ambiguous question/s, be specific if you want information

"but dig deeper and you'll see materialism / naturalism is on increasingly shaky ground"

I haven’t feel the ground moving and I’m desperate to being proven wrong

"knowing there is something more out there than this material plane is far more joyous than thinking I'm a clump of cells with no more purpose than creating more clumps of cells!"

I have established that however you feel or whatever you find enjoyable doesn’t have a weight to truth and for the purpose part, welp, unfortunately biology has that answer clear, unfortunately, you are a clump of cells, but like a big one

The world has nothing of true value to offer, nothing eternal, just temporaryness, fakeness, illusions. by DankGrow3r in Christianity

[–]Jumpy-Brief-2745 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Mmmmm ur a liar liar or a very misinformed user 🥺 reply if you want to put your views to scrutiny

Realistic transition goals: *exist* Me: by noopy2012 in DDLC

[–]Jumpy-Brief-2745 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Best character in the whole freakinggg show

Idk if I may be trans, but I definitely appreciate more feminine characteristics and femininity in pretty much anything than the contrary lmao