Thanks for not deleting this, but now about locking threads...

As I stated before, thanks for leaving this thread intact . Now, I demand an answer to this question: why was this thread locked?

What exactly is unscientific about that discussion?

The arguments Daniel Chavez14 is making would be laughable if they weren't actually pathetic. I'm sitting here laughing just to keep from crying...

Daniel Chavez14, frankly, I don't care if you're terrified of the implications stemming from that 1925 mathematical proof. You claim to be a scientist, yet your primary reason for shutting down this thread is that the consequences of this evidence might be "disturbing" to mainstream science. That’s absurd.

You even admit you don't fully grasp the subject matter because you're too lazy to put in even a shred of effort to examine something that scares you at first glance. That is textbook scientific cowardice.

I won't waste more time. Give me a reason why the thread was closed!

Thanks!

P.S. Watching the moderators defer to Daniel Chavez14 is fascinating. No one disputes he's an expert in his field, but with these comments, he has effectively discredited himself. He's shown he's afraid to confront mathematical proofs that don't align with his atheistic worldview. This is nothing more than pure ideology infecting a subforum dedicated to NATURAL SCIENCES.

Unbelievable!!!

Daniel Chavez14 recently hit up an FBI forum and started a thread titled "is it possible to be a good logician in the world?". Looking at how he attempts to link premises in this post ,

It’s a given that one would wonder: why doesn't Daniel Chavez14 actually prove he’s a top-tier logician by meticulously deriving conclusions from his own premises? Instead, because he's dealing with my very first post, he avoids the real work. Rather than using his supposedly superior logical talent to dismantle the scientific logic established back in 1925—which effectively shatters the foundations of the scientific premises he’s trying to defend—he resorts to tactics that have nothing to do with science, intellectual honesty, or even basic courage. In actual science, the only legitimate tool for debate is VALID ARGUMENTATION centered on the merits of the subject at hand. It has absolutely nothing to do with the question of "what might it imply if this is a certain forum user's first post."

Carl Brown66, you totally misread me.

First off, I don't tell the moderators what to do; I listen to them (well, more like I read between the lines). They would have shut this down regardless of my input. I just beat them to the punch by correctly predicting their move—based on how they’ve handled things in the past—and then (with a bit of sarcasm) explained why.

Second, I'm personally not sweating the consequences of what you wrote because, like I said, I don't even know exactly what you were getting at. But based on the TONE you used (especially that intro), it was obvious how the decision-makers here were going to react. Unlike you, I actually UNDERSTAND how moderators think. It doesn't mean we think exactly alike, but I definitely get their headspace. I could see immediately that an intro like yours was going to backfire and produce the exact opposite effect of what you intended.

If you ever reach the point where you grasp their logic, you'll be able to start the EXACT same thread, just packaged differently so nobody has an excuse to shut it down. I know you don't want to "descend" to their level because you feel you're above them, but honestly? You HAVE to meet them where they are, even if it's just temporary, if you want to get THEM interested in your ideas. It’s just basic psychology...

The evidence here is absolutely stunning, and this entire post serves as proof that in certain instances, evolution hasn't actually taken place... or more accurately, it proves that some of the people driving these discussions are still operating at a primate level of intelligence...😁

Carl Brown66 said:It’s pretty clear that Daniel Chavez14 is among the worst logicians in the world when you look at how he tries to link his premises together in this post. I honestly don't think anyone here is really grasping how much this affects us. It’s not just some minor policy tweak; it’s a fundamental shift in how things work. If you look at the actual data coming out of the Federal Reserve, it becomes pretty obvious that we're heading toward a massive correction. I’ve been following these trends for years, and frankly, it feels like everyone is just waiting for the other shoe to drop while pretending everything is fine. We need to start looking at the bigger picture before we all get caught off guard.

To me, logic is just a hobby, much like philosophy or psychology. I’ve spent plenty of time reading up on those fields and I feel like I've grasped quite a bit, but let's be real—I'm nowhere near being an expert in any of them, let alone one of the best minds in the world.

Carl Brown66 said:It’s honestly baffling. You have to wonder why Daniel Chavez14, instead of proving he’s actually the best logician in the world by meticulously deriving conclusions from his own premises, chooses to focus on the fact that this is my very first post. Rather than using his supposedly superior logical talents to dismantle the scientific evidence from 1925—which completely shatters the foundations of the premises he’s trying so hard to defend—he resorts to tactics that have absolutely nothing to do with actual knowledge, intellectual honesty, or even basic courage. In science, the only valid way to settle a debate is through sound argumentation centered on the merits of the subject at hand. It shouldn't matter whether someone is a newcomer to a forum; the facts remain the facts regardless of who is speaking.

