Comments by "Technolus" (@technolus5742) on "TED" channel.

  1.  @Revelation18-4  Is is quackery when it abides by ideas that have long been determined to be plainly invalid. To hail bloodlettings as a holly graal of medicine would make you a quack regardless of whether it was used before modern practice. But here you are saying that you'll stick to poisonous herbs of wildly varying potency peddled by quacks that cling to ideas are demonstrated to be false and refuse to evaluate whether their practices actually work and then go on to deceive their clients with the naturalistic fallacy. Oh well, I'll wait while you take the time to consider that identical molecules are identical.
    4
  2.  @Revelation18-4  When you take capsules that actually contain the active ingredient you're by definition not taking a placebo, when you take substances diluted to the point of all the active ingredient having been removed, then you are by definition taking a placebo. If you're using "real herbs" it seems you're on something like naturopathy, which often isn't giving out placebos, but is riddled with quackery and lacks the systematic approach that made every serious endeavor dramatically improve since medieval times.
    4
  3. The height of one's pants tends to be correlated with age. Babies don't even wear them, teens wear them mid-butt, there is a period where people just use them at the waist, and then as people approach 100 years old their pants will slowly climb all the way to their armpits.
    4
  4.  @peachent  Actually it's evidence based, medicine. Evidence, that supposed alternatives are lacking. Evidence that you're lacking when you pretend that the royal couple live to perfectly normal longevity due to an evidenceless sham.
    4
  5. "comments about the height of his pants" lmao the height of one's pants tend to be correlated with age. Babies don't wear them, teens wear them mid-butt, there is a period where people just use them at the waste, and then as people approach 100 years old their pants will climb all the way to their armpits.
    4
  6. Most people who have tried vr think otherwise. I have vr. And the sense of presence is there. You actually feel like you're in a certain place. And there's experiences to be had there, that you couldn't have irl. You will barely even notice the senses that are absent. For the vast majority of the experiences, it doesn't even matter. Not to mention that increasingly people have long distance friends that they meet in games and this brings them into your living room. where you can have an experience best described as talking to them face to face. You still have movies in vr, as if you had your own personal cinema (that you can bring other people into if you wish), and you still have video games, and even books. And if escapism is what you're looking for, this is next level escapism.
    4
  7. Not even one, it's made up.
    4
  8.  @StarveTheVampires  even if that was true, that would mean that in a few years time they would be catering mostly to adults. Pretending people are just victims is disingenuous tho. There's good and bad. People will experience both sides of the coin just like with the internet.
    4
  9.  @8491-j1k  Evidence that actually relates some god would be it. (And, you might as well consider my shoe to be a chair, but it isn't one, is it? You know what I call reality? Reality. I don't hold superstitions about it and I don't anthropomorphise it in my mind. And would it convince you that multiple gods exist if I said: just consider ra to be the sun or venus to be the love between a man and a woman?) It doesn't matter whether you consider logic to be subjective, it matters that its use has demonstrated predictive power.
    3
  10. @Untamed Politics How interesting to see you come here to make ad hominem attacks while not actually showing any errors in my ideas, to misrepresent my positions (I happen not to be in any religion) and to make the argument that somehow geniuses can't be wrong (which is both fallacious and counterfactual [as was the case of newton who was wrong in his unreasonable faith] not to mention predictably as geniuses are often working at/or beyond the edge of knowledge rather than with tried and tested ideas).
    3
  11.  fynes leigh  I quoted the argument just two comments ago. And it was not a bare assertion, that is what the example of the balancing rocks was there for. If you don't understand your fallacy, you might need to learn about the affirming the consequent: A--> B <≠> B--> A "designed things appear designed" does not imply that "things appearing designed are designed". A--> B <≠> B--> A Being hitler requires a little mustache, but having a little mustache does not require being hitler. A--> B <≠> B--> A My grandmother is old, your grandmother is old but she is not my grandmother. A--> B <≠> B--> A
    3
  12.  @michaelbauer8663  Not a coincidence, there are a lot of planets. And the patterns by which the cells are arranged in his non-grateful-to-imaginary-characters body are due to properties such as hereditarity and mutation which do not have anything to do with any such character that anyone can discern. The "perfect symphony" is not perfect (and that seems to be fundamental for our existence) and is built on the failure of countless bodies.
