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

WaterspoutsOfTheDeep
UsefulCharts
comments

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

@ What in the world are you talking about it's a story book and nothing historical about it. The historicity of countless areas of the biblical text has been established, virtually everywhere we can test in fact. In fact it's the only source in human history both religious or scientific to get the start of the universe correct, no one else comes close. It's where we get the big bang theory from. It's so historically accurate a paper showed it has predictive power for archeological digs.
3
Young earth creationism does not make any sense from a scientific or biblical standpoint. But old earth creationism does and may as well be synonymous with intelligent design model. Which is what birthed modern science in the first place. Naturalism has never had the scientific nor philosophical high ground, less now than ever in all of history now that science has advanced. Today is the most weakest it's ever been so absurd to turn to it now.
3
Virtually every phyla came about in a geological instant the start of the Cambrian and to a lesser extent the Avalon. In other words no evolution explanation. We see top down not bottom up biological progression. Virtually paleontologist in peer reviewed studies have noted this.
3
Dunno what you are talking about. Intelligent Design is the actual term and it's always had the scientific and philosophical high ground. Now that science has advanced naturalism is the weakest it's ever been. The problem is the internet is an echo chamber and you don't realize how weak in academia your position is. Naturalism has largely hindered scientific progress fyi. The framework of intelligent design is what birthed and made scientific progress explode. Modeling science after naturalism has proven fruitless.
3
That should be expected. This did not give any fundamental core mechanism to produce what evolution claims nor what we see in biology. This was a surface level classification of biology with evolutionary hypothesis interjected. Needless to say the theory is a far cry from being established science far less seen as a real world concept.
2
@ Intelligent Design is not inherently a religious nor young earth creationism concept or model. Despite what you think Catholicism or Christianity as a whole is diametrically opposed to naturalism and evolutionary theory for it has no plan or purpose and the biblical text states God did before the creation of the universe. Both can't be true. Nor is this an intelligent design objection. Evolution has been heavily contested by the whole of academia for a long time now across the world. So I find it strange you think so highly of it.
2
Because it's nonsensical from a logic and scientific stand point. You say creationist but the word is intelligent design model, just like naturalism is not called atheists. Naturalism has never had the scientific nor philosophical high ground and now that science has advanced it's the weakest it's ever been in all of history. The crazy thing is you think the opposite, that's the problem with the internet it's an echo chamber.
2
@robshobronshob7536 You clearly aren't using critical thought to say that. The very concept of evolution would be refuted if God put it into motion has the text states he had a plan for humanity. Evolution has no plan. It's not random chance if divinely guided it's no longer evolution. Secondly the concept is just nonsense to start with both logically and scientifically which is hilarious and ironic you bring up the word cope to this when it's people like you who are in denial of science. Evolution and naturalism is a mythological crutch for the weak minded. Quite literally a myth of magic(probability producing consistently rational outcomes).
2
That's nonsensical and contradictory lol. No. Furthermore there is no reason to, now that science has advanced naturalism is the weakest it's ever been, and has never had the scientific high ground.
2
@montacalvos4867 Contradictory because God was not involved, there is no purpose to life, and that completely contradicts the bible which says humans were purposed and the purpose of this universe was the destruction of sin. If God was guiding evolution which literally would have to be the case from a scientific perspective in the first place the probability of it happening on it's own is so ridiculous then it's not even evolution by definition at that point. I'll go into nonsensical next comment.
2
@montacalvos4867 It's nonsensical because naturalism goes against the paradigms of reality. Intelligent Design has always had the scientific and philosophical high ground and now that science has advanced naturalism is the weakest it's ever been. There is not even from a Christian perspective no reason to choose the naturalist framework over intelligent design. Just examining the science does lead to intelligent design and then to Christianity I believe and I'm talking mainstream academia. Nor young earth woo. Can get into the science if you want.
2
@montacalvos4867 The first covenant ever made is called the eternal covenant which the bible states was between the trinity for the plan of the redemption of man before the creation of the universe. There is literally zero place for naturalism in Christianity as naturalism has no plan. And Jesus does. That sums it all up in a simple takeaway. There is no extraneous need to accept naturalism from a logical, scientific or philosophical perspective either. It's that simple. Naturalism is counter to the cross, to Jesus, to humanity from a Christian perspective. Hebrews 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant,
2
@ You seem confused, creationism aka intelligent design is the gold standard, it's what literally birthed modern science and why it exploded. It's framed around the paradigms of reality which using it as the model to form scientific theory from has the track record of being the most revolutionary and given the most progression in science. Naturalism has hindered scientific progress and the concept itself has proven fruitless in it is findings. You are confusing young earth creationism I assume with intelligent design.
2
@ It's never made sense. Naturalism and by extension evolutionary theory is just a myth of magic(probability producing consistently rational outcomes). It's a bait and switch with the word probability. Rational product requires ultimately a rational source. Mind>magic
2
Virtually every phyla came about in a geological instant the start of the Cambrian and to a lesser extent the Avalon. In other words no evolution explanation. We see top down not bottom up biological progression. Virtually paleontologist in peer reviewed studies have noted this. And this is the tip of the iceberg.