There are several reasons for this:
To be honest, I had a much better time once I started explaining exactly why your thread was going to get shut down anyway.
Besides, trying to dig up a solid counterargument to those old points from 1925 would be a massive headache.
Thirdly, even if I managed to track him down—and I'm pretty sure I could—it wouldn't matter. No one would care except you, and frankly, you probably wouldn't even accept my argument if I laid it all out.

Robin Fox4 said:the evidence is phenomenal ...

Which evidence are you talking about—mine or the one from the original post? 😬

Daniel Chavez14 said:Carl Brown66, you completely missed my point.

First off, the moderators aren't listening to me; I'm listening to them. They were going to shut this down regardless of whether I commented or not. I simply beat them to the punch—I predicted exactly how they’d react based on their track record, and then (with a bit of sarcasm) explained why.

Second, I'm not sweating the consequences of what you wrote because, frankly, I don't even know exactly what you wrote. But judging by your TONE (especially that intro written in broken English), it was obvious how the decision-makers here would view it. Unlike you, I UNDERSTAND how moderators think. It doesn't mean I think exactly like them, but I certainly recognize their logic. I knew immediately that an intro like yours would trigger the exact opposite reaction of what you intended.

If you ever reach the level where you actually grasp their mindset, you'll be able to start the EXACT same thread, just packaged differently so nobody has an excuse to kill it. I get it, you don't want to stoop to their level because you think you're above them. But look: you HAVE to meet them where they are, at least temporarily, if you want to get them interested in your ideas. It's basic psychology...

Give me a break. Of course I knew that posting evidence like that on the FBI section of an American forum is impossible without triggering some kind of digital natural disaster. There is no way to "package" what I posted on an American message board to prevent the mods from instantly deleting or locking the thread once they realize the implications of the evidence.

That's also why the intro was written that way. Any other approach would have been unrealistic or utopian. As an experienced contributor to the FBI section, you should know that better than anyone. Since you knew what was coming, you could have contributed differently—exactly like I suggested in post #2 of this PŽK thread. After all, it's thanks to you (so why the hypocritical posturing?) that we're stuck discussing why the thread was closed instead of debating the actual merits of the original question.

The proof that I'm right? You, a user who usually shows immense respect in the FBI section, chose to openly advocate for this thread being deleted rather than staying neutral or arguing against its removal. And you did it in a shameful way.

So, sorry, but if you're supposed to be the best logician in the world, you should know that the rest of us aren't such poor logicians that we can't see through someone's blatant
hypocrisy.

If I'm wrong, I know that on PŽK, closed threads can often be reopened. So why don't you try pretending you actually care about getting this thread reopened? I'd love to see your acting skills, especially since you've already established yourself as such a master logician. 😬

Robin Fox4 said:The evidence is undeniable. This whole thing just proves that evolution hasn't actually happened in certain cases. To put it bluntly: it shows that some people driving these discussions are still stuck at the primate level.😁

Robin Fox4, you think you picked that username by accident? Nothing happens by chance. Even your choice of handle proves it. 👋

Carl Brown66 said:Robin Fox4, you really think picking that username was just some random coincidence? Nothing in this life happens by accident, and even the way you chose that handle proves it... 👋

That's true, it wasn't a coincidence at all, because I actually picked that name right when I was dealing with a massive, messy situation...

Daniel Chavez14 said:Logic is just a hobby for me, much like philosophy or psychology. I’ve read extensively on these subjects; I have beliefs and insights, but I am far from being an expert in any of them, let alone one of the world's leading authorities.

If I declare you the greatest logician on the planet, then that is the reality. Period. And I won't hear you dispute it, because I'd just end up laughing at the absurdity. 😁

Daniel Chavez14 said:There are several reasons:
First, I found much more enjoyment in explaining why your thread would be locked in the first place.

And I find equal amusement in explaining why you are the world's premier logician. 😉

Daniel Chavez14 said:Second, finding a solid counter-argument to those 1925 claims would require far too much effort.

Go ahead.

Daniel Chavez14 said:Third, even if I did manage to find one—which I believe I could—it wouldn't interest anyone but you, and you likely wouldn't accept my argument anyway.

