Sociopath Community

Ouch A lot of inferiority complexes and bruised egos in this thread.

Xena said: 

PalePeach said: 

Xena said: 

 Add to that the fact that there have been at least 3 major extinction events where life miraculously returned

 There have been 5 know major extinction events, and several minor ones. We are currently in the Sixth, known to be caused by human activity. Life didn't "return" persay because it never completely left. Some forms of life have survived each extinction: Crocodiles are known as the only large reptile to survive the  Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event and Sharks have survived the last 4 consecutively. Both are good examples of species who's ancestors remained because they survived in a niche that was simply unimpacted by the cause of the great extinction.

The Ordovician–Silurian extinction events saw the end of 70% of species
The Permian–Triassic extinction event, the largest of all time saw the end of 90-96% of all species on earth,
There has never been a point when all life on earth was killed then life spontaneously started again.

Humans, Cats, Bears, all mammals; are descendants of tiny mouse like creatures that were small enough to survive the extinction of the dinosaurs.

With much of life on earth gone, the few who survive multiply quickly with little competition until they run into each other.

 lol little one, what is your damage?

This is the third time I've caught you trying harder than hard to turn my musings about some happening I'm not particularly attached to into smthg to fight about. You've hilariously misquoted me again.

And no, we're not in the middle of an extinction event rn. We might possibly be looking at the beginning of one. But we're still breeding like flies on shit. 100 000 deaths due to COVID 19 is a walk in the park.

As for the other species we've been killing off... maybe. That depends on how you define "extinction event."

 

What's the point you're arguing, anyway? There's no need to go bottom up with it bc I've considered myself an agnostic for most of my life. An argument about whose imaginary friends are better is one of the dumbest reasons I can think of to have a war, commit genocide, or even waste an afternoon squabbling on a forum.

 You were incorrect so she corrected you. 

Just relax and be grateful that you've learn't something new today. 

Major Major said: 

PalePeach said:

You are getting very emotional and making arguments based on assumptions that weren't even in her point.

That's where you're wrong, my young lesbian lady. The simulation argument relies on a subtle assumption that we can modify reality. That doesn't apply to intelligent design as she defined it.

The simulation argument relies on the assumption that we can simulate parts of reality, it has nothing to do with the modification of it. 

The simulation hypothesis and my intelligent design hypothesis are not related beyond the use of a similarly structured trilemma. 

Turncoat said:

Without knowing the "how", all we can do is wait and see.

Without a fossil record or something of tangible proof within our current development ranges, it's otherwise just as much Science Fiction as The Submarine or The Credit Card once was.

For all you know, people could have invented themselves in the future and then sent the genetic data back in time (or perhaps AI made/preserved us to ensure it's own genesis, forming a causal loop that'd seem beyond modern explanation), or even sent key genetic components of multiple species that would have died out otherwise into the past to preserve history as they otherwise understand it (Sci Fi's "Time Cop" model).

Without anything beyond rough correlational data to go with, it's just fun ideas (and is often how conspiracy types can be born).

That's what I found particularly interesting about the logic structure itself and why I decided to use it. 

It takes an idea that initially sounds insane and actually makes it logically rigorous. As such something outlandish suddenly can not only be considered but actually taken seriously. The best part is implications that are just as crazy can be discussed and they are actually derived from a solid foundation. 

It really is just a matter of having fun.  

AliceInWonderland said: 

 

Turncoat said:

Without knowing the "how", all we can do is wait and see.

Without a fossil record or something of tangible proof within our current development ranges, it's otherwise just as much Science Fiction as The Submarine or The Credit Card once was.

For all you know, people could have invented themselves in the future and then sent the genetic data back in time (or perhaps AI made/preserved us to ensure it's own genesis, forming a causal loop that'd seem beyond modern explanation), or even sent key genetic components of multiple species that would have died out otherwise into the past to preserve history as they otherwise understand it (Sci Fi's "Time Cop" model).