2
Could go on and on we could point to modern genome sequencing showing in every species studied the there is no evolution explanation the mutation rate is too high. Case in point the famous ENCODE project that map the human genome which found 100 mutations per generation in humans, over 100 fold higher than evolution would allow.
2
Virtually every phyla came about in a geological instant the start of the Cambrian and to a lesser extent the Avalon. In other words no evolution explanation. We see top down not bottom up biological progression. Virtually paleontologist in peer reviewed studies have noted this. And this is the tip of the iceberg.
2
@shanewilson7994 The Cambrian explosion refers to the sudden appearance, 538.79 ± 0.21 million years ago,5 of animals with digestive tracts, circulatory systems, skeletons, and internal and external organs. These animals require a minimum atmospheric oxygen level of 10%, and they appear in the fossil record at the very moment that level is reached.
2
@shanewilson7994 Natural processes predict that over time> species> genera—and so on until one or more phyla finally appear.
2
@shanewilson7994 Problem is we see the opposite as paleontologists Douglas Erwin, James Valentine, and John Sepkoski have observed with respect to the Avalon and Cambrian explosions, “The major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before that of families.”
2
@shanewilson7994 The Cambrian phyla do not appear in a time-separated sequence. The most advanced phylum, chordata, the phylum to which all humans and all vertebrates belong, appears at the same time as the most primitive Cambrian phyla. It’s at the beginning, not the middle or the end of the Cambrian period. Furthermore, it is not just the nonvertebrate chordates that appear at the beginning of the Cambrian. Vertebrate fish also appear at that time. Clearly the opposite of bottom-up development of taxonomic hierarchy evolution can only do.
2
@shanewilson7994 At that time 50 or more animal phyla appeared.8 Thirty animal phyla exist on Earth today. Of these 30, at least 28 were present during the Cambrian period with most, if not all, present at the beginning of the Cambrian.
2
@shanewilson7994 Sorry but to put it nicely you haven't the vaguest clue about the state of evolutionary theory in the academic field. It doesn't work, it has countless foundational critical issues, and biologists have been trying to wholly replace the model for awhile now.
2
It's ironic because evolution is exactly what doesn't fit the definition of a scientific theory but should be classed as mythology. It's not falsifiable, every result is explainable and not reproducible.
2
That's just as nuts as thinking probability can produce anything you want, a fantasy of magic we call naturalism.
2
@Angelmou The whole of naturalism is based on probability producing consistently rational outcomes. This includes evolution. Rationality does not come from irrationality the burden of proof is on those who say it does. The naturalist. The only mechanism put forth by naturalists is probability hence my first statement. But if that were possible it's self refuting for at that point the universe did everything all human achievement and personhood ceases. Can't have the cake and eat it too. Evolution has no mind no plan, only probability.
2
There are a million examples, we can also go to genomic sequencing of species which has shown there is no evolution the mutation rate is too high. Like the famous ENCODE project which mapped the human genome found 100 fold higher mutation rate than allowed stated by the only nobel winner if this field of genetics.
2
Intelligent Design has long won this conversation. Origin of the universe(finite start>God), structure of the universe(fine tuned> personal God), origin of life(immaterial information based life>mind a God), diversity of life(mind a God), life with rational thought(rational source, God). Now that science has advanced there is no room left for naturalism in the conversation. Naturalism was always the god of the gaps.
2
@ Ironic given that was the extent you were just able to engage me. Hilarious seeing someone self own themselves. lmao tell the class what sciences you majored in at university. I think we all know the answer already. hahaha
2
@RandomPerson-pp7ti So none, it shows. Clearly no probability courses in mathematics either. Naturalism is a mythology of magic (probability producing consistently rational outcomes). So you acknowledge then there is no core mechanism in naturalism, the math isn't there based on your understanding of mathematics?
2
@RandomPerson-pp7ti Absurd. So you failed and never got your degree. Do you know how big the number trillion is. If you were to wait 1 second for every hook up attempt of those 6 carbon atoms trying to form glucose, on the trillionth different blueprint try they hook up, that's waiting 32 000 years for one molecule. Secondly we are talking one type of molecule made in the CORRECT orientation, not even the probability of producing the information that creates glucose in a biological system. Logic and math clearly are not your strong suit. Secondly, time is the enemy of biological chemicals. Third if probability could produce anything you want that means all human personhood and achievement ceases to exist because the universe made everything. You can't have your cake and eat it too, the probability premise is self refuting.
2
@RandomPerson-pp7ti Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. You the naturalist. The problem is there is no core mechanism to naturalism. The probability hypothesis is self refuting. Show me the math for naturalism. Consistently rational outcomes is not probability it's magic. You believe in a hollow worldview that is more religion than science. Your apriori bias is giving you blind faith in a worldview that is not science based but based on magic.
2
@RandomPerson-pp7ti Apparently a trillion is too small for you, lets go bigger. Years ago, in a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss referred to dark energy as presenting “the most extreme fine-tuning problem known in physics.” Krauss determined that the fine-tuning level is more extreme than one part in 10^120!
2
@ Sorry that just isn't the case I'm condensing down findings of main stream academic papers and quotes of the authors in the only way a comment on here will allow. Nor am I alone this position is now held by many across academia. Renowned biologist Denis Noble has given the explicit statement and given evidence for it "neo Darwinism doesn't need to be supplemented or extended, it needs to be replaced because it's completely inadequate. Why because scientists are beginning to see levels of complexity way beyond just the complexity of DNA, like epigenetic complexity."
