The Peaceful Peanut Farmhouse of Carter Bryant

[Splits]

If I’m the Spurs there are three ways we can make the playoffs. If all 3 happen then we win the damn le.
a) Vassell becomes a true 3&D player.

B) Sochan learns how to play offense and he become our 3&D guy.

[scott]

This isn't even the kicker to existence. Wait until you read about how perfect and necessary the element carbon is and how the theorized likelihood of carbon "not" being designed is 1x10-27.

.00000000000000000000000000027 % chance it could accidently appear in a perfect environment and control settings.

Just wait until you find out how big the universe is.

[rjv]

69 more days can't go by fast enough.

[spurraider21]

That's not at all how life started. The Miller Urey experiment created a unique cir stance that had the perfect environment and control settings to accidently cause a perfect chemical reaction to create the necessary abiotic amino acids that could plausibly be accidently recreated millions of time that could plausibly hopefully create another extremely unlikely cir stance that perfectly crafted the unique environment and control settings to plausibly take a step in the right direction, out of the billions possible, to start building a biotic foundation.

There's about 4 or 5 Guesstimation encounters that must be fulfilled perfectly to theorize a "possible" pathway from for life to be conceived. This is a leap of faith far greater than any religious scroll on the planet.

There is a law in Biology called abiogenesis that has held true through all of known life. Life comes from life. Life has never been born outside of life. The Miller Urey experiment, even though it provided step 1 in multiple faith leaps to breaking this law, did not recreate the necessary steps for life even in the perfectly controlled and manipulated experiment.

This isn't even the kicker to existence. Wait until you read about how perfect and necessary the element carbon is and how the theorized likelihood of carbon "not" being designed is 1x10-27.

.00000000000000000000000000027 % chance it could accidently appear in a perfect environment and control settings.

When you study astrophysics and biochemistry, you find how much more probable life was a "creation theory" or "fairy tale" than it was any scientific explanation know to man.

Bias leads people one way or another. Science itself, points to the fairy tales being right.

grab a deck of 52 cards. give it a nice shuffle.

you only had a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000012397999% chance of getting your combination. does this make your shuffle a fairy tale?

[Leetonidas]

"The time for honoring yourself will soon be at its end.. Your Highness"

You loved my father I know. But so did I. That makes us brothers doesn't it? Smile for me now brother *stab*

[KobesAchilles]

I’m not exactly holding my breath either

[BatManu20]

ah yes the much nicer story of creating your son for the sole purpose of being brutally murdered despite being innocent

[Mnky]

Just wait until you find out how big the universe is.

80% of it is empty. That is to our limited knowledge and understanding. Im sure one day we will have a working understand for dark matter and energy but it is beyond our comprehension as of now.

This is another point of evidence against the scientific side of things. A true singularity expansion would have a universe that was filled, not empty. That is unless you applied the repeating burst model that is gaining steam with the bounce theory.

All of this to say, without Carbon, none of it would matter either way. Carbon is called a god element for a reason.

Carbon creation is more fascinating than the universe creation tbh.

[Mnky]

grab a deck of 52 cards. give it a nice shuffle.

you only had a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000012397999% chance of getting your combination. does this make your shuffle a fairy tale?

Science is going with the numbers. The higher chance of likelihood and repeated results is the scientific process. Probability helps us quantify uncertainty.

The point was that it is faith to believe in the tooth fairy. It is faith to believe in the big bang. They are both uncertainties.

Some people believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus, some people believe in the Virgin birth of the universe.

They're both beliefs.

[ChumpDumper]

Science is going with the numbers.

So we shouldn't go with your attempt at numbers?

[spurraider21]

Science is going with the numbers. The higher chance of likelihood and repeated results is the scientific process. Probability helps us quantify uncertainty.

The point was that it is faith to believe in the tooth fairy. It is faith to believe in the big bang. They are both uncertainties.

Some people believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus, some people believe in the Virgin birth of the universe.

