|
Yes, but it turns out the information processing embedded in the relations between those chemical reactions have the ability to feel love and watch anime. And I'm all out of anime.
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
Wouldn't the selection pressure then come from fire and its use as a kind of 'external digestion', which then lets jaws get smaller?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Dark Matter did 9/11Friendly Tumour posted:Also lmao if you believe that humans seek to compete through procreation. Conflict is a consequence of environmental conditions and base vertabrate nature, not any of this social darwinist nonsence.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Scientism is a disease; of wich this world must be cleansed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Sorry I missed this one:The Larch posted:Scientism is the philosophical position that no statement is true unless it can be empirically or logically verified. This statement cannot be empirically or logically verified. To correct your position a bit: scientism is the philosophical position that no statement be treated as true unless it can be empirically and logically verified, that that this should be seen as authoritative. Just because you cannot cross the is-ought, doesn't mean scientism is inherently self-contradictory.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Yours is the meta-ethics that will pierce the heavens
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
Find a way to cheat entropy, or die trying. MURCIA.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Lacking any kind of mechanism of god itself being created, you also cannot simply default to that position. Like if RNA forming is rejected because probability, what's the probability of random supernatural intelligence? You'd have an easier time justifying aliens.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
There's a valid point to be had about inference, but the issue is the the kind of undefined nature of spirits and whatnot makes any valid inference almost impossible. If you know that other people exist, and you see some symbols written on a rock, you can infer they're not natural and that someone made them. Even if other people didn't exist, it was just you in the universe, you could infer that that would be proof that someone like you had existed before, or that you did it and forgot about it. But the further you get from what you've already know, the worse it gets. I mean, take the supposition that there is another 'place', which a thing exists in, that can affect this world but we can't do anything to them. What's the probability of that, and how would you infer it? if you had an event that was 1e-40, and hypothesize that that proves the existence of this other place, how do you know the probability of that other 'place' existing isn't 1e-60? or 1e-100? What's your prior, and why is it what it is?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
RODNEY THE RACEHOR posted:I Am Feeling Frustrated Regarding This Debate & Discussion
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Well I'm sure if we can get our hands on a black hole, we'll get some more things to do. I also don't really like assuming proton decay exists, but then pushing back the half-life because you can't find it, but then who am I to judge? Dark matter/energy has got a similar problem, but you can't ignore the math, now can you?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
But the only real reason it is assumed to exist is because of some mathematical theories where it would be convenient if it did. The fact that we haven't seen it makes it way, way more likely that they're all just wrong in a fundamental way, rather than just baryon decay having a long-rear end half-life. Like no one assumes energy can be destroyed, just that it happens over a really really long time. So what do you have more faith in, the idea that we just haven't observed it yet, or the idea that no one is actually close to a unified theory and it's all just bumbling around in the dark?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
It's kind of already happened, it's just in the hands of private companies instead of government - so, just as unaccountable as if a dictatorship had done it. A properly accountable government may actually use it for good, but 'earning the right to procreate' is probably not going to be that popular, nor does it actually sound like a good idea, ever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
What? Ball-sack-sperm-duct values? I'm curious to know what other anatomical parts have, uh, values associated with them, in your mind, but I'll save that for later, and instead ask you why you think its necessary to require people to get permits to get pregnant.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Oh, drat, my mistake, for some reason I didn't pick up that you wanted to insert mechanical valves into the sperm ducts of young men (who, presumably, cannot control them). Maybe my mind just tried to block it out, whatever. In any case, I'm not seeing how giving in to a minority of people, who are insecure about others they see themselves as 'better than' having sex and kids, or generally being alive, is something positive. In fact, I think those kinds of insecure people are selfish, arrogant and generally terrible, and their opinions tend to reflect that. So doing what they don't want might have some merit.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
My guess is that the theistic apologia answer is 'a test of faith', but I don't think anyone had much faith in this thread anyway, so I'm not sure that works. Life is pointless, hail satan, live free and 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
I'm a scientist, theoretically. Or maybe it's hypothetically?Friendly Tumour posted:The balance of nature is a myth perpetrated by kush smoking hippies.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
Pandas will eventually evolve into a parasitic species, sustained only through their symbolic significance to humans and their photogenic cuteness.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:The word is mutualistic. Parasitism implies harm committed on a specific host. Vocal chord parasite Dineh
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
Honestly, it was more about whether nature is cruel or just. So the Nazis saw it as cruel, but decided this mean they themselves could cruel, creationists refuse to acknowledge that cruelty (same with hippies with that gaia poo poo), and everyone else kind of stopped giving a poo poo about nature and tried being human.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
Why chase animals when you can just shoot them with a bow, spear, or run them off a loving cliff?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 22:51
|
|