Jump to content


Community Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

8,130 profile views

Einstein's Achievements

All Pro

All Pro (7/8)



  1. The idea that the ‘public’ would ever think that a place-kickers words spoken at an off-season, non-NFL related, non-NFL endorsed, non-NFL created event would in any way represent the NFL is a tad ludicrous.
  2. Certainly. However, there are many non-Iran (or similar) nations in this world. Canada, UK, Norway, Switzerland, Japan, Finland, Denmark, Australia, France, Spain, etc all rank higher than the USA on the LDI (liberal democracy index). These nations have a combined population greater than the United States yet only account for 17%-ish of the World's new trans population, while the USA accounts for over 80%, with a smaller combined population. That is incredible.
  3. Zero. It is too small for my attention. My attention goes NFL > NHL and then drops significantly to MLB > NBA and then drops significantly more to > Minor league baseball > Lacrosse.
  4. Well that's obvious. The characterization of this debate as a zero-sum argument arises from the fundamental lack of empirical evidence capable of definitively proving or disproving the existence of a creator. Within the realms of biology, chemistry, physics, and other scientific disciplines, no data irrefutably supports or negates the hypothesis of a creator. As a result, the discourse often devolves into a series of assertions and counter-assertions, where participants may resort to ad hominem attacks rather than substantive refutations. In essence, both sides present compelling arguments based on their interpretive frameworks, yet neither can achieve conclusive validation or invalidation of their claims. This dynamic results in a stalemate, with the "scales" of the argument remaining balanced due to the inherent limitations in proving or disproving such a profound existential question through scientific means alone. Thus, the discussion exemplifies a zero-sum scenario, where the exchange of ideas does not lead to a decisive resolution but rather highlights the epistemological boundaries of the debate. Please note that I never wrote about creationism - the earth in 6 days, etc. I was speaking not of evolution vs tradiotonal creationism, but evolution set in motion by an intelligent creator vs evolution set in motion by 'it'. With it being the unknown that no-one can explain. This is no different than attempting to explain the origin of the big-bang. That is the most complicated question of all and a question that no-one in the history of mankind has ever been able to answer as it breaks the first of law of thermodynamics. Many will semantics their way out of this thought, waxing poetic about the pure definition of the law, but the fundamental problem remains the same - Something does not come from nothing. This question being unanswerable is the foundation of the zero-energy theory. Essentially, apply a precise manipulation of quantum fluctuations within a vacuum, and voilà, a new universe emerges - seemingly without the need for additional energy. Except... where did the vacuum come from and the force to create it? Which leads us back to... In this context, considering evolution as a process set in motion by an intelligent creator offers a coherent explanatory framework. It posits that a creator established the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, providing the foundational conditions for life to evolve. This perspective does not contradict the vast body of scientific evidence supporting evolution but rather complements it by addressing the question of ultimate causation. Prominent figures in science have acknowledged the limits of scientific explanation regarding the origin of life and the universe. Albert Einstein once remarked, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
  5. You bring up ATP synthase and its c-ring as a paradigm for the evolutionary argument versus intelligent design. However, the contention that this molecular machinery unequivocally substantiates evolution remains a zero-sum argument: 1. Proponents of intelligent design posit that such an intricately precise mechanism necessitates an intelligent creator, invoking the concept of irreducible complexity to argue that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler predecessors. 2. Conversely, those who advocate for evolution through natural selection assert that the gradualistic model of trial and error, coupled with immense temporal scales, suffices to account for the emergence of such complex biochemical systems. But the debate is ultimately philosophical rather than empirical. Both perspectives are anchored in fundamentally different epistemological frameworks. The evolutionary paradigm relies on an iterative process of mutation, selection, and genetic drift over geological timescales. Yet, it does not inherently disprove the notion of an intelligent designer. In fact, in ways it can give more evidence for one. When I was studying for the MCAT I was absolutely amazed at the vast amount of information that the scientific community spouts as fact but is actually simply theory.
  6. My point was that a Christian disbelieving the Bible as God's Word is as contradictory as an atheist believing in God. It's antithetical. It makes no sense. This is not a religious argument, it is a logical argument. Without the Bible, how does one know who Christ is? Without knowing who Christ is, how does one believe in him? The Bible is the foundational text that reveals the teachings, life, and divinity of Christ. Rejecting the Bible undermines the very basis of Christian faith and doctrine. Of course one claim to be a Christian while also rejecting the Bible - however it would be as inane as someone claiming to be an atheist while also believing in God. It simply would make no logical sense.
  7. If you are under the impression that anyone believes that God physically reached down his hand to write the Bible on paper, you are mistaken. What the faiths believe is that God inspired man to write what he wanted written. Therefore, Paul writing social declarations is irrelevant - as it would be God telling him what to write.
  8. Person A: "I am an Atheist, but I believe in God" Person B: "How is that possible?" Person A: "You're imposing!" huh?
  9. Agreed. The very foundation of Christianity crumbles if you start from a reference point where the Bible is not the Word of God. With that as a foundation, who decides what is the Word of God and what is not? Who is the authority on what chapters or verses are Deity written and what are man written? Who is to say that all the parts including Christ are not the man-made portions? Which then would negate the entire "Christ" part of "Christianity" leaving only "anity". The idea that we can conclude that the Bible is not Gods word but then believe in Christ is nonsensical. It is akin to saying that one can believes in the integrity of a building while simultaneously asserting that its foundation is made of sand There is no sect of Christianity that can believe the Bible is not the Word of God, because without doing so, there is no Christianity. I'm sure there are plenty of false preachers who teach this nonsense however.
  10. What is truly fascinating is that the vast majority (80%) of newly minted trans people are from the United States. It's almost as if the media/culture proliferates the desire. Of course, we are just now starting to see the pendulum swing the other way, with many of these children realizing later in life that they were never trans. Dr. Michael Irwig, a board certified endocrinologist and Harvard faculty member predicted this, stating: “There is reason to believe that the numbers of detransitioners may increase. It is quite possible that low reported rates of detransition and regret in previous populations will no longer apply to current populations,” Even outspoken trans advocates, such as trans-psychologist Erica Anderson (who herself is trans), has begun to postulate the reason, stating: “A fair number of kids are getting into it because it’s trendy... I think in our haste to be supportive, we’re missing that element. I have these private thoughts: ‘This has gone too far. It’s going to get worse. I don’t want any part of it," Here is a good article on that: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/opinion/transgender-children-gender-dysphoria.html
  11. Good point, but this is quite the renovation. It's not just adding a canopy to the stadium - they are physically altering the stadium itself as well. They're literally Literally ripping all 4 corners of the stadium out. Widening the concourses. Brand new bathrooms (while adding 12 more), escalators, elevators. Removing entire sections. All seating changed. All new concessions. Probably as close to a rebuild as you could get while it still being a renovation.
  12. You've gotta be kidding me. It actually looks like a futuristic stadium too. Not like a Macy's.
  13. The lower bowl is awful IMO. Fairly flat, the curve of the field disorients people in row 10 and less, and everyone stands the entire game. Personally, I find the lower bowl a miserable experience.
  • Create New...