General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

WaterspoutsOfTheDeep
Sabine Hossenfelder
comments

Comments by "WaterspoutsOfTheDeep" (@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

The unreasonable effectiveness of math points towards intelligent design if we are being honest.
10
It's ironic because darwinian evolution is basically the flat earth of modern science. It's a belief in magic that, probability can manifest rational outcomes.
6
@gdiwolverine Exactly right, yet it is, it is inherently unreasonably intelligible, we can do science, we can perfectly represent how the universe works with math. So the implications then are obvious. Seems your perspective needs to be adjusted.
6
There was a study that showed that the basic literacy of those who graduate high school has drastically gone down in the USA. So I would say being able to read would be a start, asking them to be science literate isn't even in the contending right now lol.
6
It was calculated just known current reserves of thorium is enough to power the whole planet for either 1000 years or 10 000. Either way we would have better power generation figured out by then... The cost for power was calculated to be 1/20th current rates in California for the consumer. The problem is it costs more to build thorium power plants but hardly anyone is working on that issue. Imagine if all the funds going into fusion were put into just developing a cheaper way to build thorium plants we'd have extremely cheap power for the planet. THEN work on fusion.
5
@handeruiter7595 A fascinating discovery was that asteroid along with around 6 other major asteroid impact events culminated in stopping the ice age cycle which is the only reason advanced civilization can even exist. We are in an extremely unlikely and unique event period in earths history that allows us to exist like this. Same with what seems like our one of a kind star and it's small window of stable solar activity in it's life.
5
Maybe at some point we'll see them adapt some sort of internal structure to the chip to transfer the heat out to the heat sink and just run the chips faster to get more performance at the same heat temp. Like maybe layers of molecule thick graphene in the chip.
5
After having to keep crickets to feed my chameleon through it's juvenile growth phase since they come in tiny sizes I don't think I could ever get over the smell. I switched to superworms that had no smell as soon as he was old enough to eat larger food.
5
@BrunoSantos-bt2bk Nah. If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel
5
@johnj1789 @johnj1789 Exactly if we follow the trail the answer to the universe and the purpose of life and purpose of each of our own lives is ultimately to know Jesus. Astrophysicists have proven the universe is so fine tuned just a dimes worth of matter different at the start of the big bang wouldn't have produced a universe that could support life. The whole universe was needed just so we on this singular planet can exist it's not wasted space.
4
@gdiwolverine Well we still know probability can't produce consistently rational outcomes, that's just renaming magic. The requirement for the origin of rational products in the universe has not changed in science or philosophy for thousands of years.
4
@gdiwolverine If you actually propose a naturalistic outcome then you have a self defeating argument as probability producing any outcome you wish theoretically is possible you can't have your cake and eat it too. The universe did everything then inc your comment just now. Nonsense stays nonsense.
4
As Thomas Nagel an Atheist put, "If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces." Materialism is a worldview not something science gave us.
4
You are assuming the mind is purely materialistic in that statement which will cause you some issues.
4
@RD-jc2eu Still seems like conflating a descriptor with a mechanism to me. Newtons laws never created the universe.
4
@gamechannel1271 It has to be correct otherwise how are we going to get the quantum telegraph machine to work to communicate across the galaxy once we populate it lol.
3
Not exactly we are looking for what cosmology has established is required for carbon based life which is essentially the only game in town as far as life is concerned. We can essentially rule out the whole universe based on probability while combining multiple of them. Some people still waste their time looking like SETI and many astronomers on record stating how much of a waste of money and resources SETI is. These type of videos and articles are just the fringe fun discussion topics on the outer edges of the science. Otherwise it would be way too boring lol.
3
They left a ZPM there for us I heard.
3
Wow now that is a blast from the past, totally forgot about him.
3
There is no I if there is no free will lol. The concept of no free will is absurd and self defeating. This is the problem when you have someone who knows only science talk about philosophy like Hawking, they end up making a fool of themself.
3
Really? I would think the most persuasive would be the fine tuning argument. The universe was only designed for us to exist. With the known requirements of life science has established to date, the probability life exist beyond earth is unreasonable.
3
An issue with arguing against the point of the universe is us and saying we just arose from the laws of the universe instead is... if that were the case we would see life or the conditions for it or the possibility for it all over the universe. We don't. That's why the fine tuning argument is so powerful, there is so much scientific evidence for it, it's like a runaway train at this point. Thus it seems there is rather a point to the universe, us specifically and the whole thing science has established is needed just so we can exist, it's not wasted matter or space.
3
Universe is not purely an immaterial concept, and it had a finite start, it can't be infinite. Same thing with any multiverse nonsense it's bound by the spacetime theorems and requires a finite start.
3
@silikon2 The big bang, the universe being a set size and then expanding, and the spacetime theorems giving a finite start to the universe both quantify the universe as finite in nature. We don't need to know the exact measurements. Not sure where I'm losing you.
3
@RockBrentwood I hope that continues at the rate you are saying he said because that would be absolutely huge for prices to get reduced so significantly. Because in some ways they are still really high like for gpu's making upgrading not that feasible for most when a new gen gpu comes out they have to wait for the second or third.
3
@kamkamkam_ no no the quote and my comment were based on our very ability to rationalize itself!!!! in other words materialism is inherently flawed and a pseudo religious belief that hinders science.
3
@kamkamkam_ For example... materialists are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition?
3
@kamkamkam_ Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction."
3
@tvuser9529 Probably because this would be another point on the long list pointing towards fine tuning. Same reason the big bang theory was heavily opposed for around half a century because of it's biblical implications and origin. Which ironically is why we ended up getting so much science on it.
3
Is it though? Or is it reductive evolution of pre-existing code manifesting a copy function that already exists? Reminder that's how bacteria get antibiotic resistance. That is a far cry of order from chaos.
3
There is no I if there is no free will lol. The concept of no free will is absurd and self defeating. This is the problem when you have someone who knows only science talk about philosophy like Hawking, they end up making a fool of themself.
3
@Rodentsnipe Think of the implications. That would be getting a rational product from irrationality, mindless matter. Would you trust your computer produced from random outcomes? No. So why would you trust what your brain produces from such a thing including your argument? You can't. It's self refuting.
3
@Rodentsnipe Likewise there is the argument another famous philosopher gave that nature selects for survival not truth.
3
Emergence sounds like a Atheistic mythology of magic, claiming probability can produce rational outcomes to do away with the need for God.
3
Maybe it's just evidence of a creator given we see similar structures that they like to use? It doesn't even make sense that the universe is intelligible... It's an extreme miracle we can even observe the universe from earth even lol.
