Youtube comments of Ben Wil (@benwil6048).

  1. 233
  2. 173
  3. 112
  4. 91
  5. 68
  6. 52
  7. coconut bliss Clearly you don't understand things without concrete examples. The pen IS mightier than the sword, but of course if you're too feeble minded to notice it won't do you any good, since a strong mind is required to master the pen. Here's a good one: Case a, 'the sword': With a sword I can walk up to a person and stab him/her. I can then proceed to try and stab others until I'm overpowered. Maximum effort, maximum risk Case b, 'the pen': Obama takes his pen and puts a signature on a piece of paper. A few days later a drone flies over a village in the Middle-east and bombs the shit out of the place killing hundreds. Obama did not risk his safety, did not give Any effort besides scribling his name on a piece of paper. Obama killed hundreds of ppl, I might have killed 10 with my oh so powerful sword. Consider yourself enlightened. "and the last one you just took out of context to justify your viewpoint. " ^you see this? This is a quote. When you perform this 'quote' you're repeating what someone said as a method of reference. Please start using this, it makes conversations easier as I have no idea what this 'last one' is. I do not take anything out of context. If you feel like I did it is only because I misinterpreted it. Again you make negative assumptions in pretending as if you know me, while you have no idea. I adhere to logic, if you're logic fails utterly, you're argument fails. You can further use reason to explain your logic should I simply fail to understand it the first time. This is my view on this. " i must look bad so you can look good" There is some confusion over here, if I wanted to look good I would refrain from saying stuff like 'shit' and I would be as polite as possible. However I don't give a shit about how I look, I do however care about truth and what is right though, this is Not a popularity contest. "a book is not for learning, you cannot learn anything from a book. relligious books included." He who says dumb things, looks dumb. I'm not saying you're dumb here, but what you're saying is Very dumb. Lets have an exercise, its actually something I learned today when I was drum rolls READING. So if books don't alow you to learn things, please build me a windmill. I'm going to make a wild assumption that you can't make one. But, rejoice! For you can learn how to make a windmill easily! You go to a book store or the library and you get a book on Building windmills. You then read said book and LEARN how to make windmills. We can take this further, where did you learn English? Did you... perhaps learn it from a book or some other written medium? Mind saying "I learned it from my teacher" does not count, as your teacher is using... a book. " no1 cares what books youve read when you apply for a job" Ah see, here you do it again. Saying stupid shit that is. No you're confusing 'knowledge' with 'experience'. First of all, they DO care what books you read. I know this is common sense, buty when you go to college or uni you learn shit from books. After you've done some tests and passed, thus demonstrating that you absorbed enough knowledge that was in said books, you will get another piece of paper called a diploma. I guess you've never graduated anywhere so you don't know? (just making assumptions like you make 'em) So when you do finally graduate somewhere and start looking for a job the first thing you'll see is "Looking for C++ programmer; uni diploma required", "Looking for lawyer; lawyer degree required" etc etc. Now that you know this we can move on. "even programming you must program to know how to do i" I actually (also) know how to program. I can assure you as you should well know, if I want to start coding in Ruby I can't just suddenly say "ok lets go Ruby!" and start typing random shit on my keyboard. Thats Not how it works. I'm sure you know this but you've somehow ignored this fact. If I want to code Ruby I will first get a book, or other, preferably, written medium and I will read about it and in reading I will Learn how to write programs in Ruby. As in "the knowledge of Ruby is passed on to me' without knowledge you can not start acquiring experience (what you confuse for knowledge). Regarding the knife, a knife does NOT hold knowledge! It holds information. There is a difference. It holds information in forms of tissue residue, handling(prob the wrong word but I refer to how you treat/handle it, eg. scratches, marks, ...), .... This is not knowledge. For clarity's sake here's a dictionary: -------------------- knowledge noun 1. facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. "a thirst for knowledge" synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, grip, command, mastery, apprehension; 2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. ------------------------- A knife does not acquire knowledge its an inanimate object. It can hold information though. You claim your English is average, yet you struggle with the most basic of definitions (like what knowledge is). Here's just the latest words: to cough - to get caught Mighty - mightier one atheist - several atheists "thats" vs "that is" (yes, I have found these tricky in the past as well) To break (in 2) - To take a break (take 5) - To brake (slowing down, for example in a car) I'm looking over your typos as I'm a realistic person, but this one is a true gem lol "knoknife iswledge". Amusing typo that one. I'm aware that you probably think I'm trying to make you feel/look stupid by showing you these mistakes you've made. But consider that you will either keep looking stupid (doesn't mean you are!) or ppl correct you and you learn, thus proving your intelligence. Why do you think my English is so advanced? Mind I say advanced because this is my third language, and I know more than three. Though in skill I suppose its my 2nd best :) Ps. I'm really not a negative person, I just have a very low tollerance of what I see as ignorance and stupidity. And yes, I'm working on my tollerance because I do really would like to help ppl in a serious debate. I have trouble keeping calm when ppl spout biased, unproven non-sense though. I'm always open to correction If a solid argument is brought forward Edit: Was just -re-reading my post to make sure I wrote everything correctly, good practice if you want to grow your linguistic skills as a person.