    3
  13.  @drop0112  //Why (...) there cannot exist a rational being capable of creating? In our universe, man is also not needed, but, nevertheless, it exists.// 1st: man effectively exists (man is necessary because you'll have to include us in whatever explanation you end up giving). 2nd: I'm not saying that a "rational being capable of creating" can't exist (in fact many do), I'm saying that my conjecture the universe does not need a creator (making it superfluous) and that cosmical creators aren't known to exist nor even to be possible. //our universe was once a point with infinite density of matter (...) it will expand forever (...), it will never return to the point. How could this opportunity be realized?// Actually the part about infinite density is not known, it's extrapolated from equations that should not be expected to be accurate at those scales. I don't know, it might be impossible that our universe return to its initial state. If the laws of physics don't allow it, then I guess it won't happen. The existence of a multiverse doesn't need to make anything and everything possible. //"As such the existence of life as we know it is in no way dependent on the existence of any creator god. And the supposed existence of a gods is still superfluous to this whole thing." You do not know this.// It's part of my conjecture, in a multiverse where all possible universes come into existence in no way is a god needed for our exact universe to exist. //And again, returning to the topic of proof of evolution, I insist that there are no mistakes in my arguments and requirements.// And I insist that there might (and probably are at least some minor errors in our understanding of the specificities of the systems involved in evolution) and that even meteorologists knowing the relevant formulas can't predict the weather accurately a long time in advance: "It is impossible to be in possession of the entirety of available information" and "Small unknown variations in the data could have a huge impact. (Same goes for a ball rolling on a rough surface...) I insist that as explained there are definitely mistakes in your argument and related requirements. But if you insist that there are no mistakes in your argument and requirements I expect you can use the known formulas of classical mechanics to determine precisely where an paper airplane will land after being thrown off of the roof of my house. Bear in mind that if you can't demonstrate the accuracy of your calculations (be it because you don't now where my house is or the exact moment I'm going to throw the airplane or that small differences in the airplane can make a huge difference or because there are too many variables, ...), I will have demonstrated that classical mechanics doesn't work without gnomes. //Because evolution is not the movement of air currents, as is the case with weather prediction, but a completely understandable and discrete process of transforming a DNA code from one species to another.// Oh really? I guess you can show me exactly how that happens. Cause as far as I'm concerned a rare random mutation bearing organism being wiped out by some minor cataclysm could change the course of evolution towards different paths that would still be beneficial and still lead to speciation and so on. But here you are again wanting me to calculate probabilities of events that did happen... Again I tell you that: I can generate a sequence of random number with very low odds and nevertheless the numbers that I end up with are the4 numbers I end up with, regardless of how improbable those specific numbers are. Here are my numbers (clearly manipulated by gnomes because they are so very unlikely about 10^110): 8483623561296075283911533653 3210311177391768317833474343 1660490381375815957916001865 6761662042493690751308125550 Again I tell you that:'Except those probabilities represent the state of your knowledge, as the event 100% did happen. Ignorance is the basis for your assertion that "god did it".' As for the evidence that evolution did happen, again you have all the various remains showing organisms that were subject to the mechanisms by which evolution unfolds and graudally changing based on those processes, and whose genetic codes match ours in preciselly the ways that would be expected if we had evolved form the same ancestor. Meanwhhile your claim that "goddidit" still has no evidence whatsoever and runs counter to claims athat are actually substantiated by the facts. Oh and we're all equally well adapted (which is why we're all still alive), and we're descentends from common ancestry which means we're here for the same time. Evolution does not select for complication nor for adaptation, it selects for survival, that is the vector (and it lead to both the simpler and the more complex to the broad and to the specialized - indeed there is no cosmical vector towards intelligent life unlike you want to believe). //You can certainly think about chance, but only when this chance is justified// Randomness is a known unknown, that is not even accounting for the unknown unknowns. As said, your dichotomy is fallacious. And randomenss is justifiable. Given enough random shaped rocks there is bound to be a copy of mount rushmore. //your brain is completely unable to identify the signs of mind intervention in the process of evolution// So far it's not just my brain, it's any brain that is not engaging in fallacies upon fallacies.... And if you stil think that probabilities of things that actually happened are relevant: 9095573917792868599961591698876741094641 1989681016634266420311498663336127558987 2229600004489996052059794708686988248945 The odds of these numbers are now at about 10^220, It's gnomes I say. Wait, no I don't actually say that... It's a fallacy I say! //Let's take a closer look at what scientific data is your confidence based on// It certainly is infinitelly higher than that of claims were based on nothing but fallacies and counterfactual myths. //I have a 100% certainty that God exists// But hey I've actually been explaining to you that your confidence is purelly phychological. // you have neither a scientific nor a logical argument against my arguments of faith// I merelly have the one thing required: your fallacies and your lack of logic basis and evidence. In the end you have faith which as justification amounts to 0. In sum a purely psychological, unwarranted confidence.