They're both beliefs.

there is evidence for the big bang. people didnt just make a random guess and say "i think there was a big bang and thats how the universe came to be." it was hypothesized based on avaiable evidence and all the evidence/data we've gathered since then has only solidified its merits. this evidence has come in the form of observation, measurements, and the bolstered by the fact that predictions made consistent with the theory have shown to be true.

what is the evidence for the tooth fairy?

what is the evidence for the virgin birth of jesus?

[cutewizard]

There is a problem with the way our scientists have been studying Reality also

Sequential thought dominates the current paradigm when in fact most of Reality May be nonlinear

[ismael-robert]

He doesn't do anything. Its Your choice, your own doing

[spurraider21]

He doesn't do anything. Its Your choice, your own doing

im sorry, who judges you upon death and dictates how things go for you afterwards?

[Mnky]

So we shouldn't go with your attempt at numbers?

I'm arguing from the science perspective? I'm not sure what you think is going on. Bias usually leads to odd conclusions.

[Mnky]

there is evidence for the big bang. people didnt just make a random guess and say "i think there was a big bang and thats how the universe came to be." it was hypothesized based on avaiable evidence and all the evidence/data we've gathered since then has only solidified its merits. this evidence has come in the form of observation, measurements, and the bolstered by the fact that predictions made consistent with the theory have shown to be true.

what is the evidence for the tooth fairy?

what is the evidence for the virgin birth of jesus?

I'm using the tooth fairy as symbolism for religion.

As far as Jesus, eye witness accounts. More eye witness
accounts than almost any other figure in history. Jesus the Man lived and walked the earth. There are more records of evidence of Jesus than there are for the big bang.
The evidence that is provided concerning Jesus, says it was a virgin birth. Whether you like that evidence or agree with it is not relevant towards it existing or being applied by scholars. It was accounted for and based on available evidence and most of the evidence/data scholars have gathered since then has solidified merits.


All of the big bang evidence data absolutely has not solidified its merits. There are plenty of alternative theories, two of which mentioned, that fit the evidence better than the big bang theory which has been losing merit, not gaining it, the past decade. What you mention is the same argument applied by historians in favor of Jesus. It's also not accurate to what's actually happen in science concerning the big bang theory.

The big bang theory's bigger criticisms are the discrepancy in makeup of the existence we can truly observe not matching the theory, meaning what we actually observe and see..doesn't fit the model. The observed ratios of elements are flat out wrong in our universe for the big bang theory
model to be correct.

This plus what I've mentioned before concerning dark matter and energy being a big argument against it. These are all pretty standard and known discrepancies with the theory in the science community. They've been known for quite a while as well. It isn't new. People like to say the big bang theory is the most "widely accepted " theory. This can mean there are not many other theories known as much as anything. It does not in anyway mean it is the right theory. The evidence we have says it's not, as of right now. Science proves things wrong, not right. We are often very wrong in science due to our limited understanding. The more we get wrong, the more we learn about the truth.

[ismael-robert]

im sorry, who judges you upon death and dictates how things go for you afterwards?

Yeah guess I could've made it simpler...Sure He's the judge but He basically doesn't have to do anything as its your decisions that seal your own fates...basically you asked to be separated from Him on earth so He just grants your wish for eternity...doesn't force Himself where he's not wanted

[ChumpDumper]

I'm arguing from the science perspective? I'm not sure what you think is going on. Bias usually leads to odd conclusions.

It sure does. I'm not sure what you think is going on.

[stnick2261]

This is about as fun as the political thread derailments. Take it to DMs. This has nothing to do with Carter Bryant.

