Splinter: Smells Like Creationism

I believe a blob of fat by itself can do very little. But when it is exposed to a non atomic high dimensional entity, it would by evolution quickly adapt to it.

In other words we capture a little such when we are born.

I want no examination of this because and that is mentioning the obvious, we die from the examination.

Nor do I want insults/lack of proof comments, because there ain't gonna be much proof about it more then theoretical.

So if you want to know more about a certain part of the process, just ask me.

Mod Note — This thread is a splinter removed from "Are there any NEW Creationist arguments? (v.2)".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Futility

Which, in the end, is why Intelligent Design is not a science. Ultimately, it must move beyond speculation and demonstrate the existence of the designer.

There is, in philosophy and metaphysics, a proposition that nothing real is actually real; that everything is illusory. But that leads us back to the Cartesian cogito; as long as we are experiencing this alleged reality, that is enough. That we are not real does not change the fact that our experiences feel real. One could test the theory by ceasing all intake of food and water, but in such a case we might prescribe Dwayne Hoover's malady, and believe that one individual is the only real thing in the Universe. That is, will you or I be the first to transcend death in such a manner as to record the experience of the transition? Can that individual cross back over the threshold and prove that they were ever real?

In the end, the whole thing is an exercise in futility.

I heard a guy on the radio this weekend talking about beauty as the proof of God. He was a gardener, and expounded about the beauty of flowers. Obviously, he does not suffer hay fever. That is, it is very hard to find beauty in a threat. One person's proof of God is another's summertime torture. Then again, I suppose one could say the same of God Itself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But there can be alot of theoretical evidence however; Like the difference between neanderthals and other creatures with larger brains then humans, and humans themselves.

There is also the fact that a computers neuronnetwork doesn't work as well as humans etc. I don't believe it would even if it was as large unless its somehow obtained a soul.

Why in earth would a humans not have souls? it's a scandal!
Would the perfect neural network be made entirely of fat??
Ofcourse some people have entities: how else solve a real matrix that fast? Through basis of pictures, sence and hearing alone?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A statement of belief in no way answers the OP. Particularly when followed by the comment

An unsupported (and self-confessed insupportable) belief hardly constitutes an argument for or against anything

 

Is your point that you want to cut in people instead of mice? That is an awfull idea, it'll cause a war or something.

 

Er ... uh ... what?

Your terminology suggests something about your adherence to superstition, though I'm not quite sure what. I have no idea what those questions are supposed to mean. What am I missing here?

 

How about solving the problem based on the change the information cause to a highdimensional object that absorbs it by dividing its structure into one or more such informations all leading to a possibly different solution?

 

I'll explain it in simple words when I so please.

 

i do believe he has got you there, tiassa

/chuckle

 

Aargh!

Ah! A touch! I believe my time is done ....

Actually, I'm unsure what he's referring to with the word "problem".

After resolving that, I would suggest running it by a mathematician, first, and then a biologist.

 

I change my structure into the problem that needs to be solved, you see.
That way I see its solution.

 

Dammit, Jim ....

I'm a mystic, not a fantastic, so no, I don't see.

Apply your problem in something other than abstract terms. Part of the difficulty you encounter with such terminology is that it seems to rely on vague, and possibly nonstandard, definitions of words in an attempt to make what doesn't even count as pseudoscience sound somewhat scientific.

Otherwise, it sounds like you're saying, "How about solving the problem based on life itself?" Which isn't exactly a useful question. Again, what am I missing?

 

1 = problem * 1/problem = problem * solution

More or less, tiassa, more or less.

 

(not helpful)

 

what is applied to a x in order to get a constant? answer: apply 1/x

That is what a soul of highest grandiousity do no matter what problem. Such am I.

 

The obvious

Seems redundant. Circular even

1=p(1/p)=ps​

How does s≠1?

It's a completely useless circle.

(Update: Yeah, I finally figured it out. s=1/p. Duh. Anyway, that makes the circle even more useless, if that is even possible.)

 

so if oil goes up, I transform into oil goes up, and oil goes down: together they become one again. Thereby I solved the problem.

 

Insanity

And if creationists sound insane, you transform yourself into creationists sound insane, and the point is reinforced. Thereby, you have solved ... what? That creationists really are insane?

 

No, I solved the problem that people don't believe in souls and the solution to the problem, together they became one.

One being my soul, a Hyperdimensional object.

 

Mod Hat - Intervention

Mod Hat — Intervention

No, you missed a grotesque error in my math, which I only figured out about two minutes ago.

Consider it, please, from a site policy angle. You've reached a point with your trolling that I find myself in a difficult position. That is, for people to answer you honestly would violate the rules. For instance, if someone was to tell you to fuck off, I would have to warn, suspend, or take other action. If they told you to see if you're flexible enough to suck yourself off and choke to death on it, again, I would have to do something about that. To the other, though, it will be a painful enforcement, since I can sympathize with their reasons. Hell, if you'd only paid attention to what I posted, you would have caught the error in my math. But you weren't paying attention, only ranting like a psychedelic would-be prophet.

As such, the only reasonable solution is to insist that you cease your nearly megalomaniac trolling and try contributing something useful to this discussion.

If that is too much to ask, then take your spiritual flea circus elsewhere.