2
I think we are forgetting some major little known facts about biology Fritz-Albert Popp and others have discovered. Like biophotons are created and in different wavelengths to pick up information traveling over DNA...
2
and are transferred via fiber optic wires made out of cellular water that is vibrated into a hydrogel from being pushed through pores in microtubles that vibrate it at a specific frequency.
2
It is not a stretch to imagine this is happening in the brain for thought and consciousness and means it's happening at the speed of light not slow. Papers have already been published on this over the last 15 years or so.
2
I feel like there is a cheeky comment in there given your own existence is a new unique event in the universe and changes things due to the observer effect lol.
2
lol probably in the near future they'll be solving each others problems.
2
You know what is cool 3D tv's are going to be coming back soon because they are coming now to high end computer screens including laptops. They found a way to do it without needing glasses and make it look really good for high resolution without giving headaches. And what's really cool is they are saying it works basically for all video games because of how they already use 3d models in the games which makes it easy to adopt for gaming. I bet in the near future there will be AI tools like from Nvidia that will convert normal video to it for those with a 3D screen too like they can already do for HDR which works pretty good I might add.
2
@blastortoise Of course they do, they are both pseudo science based on illogical premise. Darwinian evolution isn't even falsifiable, every result is explainable and not reproducible. More so it fits the criteria of mythology.
2
@ИванАтамась85 Free will is a mental not physical reality. If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel Atheist Having no belief in God undermines the very rational mind you require to do science and argue with.
2
What would be nice now since we are getting so far along in computer power especially with AI assistance is development in how we consume and interact with technology. It's been so stagnant. Where are our touch hologram screens that require no special glasses? I saw one thing really cool no glasses 3D screen technology that is out now that works pretty good but it's like 2k for a 20inch monitor and requires the company to manually adapt content for it like video games. I can see an AI tool taking over and doing that job very easily in the near future like Nvidia already has for upscaling streaming video and adding HDR filter to it both work very well right now and I use all the time.
2
@stephencaudill2422 It's a fascinating conversation. Even in the biblical text it's roughly half free will and half determinism presented.
2
@stephencaudill2422 Was he the one that talked about how microtubules are all shaped specifically to have holes that vibrate the water in them into a hydrogel which acts like a fiber optic cable transmitting biophotons used for communication in the body?
2
@flamencoprof If that was the case it wouldn't be a big mystery. The fact is cellular biology is not just mechanisms operating like trains on a train track, they are very dynamic. I'll explain the topic from earlier. Think of building a house, we have the blueprint (DNA), but we don't know how the workers know how to actually build it. A prime example often given is we don't know how a zygote knows how to differentiate into and organism. This is a massive primary base level mystery to biology itself. Hence the relation to this conversation on why I brought it up, we've been studying biology a lot longer than quantum.
2
@restonthewind Not sure what kind of point you are trying to make. Of course life and advanced life is common on the earth. It's a sample of one. Furthermore the conditions for life and more advanced life showed up quite strangely fast on earth, and as soon as the conditions that would allow more advanced life in earths history showed up, more advanced life showed up in a geological instant no evolution. Beyond that all that prior life was required for advanced life to exist as we needed fossil fuels, mineral deposits and so on for advanced life to exist including technologically advanced life that those prior organisms helped create. Just a reminder having a stable environment is extremely rare, we are in an extremely extremely oddly rare stable environment these last 10k years on earth including solar output on top of that, including also region of the galaxy, galaxy, cluster, super cluster and so on all together. And much much more on top of that. Far less the composition of the earth sun, surrounding planets and so on and the rest that affects if life is possible. There are hundreds of cosmic requirements for life and they only keep growing.
2
@kevinmclain4080 The universe is actually EXTREMELY young, especially from a naturalistic perspective. Naturalists calculated decades ago the universe needed to be hundreds of trillions of not quadrillions of years old to be able to create conditions that could support and create life. Funny how everyone forgets about those calculations and their validity.
2
@kevinmclain4080 Yup 1 sample of chemistry in this universe. lmao at you pretending chemistry magically is/works differently based on location or time. Paradigms of reality don't change. Furthermore we aren't even talking about abiogenesis but just a place life can live LOL!
2
I know it's off topic but I like your shirt haha
2
Same, the only thought I'm having is reproduction was the result of degradation of the pre-existing code which on the computer code front like she pointed out is very easy when there are such simplified functions for reproduction like copy paste.
2
The thing is our mind cannot be purely material in nature otherwise our rationality is self refuting. So that kinda throws this whole thing in the bin.
2
Science relies on philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and methodology. For example, science assumes an objective reality that can be studied through observation and experimentation. It has gotten so old hearing people think faith is an inherently religious word when it isn't and they are conflating an aberration of it, blind faith to it's main definition.
2
Also "Can Science Explain Everything" by John Lennox
2
An issue with arguing against the point of the universe is us and saying we just arose from the laws of the universe instead is... if that were the case we would see life or the conditions for it or the possibility for it all over the universe. We don't. That's why the fine tuning argument is so powerful, there is so much scientific evidence for it, it's like a runaway train at this point. Thus it seems there is rather a point to the universe, us specifically and the whole thing science has established is needed just so we can exist, it's not wasted matter or space.
2
@philochristos rationality does not come from irrationality, it would be quite literally reality breaking for such a thing to occur.
2
@philochristos Exactly, the point is mind is required, a rational mind is creating rationality. The irrational in and of itself never magically became rational. A mind Aka God is required behind everything. Mindless unguided naturalistic process can't do it, the burden of proof is on the naturalist to establish otherwise that rationality can come from irrationality. They can't and never will because it would be a reality breaking concept. If such a deus ex machina mechanism existed that could produce rationality from irrationality all human achievement and personhood ceases to exist because the universe did it all at that point. This is why the multiverse theory has always been a joke in the scientific community it's a non-answer.
2
cont. Which it very well could be since the discovery of biology, including our own producing multiple wavelengths of bio photons that carry information through fiber optic wires of water vibrated into hydrogel in the microtubles. We pretend like we have it all figured out or at least the basics but in reality we have barely touched the surface we don't even know the basics.
2
I think we are forgetting some major little known facts about biology Fritz-Albert Popp and others have discovered. Like biophotons are created and in different wavelengths to pick up information traveling over DNA and are transferred via fiber optic wires made out of cellular water that is vibrated into a hydrogel from being pushed through pores in microtubles that vibrate it at a specific frequency.
2
It is not a stretch to imagine this is happening in the brain for thought and consciousness and means it's happening at the speed of light not slow. Papers have already been published on this over the last 15 years or so.
