Ignore this, it is pointless

[PopeRomule]

This is simply a thread for me to argue the meaning of words with Steadele. It didn't seem to fit anywhere else. I know this is a bad fit, you don't need to point it out to me.

Nobody will ever really gain any useful information from this, as Steadele simply runs in circles repeating the same gibberish no matter how you point out that his usage or understanding are flawed or incomplete and I won't reply to any post other than his, as reply to him is the only reason this post is here.

His ego keeps him from ever saying "oops, I was mistaken," or even "that makes sense also" so it seems pointless to continue any such discussion under the original thread.

It won't be worth your time to continue beyond this post unless you just enjoy mildly immature arguments.

I snipped most of your rant and your silly comments about things like anti gravity and your comments about probability......

You missed the whole point in those comments, it seems. Your lack of understanding of fuzzy logic and how it led to the development of language in no way makes my point "silly."

I repeat: Your lack of reading comprehension does not invalidate my point.

This is simply wrong. It is certainly "possible". Nothing you listed in your post jusitfies using such strong and definitive language as "not possible". Is it possible? Certainly.

No, it is not "possible." You are saying "everything is possible, therefor nothing is impossible." That is a broken idea, the kind that is generated by a broken brain clinging to ideas when they have no proof. Only people who need to believe that "everything is possible" think that it is how the idea works.

This is not the way that the word "possible" is used in English. If it were, the idea "impossible" would not exist. Something having a statistical likelihood higher than 0 does not make it "possible" because everything has a statistical likelihood higher than 0. Everything. Over 99.99% of the things that have a statistical likelihood higher than zero are, in fact, impossible.

Your desire to say "everything is possible" in no way changes this point. It would be impossible. You completely missed that. You continue to misunderstand that "possible" and "impossible" are terms that are in the same realm and are simply opposite ends of a statistical set that our brains keep track of.

You can, if you wish, work out the mathematical probability of a woman 4500 years ago having 20 children. Go ahead. Read up on it, find all the factors that weigh into how many children someone can have and how rapidly they do so. You will find that, in the history of mankind, there have not been enough people to put the chance (probability*population) at 1/100,000th of what any sane person would even call "unlikely."

[Raptor]

I didn't even know this forum existed.

[JB]

I didn't even know this forum existed.

And now you learn.

[BronzeArcher]

PR, what are you claiming? What is S claiming?

You have some arguments about "the" meaning of possible/impossible but I can think of some ways that claiming what I think S might be claiming is... possible. ;) (In terms of logical possibility, for example.)