User Controls
Oh, what's that, fag? You're a man of logic who needs "evidence" or "proof"?
-
2018-01-08 at 2:42 PM UTC
-
2018-01-08 at 2:48 PM UTC
-
2018-01-08 at 2:49 PM UTCfox paws ironically typing "your" and spectral ironically correcting him
i think
spectral please tell me your deal. you can't be a troll. nobody would be such a boring troll for 10 years to such a tiny community. -
2018-01-08 at 2:56 PM UTC
-
2018-01-08 at 3:03 PM UTC
-
2018-01-08 at 3:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws Pretty sure his was unironic though :o
what type of person would spend 10 years in a community doing nothing but attacking the mods
and not in a trolly, "you mods are fucking retarded!" way, but in a formal, boring political way.
i just can't comprehend the type of person who would do that. but i can't comprehend the type of person who would troll that persona either.
IT DOESNT MAKE SENSEEEEEEEEEEEEEE -
2018-01-08 at 3:11 PM UTCSpectral is not a rational person. Look at this thread, he believes in god in the dumbest possible way. He doesn’t just claim “faith” like most retards (which can’t be argued against), he is actually trying to debate why his retarded beliefs are real and failing badly.
-
2018-01-08 at 3:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws Spectral is not a rational person. Look at this thread, he believes in god in the dumbest possible way. He doesn’t just claim “faith” like most retards (which can’t be argued against), he is actually trying to debate why his retarded beliefs are real and failing badly.
yeah true, probably just a nutter. -
2018-01-08 at 3:16 PM UTCNone of you come even close to frightening me.
-
2018-01-08 at 3:19 PM UTC
-
2018-01-08 at 3:19 PM UTC
-
2018-01-08 at 3:22 PM UTCI see myself as Spectral's apprentice. I know that his crusade is righteous and has to continue - for the good of hundreds of thousands of people( or realistically, most of the modern world )
Don't tell him I said that though because I have a feeling that my efforts let him down majorly. -
2018-01-08 at 3:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL The Probability Theory is total garbage, for this reason: imagine you bought a 500-piece piece puzzle at the store, brand new in the box, still wrapped in cellophane, and you shook the box once, opened it, and the puzzle managed to complete itself inside the box. What are the odds of that being true? Not only would the right pieces have to connect with one another, but they would have to be all facing the same side, and all the pieces would have to form a perfect square, and the picture itself would have to be correct. Well, you would say, you can't just do it on the first shake, obviously. So, you shake that box ten more times and open it. Has the odds of it being fully completed on any of those 10 shakes went down? Is it now fully complete? So you shake that box a million times this time, each time looking to see if it completed itself. What are the odds of success now? So you shake that box tetra-gazillion-billion times, each time checking to see if the puzzle is complete. After all those tries, what are the odds one of them would finally be a success? Answer? None. Because it would NEVER happen, no matter how many times you shake it. Now, imagine a million puzzle boxes, all shaking a tetra-gazillion-billion times. What are the odds of every single one of the million puzzle boxes completing itself on one of those shakes? Not just one, all of them. How long would it take? What are the odds? Now, you see that numbers can stretch so far out to be virtually uncountable. Infinity exists not only in numbers, but it actual events and happenings. That's how you know if something is possible or not, by examining the numbers, and in this case, the numbers are virtually infinite.
I already responded to this argument and you just stopped responding to me out of butthurt. All you've done is replace "warhead" with "puzzle". Holy shit you're dumb.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-01-08 at 3:48 PM UTC
-
2018-01-08 at 3:48 PM UTC
-
2018-01-08 at 4:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL The Probability Theory is total garbage, for this reason: imagine you bought a 500-piece piece puzzle at the store, brand new in the box, still wrapped in cellophane, and you shook the box once, opened it, and the puzzle managed to complete itself inside the box. What are the odds of that being true? Not only would the right pieces have to connect with one another, but they would have to be all facing the same side, and all the pieces would have to form a perfect square, and the picture itself would have to be correct. Well, you would say, you can't just do it on the first shake, obviously. So, you shake that box ten more times and open it. Has the odds of it being fully completed on any of those 10 shakes went down? Is it now fully complete? So you shake that box a million times this time, each time looking to see if it completed itself. What are the odds of success now? So you shake that box tetra-gazillion-billion times, each time checking to see if the puzzle is complete. After all those tries, what are the odds one of them would finally be a success? Answer? None. Because it would NEVER happen, no matter how many times you shake it. Now, imagine a million puzzle boxes, all shaking a tetra-gazillion-billion times. What are the odds of every single one of the million puzzle boxes completing itself on one of those shakes? Not just one, all of them. How long would it take? What are the odds? Now, you see that numbers can stretch so far out to be virtually uncountable. Infinity exists not only in numbers, but it actual events and happenings. That's how you know if something is possible or not, by examining the numbers, and in this case, the numbers are virtually infinite.
Nobody is asserting anything remotely resembling that. -
2018-01-08 at 4:35 PM UTC
-
2018-01-08 at 4:41 PM UTC
-
2018-01-08 at 6:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL I didn't stop responding to you.
Yes you did. You quoted part of this post but never really responded to the central point:
Originally posted by Eval/Apply I've seen this argument many many times before. Let me save you some time: I'm of course going to say it's vanishingly unlikely to the point of being near certainty (although this still isn't mathematics). You're going to compare warheads to complex lifeforms like humans and say what goes for them goes for us.
Warheads are not biological systems with heritable traits. There is no theory of origin of warheads by evolution by natural selection. Biological systems however have the ability to reproduce and an acceptable balance between mutation and heritability. We have powerful explanation of how very very simple living systems can arise from non-living systems and how simple living systems can give rise to more complex descendants. We actually have experimental proof of the latter. No such theory exists for warheads, so the analogy squarely fails.
Now where's my math specy boy?
And you didn't even seem to acknowledge these two posts:
Originally posted by F.E. Allen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Originally posted by F.E. Allen Machines don't have the ability to reproduce with heritable traits and random mutation. "Life" is a taxonomical issue, although there is a well accepted definition in biology which excludes all heretofore constructed man made machines. If you want to bitch about the word "life" though then fine, let's just use the line above: "systems with the ability to reproduce with heritable traits and random mutation". Say it with me spectral!