    42
  8. 38
  9. 37
  10. 28
  11. 26
  12. 24
  13. 21
  14. 16
  15. 16
  16. 16
  17. 16
  18. 16
  19. 15
  20. 14
  21. 13
  22. 13
  23. 12
  24. 12
  25. 12
  26. 11
  27. 11
  28. 10
  29.  @smallasaurus4200  Ok, so I'm not sure what you mean with "faith that science will be the right answer", this doesn't make any sense. I think you've been lied to here because THIS is exactly what religious thinking is. IT is diametrically opposed to science in the way that in science this simply can not be. The entire premise of falsification is the opposite of this. In science we set out to prove ourselves wrong, so we do NOT have faith that it will be right, if anything we have faith it Will be wrong lol. Not to be offensive but do you lnow what a scientific theory is? Very diff way of using the word theory. I suggest if you're unsure you look this up, because the creationists don't know what a scientific theory is and I get the feeling they have been filling your head with lies. Regarding "random coincidences" and "anomalous happenings", we humans are pattern seeking creatures. Our brains are hardwired for this. It is understandable that you try to construe a link where there is none. I'm afraid these are what u said they are, random. Also you tend to remember the hits and forget the misses. Like if u were to pray "plz god help me find this item I lost" and u find it u go "aha thx god" but then forget the 50 times where u just couldn't find it 'oh god decided not to listen this time'. I'm sorry to say but the reason you think there must be a higher power is NOT because you're "crazy" it is because you have been spoon fed these stories since a young age, this is indoctrination. And imo a horrible child abuse. ---------------- "science held in the same regard as religion", again I must vehemently disagree. religion is something to give "meaning", while the only thing science does is chase the truth, there is no meaning in science, only data and facts. Science holds no tenets. "things beyond science", just a random fyi but science comes from the word "knowledge", "to know". I'll let that simmer for a while. ------------------- "earthly things and spiritual things", the stickman analogy is nice but let me tell you where god fails to meet it. The stickmen can look into the 'sky' and see the surface of this finger. But tell me, can You detect this god? Can I look up into the sky and see this god finger scoot by? We both know here that the answer is no, no we don't. There is nobody alive that has seen any gods. All you have is texts written by ignorant ppl, claiming all kinds of things that demonstrably never happen. When is the last time u saw the dead rise and wander Jerusalem? Or someone splitting a sea? Or entire cities vanishing cause the big bad, I mean dad, is angry? Even if we can only see an "infinitely small portion" of god, there IS something there to detect. And yet god is undetectable in any meaningful way. Feeling certain emotions is not detecting a god, anybody can have these emotions at any time. Especially when the priests n what not are doing Everything in their power to make u feel 'the presence of gawd'? Plz try look at this objectively. If the spiritual is real, it would be detectable. If god intervened somewhere we should be able to see this in some way. ---------------- "flat-earth" false again, even ppl way back in Ancient Greece knew the earth was a sphere, by the power of math. It is specifically religion that failed yet again. "It's just the logic of people who had more pressing issues than "Why am I here?"" What???? Come on man, the ENTIRE thing of religion is That exact question! Why am I here? Why am I suffering? It's because god made us and has a plan. This is soothing to some ppl. "Genesis', the world was created? How so? This is an assertion with 0 evidence to back it up. There was a Christian philosopher who came up with a very strong concept, it's called Occam's razor. It states that we should use the simplest explanation and not unnecessarily complicate things. I advise u to look into this as well. In short, we do not need gods to explain how the universe came to be in it's current stage. When Napoleon asked Laplace where god was in his solar system he said " Je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse", god is not required ANYWHERE for the universe to work the way it does. And if you find yourself thinking "aha but he Created the universe, because everything has a cause" then please realize this is special pleading. In this case God needs a cause too, to say god exists always is just silly because well where is he? Instead, the universe has always been. Where is the universe? Everywhere. Where is god? Hello god? Will the real