    3
  14. @drop0112 //What prevents the existence of mathematics, which will allow the existence of an omnipotent smart being able to create?// What prevents the existence of mathematics, which will allow the existence of a full multiverse where all possibilities come true? The thing is that the universe actually is known to be a possibility, while god is neither necessary (cause the multiverse would guarantee the existence of this universe), nor is it known to be possible. As such the existence of life as we know it is in no way dependent on the existence of any creator god. And the supposed existence of a gods is still superfluous to this whole thing. //a multiverse with a Googleplex universes can exist, but a higher world with a smart creator and extreme math cannot.// Have I said that? What I actually said: "and the supposed existence of a gods is still superfluous to this whole thing." //You do not know how this event happened// I do know that it happened. You claim I don't know the mechanism, but I do know some such as evolution and gravitation. But perhaps you haven't gotten the point: your argument is fundamentally fallacious. your argument consists of a series of fallacies: - lack of contrary evidence (appeal to ignorance): "show the illogicality of this postulate" <-- show the illogicality of me being bald right now? I guess I must be bald then... - [can't explain it? therefore] goddidit (equivalent to "gnomesdidit" or "magicdidit"): "suggest the best model of the world" <--- tell me nintendo's proprietary algorithm? you can't? It's magic I tell you. - low probabilities can't happen (when all probabilities are low) (unnamed fallacy, but illogical none the less) "If the probability of an event is 10 to 500 degrees, it will mean that your theory should be thrown into a landfill" <-- Only 1/6th probability of your dice landing on a 3? It should have landed elsewhere, your dice is biased (or gnomes purposefully guided it to a 3). - Ludic fallacy According to wikipedia about the ludic fallacy: "It is impossible to be in possession of the entirety of available information"; "Small unknown variations in the data could have a huge impact;" //And I suggest you calculate this probability based on knowledge, but not on ignorance.// And I suggest meteorologists accurately forecast the weather for next summer. After all you do know the formulas... Oh wait: "It is impossible to be in possession of the entirety of available information" and "Small unknown variations in the data could have a huge impact. (Same goes for a ball rolling on a rough surface...) Oh and there is a new one now: - loads of people believe it - appeal to the people fallacy //Only children believe in gnomes, but half of the globe believe in one Creator.// I hope you're not pointing out that your type of arguments can be used to make such absurd claims that only children qwould believe such a thing. And I also hope that you're not saying that if we indoctrinate a large number of people with a false belief that same belief suddenly is true. Neither objection helps your case, a case that is on it's own right purely a fallacy. //And hardly all of them are more stupid than you.// I guess people throughout history who believed that bloodletting was actually curing disease were stupid, that must of been it... The thing that actually is relevant: none of them that I have heard from actually had the only thing required: a sound justification for their belief. //only creation can be an alternative to the theory of evolution// Pretty sure that is a false dichotomy. Right off the bat I can think of at least one other: randomness. Regardless: unknown unknowns, another reason why even if evolution was wrong, that would still not translate into creationism being right. But... so far evolution is holding up just fine, and there actually is evidence for it. "In order to make 100% reliable conclusions about evolution, it is not at all necessary to know everything about genetics." 100% reliable conclusions - like humans evolved from other species? I wouldn't say that is 100% reliable, but definitely can be said with a very high degree of confidence. On the other hand the sort of conclusions you want actually require you to know everything, not just about genetics, but also about initial conditions on which evolution was acting upon. The largely random seeds and high sensitivity of these sorts of processes makes it so that not knowing the precise conditions leads to multiple potential scenarios. //Your knowledge of reality is so small that you cannot draw conclusions about the existence of the Creator, the multiverse, evolution without the participation of the mind and authenticity of the Bible.// As already stated: I base my claims on the information I do have, rather than fallacies and a fixation for some obligatory truth of a cultural myth. Biblical claims are consistently invalidated by real world data. You can claim that I can't be sure, but I can be a heck of a lot more sure than you since facts actually support my claims and contradict yours. But I'm sure the compelling and understandable (did I mention counterfactual?) narration of harry potter is a testament to the existence of magic beyond the world of muggles. And again: But I get why you're downplaying knowledge, after all: don't know, therefore god. Regardless downplaying our knowledge does not provide any validation for your claims that continue to lack evidence and logic. //The information about the world, which is recorded in the Bible, is fully consistent with modern scientific data.// Trees and earth before sun and that's just the tip of the iceberg. You must be joking. //And so that your soul does not perish// That is the stuff of fantasy. You'd do better to simply think and act in reasonable ways, at least you'll get closer to whatever goals you are pursuing.