2
@ I'm really not, that's why you never backed up that claim yet wrote 3 paragraphs. I'm condensing down findings of main stream academic papers and quotes of the authors. Renowned biologist Denis Noble has given the explicit statement and given evidence for it "neo Darwinism doesn't need to be supplemented or extended, it needs to be replaced because it's completely inadequate..."
2
@ So it's actually quite hilarious you even think evolution has been proven at this point when some of the most notable biologists think otherwise. It can't account for producing even a single cellular mechanism far less you. There is no pressure to create building blocks for a mechanism that does not yet exist. The process has no foresight. Tell me how that is wrong? Your whole worldview rests of it doing what it clearly logically can't.
2
@ so it's quite hilarious you think evolution is proven when it's never been contested and refuted more in academia than today.
2
@ Answer me this. How can it even produce the most simple cellular mechanism far less you when there is no pressure to create the building blocks that make it up? Your whole worldview rests on it doing what it logically cant. I know you have no answer because the answer is it logically can't produce anything because there is no way it knows when to stop at the "desired" outcome.
2
@ Answer me this. How can it even produce the most simple structure far less you when there is no pressure to create the pieces that make it up? Your whole worldview rests on it doing what it logically cant.
2
@GoldenEmperor5Manifest I'm sure I mentioned it Noble flat out said it doesn't work he believes something like it is happening but has nothing to replace it with only blind faith. That's a big difference and being honest the science is not there.
2
@GoldenEmperor5Manifest So recap, there is no functional evolution explanation full stop. Furthermore the concept itself is logically impossible as I already demonstrated in a very easy to understand way which you refused to acknowledge, it cannot know when to stop yet is required to produce what it claims. So we have the theory not being able to produce what it claims or account for what we see, heavily contested and refuted in academia, and the natural evidence extensively in the fossil record showing complete opposite outcomes with top down biology. What part are you missing here?
2
lol shaky it doesn't even exist. Fossil record shows the exact opposite top down not bottom up biology. Virtually every phyla that exists now came about at the start of the Cambrian in a geological instant, no evolution. Genome sequencing of basically every species shows mutation rate too high. This isn't a creationist talking point prominent Atheist biologists in academia say the same lol.
2
@KM674 I know hilarious they are ignorant to say that when the apologetic case of the resurrection is based on the historical evidence and it uses the same method of reasoning mainly inference to the best explanation that Darwin uses in the Origin of Species.
2
@tototome7046 What you said is flat out said in academic papers. They act like you are saying something fringe while being ignorant how weak their theory that isn't even a real world process is. While evolutionary scenarios, as opposed to worked-out theories exist for hypothesizing how new genera, new orders, and new families of animal life might appear, there is no rational evolutionary scenario for explaining how a new animal phylum might appear.
2
Why would you even say that? How is it ironic? The case for intelligent design is infinity stronger than naturalism. It's always had the scientific and philosophical high ground. Now that science has advanced evolutionary theory and naturalism as a whole has never been weaker in all of history, ID never stronger. That is the problem with the internet it's an echo chamber and you have no clue what is happening in academia.
2
Not sure why you think science and academia is fundamentally opposed to Christianity, when Christianity in effect birthed it all. You do realize that right? YEC has always been fringe... And Christianity has always been based on evidence, either you met and knew Jesus as a Christian or you never. If you never then you were never a Christian, if you did then it's mind boggling you would deny him as the experience is so significant hundreds of thousands of Christians over history have chosen to die as martyrs rather than deny Jesus like in the Colosseum.
2
Why? Creationism which we call in academia intelligent design models objections are not the explanation of evolution it's the lack of mechanism in it to produce what it claims or explain what we see in biology. In fact this is the objection of world renowned evolutionary biologists no less!
2
lmao what are you talking about, the bible most certainly does. In fact it was Christianity that birthed modern science and the scientific method. The big bang theory is uniquely a biblical concept found no where else. Pretending miracles can not happen is your apriori bias, science does not tell you that.
2
And evolutionary theory directly points right to it as it can't produce what it claims, nor explain what we see. Rational product requires rational source.
2
Very weird comment if you are referencing Christianity because the case for the resurrection for example uses the exact same logic Darwin uses, inference to the best explanation. Furthermore Christianity has faith, not blind faith which evolution is based on. Evolution proposes something beyond the grasp of science and logic, probability producing consistently rational outcomes aka magic.
2
LUCA would require roughly 3 million nucleotides so letters which is roughly 1 million words. That's the most basic organism right from the start. Every way you look at it naturalism is just illogical from both a scientific and philosophical perspective. There is no rationalizing it, it has no functional core mechanism.
2
This is the internet I would look to a few more sources lol. Just fyi evolution has been cooked in academia for a long time so it's hilarious hearing it preached like it's solid. So I'm saying this quite nicely haha.
2
Having a nice veneer doesn't change the fact there is nothing behind it. There is no functional core mechanism. It can't produce what it claims, nor explain what we see. And the worlds top biologists have said as much for a long time.
