THAT'S the part that really gets me. It seems to be a consistent phenomenon in the Americans, Australia, and New Zealand.
Never, Everyone in the UK is equally native no matter if you came here 3 or 3000 years ago
That's always been my thoughts on the subject. I think that if a God did specifically and intentionally create life as it exists, it would make the most sense that they just set everything up in a way they knew would cause it to eventually happen. When you want to create a tomato, you don't assemble it yourself atom by atom, you create conditions in which a tomato will assemble itself.
Yeah, that’s it. It also seems to fit with this impression I get that the universe isn’t set up atom by atom like that. You could probably talk about free will in this context as well, but if there’s going to be degrees of freedom for growth and exploration and development, the ability of life to evolve is just a lovely way of doing it.
I am never, ever going to drive one of those new piece of shit "smart cars", not after Micheal Hastings. If it's not a possible government assassination, then there is script kiddies to worry about who can easily jailbreak shitty pajeet coded software and hack into your car, possibly killing you. Then there is tracking, as you said and the car or it's features straight up not working if you don't pay a subscription fee, or whatever ridiculous new non-feature they will implement. At this point, I would rather just buy a motorcycle, at least I know what I'm driving then.
every immigrant immediately becomes a native in their new country upon stepping off the boat but if a white guy whose family was there for generations dare say that he too is a native then suddenly all the spirits of every preexisting race on the continent wanna talk
aside from the obvious incentive to want every car to be computerized for easy logging, there's another, frankly simpler reason that hits much closer at the moment- the average consumer is an idiot
This is very interesting. On the off-chance do you have any good links that discuss this? I can't say I'd trust Wikipedia on this.
Yes, that's logically viable. But it misses my argument against Creationism which is that Creationism is not "God set things up aeons ago and let it run" but that higher order beings like humans, tigers and bears (oh, my!) resulted from God's direct creation not via some billion year forecast. So you either invalidate the fossil record, set caps on Evolution so that humans etc. require direct intervention to create (which is incompatible with @Bog-standard Poster 's idea of a God-like entity resulted from evolution because if Evolution is capped that can't happen - it's a Chicken God and Cosmic Egg problem). Basically reconciling Creationism and Evolution means a scenario of Evolution relegated to small inconsequential changes and Creationism being "make plants, wait several million and add arthropods, few million years more, make dinosaurs, several hundred million years later make some lemur like creature that will eventually turn into Man." Except that the lemur like creature must never turn into Man because that negates the need for direct intervention to create him.
Whenever I'm dealing with Complex Systems I like to deal with processes, not end results. Because the latter are usually more work-intensive than setting things up to grow in the way I want. Often to the point it's unfeasible for me. Of course that would suggest a Creator who cares about efficiency. But I would sooner term it elegance if we were to go down this route.
Oh yes, I’d agree with that. Young earth creationism is incompatible with evolution for sure. You are right
To be clear, it's not the age of the Earth per se, or even the length of the species. It's still incompatible even if stretched over hundreds of millions of years of life on Earth, because a creator directly creating higher order life is in a zero sum game with same life being produced via Evolution. The more you allow Evolution to create advanced life forms the less you require a being to directly create them. And vice versa. As one of these tends to 0 the other tends to 1.
That's not the view I take, as that sounds too labour intensive. Free will, as @Otterly mentioned is a way of looking at the same process from a different angle, while avoiding the use of analogy (win/win).
I do feel you're speaking past me a little bit. I've said multiple times now what I am disagreeing with - your terminology. And I keep getting back responses about beliefs and ideas.
This is pretty close to what I usually believe. And that's a very nice description.
No I get what you mean. By young earth creationism I don’t mean a specific age I mean a creation in toto ‘as it is now.’
Explain for us smaller of brain, if you would?
The issue with finding the missing link, is that when you do, you now have 2 new missing links to look for.
Basically, Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal system you can have statements in the language describing that system that can neither be proven or disproven.
The language distribution in Australia strongly suggests a second immigration wave that conquered most of the continent.
The danger however, is that once the number of people who own such vehicles is small enough that they're unlikely to generate much upset, the State will outlaw the vehicles on whatever pretext and simply seize them (then charge you for the cost of seizing them). I agree with you though, and that doesn't mean one shouldn't try.
@Meriasek has already replied and though I would question whether one can extrapolate from 'no description can be complete and self-consistent' to 'a thing described cannot be complete and self-consistent', he has firstly already self-critiqued and secondly, I honestly kind of like his idea of the Universe being self-contradictory. Every fucking else thing is, so As Above, So Below?
(I feel like reality is conceptually below description but that's probably an intuitive approach developed from modelling systems half my life).
quantum physics likes to get corrupted by new age hippy gobbedygook because they're both more or less jewish relativism. jewish relativism could be summed up succintly with the idea that "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, it doesn't make a sound" which sounds smart but it's objectively just incorrect. the same thing applies to quantum mechanics, i've heard countless times that quantum concepts like the pauli exclusion principle, uncertainty principle, and wave function collapse are manifestations of how consciousness influences the universe.