    3
  15. Oh you think I actually care about the content of your personal attacks? To me they are the equivalent of you covering your ears and saying "lalalala". That is what I've been noting all along: that you keep pulling stunts to avoid the matter of your unjustifiable claims (which have amounted to nothing more than risible superstitions which are no more justifiable than the idea that santa brought me a little chuchu train...).
    3
  16. And we're back to you going back to personal attacks. And still your claims remain unjustified as you systematically pull stunts to avoid the topic.
    3
  17. Now you come to misrepresent my position ("not having superstitions" does not equal "having superstitions regarding nothingness"). And still your claims remain unjustified as you systematically pull stunts to avoid the topic.
    3
  18. Jack Mehan Again you come personal attacks. And still your claims remain unjustified. Way to go.
    3
  19. Oh, clearly you came here to comment on a topic that is of no interest to you. And of course who ever calls you out for talking bs is just mean (after all, you never engaged, you just dodged and deflected from the start). So... in no way are you just trying to avoid the predicament of your bs being unjustifiable.... But hey, the more words in your comments the less content and the less relevant what you say, no wonder that my comment length approached 0.
    3
  20. Jack Mehan Not only does your silly superstition have nothing to do with free will, but also the guy in the video has already explained why a god could not be the answer to his question.
    3
  21.  BTIsaac  Silly me, of course you're not arguing for being a normal office worker, you're just advising not to work remotely (aka having a normal job, likely in an office being it a type of work that can be done remotely...). Ah silly me. And of course you are still proposing that I buy something I don't need at all, to fix some affliction that I don't have and which you claim will come as a consequence of a routine that is not even mine. (I don't spend my free 10 hours a day bumming around the house. I spend it doing what I feel like doing and going wherever I feel like going.) Something I would have to agree on is that I am about as likely to be/go insane as you are likely to be a clinical psychologist working via youtube comments sent from a rented cubicle.
    3
  22. ​ BTIsaac  Let's shed some light on why a typical job is what makes a robot out of you: -Commute time: Previous: 2 hours. Current : NA. -Flexibility to work OR not to work depending on what I feel like doing: Previous: very limited. Current : extremely flexible. -Work hours per day: Previous: 8 & 1/2 hours (there was a mandatory lunch break in the middle). Current : 4-5 hours (includes breakfast while working, no need for a break unless I feel like doing one). Yes, my workday is now half of what it used to be, and I still earn more than I previously did. -Breaks: Previous: Mandatory . Current : most of my work is done in the 2-3 hours in the morning and 2-3 hours in the evening. Most of my day is a break. -Days off: Previous: 2 days; mandatory; fixed. Current : 1-2 days; on whatever day I feel like doing something else; optional/varies with the number of hours worked on a given week. -Life and playtime: Previous: vacations + weekends + a couple free hours per day. Current: most of my day, nearly every day. -Work conditions: Previous: workers boycotted my efforts, many coworkers were not interested in working at all, actual work was often secondary to silly and blind implementation of methodologies (like 5S and SCRUM). Current : I only work with people I think are serious and whose goals I can get behind so that we are all working towards the same goals. And I follow the methodologies in the way I think they should be applied based on my expertise, which yields better results with much less hassle. -Environment: Previous: Factory, conditioned air that made a noticeable difference in my airways - and I have always been a perfectly healthy person without respiratory afflictions. Current : my cozy setups are comfortable, ergonomic, varied and essentially I can work however I feel most comfortable and wherever I feel like being for as long as I can get some kind of internet connection (wifi or mobile). So what the heck are you going on about? I most certainly spend less time inside a room than the average office worker. (Not to mention that I can breathe air that doesn't require constant treatment and monitoring so that we don't all die around here.) And what about cons? Certainly it can't be all roses. The lack of a senior mentor was an issue for a time, but I've found other ways to expand my knowledge which ended up being comparable to the benefits of having a mentor. That was the only complaint I had so far and it wasn't anything that couldn't be fixed. Some people speak of loneliness and other issues, but I have never really felt like that was a problem for me (I live in a nice place where neighbors are friendly and besides I now have my partner/wife who is also very nice and also works remotely although in a completely different area).
