Comments by "Ben Wil" (@benwil6048) on "Professor Dave Explains"
channel.
-
38
-
21
-
13
-
10
-
7
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jefferygoldthorpe919 tbh accepting speciation = accepting evolution. So congrats I guess :P sorry I didn’t reply sooner it seems I did not see your reply at all... and how would you define information exactly then? Because I get the feeling your definition is wrong.
I hadn’t heard of polyploidy, but when reading about it it doesn’t seem to exactly be what you think it is. We, the human animal (aka a great ape fyi), are all polyploids because we are eukaryotes:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy
“Polyploidy is a condition in which the cells of an organism have more than two paired (homologous) sets of chromosomes. Most species whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes) are diploid, meaning they have two sets of chromosomes—one set inherited from each parent. However, some organisms are polyploid, and polyploidy is especially common in plants. Most eukaryotes have diploid somatic cells, but produce haploid gametes (eggs and sperm) by meiosis.”
I hope you’re not getting your information from conman Kent because well he’s manifestly wrong. Sorry if I was a bit rude earlier btw. I’m afraid evolution is simply a fact. You seem like someone who wants to know the truth, I hope you emancipate yourself from this mental slavery and free your mind 🙏🏼.
You seem to be saying “new information” has to be completely different, which tbh is special pleading imo. Since creationists love using computers to describe DNA (which is simply FALSE, DNA is nothing like programming): would you say that a 1GB file contain more information than a 10TB file?
I’m going to have to assert that it obviously does, I hope you can agree there. This is still the case if the 1GB file contains works of Shakespeare while the 10TB file consists of a ‘zillion’ times the letter “A”.
You may find this interesting regarding biological information:
“Current applications of informational concepts in biology include:
The description of whole-organism phenotypic traits (including complex behavioral traits) as specified or coded by information contained in the genes,
The treatment of many causal processes within cells, and perhaps of the whole-organism developmental sequence, in terms of the execution of a program stored in the genes,
Treating the transmission of genes (and sometimes other inherited structures) as a flow of information from the parental generation to the offspring generation.
The idea that genes themselves, for the purpose of evolutionary theorizing, should be seen as, in some sense, “made” of information. Information becomes a fundamental ingredient in the biological world.
Characterising, in a fully general way, the dynamics of idealized populations changing as a result of natural selection.”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-biological.
Also a worldwide flood never occurred, this is also a fact. If you’re curious youtuber “Aron Ra” has an extensive video series showing all the evidence for this. For example: these massive flat rocks in the American desert area(sorry not sure atm where they were, but Aron will show it) are coral reefs, from when there was water there. Coral reefs only grow (slowly) in Calm waters, ‘flood’. Flood waters Are Not calm waters. Also lets not forget all the civilizations that didn’t notice that they were suddenly under water, etc etc.
I’m sorry mate but the bible is simply Not a history book and not scientifically accurate by a longshot
1
-
@jefferygoldthorpe919 Tbh this article already starts wrong in the first few sentences “evolutionary researchers claim are ancient “reefs” “; this is wrong. It’s not evolutionaire researchers but just regular geologists. Evolution is biology and doesn’t rly have anything to do with geology. Also prepare for a lot of citations, I’m sorry it’s so long & much but you really have to read this:
“Framework coral reefs may not have existed in the pre-Flood world. Instead, the ocean floor probably had other types of structures,...”
Yeah this is called “I have a position and I try to fit the facts into it.” Aka bad science. Actual scientists try to be neutral as much as possible by only following the evidence instead of seeing what they want to see.
This is clearly exemplified here as well:
“The complaint describes Snelling as "primarily focused on investigating geological phenomena from the perspective of one who believes in the truth of the Old and the New Testaments."” (That would be very unscientific).
“"His description of how to distinguish soft sediment from hard rock structures it not well written, up-to-date, or well referenced," Karl Karlstrom, a geologist at the University of New Mexico who co-authored a 2014 paper on the age of the Grand Canyon, wrote in his review of the proposal for NPS. "My overall conclusion is that Dr. Snelling has no scientific track record and no scientific affiliation since 1982."”
So in short, this man may be called a geologist because of his studies, since then he has done nothing but work for unscientific bs organizations such as “From 1998 to 2007, Snelling was a geology expert at the Creation Science Foundation and has since worked for Kentucky-based Answers in Genesis, an organization that investigates geology "from a Biblical perspective."” It’s actually a bit of a stretch to still call him a geologist I’m afraid.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/update-creationist-geologist-wins-permit-collect-rocks-grand-canyon-after-lawsuit
It gets worse though; “However, in a recently published paper, this same author makes some very different claims about the age of geological features of the Australian landscape.
These remarkably contradictory, and unexplained, claims by one of the very few Australian creation 'scientists' who has genuine scientific qualifications, calls into question whether anything said by this group on the subject can be taken seriously.”
And as I suspected:
“Although his geological credentials are usually highlighted in creationist publications it would be more accurate to describe Snelling 1 as a Protestant evangelist, not as a geologist. Some CSF literature openly refers to him as a 'missionary'.”
“one needs to analyse his published articles to see how geological data and discoveries are misused and reinterpreted from a Biblical perspective.
CSF members subscribe to a lengthy, very specific Statement of Faith. Apart from purely religious clauses, not relevant here, several clauses carry serious implications for those in scientific and educational circles, especially for those in the Earth (and other historical) sciences. As the extracts below reveal, to a dedicated creationist, scientific evidence is always subservient to Biblical authority.”
I skipped the points but you can check the source for them, it is concluded that:
“These statements reveal 'creation science' to be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, based on religious dogma (and a simple minded dogma at that). Despite its name, 'creation science' has little to do with real science and, in fact, represents the antithesis of science.”
In conclusion:
“The problem is obvious - the two Drs A A Snelling BSc (Hons), PhD (with the same address as the Creation Science Foundation) publish articles in separate journals and never cite each other's papers. Their views on earth history are diametrically opposed and quite incompatible.
One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?
Of course there may well be a simple explanation, eg that the two Drs Snelling are one and the same. Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to break his Statement of Faith. Why would they do this? Well, every creation 'scientist' needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.
I think that both Dr Snelling and the CSF owe us all an explanation. WILL THE REAL DR ANDREW SNELLING PLEASE STAND UP?”
https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm
So TLDR; sorry but Snelling is either lying about his creationism for religious browny points, or he is ‘undercover’ doing real science so he can seem credible when he does his creationist bs. Which one do you think it is?
Anyway I’m going to have to assert that you can’t present any relevant scientists, because creationism is unscientific. If it Was actually true then it would have been science instead of bs
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1