slim godly plz stand up? Nobody? You? No? Sorry looks like he's not home ;). Already you can see that we do have a universe, but god seems to be going for champion in hide n seek. ---------------- "there are even theories that it wasn't an actual 24 hour period" Yeah this is called apologetics. Again OPPOSITE to science, religion says "I want x to be true' and then jumps through one million hoops to get there "but This part specifically wasn't literal, the other parts are but this one is a metaphor" do you not see how weak this argument is? It's desperately trying to make the bible work, but it doesn't. It goes to show My point. So the days of creation are a metaphor, but Jesus was totally real, no metaphor? eventually god will run out of gaps to hide in, will the bible be wholly metaphor at that point? what is the point of it? We're going to cherry pick what we like anyway, the bible endorses slavery but you don't (I assume), why is that? are u more moral than god? And plz don't start with "it wasn't as bad/indentured servitude " it was slavery 200%, no doubt about it. Just cut out the middleman and accept you are NOT a sick, sinful creature but a human being that as always, makes up his own mind about morals. ---------------- You seem to write off the ppl back then as having "more important thigns to do" but I must disagree each time. Ppl are scared little critters, we see things we don't understand and we try to explain because knowledge is power. This is how these rituals come to be, it's an attempt to escape powerlessness over the vast, mysterious force of nature. Also in genesis god is literally walking around in the garden, he is embodied. And the humans could hide from him, not all knowing. but an ubergod is more appealing than this one so that is how it came to evolve. ------------ "the tale of the golem", the golem's name was Adam. you know who he's supposed to be, look in your bible and see. Golems are made of clay, and then he magics and poof it's a real boy. -------------- Hold up here, so your indoctrination was successful and you became a Christian. My indoctrination was not successful, I am not a Christian. The difference is probably that for me it was not my parents trying to indoctrinate me but my grandparents and school. I would like to think I would have resisted the indoctrination in Iran as well. so no I would not be Muslim. But if I were this only goes to show my point lol, it shows the Power of indoctrination. You believing in gods has NOTHING to do with the truth value of the bible. All it means is that as a young impressionable kid, that is supposed to learn from it's parents how to survive, you've been fed contingent stories and because of this you accept them now. Not because they are true, because I think we can agree Islam is not true? So why would a Muslim be just as sure as you? Indoctrination is child abuse, my mom had nightmares of hell when she was 5. religion brings so much suffering into this world. "Our nature influences our beliefs", I'm sorry but what? What nature? What? It is our environment that influences our beliefs lol, your parents and the ppl around you. It seems that you're saying it is part of Christian duty to preach to save ppl? But tell me, do ppl that never heard 'the good word' go to hell? I mean, they don't know they're breaking "The law" so how could they be punished for it? So what do you do? You tell them and poof, oops suddenly YOU ARE going to hell. Woops sorry best believe now or BURN. Oh I can feel the love already, so hot. Actually no, it hurts and burns. Plz keep your sadist gods away. You seem like a really good person and I think you do have a head on your shoulders. Sorry to see you've been abused like that, I just want to close with the following truth: Creationists ALWAYS lie about science, plz dont listen to them and find real sources. I trust you could escape from this web of lies. It will only make you a more moral person. I hope you can escape it
    10
  30. 10
  31. 9
  32. 9
  33. 9
  34. 9
  35. 9
  36. 9
  37. 8
  38. 8
  39. 8
  40. 7
  41. 7
  42. 7
  43. 7
  44. 7
  45. 7
  46. 7
  47. 7
  48. 6
  49. 6
  50. 6
  51. 6
  52. 6
  53. 5
  54. 5
  55. 5
  56. 5
  57. 5
  58. 5
  59. 5
  60. 5
  61. 5
  62. 5
  63. 5
  64. 5
  65. 5
  66. 5
  67. 4
  68. 4
  69. 4
  70. 4
  71. 4
  72. 4
  73. 4
  74. 4
  75. 4
  76. 4
  77. 4
  78. 4
  79. 4
  80. 4
  81. 4
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 3
  85. 3
  86. 3
  87. 3
  88. 3
  89. 3
  90. 3
  91. 3
  92. 3
  93. 3
  94. 3
  95. 3
  96. 3
  97. 3
  98. 3
  99. 3
  100. 3
  101. 3
  102. 3
  103. 3
  104. 3
  105. 3
  106. 3
  107. 3
  108. 3
  109. 3
  110. 3
  111. 3
  112. 3
  113. 3
  114. 3
  115. 3
  116. 3
  117. 3
