Posts by slycrane94

Carl Brown66 said:It’s clear you’re a product of a system that teaches kids one of the most monstrous and unscientific lies ever told by presenting it as settled fact. My dear slycrane94, you might be a whiz at math and physics, but it’s honestly staggering—hard to even find the right word for it—that people living in the 21st century are still victims of such relentless indoctrination on a subject that modern genetics, molecular biochemistry, and related fields have already dismantled through reasoned argument, despite it being touted as the greatest scientific fraud in history.

shadoworca3 said:Since faith isn't the product of critical thinking based on facts and logic, you can't really judge its mental quirks—whether it's creationism or pure idiocy—by those standards. It’s an emotional thing, a part of the human psyche that rational arguments struggle to touch. Honestly, trying to analyze or critique anything in your text feels pretty pointless.

It's like trying to explain to a friend who's been head-over-heels in love for three weeks that his fiancée is just someone people pick because they couldn't afford a decent date.
I guess I just have to wait for the initial rush of phenylethylamine to wear off and hope he doesn't hit that endorphin stage where everything becomes permanent attachment. If he's an endorphin guy, he's a lost cause. 🤷

Your infatuation has gone on long enough, and while I won't stand in your way, I'd just ask that you don't bring your sweetheart into discussions on PZ. 🙂

Chloe Green61 said:What kind of amateur uses a browser to browse the forum?

There's an easy fix for you all: Tapatalk :fanfare:

northerncyclist2 said:Maybe just switch over to IPboard (it's also commercial), but if you ask me, it’s way more agile and modern—plus, it actually has a native HTML version for mobile browsers.

The price is $333, hardly worth the hassle, 🙄

bluecyclist64 said:Why not just move this thread over to the other sub?

This is just sweeping trash under the rug. Put the garbage where it actually belongs.

Gerald Ortiz85 said:Hi there, I was wondering if there are any plans to introduce a mobile version for this site?

If not, I’d kindly ask the admins to consider this suggestion. It would make things much faster and easier for users on older phones—provided they have Java and Opera Mini—to browse threads and reply.

The goal here would be to help grow our brand's reach through better mobile access.

Carl Brown66 said:Look, we haven't even gotten off the ground before hitting a misunderstanding. How can we even start if the topic is shut down before it’s even laid out? And assuming this evidence proves Earth is only 6,000 years old is a massive leap—I hope that wasn't intentional. Where does that article actually say Earth is 6,000 years old? It doesn't say it explicitly, nor does it even imply it. You're jumping from one assumption to another, specifically the idea regarding how many people lived before the Great Flood occurred. We can debate the scale of that flood, but the archaeological evidence is hard to ignore. This article focuses on population doubling from Noah's time forward, not from Adam's.

When Adam lived and how many people existed between Adam and Noah is a different conversation entirely; it’s not what this article is about. If humans evolved from primates and multiplied at such rates over the last 2,000,000 years that they would exceed the planet's capacity, wouldn't archaeologists have found an impossible amount of Homo sapiens fossils within the layers that prove a global flood? Besides, it's unlikely any other kind of deluge could hide that many remains. Not to mention, a cataclysm of that magnitude would make life on Earth nearly impossible to continue; no version of Noah could survive such a disaster in an ark, and no plant or land animal could possibly make it through.

If you really want to dig deeper, the source for this article dates back to 1925, so you might want to look at the broader context:

http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

Carl Brown66 said:Fine, my apologies—it was a PURE MATHEMATICAL AND STATISTICAL PROOF. Is that better? Will @TheNest unlock the thread now? And you love playing the high priest, don't you? For such a smart guy, do you really not notice the empirical elements missing from that proof? 🤦 Yet here you all are, nitpicking over trifles as if you were born with electron microscopes for eyes. It’s incredible how far some people will go just to justify a witch hunt...

I didn't think you'd lock the thread immediately despite my warnings, but it's a cute little thread. When are we all going to stop struggling, people? I'm not trying to prove anything to you. Though, I did come across a quote on an old American message board today... Here it is:

Is the gentleman who wrote those words years ago in the link above worthy of your scientific respect? Not a chance. He was just a crackpot, a total Rudolph crackpot... 😂

@TheNest, see how good our skeptical friend is? He’s even saving me from getting banned. Man, we should all grab a coffee sometime—maybe in ten years, doesn't matter, just count on that coffee being on me... The Parsifal clones will join too... We'll all show up for coffee with our encyclopedias... and the skeptic can act as the arbiter... Well, if he's going to be as biased as he is here, then we'll definitely have to find someone impartial instead... Just kidding, we aren't even going to discuss whether God exists; even you know He does, you're not crazy... What would actually interest me is if, at that coffee, instead of acting like a judge, the skeptic could explain whether the moon actually exists or not, and why Americans still lie about going to the moon when they had nowhere to go, assuming the moon doesn't exist at all, you get me? Isn't that a good idea? How can you go to the moon if it doesn't even exist? Actually, the skeptic and I agree, we just look at things from different angles...

So, Nice, is this explanation from EL Ninhov satisfactory?

Basically, when asked "why is this thread locked?", EL Ninho responds, "Be glad I didn't permaban you!" Is that an adequate answer to my question?

skeptical question : is it skeptical—is EL Ninhov's response formally and logically consistent? 😂

ironmarlin1 said:Well, for instance. Why? Water hits its peak density at 4°C—a fact that serves as a playground for any philosopher or theologian looking for a bit of fun. Lately, I’ve noticed a push to claim my topics don't belong in Natural Science because they involve too much "philosophy." If anyone is actually interested, I was reading Feynman's work on physical law characteristics where he noted that the law of inertia remains a mystery, prompting him to consult the principles of Natural Science itself. Is there anything wrong with that? Not really. And it certainly doesn't make Feynman a philosopher.

ironmarlin1 said:Can someone give me some guidelines on what topics are actually allowed over at Natural Science? I’m honestly lost. Kate Bishop76 keeps going on about "wannabe philosophers" and a bunch of "philosophical topics," though I can't remember the last time I even started a thread or posted anything there (especially nothing related to philosophy).

I'm not trying to be provocative here; I genuinely want to know the rules for posting on Natural Science. The situation there feels just like that Alternative forum—everything is strictly "partisan," organized without any real criteria, and it all seems to depend on whatever whim a moderator has at the moment. So, the question is: can you even ask something about physical laws on the Natural Science forum without getting the thread shut down?

If not, where am I supposed to go? 🤷

I don't even want to get into whether my previous thread on Natural Science was closed unfairly, because clearly, a moderator's word is enough to justify an admin locking an objection here. I just want to know where it's actually okay to start a discussion.

restlessmoose5 said:Alright, it seems like people are struggling here. I don't see how this could be a private chat or an email service. Is it really that hard to imagine the forum staying exactly the same, just with an option where if someone visits your profile to check out your threads, they can't see which ones you're active in? Everything else remains untouched—you still comment on public threads and debate as usual. It’s just about hiding the activity stats.

shadowpilot8 said:I can do it, works fine for me too. Just hit that plus icon on the posts you want to multi-quote (they'll turn orange), then just hit quote on the last one.