Without anything beyond rough correlational data to go with, it's just fun ideas (and is often how conspiracy types can be born).

That's what I found particularly interesting about the logic structure itself and why I decided to use it. 

It takes an idea that initially sounds insane and actually makes it logically rigorous. As such something outlandish suddenly can not only be considered but actually taken seriously. The best part is implications that are just as crazy can be discussed and they are actually derived from a solid foundation. 

It really is just a matter of having fun.

I can get behind that. 

AliceInWonderland said: 

The simulation argument relies on the assumption that we can simulate parts of reality, it has nothing to do with the modification of it. 

The simulation hypothesis and my intelligent design hypothesis are not related beyond the use of a similarly structured trilemma.

Simulation, modification... Pick your favorite one.

Do you now understand why your hypothesis doesn't follow a logical structure?

AliceInWonderland said: 

Ouch A lot of inferiority complexes and bruised egos in this thread.

Xena said: 

PalePeach said: 

Xena said: 

 Add to that the fact that there have been at least 3 major extinction events where life miraculously returned

 There have been 5 know major extinction events, and several minor ones. We are currently in the Sixth, known to be caused by human activity. Life didn't "return" persay because it never completely left. Some forms of life have survived each extinction: Crocodiles are known as the only large reptile to survive the  Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event and Sharks have survived the last 4 consecutively. Both are good examples of species who's ancestors remained because they survived in a niche that was simply unimpacted by the cause of the great extinction.

The Ordovician–Silurian extinction events saw the end of 70% of species
The Permian–Triassic extinction event, the largest of all time saw the end of 90-96% of all species on earth,
There has never been a point when all life on earth was killed then life spontaneously started again.

Humans, Cats, Bears, all mammals; are descendants of tiny mouse like creatures that were small enough to survive the extinction of the dinosaurs.

With much of life on earth gone, the few who survive multiply quickly with little competition until they run into each other.

 lol little one, what is your damage?

This is the third time I've caught you trying harder than hard to turn my musings about some happening I'm not particularly attached to into smthg to fight about. You've hilariously misquoted me again.

And no, we're not in the middle of an extinction event rn. We might possibly be looking at the beginning of one. But we're still breeding like flies on shit. 100 000 deaths due to COVID 19 is a walk in the park.

As for the other species we've been killing off... maybe. That depends on how you define "extinction event."

 

What's the point you're arguing, anyway? There's no need to go bottom up with it bc I've considered myself an agnostic for most of my life. An argument about whose imaginary friends are better is one of the dumbest reasons I can think of to have a war, commit genocide, or even waste an afternoon squabbling on a forum.

 You were incorrect so she corrected you. 

Just relax and be grateful that you've learn't something new today. 

Major Major said: 

PalePeach said:

You are getting very emotional and making arguments based on assumptions that weren't even in her point.

That's where you're wrong, my young lesbian lady. The simulation argument relies on a subtle assumption that we can modify reality. That doesn't apply to intelligent design as she defined it.

The simulation argument relies on the assumption that we can simulate parts of reality, it has nothing to do with the modification of it. 

The simulation hypothesis and my intelligent design hypothesis are not related beyond the use of a similarly structured trilemma. 

Turncoat said:

Without knowing the "how", all we can do is wait and see.

Without a fossil record or something of tangible proof within our current development ranges, it's otherwise just as much Science Fiction as The Submarine or The Credit Card once was.

For all you know, people could have invented themselves in the future and then sent the genetic data back in time (or perhaps AI made/preserved us to ensure it's own genesis, forming a causal loop that'd seem beyond modern explanation), or even sent key genetic components of multiple species that would have died out otherwise into the past to preserve history as they otherwise understand it (Sci Fi's "Time Cop" model).

Without anything beyond rough correlational data to go with, it's just fun ideas (and is often how conspiracy types can be born).

That's what I found particularly interesting about the logic structure itself and why I decided to use it. 