    3
  23. There are captions
    3
  24. Being alone and being lonely are very different things.
    3
  25. ​ @Revelation18-4  Even byproducts of nicotine in the stomach are known to be cancer causing (like N-Nitrosonornicotine). Tobacco plants contain nicotine regardless of how natural they are. And there are plenty of other plants that cause cancer... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216657/#_ddd0000207_ Generics are made by the same formula as the original. If your allergic to something in that formula you will be allergic to it no matter who is manufacturing it. "While researchers will likely continue to look into the performance of generic versus brand-name drugs, the bulk of research out there shows that taking the no-name brand not only saves you money, but also provides you with a medication that is just as effective as the original." - https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/do-generic-drugs-compromise-on-quality
    3
  26.  @Revelation18-4  That is evidently false, and I'm pretty sure that you know it. Tobacco for instance is a plant that contains numerous known carcinogens (and yes, the carcinogenic substances are in the plant, not just the smoke, and you can get cancer from simply chewing it). And molecules are exactly the same unless there is actually an intention to use some different molecule for it's specific benefits. For your information, generic versions are exactly the same as brand ones (safe for the removal of brand identification). If you are allergic to the brand one you're also allergic to the generic. What I meant is that there probably are different substances that treat the same condition, so which you might not be allergic.
    3
  27. Funny, I got a talk about pitfalls of current internet economy already overflowing into the metaverse, about interoperability requiring both technical and legislative frameworks, and about equality and positivity in the metaverse requires careful consideration and rethinking paywalls and data silos. But all you got was green hair.
    3
  28.  @vincentyoung8472  people find the experience remarkable. You can quote that
    3
  29.  @vincentyoung8472  yeah, I guess there must be exceptions
    3
  30.  @MicaelaMantegna  😅 I'm passionate about the topic. I use vrchat a lot. From a graphics standpoint it's way ahead of the competition. Recently they made a change that many thousands of users were against. Many of us looked for alternatives, but they are not as developed (worse fbt tracking, low quantity of users and user produced content, lack of support for android/quest). Many people returned to vrchat despite being dissatisfied, which shows the power of these companies to keep people in their platforms despite dissatisfaction. Open standards, self data ownership and interoperability are crucial to keep these platforms serving the community, rather than exploiting the community. Btw, I find your dressing style choice to be quite on point to represent some of the stylistic and cultural freedom of the metaverse, and how it expands horizons and can translate into increased openness and acceptance of ourselves and others.
    3
  31.  @ESTcor  I thought that was in a room full of children. I would expect more from adults.
    3
  32. It's a 6 minute talk. It means turning your vr gear tracked data into ad/paid content targeting.
    3
  33. She does seem to be a super nerdy metaverse fan. Ad that's why she wants it to be done in better ways
    3
  34.  @heaven-is-real  yeah prophets don't walk around after dying, fat men don't go around the planet in 24 hours distributing gifts. The sheer outlandishness of such stories should give you a clue that they are not factual.
    3
  35.  @startrekmaniac1701  it's just capitalism. You pay me every time you touch anything made or owned by any company in the stock market. You pay the cost of whatever you are buying plus you pay me some more on top of that cost. All because two generations ago my grandparents worked really hard and got lucky enough in life. And their gone. And there's me, so you pay me cause I have a piece of paper that says that now you pay me. And since i don't touch the principal, I'll be passing along a piece of paper to potentially countless generations. Because of my grandfathers. But it's capitalism. So it's fair. And so be glad to pay me for never having done anything for you. Cause it's the right thing. Pay 3x for a phone, that is projected to have a specific lifetime so you will spend more money on new phones as often as you can possibly be milked. All that overcharge and duplication of costs to pay some rando whose grandfather did something, possibly before you were born. I thought you didn't like handouts tho
    3
  36. Metaverse is actually an inspiring idea. Just not a Facebook controlled one. It's an idea that is in the imaginary and the dreams of many who have seen it in movies. And this video is not about Facebook's metaverse.
    3
  37. There's more than just Facebook in the metaverse. Got a group of friends that all get together to watch movies in vr. It's fun, no drama.
    3
  38. We can both create new technologies and solve the problems at the same time. Just like we can find the cure for cancer and have the NFL entertaining people at the same time. We can't just halt things waiting for some perfection that might not ever arrive. Unfortunately.