Please. Since you're such a telepath, do you prefer reading Tarot cards or staring into a crystal ball?

Robin Fox4 said:Exactly. It wasn't an accident. I picked this handle specifically while I was stuck in a total dump.

Some places offer an exit strategy. Others are dead ends.😉

Carl Brown66 said:Give me a break. Of course I knew that trying to post evidence like this on an IRS thread on Reddit would be impossible without some kind of digital natural disaster hitting the whole topic. There isn’t any way to package what I posted so that the moderators don't immediately see the implications and either delete the post or lock the entire thread.

Of course there’s a way; you just have to play psychologist for a second. You could have framed it like this:

"A buddy of mine, who happens to be a bit of a religious fanatic, handed me this text as proof for his side of things. I feel like there's a flaw in the logic here, but I'm not quite sharp enough to pin down exactly what it is. Could you guys help me come up with a solid rebuttal? Just a heads-up, the guy is actually pretty brilliant, so cheap shots won't work on him."

Obviously, it's too late to use that trick on this specific thread, but you might want to try it on a similar topic down the road. And honestly, I have a feeling you've got plenty more topics like this brewing in your head...

Give it a shot—you'll find the mods will back off if you just stay in character. For example:
"So, I passed your argument along to my friend, and he hit me back with this. Now I'm stuck. Any ideas?"

Good luck!

Daniel Chavez14 said:Of course there’s a way to handle this; you just have to play psychologist. You could have framed it like this:

"A friend of mine—a bit of a religious fanatic, actually—sent me this text as proof for his claims. I can tell the logic is flawed, but I'm not sharp enough to pin down exactly why. Can anyone help me build a solid rebuttal? Keep in mind, the guy is highly intelligent, so cheap shots won't work on him."

Obviously, it’s too late to use that tactic on this specific topic, but try it on something similar down the road. And I have a feeling you've got plenty more topics like this brewing...

Give it a shot. You'll see the moderators fold if you stay consistent with the act. For example:
"I passed your argument along to a friend, and he countered with this. Now I'm stuck. Help!"

Good luck!

Listen, skeptic, are you really underestimating Elon Musk's intelligence that much? Actually, knowing you, it isn't about his intellect; since "A or B" leaves underestimating my own intelligence as the only remaining option, I'm lodging a formal protest. Are you trying to kill me with laughter?

And once we're done having our fun, maybe you could switch roles and pretend to be some moderator...

Like his excellence, Cardinal Rihanna—pardon me, Cardinal Elon Musk.

The entire premise falls apart at the very first sentence: "PURE MATHEMATICAL PROOF." That's one error, and it's more than enough.

Mathematical proofs only hold weight within the realm of mathematics—which, if we’re being strict, isn't even a science. There's no connection to reality there. Reality is proven through empirical evidence, not mathematical exercises.

Carl Brown66 said:Oh, you skeptic, are you really underestimating shadoworca3's intellect to such an extent? I know deep down you aren't actually questioning his brilliance, but since we've narrowed our choices down to "Option A or Option B," and the only remaining path is to underestimate my own intelligence, I simply have to lodge a formal protest. Honestly, do you truly want me to die laughing?

And now, once we’ve had our fill of entertainment, perhaps a moderator might finally step up and do their job...

Allow me to introduce His Excellency—not Cardinal Richelieu, mind you, but rather the illustrious Cardinal shadoworca3.

God help us, you see, we let you post under various aliases on this forum as long as your topics remain engaging.
It’s perfectly obvious where this is headed, and frankly, the outcome is predictable. Usually, it only takes about two sparse sentences for me to realize exactly who I'm dealing with. Without needing any heavy lifting or deep analysis, I just get this sudden chill in my lungs and a surge of heartburn in my stomach, and I know immediately that it’s either you or one of your many clones.
In reality, Skeptic actually did us a favor by letting you stay, if only because you provided a bit of amusement. 😍

slycrane94 said:The entire premise collapses at the very first sentence because of that phrase "PURE MATHEMATICAL PROOF." That's the first and final error.

Mathematical proofs only hold weight within mathematics—which, strictly speaking, isn't even a science. There is zero connection to reality. Reality is proven through empirical evidence, not mathematical exercises.

