A_person_with_ opinions 🌎🌍🌏🟣

12.5K posts

A_person_with_ opinions 🌎🌍🌏🟣

A_person_with_ opinions 🌎🌍🌏🟣

@ZBroocker

He/Him Likes philosophy People over borders Fascists will be mocked and blocked on sight Zionism ≠ Judaism

Katılım Şubat 2023
1.5K Takip Edilen92 Takipçiler
A_person_with_ opinions 🌎🌍🌏🟣
A_person_with_ opinions 🌎🌍🌏🟣@ZBroocker·
We need to draw a distinction between machine learning and generative ai, or we're never going to have a serious conversation about rotoscoping or whatever
DiscussingFilm@DiscussingFilm

George Lucas claims that AI is making it easier to make movies, despite not having directed a movie in over 2 decades. “There’s nothing you can do about it…That’s progress; it’s the future.” (Source: a-rabbitsfoot.com/editorial/conf…)

English
0
0
0
4
Ashveil Studio
Ashveil Studio@AshveilStudio·
That's not how science works. If hypothesis A actually explained all the relevant phenomena, there wouldn't still be active debates over many aspects of Earth's history. Scientists don't "prove" one hypothesis and throw out every other possibility forever. They adopt the model that best explains the available evidence at the time, then continue testing and revising it as new evidence emerges. Scientific models are always open to challenge. Saying your model is currently the most accepted isn't the same as proving every competing model impossible.
English
2
0
0
7
Libertaire
Libertaire@SyrianLib·
@nikicaga Middle age is the worst of both worlds. Most people look better old than middle aged
English
2
0
3
1.1K
Ashveil Studio
Ashveil Studio@AshveilStudio·
You're criticizing parts of the model, not disproving the event. That's a valid scientific discussion, but it's different from saying therefore the Flood didn't happen. Every geological model has assumptions and unresolved problems. Show why CPT fails to explain the evidence better than simply listing questions it still needs to answer.
English
1
0
0
8
Ashveil Studio
Ashveil Studio@AshveilStudio·
I did show you. It seems you chose not to read it. I've already pointed you to the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model, which proposes a geophysical mechanism for the Flood. You don't have to accept it, but pretending it doesn't exist isn't an argument. If you're unwilling to examine the model, why are you still arguing as if none has been presented?
English
0
0
0
9
Ashveil Studio
Ashveil Studio@AshveilStudio·
@ZBroocker @HunterHarpy @dynamesx16 You're assuming your model perfectly represents the event. It doesn't. Science explains what we currently understand, not every condition that may have existed in the past. A calculation based on assumptions isn't proof those assumptions are correct.
English
2
0
0
12
Conor D. Oil
Conor D. Oil@RealConorOil·
Mamdani and Mitch McConnell are reportedly dating.
Conor D. Oil tweet mediaConor D. Oil tweet media
English
18
46
1.4K
9.5K
Ashveil Studio
Ashveil Studio@AshveilStudio·
@ZBroocker @HunterHarpy @dynamesx16 I have. You just reject it. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is a proposed mechanism involving rapid plate movement, mountain uplift, deep ocean basin formation, and catastrophic erosion. You don't have to accept it, but claiming no mechanism exists is simply false.
English
2
0
1
22
Ashveil Studio
Ashveil Studio@AshveilStudio·
Alternative explanations have been proposed. You simply reject them because they don't fit your model. Catastrophic tectonics, rapid uplift, changing ocean basins, and the release of water from the mantle are all hypotheses that have been put forward. You don't have to accept them, but dismissing them isn't the same as disproving them. You're asking for absolute proof of a one time historical event that neither of us can recreate. That's not how historical science works. We build models from the evidence and debate which one best explains it. You're treating your preferred model as settled fact when it's still an interpretation of the evidence. icr.org/article/catast…
Ashveil Studio tweet media
English
2
0
0
22
Ashveil Studio
Ashveil Studio@AshveilStudio·
That's exactly my point, you don't know. You're asking me to explain the mechanics of a unique, catastrophic event that neither of us has ever observed or can recreate. If the event was unprecedented, why are you assuming the conditions matched anything we've measured today? You're presenting estimates based on modern conditions as if they definitively rule out every other possibility. That's not how science works. In fact, you're being incredibly narrow minded. You've already decided the answer before considering any alternative explanations. That's not how honest inquiry works.
English
2
0
0
18

Keşfet

@beetlemoses @AshveilStudio @HunterHarpy @dynamesx16 @TobiasZaremba @SyrianLib @nikicaga @elonmusk