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

WaterspoutsOfTheDeep
SmarterEveryDay
comments

Comments by "WaterspoutsOfTheDeep" (@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep) on "SmarterEveryDay" channel.

Previous
1
Next
...
All

I would be pissed too if you screwed me around for four years sitting on material like this. That's a really messed up thing to do to your collab partner. That's quite dirty/vindictive to do to someone.
5
Another fun fact, virtually every eye design in nature came about in a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. Meaning no evolution. Facts like this like to get ignored and there are many more like it just like almost every skeletal design allowed by physics also had the same origin without evolution.
4
Why? Because a mechanism is made up of parts it's not singular. Meaning there would need to be evolutionary pressure to create every part for a machine that doesn't even exist yet which is impossible evolution has no plan no mind.
3
The one who created the immaterial information that constitutes biology is amazing!
3
So is the mind that created this immaterial information all of nature is predicated upon.
3
You are assuming the mental is purely physical. While even materialistic Atheist scientists acknowledge the concept is self refuting.
3
Don't mention the word mind, the naturalists heads will explode lol.
3
@FeeshUnofficial What a nonsense statement. The bible is not meant to be taken literally in entirety, it's a collection of books written in many different literary forms. You read it in context like anyone with a modicum of literacy would do with any other book... Just a reminder the bible is the only source in human history to get the start of the universe correct, it's where we get the big bang theory from, no one else in history religious or scientific came close.
2
@FeeshUnofficial There are also ones that think the seven days are 24 hour periods when it literally says the seventh day has no night meaning we are still in it.
2
@elkippy No it isn't incorrect far less wildly incorrect nor cherry picking any data. It's quite literally natural history of the fossil record published in mainstream science literature. That's as absurd as saying the earth rotates is wildly incorrect and cherry picking data, you are nonsensical.
2
@joeymartinez5515 Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Cambrian Explosion: How Do We Use the Evidence?,” BioScience 58 (October 2008)
2
Just another example of how higher forms of life appeared magically right when the conditions allowed it.
2
@maythesciencebewithyou haha naturalism is utter pseudo science, a myth of magic, that probability produces rational outcomes. You can't have your cake and eat it too, if that was possible all free will and human achievement doesn't exist the universe did it all.
2
Either they have the balls to say the implications of the science show a mind was required or they don't. I assume many would give a weasel answer like saying it presents an interesting implication or there are so many things we just don't know or well we can't never know, or science doesn't give absolute answers. They like to do that a lot lol.
2
Lol you say that like it's hard or special when in reality Christianity birthed universities, modern science, scientific method and the CHRISTIAN mindset took mysticism OUT of science as Newton published and popularzied.
2
I would completely disagree. It gives ZERO explanation, far less a theoretical one. Evolution does not have foresight. There is no evolutionary pressure to create the parts to a cellular mechanism that doesn't exist yet. Evolution is and always has been pseudo science. The only real world examples of evolution are reductive evolution aka degradation of genetics giving a benefit like antibiotic resistant bacteria or the long term ecoli experiment.
2
@abel3557 My statement is based in reason and science unlike yours. Naturalism cannot account for a rational mind. In other words produce it since you need everything spoon fed to you. Reminder of your history, creationists specifically Christians gave you universities, scientific method, modern science, took mysticism out of science and much more.
2
@ToAkralon Clearly we do, the problem is you don't see the logistics required within your own theorys mechanism makes it utter nonsense. Refer to my other comment.
1
@joeymartinez5515 dunno look for yourself Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Cambrian Explosion: How Do We Use the Evidence?,” BioScience 58 (October 2008): 855, doi:10.1641/B580912. Gregory A. Wray, “Rates of Evolution in Developmental Processes,” American Zoologist 32 (February 1992): 131, doi:10.1093/icb/32.1.123. Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich, and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and Metazoan Macroevolution: Insights into Canalization, Complexity, and the Cambrian Explosion,” BioEssays 31 (July 2009): 737, doi:10.1002/bies.200900033.
1
@joeymartinez5515 dunno look for yourself Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Cambrian Explosion: How Do We Use the Evidence?,” BioScience 58 (October 2008) Gregory A. Wray, “Rates of Evolution in Developmental Processes,” American Zoologist 32 (February 1992)
1
@joeymartinez5515 dunno look for yourself Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Cambrian Explosion: How Do We Use the Evidence?,” BioScience 58 (October 2008)
1
@joeymartinez5515 “The Cambrian Explosion: How Do We Use the Evidence?,” BioScience 58 (2008)
1
@joeymartinez5515 “The Cambrian Explosion: How Do We Use the Evidence?” BioScience 58 (October 2008) look for yourself!
1
Nah you wrong it's just another clear example. How can evolution know when to stop at the desired outcome? It can't the question itself is nonsense yet is required to create mechanisms as they are not singular but made up of many parts that all would have required their own evolutionary pressure to create.
1
@VariantAEC That is the point evolution does not stop, yet that is the requirement for creating machines that are made up of multiple parts. Each and every part of the machine requires evolution to stop so they can all be compiled into a singular machine. How can that happen for a machine that does not exist yet? It can't. You missed the implication/s of my statement.
1
@VariantAEC There has to be a logical functional mechanism driving evolution. Science cannot supply one thus it can't exist. Science does not lead us to believe evolution is real, peoples Atheistic worldview does. They are not following science. Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does.
1