2
The answer is there isn't even a theoretical one. Not only that we don't see it in the fossil record. Virtually every phyla that exists now along with almost every other came about in a geological instant at the start of the Cambrian. No evolution. Furthermore since then we've only had a decrease not increase.
2
Well maybe that's because your brain was produced from mindless unguided process. I can't imagine a computer made in such a way giving any rational results.
2
Why would anyone ever do that intelligent design has always been at the scientific and philosophical high ground. Now more than ever. Now that science has advanced naturalism and by extension evolution has never been weaker in all of human history...
2
Did Dawkins ever release a revision to address the likes of the harsh backlash the theory has in academia from the likes of Denis Noble and other colleagues of his?
2
@ I never brought up the time or probability argument. But I would say on the contrary both are in opposition of the theory. Time is the enemy of biological chemistry as the processes that obstruct and break down molecules is faster than what would allow any progress from a naturalistic way. And the probability for their creation or creation of new communicative genetic information is beyond any realistic level. Evolution and naturalism is a myth of magic(probability producing consistently rational outcomes). It's just impossible from a fundamental level, no need to get caught up on surface level arguments even. This is nothing new Lennox flat out brought it up to Dawkins at a Oxford debate like almost two decades ago.
1
@ Clearly that is an absurd take that even you don't believe. Sounds like you are having some cope issues realizing your worldview is based on blind faith not logic or evidence.
1
It has not. The only thing that has been observed is reductive evolution. As in a benefit from the loss of genetic information. That's what happened during the long term ecoli experiment with partial citrate metabolism, and what happens with antibiotic resistant bacteria. Evolution is not a real world process that has been observed. Especially in the fossil record no less with top down biology the opposite of evolution. Virtually all phyla that exists now and in all of earths history came about in a geological instant during the start of the Cambrian.
1
@ Which is mind boggling because there clearly was little to no thought involved because of the above I mentioned. You can't have a plan and intent based on the product of random chance and outcomes that have yet to happen. Furthermore if true that would make it not random or chance nor evolution at that point but intelligent design. Can't have your cake and eat it too as the saying goes. Lets face it he doesn't understand what he is saying and is pandering. Probably because the big bang theory was discovered by a catholic priest and based totally as a uniquely biblical concept found no where else. Which actually has solid logical science behind it.
1
@davedevosbaarle Which is mind boggling because there clearly was little to no thought involved because of the above I mentioned. You can't have a plan and intent based on the product of random chance and outcomes that have yet to happen. Furthermore if true that would make it not random or chance nor evolution at that point but intelligent design. Can't have your cake and eat it too as the saying goes. Lets face it he doesn't understand what he is saying and is pandering.
1
@ Just to make clear I'm talking about the last covenant mentioned in the bible but first made. The eternal covenant the trinity made with themselves before the creation of the universe for the redemption of man mentioned in Romans 8 and Ephesians 1. That's why the text also says God said "by myself" for it was made not with man but himself so it could not be broken, the redemption of man could not be stopped by anything. And the result of the eternal covenant? The power of the blood raised Jesus from the dead, thus can do the same for you! Hebrews 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, There is no possibility of evolution or naturalism in this equation from a logical standpoint. The concept is diametrically opposed.
1
@ And just to have a hint at where I'm coming from we have the likes of the highly regarded biologist Denis Noble who says evolution can't do what it claims nor produce what we see in biology. The theory can't be fixed it needs to be completely replaced. He thinks there is still something like evolution happening but has no concept what it is. We have the fossil record refuting it in an extremely strong way with virtually every phyla that exists now and in earths history coming about in a geological instant at the start of the Cambrian. No evolution. With reduction in phyla over time not an increase the opposite of evolution and this also shows extensively top down biology not bottom up the opposite. We also have genomic sequencing of as far as I know every species tested having a mutation rate per generation too high for evolution. Especially humans, the famous Encode project found 100 fold mutation rate too high in humans. And so on with the strong extensive evidence in academia. The discovery of epigenetics alone refutes the whole thing.
1
@davedevosbaarle And just to have a hint at where I'm coming from we have the likes of the highly regarded biologist Denis Noble who says evolution can't do what it claims nor produce what we see in biology. The theory can't be fixed it needs to be completely replaced. He thinks there is still something like evolution happening but has no concept what it is.
1
@davedevosbaarle We have the fossil record refuting it in an extremely strong way with virtually every phyla that exists now and in earths history coming about in a geological instant at the start of the Cambrian. No evolution. With reduction in phyla over time not an increase the opposite of evolution and this also shows extensively top down biology not bottom up the opposite. We also have genomic sequencing of as far as I know every species tested having a mutation rate per generation too high for evolution. Especially humans, the famous Encode project found 100 fold mutation rate too high in humans. And so on with the strong extensive evidence in academia. The discovery of epigenetics alone refutes the whole thing.
1
@davedevosbaarle We have the fossil record refuting it in an extremely strong way with virtually every phyla that exists now and in earths history coming about in a geological instant at the start of the Cambrian. No evolution. With reduction in phyla over time not an increase the opposite of evolution and this also shows extensively top down biology not bottom up the opposite. We also have genomic sequencing of species showing mutation rate per generation too high for evolution. The famous Encode project found 100 fold mutation rate too high in humans. And so on with the strong extensive evidence in academia. The discovery of epigenetics alone refutes the whole thing.