It takes an idea that initially sounds insane and actually makes it logically rigorous. As such something outlandish suddenly can not only be considered but actually taken seriously. The best part is implications that are just as crazy can be discussed and they are actually derived from a solid foundation. 

It really is just a matter of having fun.  

 lol here we go again

I said "maybe one thing is 'the truth' and maybe the other thing is 'the truth.' And it's odd that somebody is cherry picking through my musings to tryta find smthg that's 'incorrect.' To an extent where she's contradicting herself. And it's not worth wasting my time arguing on a forum about it."

Not sure how that proves a 'bruised ego' or an 'inferiority complex.' lol

She did not correct me. She could not correct me bc our understanding of what actually happened over the last 5 billion years is incomplete. I said "AT LEAST 3 EXTINCTION EVENTS" meaning that there may be more. Because our understanding is incomplete, and subject to interpretation. The fossil record is huge. Anybody who claims to be 'more correct' than any other person who's studied it for a year or more is just flaunting an agenda.

Cupcake came at me talking in absolutes about an incomplete science, and contradicted herself in the process. I found that odd, as well. When a person wants so badly to contradict another, s/he ends up contradicting him/herself, s/he is usually tryinta promote some agenda. Not sure what it would be or why she's so attached to it  ~ shrugs ~

And no, she taught me nothing that I didn't already know from attending Archaeology 101, thx.

I was having fun until you ppl started your cherrypicking and your misinformed armchair shrinking. That shit gets so old lol

Xena said: 

Xena said: 

That's the most compelling argument I've heard so far for the existence of a Divine Being.

However, it still does jack shit to explain why I should subscribe to some form of patriarchal monotheism.

 

 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Xena said: 

That's the most compelling argument I've heard so far for the existence of a Divine Being.

The being doesn't have to be divine, it could just be a civilization that has reached technological maturity. 

 

 

 

Xena said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Xena said: 

 

 

 Yes. I'm rather fond of the "Children of Space Dust and Time" hypothesis. 

It holds that around 2/3 of the way through our planet's 14 to 15(?) billion year history, a meteor carrying DNA from some other part of the galaxy smashed into her, and impregnated the primordial ooze with what would evolve over the next 5billion years or so into every type of life we know, and many that we don't.

However, when scientists recreated the chemical reaction that would have eventually become living phytoplankton and such, they determined that the odds that the 'accident' of life was truly an accident were infinitesimal. Add to that the fact that there have been at least 3 major extinction events where life miraculously returned, and my skepticism doesn't know which way to turn.

 

THEN AGAIN, A WHOLE LOT CAN HAPPEN IN THE UNFATHOMABLE NUMBER OF AEONS  THAT ADD UP TO 5 BILLION YEARS.

Hint:  ^^ That's the key phrase .

 Don'tcha hate it when ppl start arguing after you've already stated a point that demonstrates your agreement with them? lol

 

 

 

Xena said: 

Or if you prefer...

 

 

;D

 

^^ There's the full discussion that whatserface cherrypicked with the apparent goal(?)  of tryinta be combative.

Just in case anybody missed it  :D

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

The simulation argument relies on the assumption that we can simulate parts of reality, it has nothing to do with the modification of it. 

The simulation hypothesis and my intelligent design hypothesis are not related beyond the use of a similarly structured trilemma.

Simulation, modification... Pick your favorite one.

Explain this further, I don't quite get what you mean. 

Do you now understand why your hypothesis doesn't follow a logical structure?

It certainly follows a logical structure, it's a disjunctive syllogism with the structure:

Either A or B or C

•  Not A or B, therefore C
•  Not B or C, therefore A
•  Not A or C, therefore B

The question is what propositions are false? 

Xena said: 

 lol here we go again

I said "maybe one thing is 'the truth' and maybe the other thing is 'the truth.' And it's odd that somebody is cherry picking through my musings to tryta find smthg that's 'incorrect.' To an extent where she's contradicting herself. And it's not worth wasting my time arguing on a forum about it."