  118. 3
  119. 3
  120. 3
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139.  @Scriptures_K  I see we have another self-appointed health specialist. Actually the surgical ones are the best. Anyway you might have heard of this before, but since the masks stop the respiratory droplets that contain the virus (that's how they keep ppl safe) , you're supposed to throw away the surgical ones and wash the cloth ones after use. " and lets you rebreathe your own toxins expelled" lol what? Also what toxins? I'm actually shocked by your ignorance. Can you link me the study you're using as source material? "Conspiracy theorists = negative connotation for open-mindedness and anti-msm narrative, questioning things for yourself." Let's think for ourselves a bit here; 'open-mindedness', open-minded to bs? Yeah... That's accurate. I think you'll find CT's are not very open minded at all, otherwise you would have caught on by now to the fact that science is pretty damn solid in it's ventures. 'anti-msm narrative'? I'm guessing msm stands for mainstream media? However this has nothing to do with the msm, it's basic science lol. But then an uneducated gullible, I mean 'open-minded' person would probably miss that. And questioning things for yourself? Don't make me laugh. Tell me when you get sick do you: a. Question things for yourself as an obvious medical illiterate, or b. go see a medical professional who is actually educated on the topic? But sure you keep telling yourself you know best mr./ms. Dunning-Kruger. "Sheep = mindless obedience despite warning signs." Hm, 'warning signs' yeah... seems to me like you just want to feel smart and call other ppl stupid while mired in ignorance. Enjoy your mindless superiority complex
    2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 2
  152. 2
  153. 2
  154. 2
  155. 2
  156. 2
  157. 2
  158. 2
  159. 2
  160. 2
  161. 2
  162. 2
  163. 2
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 2
  168. 2
  169. 2
  170. 2
  171. 2
  172. 2
  173. 2
  174. 2
  175. 2
  176. 2
  177. 2
  178. 2
  179. 2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. 2
  183. 2
  184. 2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. 2
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192. 2
  193. 2
  194. 2
  195. 2
  196. 2
  197. 2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204. 2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208. 2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. 2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. 2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502.  @smallasaurus4200  Lol nah man, you've missed the ball quite hard there. "Proud atheist" lol that's just funny, I couldn't care less. I see the projection is still strong. I focus on what exactly? Microscopes? lol I believe your bible says it exquisitely, "faith is evidence for things unseen" so no you're categorically wrong. You may want to refer to AXP episodes where they talk about the difference between faith and trust. Eg. "I trust this chair will not break" because I have empirical data of chairs not breaking under my weight, unless maybe the chair is wonky in some way. You have faith jesus is real, for no reason except jingle for the bible tells me so. That's faith, a religious belief. You also are aware religion is usually about worshipping something? There is no worship in science, and that is the end of it. The whole goal of science is to get falsified, this is the opposite of faith, which only seeks to confirm its bias. Anyways "it takes the place of religion"? So science consist of mythology? I had no idea! you do realize religion is based on a collection of myths (aka stories) while science is based on empirical observation? And you clearly did not think this through, science takes the place of religion? So... it's either science or religion? What are you doing on the internet then? This is a product of science, plz return to your bronze age huts and worship your fables, cause apparently it's either religion or science. And I think we all know how BAD religion is at explaining the world; flat earth, firmament, created in a few days, magic man in the sky, using a golem spell to animate a clay doll to become human, etc etc this is ridiculous. I hope you can one day find the fortitude of mind to escape your indoctrination. to that end I can only urge you to read the bible and be aware that if you were born in Iran you'd be convincing me of Allah right now, I wonder why that is....
    1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626.  @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
  627.  @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
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1