1
@davedevosbaarle Fossil record refutes it in an extremely strong way with virtually every phyla that exists now and in earths history coming about in a geological instant at the start of the Cambrian. No evolution. With reduction in phyla over time not an increase the opposite of evolution and this also shows extensively top down biology not bottom up the opposite. Genomic sequencing of species showing mutation rate per generation too high for evolution. The famous Encode project found 100 fold mutation rate too high in humans. The discovery of epigenetics alone refutes the whole thing. The theory is toast in academia.
1
@davedevosbaarle Fossil record refutes it in an extremely strong way with virtually every phyla that exists now and in earths history coming about in a geological instant at the start of the Cambrian. No evolution. With reduction in phyla over time not an increase the opposite of evolution and this also shows extensively top down biology not bottom up the opposite. Genomic sequencing of species showing mutation rate per generation too high for evolution. like Encode>100 fold mutation rate over> humans. Discovery of epigenetics alone refutes the whole thing. Theory is toast in academia.
1
@davedevosbaarle Fossil record refutes it in an extremely strong way with virtually every phyla that exists now and in earths history coming about in a geological instant at the start of the Cambrian. No evolution. With reduction in phyla over time not an increase the opposite of evolution and this also shows extensively top down biology not bottom up the opposite. Genomic sequencing of species showing mutation rate per generation too high for evolution. Discovery of epigenetics alone refutes the whole thing. Theory is toast in academia.
1
@davedevosbaarle Fossil record refutes it in an extremely strong way with virtually every phyla that exists now and in earths history coming about in a geological instant at the start of the Cambrian. No evolution. With reduction in phyla over time not an increase the opposite of evolution and this also shows extensively top down biology not bottom up the opposite. Genomic sequencing of species showing mutation rate per generation too high for evolution. Discovery of epigenetics alone refutes the whole thing.
1
@davedevosbaarle Fossil record refutes it in an extremely strong way with virtually every phyla that exists now and in earths history coming about in a geological instant at the start of the Cambrian. No evolution. With reduction in phyla over time not an increase the opposite of evolution and this also shows extensively top down biology not bottom up the opposite. Genomic sequencing of species showing mutation rate per generation too high for evolution. And so on. Theory is toast in academia.
1
@davedevosbaarle Fossil record refutes it in an extremely strong way with virtually every phyla that exists now and in earths history coming about in a geological instant at the start of the Cambrian. No evolution. With reduction in phyla over time not an increase the opposite of evolution and this also shows extensively top down biology not bottom up the opposite. Genomic sequencing of species showing mutation rate per generation too high for evolution. and so on...
1
@davedevosbaarle Fossil record refutes it in an extremely strong way with virtually every phyla that exists now and in earths history coming about in a geological instant at the start of the Cambrian. With reduction in phyla over time not an increase the opposite of evolution and this also shows extensively top down biology not bottom up the opposite. Genomic sequencing of species showing mutation rate per generation too high for evolution. Discovery of epigenetics alone refutes the whole thing. Theory is toast in academia.
1
@ Then that's very odd you bring up a discussion on the importance of academia and education being needed then harp on a fringe subset of Christianity even in America that follows young earth while believing something quite literally even more scientifically absurd. Now that science has advanced atheism and naturalism has never been weaker in all of human history. There is no more place for it. Intelligent Design has dominated all major avenues with the science we have now. Origin of the universe(finite start>causal agent God), structure of the universe(fine tuned>personal God), origin of life/diversity of life(information based life, mind a God), rational thought(rational source, a God). Where does naturalism fit in? It's a myth of magic(probability producing consistently rational outcomes). It's not even a rational premise to base hypothesis around to do science at this point, we've tried it, it's proven largely fruitless. It was ID that birthed modern science and made it explode as a reminder.
1
@davedevosbaarle It's just ridiculous people that are atheists or naturalists act on here like they have the scientific and philosophical high ground but have never academia or all of history and less today than ever before with the advancement of science. Even 60 years ago we had some of the biggest discoveries in science damn it, the big bang theory, and discovery of DNA. And today 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. Sorry but just as much as the internet is to blame for being an echo chamber for young earth it's a million times worse for the delusion of naturalisms myth of magic.
1
@davedevosbaarle It's just ridiculous people that are atheists or naturalists act on here like they have the scientific and philosophical high ground but have never academia or all of history and less today than ever before with the advancement of science. 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. Sorry but just as much as the internet is to blame for being an echo chamber for young earth it's a million times worse for the delusion of naturalisms myth of magic.
1
@davedevosbaarle It's just ridiculous people that are atheists or naturalists act on here like they have the scientific and philosophical high ground but have never academia or all of history and less today than ever before with the advancement of science. 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
How is it ongoing when it was never there in the first place? Fossil record shows top down not bottom up biology. Virtually every phyla that exists now came about in a geological instant in the start of the cambrian. Genome sequencing has shown mutation rate is too high, yes in humans too from the famous ENCODE project, over 100 FOLD too high no less. It's crazy evolution is even still taught mainstream academia has torched it for a long time now. Evolution is a religion lets face it.