    3
  39.  @airbornejets7832  actually you're doubly ignorant for thinking you'll find the answer when you die.
    2
  40.  @patricioansaldi8021  If I recall correctly my point was precisely that either a god needs another god to exist or the universe itself does not need a god to exist.
    2
  41.  @CrakenFlux  a very deaf hyperbole for someone who was supposed to actually have watched this video.
    2
  42.  @drop0112  As explained your conjecture didn't need god, by being an superfluous element it only make your idea more unlikely. So you claim to have a relationship with god, but everyone I know of regardless of how much they pray instead having any actual answer from god just read superstitiously into mundane things that to date have no more relation to god than to Uri Geller's spoon bending ability. But good luck with having a conscience that doesn't belong to reality. Perhaps you'd believe less counterfactual ideas if you minded actual science rather than Deepak Chopra's lack of it. Wikipedia sums it up: "A number of new-age religious or philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics, notably "consciousness causes collapse", give the observer a special role, or place constraints on who or what can be an observer. There is no credible peer-reviewed research that backs such claims." The fact is that just about any interference in a quantum system will cause the collapse of superpositions. For all certainty that you have you might as well believe the world to be flat (and for all the existence that any god has my enemy is still the spread of false claims and misinformation that the proponents of such baseless ideas promote).
    2
  43.  @drop0112  Your claims were shown to be illogical time and time again yet you still pretend they are "logical" and call upon them when they were immediately demonstrated to crumble upon inspection.... And now you come to say that "The lack of evidence does not make the hypothesis false." Except it pretty much does as for any group of things that are real infinitely more can be made up which do not belong, and that is why people generalçy don't give credence to made up stuff - I'd go out on a limb and say that neither do you, that you've just going on with a special pleading for a rule that you wouldn't apply to anything else.
    2
  44.  @8491-j1k  It's the difference between you being bald and still being bald and wearing a wig and lying to everyone about it.
    2
  45. [Fynes] If you have clear evidence of what to all intents and purposes is design are you not reasonable to infer a designer? [Waters] I have no such evidence. In your argument you will be assuming that it is designed. [Fynes] Minor premise: X has been designed. .....It's like I'm talking to a door....
    2
  46.  fynes leigh  Not only is was your argument a case of affirming the consequent fallacy (as clearly identified by its logical structure)*, but as I previously said: "Not to mention that [such claims presuppose] that [there was design]". And *here are you now with a premise assuming the conclusion that there was design: "Minor premise: X has been designed. " (you know, precisely the conclusion that you are trying to reach is now a premise in your argument). Again, in order to claim that something is designed you will be assuming that it is designed or determining it in some other way: as I had already explained.Again, your argument from apparent design is logically and evidentially fallacious.
    2
  47.  fynes leigh  I just explained that it was never a bare assertion, that I had already provided reasons for it....... We know how computers are made before any arguments from any apparent design. Those arguments are irrelevant in that and all other cases: Not knowing how something came to be before applying an argument from [apparent] design leaves you with no basis other than pure assumption. And nobody claims that balancing rocks come out of the blue, instead claim that formation were not achieved by stacking rocks on top of each other. you might as well be claiming that holes in the sand must have been made by poking holes just because people can poke holes in the sand. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/files/2013/09/isopod_sand_holes_David_Hubbard.jpeg Talk about obtuse... when you insist on fallacies, completely ignore claims and explanations given in just the previous comment and go into nihilist existential crisis to avoid acknowledging that something is well evidentiated in the relevant context shared by all parties.
    2
  48.  fynes leigh  "whatever it is" - its the line of argument from [appearance of] design . Impressive that you weren't clear on that. "barely assert to be invalid " - fully asserted it just in my previous comment: "The argument was invalid." "you have to give reasons" - I already had, you were just late to the conversation: "[The] claim that this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Balancing_Rock_Madan_Mahal.jpg/1024px-Balancing_Rock_Madan_Mahal.jpg must be made like this: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bc/31/c8/bc31c8df9bf3f4f0a4e1579609278f3e.jpg [is plainly invalid as there are other paths that lead to that end result] Not to mention that [such claims presuppose] that [there was design]."
    2
  49.  fynes leigh  For everyone. The argument was invalid. It was not even a matter of people apprehending different things.
    2
  50.  fynes leigh  Indeed. But I have no such evidence. Are you sure you're not thinking about the same old line of arguments from [apparent] design, which have been factually incorrect on multiple occasions?
    2