Einstein
-
Posts
7,897 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Einstein
-
-
On 5/20/2024 at 10:33 AM, FireChans said:
if we lose to the greatest dynasty in the NFL currently, oh well.
This feels ridiculous to me, as they are a dynasty in part because of our screw-ups in the playoffs and part of that is McDermott's decision making.
It becomes circular very fast.-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
His team owner allowed it. So he got to kneel.
that is an entirely different thing than the NFL being OK with it
-
57 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
And the company was OK with it or it would not have happened.
In what universe was the NFL okay with it? They were begging broadcast partners not to show it and have literally blackballed him from ever playing again. -
14 hours ago, HOUSE said:
Learn Spanish
I too was going to post this.
It’s not a joke when people say the primary language in Miami is Spanish. English is a close second.
-
2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:
Yes they did. They needed to make sure the public knew the player did not speak for the league. Not everyone out there who read the story is an NFL fan
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.
-
17 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:
I am guessing its easier to be "minted" as trans in the United States than it is in say Iran. Lots of bureaucracy and red tape over there.
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.-
1
-
-
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.-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, DrW said:
However, can you please explain to me how you see this as a "zero-sum argument"?
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.
9 hours ago, DrW said:Solution 2 just requires time, of which there was plenty.
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.
9 hours ago, DrW said:Solution 1 needs an "intelligent creator". Don't you see how this complicates everything?
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."
-
2
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, DrW said:
Sorry, for me it is just the other way around. There is neither a part of a cell nor a biochemical reaction in an organism that could not have generated by evolution. One factor adherents to intelligent design generally overlook is time. Nature had millions of years of testing what works and (much more frequently) what does not work. And please do not tell me that you believe the World was created just about 4000 BC. There is NO scientific fact supporting this notion.
But let's go back to evolution vs intelligent design. I am a biochemist working on an enzyme called ATP synthase. It converts electrochemical energy stored in a proton gradient (imagine the water behind the Hoover dam that would like to escape the dam) into chemical energy in form of a molecule called ATP (imagine gas for your car). For a long time, it was not known how the enzyme would do that - the intermediate is mechanical energy. The protons flowing down the gradient (i.e. the water down the Hoover dam) powers the rotation of a part of the enzyme (like a turbine) which then allows the synthesis of ATP (the generation of gas).
As you can see, the mechanism of the enzyme is pretty complicated. In fact, Ken Ham's "Answers in Genesis" gives it as example of intelligent design, as there seemed to be no precedent of an enzyme where a part of it rotates to facilitate a chemical reaction on the other protein subunits surrounding the central protein in ring-like fashion. Well, it turns out that there are much simpler enzymes using the same basic mechanism. DNA helicases unwind DNA that occupies the center of the protein ring; some protein transporters use the center of the ring for substrate transport. Thus, evolution could have easily taken these simpler proteins as precursors to ATP synthase.
A much more recent example. There is a breed of sheep on one of the British Orkney Islands that had been confined to an area close to the sea for a number of decades. They "learned" to live on seaweed as main food source. Seaweed is very low on copper, an essential mineral. Thus, their digestive system had to adapt to extract copper more efficiently. How do you think that happened? (Interestingly, it is now dangerous for these sheep to feed on regular grass, as they take up too much copper which is toxic.)
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.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:
I don't believe in God. I am a total athiest. I make no apologies for that. It is the only logical answer IMO. We are here by utter chance.
But, I am also a theologian. As I say I was debating Catholic Priests aged 15. I know more about the Bible than I'd say 75% of Christians. You have to understand something and the various interpretations of it to get to the conclusion I have got to.
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. -
57 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
We know the Pauline epistles are essentially social declarations of the time. Historically, that is pretty hard to argue with.
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. -
1 hour ago, thenorthremembers said:
If you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God you're practicing an altered version of the faith, not the faith itself.
Person A: "I am an Atheist, but I believe in God"
Person B: "How is that possible?"
Person A: "You're imposing!"
huh?-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:
But I will tell you that I 100% disagree with you if you think the very foundation of the Christian faith isn't that every word in the Bible is the living breathing Word of or from God. I would go a step further and say that any arm of Christianity that doesn't believe that isn't being true to tenants of Christianity.
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.-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, SoTier said:
They know they are "miswired" even as very young children.
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 -
18 hours ago, K-9 said:
Would a renovation for $1.4b be anything less?
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.
-
I can’t believe this is not a primetime night game
-
3 hours ago, K-9 said:
I believe it’s a renovation of their existing stadium and it will be a canopy instead of a dome. Much like Sofi Stadium in LA.
Incredibly impressive renovation if thats the case. -
2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:
Oh look! A dome...for $1.4B.
You've gotta be kidding me.
It actually looks like a futuristic stadium too. Not like a Macy's.-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, Gugny said:
I know I’m an outlier, but I don’t think there’s a bad seat in the house as long as you can see the Jumbotron.
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. -
7 hours ago, Bangarang said:
Pretty soon fans are going to need subscriptions to 18 different streaming services in order to watch an entire season.
-
8 minutes ago, uticaclub said:
How did having the higher seed work out last year?
Exceptions to the rule do not change the rule.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, BLeonard said:
Bills won't be playing KC in week 1 or 2
BLT @ KC week 1
CIN @ KC week 2
KC getting two home games to start in a season where they have 9 road games.
For at least a few months i’ll be able to dream of KC starting 0-2 and then having 9 of their next 15 games on the road.
-
6 hours ago, bills742 said:
At least it’s at night. Negates the sideline shade issue.
-
3 hours ago, Cash said:
I'll guess: 1 time. What's the answer?
The Chiefs playoff game a couple months ago was the first time McD has challenged twice in one game since 2019.
One time... in 4 seasons.
He rarely ever challenges. He challenged 6 total times last season (in 19 games). And he has only challenged 33 times ever in his 125 games coached for the Bills.Challenging twice in 1 game? Pfft. Better chance of getting struck by lightning.
So IF he was ever burning timeouts as to avoid wasting a challenge, that is monumentally stupid. Not only does it create the potential of you losing two (2) timeouts if you end up losing the eventual challenge, but it also means that he wasn't aware of his own pattern of rarely ever challenging twice in one game (or even once!)
-
1
-
McDermott Growth/Expectations
in The Stadium Wall
Posted · Edited by Einstein
That's 16 games.
1/3rd of those games don't even exist if we didn't screw up and lose to KC. Meaning, KC only played those extra games because we flubbed against them.
And another ~20% of those games are games that were played against us.
So literally speaking - half of those games you mentioned were either against us, or only played because we screwed up against them.
Though to be clear: I think we beat them in the playoffs this past season with a healthy defense. We stayed with them (and could have tied the game late) despite playing with half of a defense.