2
Reminds me a lot of the conclusions to any core mechanic in naturalism. Sure ya... probability produces consistently rational outcomes... somehow because it must because naturalism is true because we say it is the science.
2
@NJ-wb1cz It always sounds like Nvidia has more improvement upgrades they are holding back than they choose to all put on next gen chips so they can milk the market easy with less pressure on them. So I wouldn't doubt they can force a progress like you are saying they are talking about by putting all or most of their new developments on the table when they need to like now. Just means after developments might slow down a bit as they probably won't be able to keep it up.
2
@silikon2 You don't see? It means all the matter and existence of the universe was nothing then a quantifiable something. That amount of something is the same then as it is now thus not infinite.
2
You missed the most obvious and strangest of all, that the laws of the universe can even be represented in math.
2
I think we are forgetting some major little known facts about biology Fritz-Albert Popp and others have discovered. Like biophotons are created and in different wavelengths to pick up information traveling over DNA and are transferred via fiber optic wires made out of cellular water that is vibrated into a hydrogel from being pushed through pores in microtubles that vibrate it at a specific frequency. It is not a stretch to imagine this is happening in the brain for thought and consciousness and means it's happening at the speed of light not slow. Papers have already been published on this over the last 15 years or so.
2
I sense more evidence for the fine tuning argument if this is true lol.
2
It is a theory of origin. It's a finite start how much more origin can it be? There is no cyclical or eternal universe the spacetime theorems have shown.
2
@OscarGT25 What option other than God is there? There is no possible naturalistic mechanism you'll always come back to the need for such a mechanism itself to be created by a mind. This is why the multiverse has always been panned by the scientific community it explains nothing. It is still bound by the spacetime theorems and requires a finite start. It all comes down to that, and furthermore rationality does not come from irrationality. This universe is inherently rational bound by laws, we can do math we can do science and reason and study it.
2
sounds like assuming our universe isn't a closed system, taking energy from the first cause of the universe, God.
2
A planet must fall in 11 habitable zones for life to exist. We've basically ruled out the whole universe now so there is no fermi paradox to even think about. liquid water (temperature)1 ultraviolet2 photosynthetic3 tropospheric ozone4 planet rotation rate5 planet rotation axis tilt6 tidal7 astrosphere8 atmospheric electric field9 Milankovitch cycles10 stellar magnetic wind11
2
@TimothyWhiteheadzm Published research is nonsense? It is proven science, chemistry does not magically change based on ones position in the universe. Those 11 requirements alone rule out the universe by probability alone. Furthermore beyond those there are literally hundreds of cosmic requirements beyond just the 11 habitable zones a planet must fall in. Nonsense is pretending probability can manifest rational outcomes and anything your imagination wants. That's called fantasy not reality. The probability has been calculated and it's 1 in a number higher than the number of atoms in this universe a singular habitable planet outside of earth exists in this universe. That's why Dyson wrote it's as if the universe knew we were coming.
2
@evelynsinclair4937 No mind/God involved that's your worldview not mine. Atheism is a mythology of magic, rationality from irrationality a truly deus ex mechanism that can never exist for it's reality breaking. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Ones rational mind that you need to defend your position can't even be a product of naturalism/Atheism! It is self defeating, in three ways no less. Rationality from irrationality, end product of mindless unguided process is unreliable, and naturalism selects for survival value not truth as in whether our beliefs are true. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything. Without God as the basis good and evil and truth loses all meaning as it's all relative then. Atheism is dead and science killed it.
2
Not to be a debbie downer but this is putting the cart before the horse there first needs to even be a star that can support life. We haven't found a single star not even planet but just a star that can support life. It has to be same as ours essentially ours is extremely unique making the issue even harder. It has to be the same class star and then on top of it have the extremely unique composition with heavy elements ours has which produces an extremely stable period in it's life cycle where life can exist without dying from solar fluctuations. It's virtually never talked about how crazy special our star is. And same with our galaxy too it's one of a kind and it's structure uniquely allows life because of it's spiral arms.
2
Something that can help a lot of people is Saccharomyces Boulardii. It's called a probiotic but is it? iI's a type of beneficial yeast and it's given and taken for travelers diarrhea and is quite effective. Why it's actually so helpful is it has a unique benefit of helping the gut be colonized properly by all the good bacteria even though it contains none. So it can help normalize or reduce a lot of digestive issues and it's fairly cheap maybe 10-20 usd. It's a very unique property of this yeast and why it's so special and helpful. I've even given it to my dog and it's helped her a lot.
2
Does he explain how cellular mechanisms can form when there is no evolutionary pressure to create building blocks of said mechanism that does not yet exist because evolution has no foresight?
2
Exactly this is a major flaw in how naturalists/atheists view the world they and their science are hindered by their psychological bias. Science and atheism fundamentally do not mix.
2
@kamkamkam_ Another example. If naturalism is true then our cognitive faculties have been selected for survival value not for truth, as in it's ultimately irrelevant whether or not our beliefs are true to something produced under naturalistic process. What matters is only if they are beneficial in the struggle for survival. So if naturalism is true we can have no confidence in the reliability of our cognitive faculties. ...
2
@handeruiter7595 It does not though, you are wrongly assuming the universe is a closed system. The laws of nature aren't being broken. A miracle is just God intervening and changing what would normally happen. Feeding an event into the system.
2
But a law has never created anything, it's describing something. So where did this structure of the universe come from and how come it's even intelligible and can be represented by math in the first place is the question begging to be asked.
2
@sacr3 They are joking, the reality is cosmology has established so many requirements for life the probability they exist somewhere else is higher than a number 1 into a number greater than the number of atoms in the universe. In other words life does not exist outside of earth unless it was designed to like us.
2
The problem with this is the more mass the pops into existence the faster it pops back out. So technically yes but it's all so fast for all intents and purposes these quantum fluctuation arguments for anything are not realistic to explain anything we have.