Not sure how that proves a 'bruised ego' or an 'inferiority complex.' lol

 

She did not correct me. She could not correct me bc our understanding of what actually happened over the last 5 billion years is incomplete. I said "AT LEAST 3 EXTINCTION EVENTS" meaning that there may be more. Because our understanding is incomplete, and subject to interpretation. The fossil record is huge. Anybody who claims to be 'more correct' than any other person who's studied it for a year or more is just flaunting an agenda.

Cupcake came at me talking in absolutes about an incomplete science, and contradicted herself in the process. I found that odd, as well. When a person wants so badly to contradict another, s/he ends up contradicting him/herself, s/he is usually tryinta promote some agenda. Not sure what it would be or why she's so attached to it  ~ shrugs ~

 

And no, she taught me nothing that I didn't already know from attending Archaeology 101, thx.

 

I was having fun until you ppl started your cherrypicking and your misinformed armchair shrinking. That shit gets so old lol

 

 Relax.

AliceInWonderland said:

3. The fraction of all beings with our level of intelligence created by other intelligences is close to one.

If the third proposition is the one that is true and almost all intelligences are created by other intelligences, then we are most probably created by an intelligence.

Hint hint. Spot the error. If "almost all intelligences are created by other intelligences," does it logically follow that we are most probably also created by an intelligence?

Be grateful that you have learned something new today.

Xena said: 

PalePeach said: 

Xena said: 

 Add to that the fact that there have been at least 3 major extinction events where life miraculously returned

 There have been 5 know major extinction events, and several minor ones. We are currently in the Sixth, known to be caused by human activity. Life didn't "return" persay because it never completely left. Some forms of life have survived each extinction: Crocodiles are known as the only large reptile to survive the  Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event and Sharks have survived the last 4 consecutively. Both are good examples of species who's ancestors remained because they survived in a niche that was simply unimpacted by the cause of the great extinction.

The Ordovician–Silurian extinction events saw the end of 70% of species
The Permian–Triassic extinction event, the largest of all time saw the end of 90-96% of all species on earth,
There has never been a point when all life on earth was killed then life spontaneously started again.

Humans, Cats, Bears, all mammals; are descendants of tiny mouse like creatures that were small enough to survive the extinction of the dinosaurs.

With much of life on earth gone, the few who survive multiply quickly with little competition until they run into each other.

Xena said: 

This is the third time I've caught you trying harder than hard to turn my musings about some happening I'm not particularly attached to into smthg to fight about.

You've hilariously misquoted me again.

It's quoted word-for word using the quote function, I never changed the quote, mearly trimmed it down to bring attention to the part I was responding to.

And no, we're not in the middle of an extinction event rn. We might possibly be looking at the beginning of one. But we're still breeding like flies on shit. 100 000 deaths due to COVID 19 is a walk in the park.

You thought Covid19 is what I was refering to?

As for the other species we've been killing off... maybe. That depends on how you define "extinction event."

By it's actual definition...

What's the point you're arguing, anyway?

Biology is my passion and seeing narcs like you talk out of your ass about it hurts my soul.

There's no need to go bottom up with it bc I've considered myself an agnostic for most of my life. An argument about whose imaginary friends are better is one of the dumbest reasons I can think of to have a war, commit genocide, or even waste an afternoon squabbling on a forum.

 Show me where I argued about imaginary friends.

Xena said: 

Her response to me would indicate that she perceives me as wrong or inferior or w/e based on her attempt to twist my statements into a strong belief that aliens created us. Which she seems to be hotly disputing with a slightly slanted, tho mostly correct interpretation of the fossil record.

Her response to you contradicts that. If you're also saying that there's no way aliens created us, and she's blasting you for being so attached to your beliefs, then she shouldn't knock me for stating (what she believes after a fuckton of editing to be) the opposite opinion  :D :D

 Oh my god, you are more delusional that Med. All I did was correct you statement about the number of mass extinctions, and this is how you perceived it?

Xena said: 

To an extent where she's contradicting herself.

 When did I contradict myself?