[rualca]

> There’s also evidence it cannot possibly (...) have occured naturally.

I feel this claim is simply not believable nor possible to take at face value, given that in order for a proof of impossibility to even be considered you need supporting evidence and a falsifiable model, which you have none.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

Given this, do you have any reference that supports your assertion? I'd like to hear your rationale to claim that something like this is outright impossible.

[SilasX]

You cut off the critical part of the parent's comment: "(or well, with such a low chance it may as well be)".

If you're objecting to the idea that well-accepted scientific theories can't put a "very low probability" on certain things being observed ... what? That's exactly what a scientific theory -- or indeed, any well-posed belief -- should do!

[rualca]

> You cut off the critical part of the parent's comment: "(or well, with such a low chance it may as well be)".

No, I left out the weasel words from the original claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Either GP's claim is factual and indeed he is aware of proof of impossibility, or he is not and he's just knowingly spreading disinformation.

> If you're objecting to the idea that well-accepted scientific theories (...)

I object to the idea of random people on the internet knowingly spreading disinformation with baseless claims that fly on the face of critical thinking, and then resorting to vague appeals to authority, inversions of the burden of truth, and outright bullying to force-fed their disinformation.

If there is any proof whatsoever supporting the claim that such thing is impossible then just support your claim and present the evidence or source. Don't expect everyone to just take your word for it, specially after you tried desperately to invert the burden of proof.

[SilasX]

>No, I left out the weasel words from the original claim.

It's not a "weasel word", "Scientific theories placing a low enough probability to match lay usage of 'impossible', and clarifying that you mean as much" isn't a weasel word; it's being precise, and scientific theories do classify things that way.

>Either GP's claim is factual and indeed he is aware of proof of impossibility, or he is not and he's just knowingly spreading disinformation.

There's a third possibility: OP is aware that some scientists think the mainstream scientific theory places a low probability on the claim in question, but does not rise to the level of an impossibility theorem.

>I object to the idea of random people on the internet knowingly spreading disinformation with baseless claims that fly on the face of critical thinking, and then resorting to vague appeals to authority, inversions of the burden of truth, and outright bullying to force-fed their disinformation.

I don't see how the parent did any of that, just how another commenter is overreacting to ideas they don't like.

Are you seriously telling me that if I look through your posting history, I won't find a single case of you suggesting something without posting links to rigorous proof?

If you're going to scream bloody murder at the idea that any unsupported idea would ever be uttered here, you could maybe glance at the sibling comments in the thread, like mine:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28653730

[rualca]

> It's not a "weasel word", "Scientific theories placing a low enough probability (...)

If that was the case then go ahead and just show the theory.

Just provide a single evidence that supports said claim. Any at all.

Don't just handwave after claiming something is impossible, otherwise you're just intentionally spreading lies and misinformation.