Fine, my mistake. PURE MATHEMATICAL-STATISTICAL PROOF. Better? Is @TheNest going to unlock the thread now? And you—you love playing the high priest, don't you? For someone who thinks they're so sharp, you didn't notice a single empirical element in that proof. 🤦But you guys obsess over trivialities like you were born with electron microscopes for eyes. Honestly, it’s hard to believe how far some people will go just to justify a witch hunt...

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

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

@TheNest, look at what a great skeptical question : is it skeptical guy we have here. He's even saving me from getting banned. Man, we all need to grab coffee sometime. Ten years from now, maybe. Doesn't matter. Just count on that coffee... The Parsifal clones will host. We'll all show up with our encyclopedias, and the skeptic can act as the arbitrator. Though if he stays this biased, we'll have to find someone impartial. I'm joking—we aren't even going to debate whether God exists; even you know He does, you aren't crazy... What would be truly interesting is if, instead of acting as judge, our skeptic explains over coffee whether the moon actually exists or not. You know, why Americans still lie about being on the moon when they had nowhere to go, assuming the moon doesn't exist at all? Get it? How can you go to the moon if it doesn't even exist? Actually, the skeptic and I agree; we just view things from different angles...

So, Nica, is EL Ninhov's explanation satisfactory?

Basically, when asked "why was 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? 😂

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? 😂

The proof is still useless because it's based on a fairy tale. There's no evidence for the numbers it relies on, so I feel bad. Earth isn't 6,000 years old, yet religious extremists are still a nuisance, so their threads keep getting shut down.

slycrane94 said:The evidence is still useless because it’s based on a fairy tale. There’s zero proof for the numbers this whole thing relies on, so I feel sorry for you. The planet isn't 6,000 years old, and religious extremists are still annoying, which is why they get shut down.

See? We haven't even started and there's already a misunderstanding. How can we start when the topic is locked before it's even posted? Also, claiming this evidence proves Earth is 6,000 years old is your first wrong conclusion—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 even implicitly. This moves from one assumption to another: the assumption regarding how many people lived before the Great Flood. And that flood happened—we can debate the scale, but the archaeological evidence for a deluge is overwhelming. That wasn't even the point of this article. This article examines population doubling from Noah onwards, not from Adam.

When Adam lived and how many people existed between Adam and Noah is an entirely different matter, and it's not what this article addresses. If humans evolved from primates and multiplied over the last 2,000,000 years to the point where their numbers wouldn't fit on this planet, then it would be impossible for archaeologists to miss that massive amount of Homo sapiens fossils within the strata that prove a global flood. Furthermore, it would be difficult for any other kind of flood to wipe out such a volume of Homo sapiens. Not to mention, a "mega-flood" on that scale would be nearly impossible to sustain life on Earth afterward; no Noah could survive such a catastrophe in any ark, and no part of the plant or animal kingdom could possibly make it through.

If you really want to dig in, this article dates back to 1925, so look at the broader context:

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

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

😂😂😂😂 Fine. Go join a religious forum and peddle those "it's certain" and "everyone believes this" arguments there.

It's a given that there was some kind of flood at some point. For most of history, the human race was just another animal species multiplying within its means, mostly limited by whatever food was available.

Carl Brown66 said:What part of this is actually unknown?

Everything about this thread feels speculative. To me, one of the clearest red flags is that even the author of the text you're quoting chose to slap the word "scientifically" in the title just to grab attention.
On the FBI subforum, we really expect members to stick as closely as possible to the Guidelines and Recommendations for this section. One of those rules states:

1) Developing a healthy skepticism toward your sources is one of the most vital skills you can have. An official website from a major institution like Harvard carries infinitely more weight than some random "UFO Research Center" site.

"The Earth is Flat" from 1925 by William A. Williams is simply not appropriate reading for a serious discussion meant to stay within the realm of natural science—especially when you consider how old the text is and the fact that the author lacks a scientific background. If we're going to use references, they should be modern and come from indisputable, high-quality sources.

This is just one single point from our Guidelines and Recommendations, but I’d argue it’s an essential one.

Even if you had picked more recent literature centered on creationist ideas, this thread still wouldn't belong on the FBI forum because that argument was debunked ages ago. I certainly hope you don't believe that massive populations before Chris were limited to just a handful of people scattered everywhere, because there is no logical way they could have built something as monumental as the pyramids under those conditions.

It's honestly a bit disappointing. If you're genuinely interested in evolution, it's a shame to limit your scope to such low-quality sources when modern science has done such a beautiful job of detailing the history of the human species.