2
@gknight4719 Sam Harris is a militant Atheist and hypocrite, his own Atheist mythology is self defeating and can't even account for the rational mind he argues for it with. Do we have free will? Well how did one make up your mind? lol these nonsensical arguments usually always come from Atheists because they are so out of touch with reality and basic logic. Sam Harris is hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix. If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel Atheist Having no belief in God undermines the very rational mind you require to do science and argue with. Atheism blinds the mind so you can't see logic. Many times those who argue for it can't see they are failing to the very thing they accuse of Theists, blind faith like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
2
@IusedtohaveausernameIliked I agree questioning and having an open mind and discourse is important. Even Paul in the bible wrote "test everything and hold fast to that which is true." But the key here is to a framework of logic and truth. Otherwise you get nonsense like Lawrence Krauss saying "something came from nothing, so nothing must be something" lol. If there is no obligation for the universe to make sense then there is no obligation for your brain/mind to be producing anything rational for you to trust. Such an Atheistic/Naturalistic worldview is self defeating to the very notion of rationality and being able to doing science. Intelligent Design promotes the whole enterprise while Atheism/Naturalism destroys it. This is why Christianity/intelligent design birthed modern science. Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver. It all comes back to reality needing to be based on a standard whether that be our rationality, our morality, the intelligibility of the universe and so on. Otherwise there is no such thing as truth, everything is all relative. Interestingly enough what did Jesus say he said I am the truth, not I have the truth. He is saying he is the ultimate truth to all things. Otherwise you end up with nonsense like magical nothingness creating things, rationality from irrationality a definition of magic. Mind>magic
2
What a double edged sword AI is. The real problem is not knowing what data to trust which means nothing can be trusted and a doom spiral starts. I hope this does not happen and we get this under control fast.
2
Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. Emergence is a deus ex to do away with the need for God. A blind faith in magic aka that probability can produce rational outcomes.
2
woah hold on there, that's a big leap conflating computer code to biological life lol. For one all the original code had to come from somewhere and in biological life the only evolution we see is reductive evolution a benefit from loss of information/function. I wouldn't doubt if that is also the case or partly the case here.
2
@termitreter6545 Hilarious given that was the extent you were able to engage in the conversation.
2
Wasn't the issue with ivermectin that it was good at preventing the infection but not good at treating it?
2
I would think the biggest parameter is the requirements for life itself. The probability there is another planet like earth existing in the universe is ridiculous. So there is no fermi paradox, life shouldn't even exist beyond earth is what science tells us.
1
As a chemist you must realize the issue with naturalism is that time is the enemy not the friend. You need biological chemistry to happen faster than the reductive decaying chemistry. The problem is that doesn't happen in this universe... amino acids and proteins only have hours before becoming useless...
1
@AuntJemimaGames The problem is thorium is realistic and feasible fusion still isn't and still requires an actual scientific breakthrough. We may as well call fusion warp travel I don't see how it's around the corner. Solid state batteries are something that are taking forever and haven't quite been perfectly worked out but could be said as around the corner. Fusion is a pie in the sky. We already have cheap essentially limitless energy for the whole planet for 1000 years+. Like I said it was worked out for the consumer in California it would be 5% the current power cost. Would fusion even be that cheap if we got it to work is another issue.
1
Hilarious when naturalists can't see the flaw of their own worldview because this is a prime example of how it's nonsense to expect rational outcomes out of chaos.
1
Don't worry soon AI will do the thinking for us.
1
Is that wrong though? I would argue not. It's only because of our humanity we can even see purpose. It is not a flaw, it's a boon. Fine tuning argument does indeed demonstrate purpose, the universe exists for us. If it never and we were a random product of the laws of nature we'd see life, or potential for life, or even possible potential for life throughout the universe. Fine tuning argument has ruled that out at this point.
1
Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. Emergence is a deus ex to do away with the need for God. A blind faith in magic aka that probability can produce rational outcomes.
1
@mathiasbttger980 We aren't talking about the self organizing structure of crystals but a repeated progression to a higher state. I would say there is a big difference between the two. An illustration, random number generator producing words from random letters, it's one thing to have small words produced, it's another to have even just those small words then showing up in order to create a 2-3 word sentence far less large 5-7 letter plus words. That is the problem with naturalism, it does not have a functional core mechanic to produce what we have in the universe. The probability increases exponentially beyond it being a functional answer. In essence it's believing in magic because probability can't work like that.
1
@mathiasbttger980 The problem is when probabilities start to become higher than the number of atoms in the universe lol I think that starts ruling it out. One example by famous atheist Lawrance Krauss determined that the fine-tuning level for just dark energy alone is more extreme than one part in 10^120. Consider one of the most basic molecules for life glucose the atoms can hook up in over 1.2 trillion ways and life only uses one of those. The spacetime theorems have already established back in 2009 the universe had a finite start and is not cyclical, any multiverse is also bound by this. To invoke probability as a mechanism is to invoke magic, if probability can do what naturalism claims then it is reality breaking, it invalidates all human achievement and personhood because the universe did it all at that point. It's one of those scenarios of you can't have your cake and eat it too.
1
Hilarious when naturalists can't see the flaw of their own worldview because this is a prime example of how it's nonsense to expect rational outcomes out of chaos.
1
For all intents and purposes the result is the same and thankfully while the pace keeps up doing this improvements are worked on at the same time for transistors which hopefully will come in time to keep up the pace. So future is bright still.
1
I totally agree.
1
Which is interesting because math is an immaterial concept that requires a mental origin, the very odd fact the universe can even be represented by math when it shouldn't further outlines the mental origin behind the origin of everything. In essence it's as if we are in an information based universe, just like Christianity presents with God the Word Jesus speaking everything into existence the transfer of information and calling himself the truth meaning the ultimate truth of all things.
1
@skateboardingjesus4006 you don't know evolution is based on probability creating random mutations that evolve a species instead of making them extinct? probability manifesting rational outcomes is magic, no mind is involved to structure a rational outcome. It's pseudo science. Mythology.
1
@skateboardingjesus4006 you don't know evolution is based on probability creating random beneficial mutations that evolve a species instead of negative making them extinct? probability manifesting rational outcomes is magic, no mind is involved to structure a rational outcome. It's pseudo science.
1
@ronpapi9539 what? it's flat out exactly what I said haha. The literal only other option is divine guidance of it for it to be a functional real world process.
1
@vibaj16 that sounds like something a flat earther would say
1
@ronpapi9539 ??????
1
@blastortoise Of course they do, they are both pseudo science based on illogical premise. Darwinian evolution isn't e falsifiable, results explainable not reproducible. More so it fits the criteria of mythology.
1
@blastortoise Of course they do, they are both based on illogical premise. Darwinian evolution isn't e falsifiable, results explainable not reproducible. More so it fits the criteria of mythology. It's a belief of blind faith, no core mechanism, probability can't do it that's like saying magic.
1
turning crop waste into biochar would almost solve the claimed co2 problem and we can already do it cheap and easy. co2 is not an issue because actions of elite show it isn't.
1
Wow that is absolutely terrible, what a nightmare.
1
Sounds like you are saying everything was fine tuned for a purpose. Watch out the naturalists will come for you lol.
1
Hilarious when naturalists can't see the flaw of their own worldview because this is a prime example of how it's nonsense to expect rational outcomes out of chaos.