@ABaumstumpf You seem to not know natural history. The progression of life on this planet is a increase in biological complexity that shows up immediately when the conditions on earth can support the increase.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE "Why does one thing have to exclude the other?!" Don't see that it does. However calling pseudo science, science does like naturalism a belief that magic manifested everything(probability producing rational outcomes). It's blind faith in a deus ex with a thin veneer of science.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE "Why does one thing have to exclude the other?!" Don't see that it does. However calling pseudo science, science does like naturalism a belief that magic manifested everything(probability producing rational outcomes).
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE I completely disagree, purposefully obfuscating the truth that mankinds most proven science the spacetime theorems have established the universe had a finite start thus requires a causal agent is egregious. And to peddle deus ex multiverse nonsense as not just science but a mechanism for our reality is even worse given it still bound by the spacetime theorems thus requirement of a finite start AND if probability can manifest rational outcomes then all human achievement and personhood cease to exist the universe did it all. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE I completely disagree, Cox purposefully obfuscating the truth that mankinds most proven science the spacetime theorems have established the universe had a finite start thus requires a causal agent is egregious. And to peddle deus ex multiverse myth as not just science but a mechanism is even worse given it's subject to what I just mentioned too, AND if probability can manifest rational outcomes then all human achievement and personhood cease to exist the universe did it all. Can't have your cake and eat it too. He is denying science and peddling pseudo science.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE I completely disagree, Cox purposefully obfuscating the truth that mankinds most proven science the spacetime theorems have established the universe had a finite start thus requires a causal agent is egregious. And to peddle deus ex multiverse myth as not just science but a mechanism is even worse given it's subject to what I just mentioned too, AND if probability can manifest rational outcomes then all human achievement and personhood cease to exist the universe did it all.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE I completely disagree, Cox purposefully obfuscating the truth that mankinds most proven science the spacetime theorems have established the universe had a finite start thus requires a causal agent is egregious.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE I completely disagree, Brian is purposefully obfuscating the truth that our most proven science the spacetime theorems have established the universe had a finite start thus requires a causal agent is egregious. And to peddle deus ex multiverse fantasy that are STILL subject to the above and reality breaking invalidating his own rationality and science is an irony and absurdity all in it's own.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE I completely disagree, he is purposefully obfuscating the truth that our most proven science the spacetime theorems have established the universe had a finite start thus requires a causal agent is egregious and on a whole other level given it's his own field of science.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE Brian is purposefully obfuscating the truth that our most proven science the spacetime theorems have established the universe had a finite start thus requires a causal agent is egregious. And to peddle deus ex multiverse fantasy that are STILL subject to the above and reality breaking invalidating his own rationality and science is an irony and absurdity all in it's own. So I completely disagree.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE If you are talking about cosmic evolution sure, but if you mean darwinian evolution which is pseudo science too then of course not. It's just as egregious as the multiverse predicated on a deus ex, literally magic, that probability manifests rational outcomes. Can't have your cake and eat it too, for that to be true you have to give up all human achievement and personhood the universe did it all. To push such absurd reality breaking concepts as science to do away with the need for a mind aka a God is indeed egregious. It is not following where the science leads and shows how Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE If you are talking about cosmic evolution sure, but if you mean darwinian evolution then of course not. It's just as egregious as the multiverse predicated on a deus ex, literally magic, that probability manifests rational outcomes. He can't have his cake and eat it too, for that to be true you have to give up all human achievement and free will, the universe manifested it all. He pushes such absurd reality breaking fantasy as science to do away with the need for a mind aka a God is indeed egregious. It is not following where the science leads and shows how Atheism and science do not mix. You should be just as upset. He is peddling his worldview not science and the implications of it. Like you said, it's a person choice, a matter of blind faith in this case. Don't teach it like it's science.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE If you are talking about cosmic evolution sure, but if you mean biological evolution then of course not. It's just as egregious as the multiverse predicated on a deus ex, literally magic, that probability manifests rational outcomes. He can't have his cake and eat it too, for that to be true you have to give up all human achievement and free will, the universe manifested it all. He pushes such absurd reality breaking fantasy as science to do away with the need for a mind aka a God is indeed egregious. It is not following where the science leads and shows how Atheism and science do not mix. You should be just as upset. He is peddling his worldview not science and the implications of it. Like you said, it's a person choice, a matter of blind faith in this case. Don't teach it like it's science.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE If you are talking about cosmic evolution sure, but if you mean darwinian evolution then of course not. It's just as egregious as the multiverse predicated on a mechanism that doesn't exist, literally magic (that probability manifests rational outcomes). He can't have his cake and eat it too, for that to be true you have to give up all human achievement and free will, the universe manifested it all. He pushes such absurd reality breaking fantasy as science to do away with the need for a mind aka a God is indeed egregious. It is not following where the science leads and shows how Atheism and science do not mix. You should be just as upset. He is peddling his worldview not science and the implications of it. Like you said, it's a person choice, a matter of blind faith in this case. Don't teach it like it's science.