[spurraider21]

I'm using the tooth fairy as symbolism for religion. As far as Jesus, eye witness accounts. More eye witness accounts than almost any other figure in history. Jesus the Man lived and walked the earth. There are more records of evidence of Jesus than there are for the big bang. The evidence that is provided concerning Jesus, says it was a virgin birth. Whether you like that evidence or agree with it is not relevant towards it existing or being applied by scholars. It was accounted for and based on available evidence and most of the evidence/data scholars have gathered since then has solidified merits.

i asked about the virgin birth of jesus, not whether some guy walked the earth claiming to be the son of god. there is a general consensus by historians that the historicity of jesus is not in question. it is not true that "the evidence that is provided concerning jesus, says it was a virgin birth." the virgin birth is described only in the gospels of matthew and luke. despite the names of those gospels, their authors are anonymous, and these were both composed 40+ years after jesus' death. there are several other historical accounts of jesus, which were more contemporaneous than the gospels. and those dont do ent a virgin birth.

All of the big bang evidence data absolutely has not solidified its merits. There are plenty of alternative theories, two of which mentioned, that fit the evidence better than the big bang theory which has been losing merit, not gaining it, the past decade. What you mention is the same argument applied by historians in favor of Jesus. It's also not accurate to what's actually happen in science concerning the big bang theory.The big bang theory's bigger criticisms are the discrepancy in makeup of the existence we can truly observe not matching the theory, meaning what we actually observe and see..doesn't fit the model. The observed ratios of elements are flat out wrong in our universe for the big bang theory model to be correct. This plus what I've mentioned before concerning dark matter and energy being a big argument against it. These are all pretty standard and known discrepancies with the theory in the science community. They've been known for quite a while as well. It isn't new. People like to say the big bang theory is the most "widely accepted " theory. This can mean there are not many other theories known as much as anything. It does not in anyway mean it is the right theory. The evidence we have says it's not, as of right now. Science proves things wrong, not right. We are often very wrong in science due to our limited understanding. The more we get wrong, the more we learn about the truth.

the big bang model itself is not controversial whatsoever in the scientific community and has not been "losing merit." the universe is expanding, and its rate of expansion is increasing. its a math problem which was figured out a while ago, by a catholic priest, no less. the discovery of cosmic background radiation, while itself not irrefutable proof of the big bang model, is very strong evidence in its favor and was only predicted to exist as a result of the big bang model.

and while there is an unsolved problem re: the abundance of lithium (there is less than was expected), the the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium are also necessary outcomes of the big bang model. now its true that the existing specific model cannot account for observable lithium levels, but the general concept of an expansion from a hot dense state is not in question anymore by virtually anybody in the scientific community.the lithium problem you are likely referring to is an unknown which indicates scientists dont have a good enough grasp yet of roughly the first post-bang minute.

like you said, the more we get wrong, the more we learn about the truth. they've gotten lithium levels wrong, so they need to learn more. but you dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. newtonian physics could not accurately explain the orbit of mercury, and we didnt really figure that one out until general relativity. but general relativity did not require us to discard newtonian physics, though it did more accurate describe gravitational effects in extreme conditions. similarly, while the lithium question is a legitimate one, there is no reason to believe that it will require us to move on from the general big bang model

[scott]

This is about as fun as the political thread derailments. Take it to DMs. This has nothing to do with Carter Bryant.

I'm waiting for the AI generated "Carter Bryant destroys Neil deGrasse Tyson!" YouTube videos to pop up on some Karoline Levitt fanpage, tbh.

[scott]

spurraider21, scientific theory keeps evolving, so therefor Jesus must have been born to a virgin mother which proves he is simultaneously himself, his dad, and his ghost.

[BSfromTX]

Bible: translated who knows how many times through several different languages. Some scrolls were used and others tossed out (Book of Enoch). New bible can only be published if it is roughly 7-10% variance of translation. I would not focus on the details of that book.

Science: Unfortunately some theories are NOT scrutinized as they should be. Evolution is proven, but not as the sole way we came to be. The big bang theory takes the biggest leap of faith. To look at the human body and say it was simply an accident is far reaching.