1
@Krmpfpks Sounds like a similar issue in biology. We see biology has the information for things DNA/RNA but not how it knows how to do them(operating software). It's like builders that have a blueprint to build a house, but how do they know how to build it. One of the biggest mysteries in biology. Real world example we don't know how a zygote knows how to differentiate into an organism.
1
@flamencoprof No different from what is doing the automatising in literal biology. You realize that's one of the biggest mysteries in biology how biology itself knows how to function. Where is the operating system, we've only found the software dna/rna.
1
@Fluxikator No it's very basic, how biology knows how to work. Not what to do, but how to do it. What to do is a blueprint, how to do it is knowing how to build it. Two different things.
1
@kevinmclain4080 <<< hahahahahahaha I can't rofl honk honk I like your clown nose
1
@kevinmclain4080 <<<<< rofl I can't hahhahaha nice 🤡 nose honk honk
1
@kevinmclain4080 honk honk nice clown nose, lmao imagine thinking the laws of the universe are not constant because ones worldview requires suspending logic and not following science. a prime example of how atheism and science do not mix.
1
@kevinmclain4080 lmao yes I do think we know the laws of the universe are constant otherwise we couldn't do science because we have to have faith in the rationality of the universe. lol honk honk nice clown nose.
1
@kevinmclain4080 lmao yes I do think we know the laws of the universe are constant otherwise we couldn't do science because we have to have faith in the rationality of the universe. lol I can't
1
@kevinmclain4080 Of course the constancy of the laws of the universe relate to chemistry it's why we can even do science, it's a paradigm of reality. 🤡 try harder
1
It doesn't, infinite probability does not give infinite results in regard to giving anything you can imagine. When people do that they are basically talking about magic. Probability does not give consistently rational outcomes to be an explanation for reality. It is the opposite, probability is irrational in nature and ruins rational outcomes. This is why naturalism just is illogical. There is no mechanism to create.
1
@SypGamer34 Where? There literally is not even enough time in earths history to produce the Cambrian animals. That's why panspermia was pushed so hard. Evolution requires trillions of years theoretically fyi. Just a heads up the fossil record not only fully refutes evolutionary theory with the Cambrian it also does with what came first, phyla. The complete reversal of the model meaning it has to be wrong. That's like having humans show up before LUCA lol.
1
@SypGamer34 where? there is no time in earths history for it. Look up the Cambrian explosion. It's the whole reason panspermia was pushed to offload the evolution problem among billions of planets all with billions of years of evolution working together to give us our life here. It's nonsense. Secondly the order of biology that showed up is the total reverse, phyla came first that alone totally refutes evolution.
1
 @SypGamer34 There isn't enough time though, Cambrian explosion. Secondly phyla came first, the total reverse of naturalistic process being the origin.
1
@SypGamer34 That's not even getting into the actual theory itself not being able to produce what it claims or account for what we see in biology.
1
@Francesco-gf1sv You made a grave error in your reasoning, you just redefined the intelligent designer to be bound by their own spacetime creation. It's a product of them and thus everything it produces is too. The quantity of matter in the universe is so fine tuned if it was off by a dimes worth at the start the result would be a universe that could not support life. That's the result of fine tuning not what nature already does.
1
@Francesco-gf1sv I'll break it down to even more basic for you to grasp. Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does the naturalist. Your logic you reference needs a source.
1
@Francesco-gf1sv That is the problem with naturalism, it's literally a belief in magic(probability producing any outcome).
1
Hilarious when naturalists can't see the flaw of their own worldview because this is a prime example of how it's nonsense to expect rational outcomes out of chaos.
1
@johnj1789 Exactly if we follow the trail the answer to the universe and the purpose of life and purpose of each of our own lives is ultimately to know Jesus. Astrophycists have proven the universe is so fine tuned just a dimes worth of matter different at the start of the big bang wouldn't have produced a universe that could support life. The whole universe was needed just so we on this singular planet can exist it's not wasted space. Our biology and mind is clearly drastically unique compared to all other life able to comprehend beyond our naturalistic needs like the desire for the eternal and for a God. In fact science has shown we have a part of the brain that can stimulate a God experience. There is no naturalistic pressure to create such a thing. We were designed to interface with God.
1
@johnj1789 @johnj1789 Exactly if we follow the trail the answer to the universe and the purpose of life and purpose of each of our own lives is ultimately to know Jesus. Astrophycists have proven the universe is so fine tuned just a dimes worth of matter different at the start of the big bang wouldn't have produced a universe that could support life. The whole universe was needed just so we on this singular planet can exist it's not wasted space. Our biology and mind is clearly drastically unique compared to all other life able to comprehend beyond our naturalistic needs like the desire for the eternal.
1
Is it though? How can you say that when we quite literally can't even define consciousness accurately because we don't even know what it is... We don't even know what the mind is. We don't even know the relation of the mind to the brain. We don't even know how the brain works. There was one paper that thought the brain could be a bio-photonic quantum holographic computer. Which it very well could be since the discovery of biology, including our own producing multiple wavelengths of bio photons that carry information through fiber optic wires of water vibrated into hydrogel in the microtubles. We pretend like we have it all figured out or at least the basics but in reality we have barely touched the surface we don't even know the basics.
1
Is it though? How can you say that when we quite literally can't even define consciousness accurately because we don't even know what it is... We don't even know what the mind is. We don't even know the relation of the mind to the brain. We don't even know how the brain works. There was one paper that thought the brain could be a bio-photonic quantum holographic computer. Which it very well could be since the discovery of biology, including our own producing multiple wavelengths of bio photons that carry information through fiber optic wires of water vibrated into hydrogel in the microtubles.
1
Is it though? How can you say that when we quite literally can't even define consciousness accurately because we don't even know what it is... We don't even know what the mind is. We don't even know the relation of the mind to the brain. We don't even know how the brain works. There was one paper that thought the brain could be a bio-photonic quantum holographic computer.
1
For climate change these effects discussed are minuscule in relation to the actual energy being supplied that runs the whole model. So why no discussion on the actual fluctuations of energy input the earth gets from solar cycles affecting climate? How do we know CO2 is the cause?
1
Which is why there is no such thing as infinite time.
1
Emergence may as well be called a deus ex machina if we are keeping it real lol
1
@gdiwolverine Exactly right, yet it is, it is inherently unreasonably intelligible, we can do science, we can perfectly represent how the universe works with math. So the implications then are obvious. Seems your perspective needs to be adjusted. If you actually propose a naturalistic outcome then you have a self defeating argument as probability producing any outcome you wish theoretically is possible you can't have your cake and eat it too. At that point all human achievement and personhood ceases to exist the universe did everything.
