Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

popoi

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    1,576
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    27

popoi last won the day on August 20

popoi had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

156 Excellent

1 Follower

About popoi

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    37
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
    Atheist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Kentucky

Recent Profile Visitors

302 profile views
  1. This is certainly not the first time I've taken a run at a particular topic on this forum while being legally unable to operate a vehicle. I guess we can add "staying cool" to my list of talents.
  2. The problem, as I'm sure has been pointed out, is that whatever push-backs you can muster still don't constitute a falsification of evolution. Things may happen earlier than we thought based on the previously available evidence, but none of those push-backs pose a problem for the fundamental structure of the history of evolution. What you need is a thing that is so out of place that it can't possibly be explained by evolution. Which so far in what I'm sure is a totally insignificant coincidence you don't seem able to muster. The problem is that your model doesn't seem to necessarily predict anything. The notion that the pre-flood world could have been different in a way that defeats any possible notion from evolution about how things would have been back then means that it can't actually make any predictions of its own. It can only make plausible justifications to defeat predictions from other theories. It's a problem if your flood theory can't make any predictions that evolution can't, or that would be mutually exclusive with the predictions of evolution. It is highly suspicious if your geographically based theory doesn't predict anything different than evolution does being almost entirely based on time. If your theory states that it is impossible to predict what the pre-flood world looked like then it seems like the answers are in fact not there. The notion that ecological zones in the pre-flood world were laid out in a matter that makes a suspicious amount of sense to a non-flood theory is also highly suspicious. I think what he needs is a coherent explanation of why an ecological zone theory can match exactly with an entirely incompatible theory based on time can explain exactly the same evidence. It isn't enough to say "Well some version of a flood can explain that too", the flood theory needs to uniquely explain some aspect of the evidence to prevail. If it's correct that you can't actually predict anything in the evidence, that seems like it's going to be problematic. Apologies for any typos, as I am substantially drunk at time of posting.
  3. popoi

    NASA fakery? Or truth?

    Nah, I'm going to stick around and keep showing you evidence that you're wrong. You're welcome to ignore it if you want (as I'm sure you do). It's not good if the challenger is wrong and will not accept any evidence against their position or for the one that's correct. I found detailed analyses of both here: https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm The short answer for both seems to be that they weren't very well controlled, and haven't been replicated. So on the one hand we have two dubious experiments from more than a century ago, and on the other we have live video. What are we to believe??
  4. popoi

    NASA fakery? Or truth?

    Why would you take a picture of a mountain but not turn your camera so the mountain is the right way up? Aw, c'mon! I knew you were eventually going to fall back on something like this, but it's no fun if you aren't even going to attempt to defend the mess of contradictions that your conspiracy theory would require if it were true. All you'd have to do is show me how an ISS-scale set could be constructed somewhere in the US where microgravity could be simulated (or faked) for the duration of a 50 minute video. Or some other means by which a fake that convincing could be created. How hard could that be? They at least had the excuse that nobody had been there yet. Now that several hundred people have, and you likely have a piece of technology in your pocket that depends on stuff we've put in space, it's a bit less excusable.
  5. popoi

    NASA fakery? Or truth?

    Ok, so just take your camera, and turn it to align with the pole, and take a picture of yourself. "Up" is usually defined as the opposite of the direction gravity is pulling you. That is indeed the opposite direction for someone standing on the North Pole as it is for the South Pole, but if you were trying to take pictures of someone at the South Pole, why would you orient your camera according to the North Pole version of "up"? If you're trying to take pictures of Earth, generally the useful way to do it is to be directly facing whatever part of Earth you're interested in, as the multiple satellite images I showed you do. Are you expecting to find a satellite like the Himawara-8 I posted that can pick out someone in New Zealand who looks like they're standing at a funny angle relative to the image? If you wanted to look at New Zealand, wouldn't you just put your satellite as directly over it as you could? Where are they supposed to be other than space that can sustain microgravity even long enough to film that interview segment, much less the 50 minute one I posted? This is why people find it so frustrating to try to prove this stuff. Denialists always have some snippet of a thing taken out of context or some supposedly incongruous fact to throw out, but the reality implied by their interpretation of the facts doesn't make any sense on closer analysis.
  6. popoi

    NASA fakery? Or truth?

    It's geostationary so there's no spinning, but here's a Japanese weather satellite view: https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/ Various similar views from an NOAA satellite: https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk.php?sat=G16 And for fun, live ISS video: For additoonal fun here's a 50 minute long unbroken video tour of the ISS: What do you imagine you'd see there? Obviously if it's an Earthbound camera they're going to orient it according to their local perspective. And there isn't really a possible satellite view that would meaningfully show you a person and then another person on the other side of the world "upside down".
  7. popoi

    NASA fakery? Or truth?

    The way you phrased it made it sound like you were expecting wind that for some reason didn't do anything, but fair enough. The other question is what this analogy is supposed to have to do with rocketry, which isn't at all analogous to a fan pushing air.
  8. popoi

    NASA fakery? Or truth?

    It's not really. It's a request to clarify your terms that would hopefully have revealed the problem in your thinking. I should probably know to be more direct by now. Wind is air moving. If the fan and feather are in a vacuum, there is no air for the fan to move and in turn move the feather. So the question "Where is that REACTION when the wind hits the feather in a vacuum?" has a built in flaw in its assumptions, specifically that a fan in a vacuum would generate wind.
  9. popoi

    NASA fakery? Or truth?