Zacharia Sitchen has some good books that bring science, other worlds/religion together. Forbidden History ( edited by J Douglas Kenyon) is another eye opener. Our history is definitely hidden from us. I think all possibilities have parts to offer.

Christ loved and served others unconditionally. Not a bad message to take away. Christ also made it clear that we are not to judge... unfortunately that happens all the time from people of all beliefs.

If Carter Bryant wants to pursue the word of God, good for him. I can think of a lot of worse things a 19 yo with new money could be doing.

[Mnky]

i asked about the virgin birth of jesus, not whether some guy walked the earth claiming to be the son of god. there is a general consensus by historians that the historicity of jesus is not in question. it is not true that "the evidence that is provided concerning jesus, says it was a virgin birth." the virgin birth is described only in the gospels of matthew and luke. despite the names of those gospels, their authors are anonymous, and these were both composed 40+ years after jesus' death. there are several other historical accounts of jesus, which were more contemporaneous than the gospels. and those dont do ent a virgin birth.



the big bang model itself is not controversial whatsoever in the scientific community and has not been "losing merit." the universe is expanding, and its rate of expansion is increasing. its a math problem which was figured out a while ago, by a catholic priest, no less. the discovery of cosmic background radiation, while itself not irrefutable proof of the big bang model, is very strong evidence in its favor and was only predicted to exist as a result of the big bang model.

and while there is an unsolved problem re: the abundance of lithium (there is less than was expected), the the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium are also necessary outcomes of the big bang model. now its true that the existing specific model cannot account for observable lithium levels, but the general concept of an expansion from a hot dense state is not in question anymore by virtually anybody in the scientific community.the lithium problem you are likely referring to is an unknown which indicates scientists dont have a good enough grasp yet of roughly the first post-bang minute.

like you said, the more we get wrong, the more we learn about the truth. they've gotten lithium levels wrong, so they need to learn more. but you dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. newtonian physics could not accurately explain the orbit of mercury, and we didnt really figure that one out until general relativity. but general relativity did not require us to discard newtonian physics, though it did more accurate describe gravitational effects in extreme conditions. similarly, while the lithium question is a legitimate one, there is no reason to believe that it will require us to move on from the general big bang model

The big bang absolutely is controversial. That is why there are alternatives to patch the holes it has just like all theories that are developing. Every major theory still in progression is controversial. That's how science works. There isnt such a thing as strong evidence or weak evidence when in reference to a singular event. There is evidence for and against. There can be a strong amount of evidence but the evidence itself isn't strong or weak. All it takes is one point of evidence to disprove a theory. There is evidence against the big bang theory. That is why it is a theory and not a law. That point of contention isn't controversial. It's widely accepted. The controversial part is how people still believe theory and law are the same thing and argue like it is an accepted conclusion because that's all they know.

The Jesus thing is such an odd side by side because you're literally using the same type of argument for the big bang theory to keep faith in it that you're arguing against using for Jesus having a virgin birth.

The evidence that is provided historically says it was a virgin birth. That evidence is corrobarated with historical findings and do ents to have merit. Your personal choice and feelings on religious " beliefs" and "fairy tales" are not relevant at all in how history and science works. Evidence is for and against. The evidence is for a virgin birth. Historically it's as strong of a case as any notable historical figure, If not more.

You're more than welcome to just say.."nah.. I don't believe the evidence." That's fine. That's okay. It still exists. People can choose to not believe in the evidence for gravity, that's fine. It still exists.

It's odd to see people use evidence for an argument and say "this evidence proves a virgin birth of a universe but don't pay attention to the evidence against it. It doesn't have merit. "

And turn around and say, "this evidence doesn't prove a virgin birth of Jesus but pay attention to the evidence that doesnt exist that is wasn't. It has merit. "

Evidence is either a reliable thing or not. If you get to personally choose which ones you believe, stop acting like your argument is holier than thou. It's just another opinion based on what you choose to have faith in.

[Guru of Nothing]

o Cleveland!