1
@gdiwolverine Exactly right, yet it is, it is inherently unreasonably intelligible, we can do science, we can perfectly represent how the universe works with math. So the implications then are obvious. Seems your perspective needs to be adjusted. If you actually propose a naturalistic outcome then you have a self defeating argument as probability producing any outcome you wish theoretically is possible you can't have your cake and eat it too. The universe did everything then inc your comment just now. Nonsense stays nonsense.
1
@gdiwolverine All we do is represent how the universe works with math. The spacetime theorems are literally the most proven science of the human race. Lack of completion does not represent lack of ability. No I don't have an issue with probability, I'm proposing you do inferring it can do something it can't. Renaming magic probability to suit the outcome you desire. I summed it up very simply. Probability does not give consistently rational outcomes, that's counter to the very paradigm of what probability itself is.
1
@gdiwolverine The conclusion from the 2009 spacetime papers were the universe had a finite start, and any theoretical multiverse would also be bound by this. That's a big problem for proposing infinite cyclical tries. Also doesn't solve the causal agent issue. But beyond that the issue is more simply stated rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. And as I already pointed out can't have the cake and eat it too. Yes it's possible but those proposing it aren't being honest following through with the self refuting implications.
1
@RandyAlvarez-k3p Where do you get consistently rational outcomes without a rational source like a mind? It's very simple. Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. Naturalism has no functional core mechanism to produce what it claims nor what we see.
1
@joaopauloluz7793 I agree, where do you get the "but" from?
1
@joaopauloluz7793 Yet that's not in contrast to what I said as I agree free will must exist, otherwise I'm having a conversation with myself right now.
1
Actual astrophysicists call SETI a scam and waste of funding because known cosmology has already established the requirements of life are so high we won't find it beyond earth and are mad funding is being wasted on SETI instead of their projects.
1
That is the problem with science it can't answer everything. In general it answers the how problem not the why.
1
The simplest explanation is emergence has potential to explain not produce but the Atheist/naturalist doesn't like that bluntly showcased because it once again makes apparent the need for a mind at the source of all things a God. They talk like they have blind faith in a non-existence mechanism with a name can deus ex everything into reality.
1
You may as well be saying they are getting energy directly from the causal agent that started the big bang. Sounds like comic book stuff.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 Your comment is so ironic, where is the science that shows a God is not required? Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. Probability producing rational outcomes aka naturalism/emergence is nothing short of blind faith in magic.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 There is no such science. Evolution is pseudo science. How does evolution know when to stop at a desired outcome such as creating parts to a new cellular mechanism that doesn't exist yet? There is no theoretical evolutionary pressure for such a thing, evolution has no plan or mind. Evolution is fundamentally impossible. Science has long retired Atheism. There is nothing in genuine science to stop the belief in God, there is everything in genuine science to support the belief in God and the belief in God is what encourages the very enterprise of science which is why it birthed modern science.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 There is no such science. Evolution is pseudo science. How does evolution know when to stop at a desired outcome such as creating parts to a new cellular mechanism that doesn't exist yet? There is no theoretical evolutionary pressure for such a thing, evolution has no plan or mind. Evolution is fundamentally impossible. Science has long killed Atheism.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 There is no such science. Evolution is pseudo science. How does evolution know when to stop at a desired outcome such as creating parts to a new cellular mechanism that doesn't exist yet? There is no theoretical evolutionary pressure for such a thing, evolution has no plan or mind. Evolution is fundamentally impossible. Science has long killed Atheism.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 There is no such science. How does evolution know when to stop at a desired outcome such as creating parts to a new cellular mechanism that doesn't exist yet? There is no theoretical evolutionary pressure for such a thing, evolution has no plan or mind. Evolution is fundamentally impossible. Science has long killed Atheism.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 We aren't talking about the self organizing structure of crystals but a repeated progression to a higher state. I would say there is a big difference between the two. An illustration, random number generator studies on producing words from random letter combinations, it's one thing to have small words produced, it's another to have even just those small words then showing up in order to create a 2-3 word sentence far less large 5-7 letter plus words. That is the problem with naturalism, it does not have a functional core mechanic to produce what we have in the universe. The probability increases exponentially beyond it being a functional answer. In essence it's believing in magic because probability can't work like that.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 Evolution is pseudo science. How does evolution know when to stop at a desired outcome such as creating parts to a new cellular mechanism that doesn't exist yet? There is no theoretical evolutionary pressure for such a thing, evolution has no plan or mind.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 Evolution is pseudo science. How does evolution know when to stop at a desired outcome such as creating parts to a new cellular mechanism that doesn't exist yet?
1
@evelynsinclair4937 Evolution is pseudo science, how does it know when to stop at a desired outcome such as creating parts to a new mechanism that does not yet exist? That's called blind faith in an irrational impossible concept aka magic to do away with the need for a mind a God.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 Evolution is pseudo science, how does it know when to stop at a desired outcome such as creating parts to a new mechanism that does not yet exist? That's called blind faith in magic.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 Evolution is pseudo science, how does it know when to stop at a desired outcome such as creating parts to a new mechanism that does not yet exist? That's called blind faith in nonsense..
1
@evelynsinclair4937 How does evolution know when to stop at a desired outcome such as creating parts to a new mechanism that does not yet exist? That's called blind faith in nonsense.. evolution is not a real world concept.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 lmao no mind/God involved that's your worldview not mine. Atheism is a mythology of magic, rationality from irrationality a truly deus ex machina mechanism that can never exist for it's reality breaking. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Ones rational mind that you need to defend your position can't even be a product of naturalism/Atheism! It is self defeating, in three ways no less. Rationality from irrationality, end product of mindless unguided process is unreliable, and naturalism selects for survival value not truth as in whether our beliefs are true. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything. Without God as the basis good and evil and truth loses all meaning as it's all relative then. Atheism is dead and science killed it.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 Atheism: "A magical nothing created everything and when I die I become nothing, becoming one again with my creator." Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything. Now that science has advanced, all of Atheists speculations are based on non-empirical arguments and that shows just how weak their case has become.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction. Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 Atheism and science do not mix.The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction. Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 (Atheism and science do not mix.The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction. Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. )
1
@evelynsinclair4937 Atheism and science do not mix. Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction...
1
@evelynsinclair4937 Atheism and science do not mix. Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense.
1
@evelynsinclair4937 The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction... Atheism and science does not mix as they don't follow where the science leads limiting their own rationality, it's irrational in the strictest sense.