1
But it is not ongoing. We don't observe evolution. Nor do we see it in the fossil record. Virtually every phyla that exists now came about the start of the cambrian in a geological instant and we've only seen a drastic reduction over time not a progressive increase. We see is top down not bottom up biology because of that.
1
Pope thinks Mary is sinless despite her saying Jesus is her savior thus needed saving. Fortunately unlike the Pope science and facts matter for the rest of us. Evolution has no functional core mechanism to produce what it claims or what we see in biology. Probability producing consistently rational outcomes is just magic.
1
@TacticusPrime Evolution is literal nonsense and the worlds foremost biologists have said as much like Denis Noble. It does not do what it claims nor explain what we see. It's mind boggling how little the general public knows about the state of evolution in academia, it's been cooked for a long time.
1
@IkenFister They are completely right though not only are there no transitional fossils. The fossil record shows the complete opposite top down NOT bottom up biological progression. Full stop end of story argument over. We see virtually every phyla come about in a geological instant the start of the Cambrian and much lesser extent the Avalon. Virtually every phyla that exists now was from the start of the Cambrian. Let that sink in. This is mainstream academic widely known in paleontology findings stated by virtually every paleontologist in peer reviewed study.
1
@montacalvos4867 I've never once seen any denomination present such a perspective that naturalism aligns with Christianity. The first covenant ever made is called the eternal covenant which the bible states was between the trinity for the redemption of man before the creation of the universe. This means man and the destruction of sin was purposed by God before the universe existed. There is literally zero place for naturalism in Christianity as naturalism has no plan. And Jesus does. That sums it all up in a simple takeaway. There is no extraneous need to accept naturalism from a logical, scientific or philosophical perspective either. It's that simple. Naturalism is counter to the cross, to Jesus, to humanity from a Christian perspective. Hebrews 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant,
1
@ You seem confused, creationism aka intelligent design is the gold standard, it's what literally birthed modern science and why it exploded. It's framed around the paradigms of reality which using it as the model to form scientific theory from has the track record of being the most revolutionary and given the most progression in science. Naturalism has hindered scientific progress and the concept itself has proven fruitless in it is findings. You are confusing young earth creationism I assume with intelligent design. Vatican has been wrong about many things including evolution.And? They did give us the big bang theory which has been one of the greatest evidences there is for "creationism" as you put it as it's directly uniquely a biblical concept found no where else.
1
@JamesSimmons-d1t James is clearly stoned lol "a modern Christian, a real one, is an atheist"
1
@shanewilson7994 Natural processes predict that over time they will first produce a proliferation of species, which, in much more time, will produce a proliferation of genera—and so on until one or more phyla finally appear. The problem with these predictions is that the fossil record reveals the opposite: a top-down hierarchy. As paleontologists Douglas Erwin, James Valentine, and John Sepkoski have observed with respect to the Avalon and Cambrian explosions, “The major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before that of families.”
1
@shanewilson7994 Natural processes predict that over time they will first produce a proliferation of species, which, in much more time, will produce a proliferation of genera—and so on until one or more phyla finally appear. The problem with these predictions is that the fossil record reveals the opposite: a top-down hierarchy.
1
@shanewilson7994 Natural processes predict that over time they will first produce a proliferation of species, which, in much more time, will produce a proliferation of genera—and so on until one or more phyla finally appear.
1
@shanewilson7994 As paleontologists Kevin Peterson, Michael Dietrich, and Mark McPeek state in a review paper, “Elucidating the materialistic basis for the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself.”9 They are not alone in drawing such conclusions. Nearly all paleontologists who have written reviews on the Cambrian explosion in the peer-reviewed scientific literature have made this concession.
1
@ Yikes, quite literally refuted your concept of phyla before you even wrote it. That's more cringe than what the other one wrote lmao.
1
@ From 50 to 80 percent of the animal phyla known to have existed at any time in Earth’s history appeared within no more than a few million years of one another, as the Cambrian geological era began. Of the 182 animal skeletal designs theoretically permitted by the laws of physics, 146 appear in the Cambrian explosion fossils. The Cambrian explosion marks the first appearance of animals with skeletons, bilateral symmetry, appendages, brains, eyes, and digestive tracts that include mouths and anuses. Virtually every eye design that has ever existed appears simultaneously in the Cambrian explosion. The moment oxygen levels in Earth’s atmosphere and oceans permit the existence of Cambrian animals, they suddenly appear. The Cambrian explosion occurs simultaneously with the drastic change in sea chemistry known as the Great Unconformity. The Cambrian explosion includes the most advanced of the animal phyla, chordates, including vertebrate chordates. and so on and so on.
1
@Angelmou From 50 to 80 percent of the animal phyla known to have existed at any time in Earth’s history appeared within no more than a few million years of one another, as the Cambrian geological era began. Of the 182 animal skeletal designs theoretically permitted by the laws of physics, 146 appear in the Cambrian explosion fossils. The Cambrian explosion marks the first appearance of animals with skeletons, bilateral symmetry, appendages, brains, eyes, and digestive tracts that include mouths and anuses. .
1
@Angelmou Virtually every eye design that has ever existed appears simultaneously in the Cambrian explosion. The moment oxygen levels in Earth’s atmosphere and oceans permit the existence of Cambrian animals, they suddenly appear. The Cambrian explosion occurs simultaneously with the drastic change in sea chemistry known as the Great Unconformity. The Cambrian explosion includes the most advanced of the animal phyla, chordates, including vertebrate chordates. And so on and so on and so on lmao.