    What is wind?
  10. That is what the word "almost" is doing there, yes. As I said, the idea is simple (perhaps too simple). The question is whether it works, which requires evidence to answer.
  11. Astute readers may have noticed I included the word "almost" in there. I recognize that there are weird cases where a seat belt has killed someone who wouldn't have died otherwise. Probably a few more with air bags, but still likely extremely rare. And since there isn't really any way to identify those weird cases ahead of time and disable those safety features when appropriate, we don't really have any other option but to go with the option with the best odds of survival. Let's see some of those statistics then. How many criminals carrying guns with nefarious purposes do you imagine the average cop encounters on a daily basis? To answer it in a more general sense, why do you pay a parking ticket? Is the attendant there threatening to shoot you if you don't? Under the English system, presumably a hostage situation at a bank robbery would be when they summon the cops who have guns. But those are special cops for special situations. Those aren't the guys who get called when some hooligans knock over a dustbin, because that situation isn't likely to require deadly force, and the cop having the possibility to escalate to deadly force only seems likely to get someone killed who didn't need to be. And we've covered bank robberies before. The actual thing that seems to prevent bank robberies from turning violent is that they have enough tracking or spoiling methods in place that they can be confident enough that the money can be tracked or ruined that there's no reason not to just give it up without a fight. Having the cops show up an average of 10 minutes later looking for someone to shoot doesn't seem likely to be that helpful to me. It seemed like a pretty straightforward question. In your personal or secondhand experience of cases where you called the cops and they did their job, how many of them required the use or threatened use of a gun? I didn't ask what you could envision, I asked about the specific cases you mentioned. Let's get the open questions we already have answered before we move on to other topics.
  12. There are a few major differences that make this a bad analogy: 1. A seat belt is relatively cheap to equip and maintain. 2. There are almost no scenarios where wearing a seat belt produces a worse outcome than not wearing one. 3. It's passive, so it can't escalate the force used beyond what is applied to it. 4. The effectiveness of seat belts is extremely clear when we look at accident statistics. Basically there are almost no downsides that we need to consider when deciding whether seat belts should be used, and a very clear upside. Instead, let's imagine another potential safety system that doesn't meet those qualities. Suppose Tesla or somebody introduces a new safety system that will fill your car with a dense foam when it detects that an accident is happening or is about to happen to arrest your momentum. The system works well at extremely high speeds, and Tesla advertises it by showing a car driving off a cliff, and pulling a mostly intact dummy out of the wreckage. But it's not without its drawbacks. The system is expensive to install and the foam reserves need to be regularly replaced to be effective. All told Tesla expects that the addition of the foam dispenser will make up 50% of the total cost of ownership. The system is not calibrated perfectly and is known to be temperamental. In some cases sudden braking has caused the system to deploy, and in some of those cases a pedestrian was struck and killed as a result. In some cases the system has just gone off with no apparent danger. Tesla has explained that the system utilizes face and body cameras to determine when to activate in addition to the usual deceleration and crash sensors, and has provided a list of behaviors that drivers can use to reduce the likelihood that the system will mistakenly detect them as about to crash and activate. However, there are several instances where the steps were followed and the system still activated incorrectly. And for reasons that Tesla have had trouble explaining, Black drivers experience a higher rate of accidental activation. While the system is designed to arrest the driver's momentum without injury, it can dispense in a pattern that blocks the driver's airway, leading them to suffocate if not rescued in time. Combined with the accidental activations, this means that the foam system will inevitably kill someone through no fault of their own. Tesla claims that the number of accidental deaths is acceptable given the number of people saved by correct activations. Critics claim that statistics may be inflated by including situations where existing seat belt systems would have saved lives without the additional risk of the foam, and point to the success of several European car manufacturers at reducing accidents by putting funds toward advocating for infrastructure upgrades to make roads safer, and subsidized maintenance programs to reduce mechanical failures. So all that said, does it sound like a good idea to mandate that the foam system be installed in every car? If you are someone who doesn't believe that the foam is worth the cost and risk, would you be convinced by me posing a hypothetical scenario where you have driven off a cliff and you have the option of a foam system car or one with just a seat belt and maybe an air bag? Would you be convinced if I just kept saying "I bet you'd wet your pants like a tiny baby and wish you had a foam system if you were driving off a cliff"? By "do their job" do you mean they actually resolved the situation, or did they just take a report? Did resolving the situation require that they shoot someone or threaten to shoot them every time? If not, how often did their gun come in to play? I live where this and this happened.
  13. So far it seems like I'm the only one willing to think about anything outside of the one kind of scenario people want to focus exclusively on. Unless you left out those details, it doesn't sound like the question of armed vs. unarmed cops was particularly relevant to either of those instances. Which seems to fit pretty well with what I've been saying about how useful I expect police would be to me in that kind of scenario. I'm sorry those things happened to you, but I still think the best way to prevent them from happening to others includes spending more time thinking about what factors lead to those crimes and trying to address them beforehand and perhaps time preparing to do violence when the crimes end up happening.
  14. You're the one who keeps talking about fighting back against a tyrannical government. It seems like a good thing to do if you're worried about that is make sure the government doesn't get the tools it would need to be tyrannical in the first place. Much like crime, it seems like there are steps that can be taken to address the root cause rather than just allowing (or in this case encouraging) it to happen and counting on being able to handle the problem with violence.
  15. I hope that doesn't happen too, but I don't have a very high expectation that it will. A third floor apartment in an ok building in a reasonably quiet neighborhood doesn't seem like a particularly likely target, and as I said before, nothing I have is worth anybody getting killed over. The vast majority of situations that I might benefit from calling the cops are not situations that require violent intervention. As it stands now I have to weigh the fact that the cops might make those interactions violent against whatever ill I would otherwise be calling them for. Is it worth calling in a noise complaint that might get someone killed if things go bad? Probably not.
×

Important Information

Our Terms