1
Prof James Tour from Rice university has talked about this lately too on how chirality alone totally blocks a naturalistic origin of life it's such a significant problem for just the prebiotic molecules alone. They can't even be made in a lab even for multiple steps like would be required in nature they are having to add in premade selected chirality molecules. Having the other chirality present blocks the correct formation. And beyond that a fascinating comment to demonstrate the absurd probabilities of origin of life a basic molecule just in general life uses glucose can be arranged in over 1.2 trillion ways and life only can use one. It is all just so ridiculously fine tuned at every stage it's ridiculous to think probability can produce rational outcomes and consistently on an ever increasing compounding level. Totally ignoring the actual basis of all life, information to be produced and the information replicator at the same time.
1
@kamkamkam_ You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@kamkamkam_ For example... materialists are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix...
1
@kamkamkam_ Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix...
1
@kamkamkam_ Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix...
1
@kamkamkam_ If naturalism is true then our cognitive faculties have been selected for survival value not for truth, as in it's ultimately irrelevant whether or not our beliefs are true to something produced under naturalistic process. What matters is only if they are beneficial in the struggle for survival. So if naturalism is true we can have no confidence in the reliability of our cognitive faculties. But if that's the case then we can have no confidence in the truth of naturalism, because the belief in naturalism was formed from those very cognitive faculties which are shown to be unreliable if naturalism is true. So there is a kind of vicious circularity a kind of self referential incoherence that is inescapable in a naturalistic worldview because naturalism will undermined the reliability of the very cognitive faculties that were used to establish naturalism. Therefore naturalism cannot be rationally affirmed.
1
@kamkamkam_ So if naturalism is true then our cognitive faculties have been selected for survival value not for truth, as in it's ultimately irrelevant whether or not our beliefs are true to something produced under naturalistic process. What matters is only if they are beneficial in the struggle for survival. So if naturalism is true we can have no confidence in the reliability of our cognitive faculties. But if that's the case then we can have no confidence in the truth of naturalism, because the belief in naturalism was formed from those very cognitive faculties which are shown to be unreliable if naturalism is true. So there is a kind of vicious circularity a kind of self referential incoherence that is inescapable in a naturalistic worldview because naturalism will undermined the reliability of the very cognitive faculties that were used to establish naturalism. Therefore naturalism cannot be rationally affirmed.
1
@kamkamkam_ Materialists/Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix...
1
@kamkamkam_ ...But if that's the case then we can have no confidence in the truth of naturalism, because the belief in naturalism was formed from those very cognitive faculties which are shown to be unreliable if naturalism is true. So there is a kind of vicious circularity a kind of self referential incoherence that is inescapable in a naturalistic worldview because naturalism will undermined the reliability of the very cognitive faculties that were used to establish naturalism. Therefore naturalism cannot be rationally affirmed.
1
@AndroidPoetry Of course there is mental. Materialism cannot account for rationality. Secondly all life is based on an immaterial concept information stored in DNA which required a mind. Math is immaterial and the universe can be represented in how it functions by math showing a mind was behind it.
1
@AndroidPoetry Of course there is mental, information is immaterial concept and basis of all life, math immaterial and the universe can be described by it, rationality cannot be from materialism alone. God is a undeniable scientific factor behind everything.
1
@Vaeldarg It's either God aka a mind producing rational outcomes or probability aka magic. Mind>magic is what a rational scientific mind would conclude. You do you though.
1
@Vaeldarg God just like us are immaterial, the mind is essentially who and what we are. A purely materialistic view of mind and personhood is a logically self defeating. Anything rational is intrinsically a mind product. Rational must come from rational. Your basic comprehension faculties need some work before you even utter the word rational or scientific again.
1
@handeruiter7595 It does not though. You are wrongly assuming the universe is a closed system. A miracle is not the laws of nature being broken or violated, no more than a ball falling to the ground being caught violates the law of gravity. Doing so is a category error as the laws of nature aren't to be conflated with legal language, they are just a description of what normally happens. A miracle is just someone intervening.
1
@handeruiter7595 Well they aren't legal laws they can't be broken in the first place. Catching a ball falling is not breaking the law of gravity. It's just intervening. People always mischaracterize what the concept of God doing a miracle is. I'm not sure what your second part of your comment is implying. For example, the hypothetical of said God making a promise, that's a determinism, can they break their promise? I would say they cannot be God if they could, if they are truly good that is. Same carries on for free will. That doesn't mean said God can't still know everything and have a plan. Both free will and determinism can exist at the same time.
1
@johnsalmond Or maybe we aren't from pond slime, after all information theory states information decays it doesn't progress to a higher state as the basis for all life is immaterial information stored in DNA. Time is the enemy not the friend.
1
And the critical flaw remains, sense can't come from nonsense. Garbage in garbage out.
1
@lucofparis4819 no no I'm talking about JUST cosmological requirements for the basic conditions. You know not being a solar system beside a black hole giving off deadly radiation or having a suitable star with a stable solar output. Just fyi Mars is not the most biologically suited planet known to exist beyond earth, it's actually Venus, yes you heard that right Venus lol. So that should put into perspective how absurd the conversation about life outside earth is.
1
@lucofparis4819 Just another note the amount of current habitable zones a planet must be in for life is 13, Venus is in two the highest of any known planet studied so far aside from earth. And even earth hasn't had enough time for evolution to give us everything we have. Evolution doesn't work. Look up the Cambrian explosion. There wasn't enough time for the higher level complexity in such great quantity to show up. This is why panspermia was pushed so hard before in order to try and outsource the evolution to billions of other worlds to combine on earth as ridiculous as that sounds.
1
@lucofparis4819 Just another note the amount of current habitable zones a planet must be in for life is 13, Venus is in two the highest of any known planet studied so far aside from earth. And even earth hasn't had enough time for evolution to give us everything we have. Evolution doesn't work. Look up the Cambrian explosion. There wasn't enough time for the higher level complexity in such great quantity to show up. This is why panspermia was pushed so hard before in order to try and outsource it to billions of other worlds to combine on earth as ridiculous as that sounds.
1
@lucofparis4819 Just another note the amount of current habitable zones a planet must be in for life is 13, Venus is in two the highest of any known planet studied so far aside from earth. And even earth hasn't had enough time for evolution to give us everything we have. Darwinism doesn't work. Look up the Cambrian explosion. There wasn't enough time for the higher level complexity in such great quantity to show up. This is why panspermia was pushed so hard before in order to try and outsource it to billions of other worlds to combine on earth as ridiculous as that sounds.