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE If you are talking about cosmic evolution sure, but if you mean biological evolution then of course not. It's just as egregious as the multiverse nonsense predicated on a mechanism that doesn't exist, literally magic (that probability manifests rational outcomes). He can't have his cake and eat it too, for that to be true you have to give up all human accomplishments and free will, the universe manifested it all. He pushes such absurd reality breaking fantasy as science to do away with the need for a mind aka a God is indeed egregious. It is not following where the science leads and shows how Atheism and science do not mix. You should be just as upset. He is peddling his worldview, not science and the implications of it. Like you said, it's a personal choice, a matter of blind faith in this case. Don't teach it like it's science.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE If you are talking about cosmic evolution sure, but if you mean biological evolution then of course not. It's just as egregious as the multiverse nonsense predicated on a mechanism that doesn't exist, literally magic (that probability manifests rational outcomes). He can't have his cake and eat it too, for that to be true you have to give up all human accomplishments and free will, the universe manifested it all.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE If you are talking about cosmic evolution sure, but if you mean biological evolution then of course not. It's just as egregious as the multiverse nonsense predicated on a mechanism that doesn't exist, literally magic (that probability manifests rational outcomes). For that to be true you have to give up all human accomplishments and free will, the universe manifested it all. He pushes such absurd reality breaking fantasy as science to do away with the need for a mind aka a God is indeed egregious. It is not following where the science leads and shows how Atheism and science do not mix. You should be just as upset. He is peddling his worldview, not science and the implications of it. Like you said, it's a personal choice, a matter of blind faith in this case. Don't teach it like it's science.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE Of course I don't believe evolution is legit science either. It's just as egregious as the multiverse nonsense predicated on a mechanism that doesn't exist, literally magic (probability producing rational outcomes). For that to be true you have to give up all human accomplishments and free will, the universe manifested it all. Fantasy. He pushes such absurd reality breaking fantasy as science to do away with the need for a mind aka a God is indeed egregious. It is not following where the science leads and shows how Atheism and science do not mix. You should be just as upset. He is peddling his worldview, not science and the implications of it. Like you said, it's a personal choice, a matter of blind faith in this case. Don't teach it like it's science.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE Of course I don't believe in evolution it's just as much pseudo science as the multiverse. It's a myth of magic (probability producing rational outcomes). Once again for that to be true it would be reality breaking you have to give up all human free will and achievement because the universe did it all at that point. It's egregious to peddle it as science, he does it to do away with the need for a mind the science implies. He is not following where the science leads. It's a perfect example of why Atheism and science do not mix and you should be just as upset. As you wrote it's a personal choice, and in this case a matter of BLIND faith as it's not even predicated on any truth.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE Of course I don't believe in evolution it's just as much pseudo science as the multiverse. It's a myth of magic (probability producing rational outcomes). Once again for that to be true it would be reality breaking you have to give up all human free will and achievement because the universe did it all at that point.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE Of course I don't believe in evolution it's just as much pseudo science as the multiverse. It's a myth of magic (probability producing rational outcomes). It's egregious to peddle it as science, he does it to do away with the need for a mind the science implies. He is not following where the science leads. It's a perfect example of why Atheism and science do not mix and you should be just as upset. As you wrote it's a personal choice, and in this case a matter of BLIND faith as it's not even predicated on any truth.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE Naturalism is predicated on a deus ex, that probability manifests rational outcomes, aka magic. Rationality from irrationality. It's a thin veneer of science on top of mythology. It has no functional mechanism at the core. The multiverse theory and evolution both fail to this. Even worse is like I pointed out the spacetime theorems are his own field of science, our most proven science and he is ignoring their implications of a God needed. He is ignoring science for his own worldview peddling the multiverse which is also ironically subject to the spacetime theorems needing a finite start. He is not following the science and giving a prime example of how Atheism and science do not mix. Science did NOT lead him to his belief. Consider that. Just fyi quantum fluctuations manifesting anything is also like the multiverse fantasy because the more matter that pops into existence the faster it pops out, and like above can't produce rational outcomes.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE Naturalism is predicated on a deus ex, that probability manifests rational outcomes, aka magic. Rationality from irrationality. It's a thin veneer of science on top of mythology. It has no functional mechanism at the core.
1
@PedroCavalcanteNE Naturalism is predicated on a deus ex, that probability manifests rational outcomes, aka magic. It's a thin veneer of science on top of mythology. It has no functional mechanism at the core. Naturalism is a model and like evolution and the multiverse in it, it's largely pseudo science. There is no scientific basis at it's core, it's has no mechanism. It's like saying this is what it does, but how can it do it? I don't know. It will always be a I don't know because to invoke the universe producing everything it has to be the ONLY thing producing everything.
1

Previous
1
Next
...
All