1
@ I don't think you even know what you are saying. There is nothing to pull from what was presented that worm chordate are the full context of it. You said 50 were worm like chordate while in the same statement I pointed out 28 of the 30 phyla today were from those 50. Lights on nobody home? And no it wasn't over 12+ million years but around a million or less.
1
@ And? Lets for simplicity sake say I accept everything you just said which I don't. Even with what you have acknowledge the basis of what I presented remains. 50-80% of all phyla and virtually every phyla today all came about in a geological instant whether 1 million or your 13 million. We have a complete upending a total reversal of taxonomic rank progression, top down not bottom up. Full stop end of story the framework says it all you can argue about the paint color till you are blue in the face.
1
@Angelmou And I'm still interested in your other comment how you think there is environmental pressure to create building blocks for a mechanism that does not yet exist. lmao how can you rationalize there is pressure for a piece of a puzzle that provides nothing it's the mechanism that would and thus would only have the theoretical environmental pressure. And how does evolution know when to turn off for each and every piece of the puzzle so the pieces will stay the same and all fit together in the end? Sounds like evolution must have a plan, foresight and agency over the whole process for it to do what it claims. The problem is you don't use critical thought on what you believe it's essentially become religious dogma.
1
@Angelmou So the premise and arguments against naturalism are actually very simple at it's core. No need to obfuscate and make it complicated.
1
@Angelmou I can give a very basic example demonstrating why the whole thing is nonsensical. Evolution has no mechanism it's impossible for it to know when to stop at a desired outcome, it can't account for producing even a single cellular mechanism far less you or anything else. There is no pressure to create building blocks for a mechanism that does not yet exist. The process has no foresight.
1
Time to watch some more youtube videos and reinvest in yourself because the irony is you got indoctrinated not by Christianity but Atheism. It along with naturalism has never in all of human history had the scientific or philosophical high ground and now that science has advanced it's the weakest it's ever been. You literally got indoctrinated by the echo chamber algorithm of the internet lol.
1
It's actually very simple, all life is based on an immaterial concept, information, stored in DNA. There is no physical process or natural phenomenon that can create such communicative information. Full stop end of story. And as information theory states information degrades over time it doesn't progress to a higher state.
1
Naturalism is a fantasy of magic(probability producing consistently rational outcomes). If you want to pretend that's a real world process you forfeit all human achievement and personhood because the universe did everything at that point. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Naturalism has no functional core mechanism.
1
Just fyi natural selection is not called evolution for a reason. One is a real world concept the other is not. Naturalism is variation allowed within the genome for all intents and purposes while evolution is whole new functional information. There has been no real observed evolution in biology, only reductive evolution in other words benefit from loss of genetic info that's where we get antibiotic resistant bacteria from, that's what happened in the long term ecoli experiment.
1
@RandomPerson-pp7ti So none, it shows lol. Clearly no probability courses in mathematics either. Naturalism is a mythology of magic (probability producing consistently rational outcomes). So you recognize there is no core mechanism in naturalism, the math isn't there? Case in point one of the simple basic molecules for life glucose for example and it's 6 carbon atoms can hook up in over 1.2 trillion different ways, only one is the correct form of glucose life uses. It only gets higher from there. But you have blind faith in naturalism doing that for countless molecules and more why? It certainly isn't logic or math.
1
@RandomPerson-pp7ti So none, it shows. Clearly no probability courses in mathematics either. Naturalism is a mythology of magic (probability producing consistently rational outcomes). So you recognize there is no core mechanism in naturalism then, the math isn't there. Case in point one of the simple basic molecules for life glucose for example and it's 6 carbon atoms can hook up in over 1.2 trillion different ways, only one is the correct form of glucose life uses. But you have blind faith in naturalism doing that for countless molecules and more why? It certainly isn't logic or math.
1
@RandomPerson-pp7ti So none, it shows. Clearly no probability courses in mathematics either. Naturalism is a mythology of magic (probability producing consistently rational outcomes). So you recognize there is no core mechanism in naturalism then, the math isn't there. Case in point one of the simple basic molecules for life glucose for example and it's 6 carbon atoms can hook up in over 1.2 trillion different ways, only one is the correct form of glucose life uses. But you have blind faith in naturalism doing that why? Your math degree certainly doesn't tell you that.
1
@RandomPerson-pp7ti So none, it shows. Clearly no probability courses in mathematics either. Naturalism is a mythology of magic (probability producing consistently rational outcomes). Case in point one of the simple basic molecules for life glucose for example and it's 6 carbon atoms can hook up in over 1.2 trillion different ways, only one is the correct form of glucose life uses. But you have blind faith in naturalism doing that why? Your math degree certainly doesn't tell you that.
1
@RandomPerson-pp7ti Case in point one of the simple basic molecules for life glucose for example and it's 6 carbon atoms can hook up in over 1.2 trillion different ways, only one is the correct form of glucose life uses. But you have blind faith in naturalism doing it and so much more why? Your math degree certainly doesn't tell you that.