1
@lucofparis4819 Just another note the amount of current habitable zones a planet must be in for life is 13, Venus is in two the highest of any known planet studied so far aside from earth. And even earth hasn't had enough time for darwinism to give us everything we have. Darwinism doesn't work. Look up the Cambrian explosion. There wasn't enough time for the higher level complexity in such great quantity to show up. This is why panspermia was pushed so hard before in order to try and outsource it to billions of other worlds to combine on earth as ridiculous as that sounds.
1
@lucofparis4819 Just another note earth hasn't had enough time for evolution to give us everything we have. Darwinism doesn't work. Look up the Cambrian explosion. There wasn't enough time for the higher level complexity in such great quantity to show up. This is why panspermia was pushed so hard before in order to try and outsource it to billions of other worlds to combine on earth as ridiculous as that sounds.
1
@lucofparis4819 Earth hasn't had enough time for evolution to give us everything we have. Cambrian explosion. Frankly evolution doesn't work period or gave us all the life earth has had the fossil record fully refutes it with phyla coming first. This is why panspermia was pushed so hard before in order to try and outsource it to billions of other worlds to combine on earth as ridiculous as that sounds.
1
@lucofparis4819 Earth hasn't had enough time for evolution as an explanation. Cambrian explosion complexity. Frankly it doesn't work period , the fossil record fully refutes it with phyla coming first. This is why panspermia was pushed so hard before in order to try and outsource it to billions of other worlds to combine on earth as ridiculous as that sounds.
1
@lucofparis4819 Earth hasn't had enough time for evolution. Cambrian. It doesn't work, the fossil record refutes it with phyla first. This is why panspermia was pushed in order to try and outsource it to billions of other worlds to combine on earth as ridiculous as that sounds.
1
@lucofparis4819 Earth hasn't had enough time for evolution. Cambrian. It doesn't work, the fossil record refutes it with phyla first. This is why panspermia was pushed in order to try and outsource it...
1
@lucofparis4819 Earth hasn't had enough time for evolution. Cambrian. It doesn't work, fossil record refutes it with phyla first. Why panspermia was pushed, to outsource it to billions of other worlds as ridiculous as that sounds.
1
@lucofparis4819 Earth hasn't had enough time for evolution. Cambrian. It doesn't work, fossil record refutes it with phyla first.
1
@lucofparis4819 Earth hasn't had enough time for evolution. Cambrian explosion.
1
@lucofparis4819 It doesn't work, fossil record refutes it with phyla first. Why panspermia was pushed, to outsource it to billions of other worlds as ridiculous as that sounds.
1
@lucofparis4819 Just doesn't work or explain the biology we see. natural record refutes it with phyla coming first. It's why panspermia was pushed, to outsource it to billions of other worlds.
1
@lucofparis4819 Just doesn't work or explain the biology we see. natural record refutes it with phyla coming first. It's why panspermia was pushed, to outsource it
1
@lucofparis4819 Just doesn't work or explain the biology we see. natural record refutes it with phyla coming first. It's why panspermia was pushed, to outsource it
1
@lucofparis4819 Just doesn't work or explain the biology we see. natural record refutes it with phyla coming first.
1
@lucofparis4819 doesn't work or explain the biology we see. fosilrecord refutes it with phyla first
1
 @lucofparis4819 doesn't work/explain biology we see. fosil record refutes it> phyla first
1
@lucofparis4819 doesn't work/explain biology. fossil record refutes> phyla first
1
@lucofparis4819 doesn't work/explain biology.
1
 @lucofparis4819 fossil record refutes> phyla first
1
entropy is progress to a lower state not a higher state... this is why darwinian evolution is nonsensical.
1
@Rodentsnipe Extrapolate. That would be getting a rational product from irrationality, mindless matter. Would you trust your computer produced from random outcomes? No. So why would you trust what your brain produces from such a thing including your argument? You can't. It's self refuting. Likewise there is the argument another famous philosopher gave that nature selects for survival not truth.
1
@Rodentsnipe the mindfullest
1
@NigelPeters-s1m Exactly another massive issue, all life is based on an immaterial concept, information, stored in DNA. There is no physical process or natural phenomenon known to create such communicative information.
1
@peterinns5136 I completely agree. Secular mainstream academia presented a naturalistic origin of life and evolution as established science part of biology when in reality is a cooked up mythology with no mechanism with a thin veneer of science covering it.
1
@ivoryas1696 By watching debates at Oxford and others with qualified academics who can describe complex issues in easy to understand ways pointing out naturalism is a deus ex mechanismless model with a thin veneer of science covering it. In other words mythology of magic, pretending probability/time is a mechanism that can manifest consistent rational outcomes to give us everything that exists.
1
@ivoryas1696 By watching debates at Oxford and others with qualified academics who can describe complex issues in easy to understand ways pointing out naturalism is a mechanismless model with a thin veneer of science. In other words a mythology of magic, pretending probability/time is a mechanism that can manifest consistent rational outcomes to give us everything that exists. Evidence based science does not tell us naturalism is the origin of the universe, structure of it nor life, it's peoples blind faith apriori conviction that does.
1
@ivoryas1696 By watching debates at Oxford and others with qualified academics who can describe complex issues in easy to understand ways. Naturalism is a mythos of magic, pretending probability/time is a mechanism that can manifest consistent rational outcomes to give us everything that exists. Evidence based science does not tell us naturalism is the origin of the universe, structure of it nor life, it's peoples blind faith apriori conviction that does.
1
@ivoryas1696 By watching debates at Oxford and others with qualified academics who can describe complex issues in easy to understand ways. Naturalism is a mythos of magic, pretending probability/time is a mechanism that can manifest consistent rational outcomes to give us everything that exists.
1
@Sow777Reap Exactly, probability is not a mechanism. Our universe our reality is rational, that requires a mechanism thus probability cannot account for it. What naturalists posit is turning probability into a deus ex and is self refuting.
1
@Sow777Reap Exactly, probability is not a mechanism. Our universe our reality is rational, that requires a mechanism thus probability cannot account for it. What naturalists posit is turning probability into magic and is self refuting.
1
@bellenesatan No clue what you are talking about, I never came up with emergence honey.
1
@Lunsterful The context here is origin not comparing.
1
@antman7673 Evolution and natural selection are two different things. Natural selection is the movement of pre-existing information being redistributed and genes being turned on and off, it's variation allowed within the genome. Evolution for all intents and purposes is distinct in the claim of all entirely new communicative information being manifested out of thin air and continually magically increasing to a higher state.
1
It's already been proven if you have both chirality present for prebiotic molecules it blocks the whole process. That's why a naturalistic origin of life has been such a outlandish conclusion and path to do the science/form the theories around. It's flat out hindering scientific progress in origin of life.
1