1
@RandomPerson-pp7ti Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. You the naturalist. The problem is there is no core mechanism to naturalism. The probability hypothesis is self refuting. Show me the math for naturalism. Consistently rational outcomes is not probability it's magic. You believe in a hollow worldview that is more religion than science. Your apriori bias is giving you blind faith in a worldview that is not science but based on magic. Certainly not math or logic. Science or math does not tell you that is how the universe happen or functions or is purely materialistic, that's your apriori bias. Maybe time for some self reflection on what you believe and why.
1
@RandomPerson-pp7ti Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. You the naturalist. The problem is there is no core mechanism to naturalism. The probability hypothesis is self refuting. Show me the math for naturalism. Consistently rational outcomes is not probability it's magic. You believe in a hollow worldview that is more religion than science. Your apriori bias is giving you blind faith in a worldview that is not science based but based on magic. Maybe time for some self reflection on what you believe and why.
1
@RandomPerson-pp7ti Apparently a trillion is not a big enough number for you. Lets go bigger. Years ago, in a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss referred to dark energy as presenting “the most extreme fine-tuning problem known in physics.” Dark energy is energy embedded in the universe’s space surface that makes up about 70 percent of all the stuff of the universe (see figure 1). Krauss determined that the fine-tuning level is more extreme than one part in 10^120! He has been joined by several other theoretical physicists who conclude that the required fine-tuning of dark energy is “the most difficult problem in physics.”
1
@ So it's actually quite hilarious you even think evolution has been proven at this point when some of the most notable biologists think otherwise. Lets do a very simple thought experiment. Answer me. It can't account for producing even a single cellular mechanism far less you. There is no pressure to create building blocks for a mechanism that does not yet exist. The process has no foresight. Tell me how that is wrong? Your whole worldview rests of it doing what it clearly logically can't.
1
@ So it's absurd you even think it's proven when it has never been more contested in academia than today and refuted no less. It can't account for producing even a single cellular mechanism far less you. There is no pressure to create building blocks for a mechanism that does not yet exist. The process has no foresight. Tell me how that is wrong? Your whole worldview rests of it doing what it clearly logically can't.
1
@GoldenEmperor5Manifest You might want to look closer. I'm sure I mentioned it Noble flat out said it doesn't work he believes something like it is happening but has nothing to replace it with only blind faith. That's a big difference and being honest with the science. There is no functional evolution explanation full stop. Furthermore the concept itself is logically absurd as I already demonstrated in a very easy way it cannot know when to stop yet it must to produce anything. So we have the theory not being able to produce what it claims or account for what we see, heavily contested in academia, and the natural evidence extensively in the fossil record showing complete opposite outcomes. What part are you missing here?
1
@GoldenEmperor5Manifest I'm sure I mentioned it Noble flat out said it doesn't work he believes something like it is happening but has nothing to replace it with only blind faith. That's a big difference and being honest the science is not there. There is no functional evolution explanation full stop. Furthermore the concept itself is logically impossible as I already demonstrated in a very easy to understand way, it cannot know when to stop yet it must. So we have the theory not being able to produce what it claims or account for what we see, heavily contested and refuted in academia, and the natural evidence extensively in the fossil record showing complete opposite outcomes. What part are you missing here?
1
@SydneyScream It's really not, what you think is evidence is just pigeonholing the word evolution/conjecture into context that is in reality totally independent of it. Akin to every exo planet discovered being called an earth like planet when in reality we haven't found one, except to a much greater egregious extent of the truth in regards to evolution.
1
@SydneyScream Now that science has advanced evolutionary theory has never been weaker. It quite literally has no core mechanism to produce what it claims. If there was we'd have a computer model of it and such an algorithm would be widely used for computer research to generate at mind blowing speed new discoveries. Face it, the theory is nonsense based on a deus ex.
1
@SydneyScream Now that science has advanced evolutionary theory has never been weaker. It quite literally has no core mechanism to produce what it claims. If there was we'd have a computer model of it and such an algorithm would be widely used for computer research to generate at mind blowing speed new discoveries. Face it, the theory is nonsense.
1
@SydneyScream Now that science has advanced evolutionary theory has never been weaker. It quite literally has no core mechanism to produce what it claims. If there was we'd have a computer model of it and such an algorithm would be widely used for computer research.
1
@Angelmou There is no selection pressure to create building blocks as they give zero benefit, the pressure is for the mechanism they are a part of. You are once again getting confused. So there is no naturalistic theory as to how the building blocks of the mechanism can come about. Furthermore for their successful completion evolution is required to stop on each and every building block so they may still be viable to construct said mechanism instead of changing beyond the goal. They must also all come about in tandem otherwise what natural pressure is there to keep around a useless building block. The more you examine every required step the more absurd it gets. It's quite easy to see evolution can not account for anything for it can't account for even the most basic of cellular structures even. ROFL
1
@ Noble 100% denied evolution, that's why Dawkins has been squirming. Noble stated as much he said he thinks something LIKE it is happening and that is what he is attempting to construct with the third way of evolution. He does not currently have a functional viable theory. But it's not like Darwinian evolution was in the first place either. He even addressed why he kept the word evolution, I forget the quote but it's nothing to do with accepting evolution lol it was something to do with him saying we are just building upon the past.
1
The answer is obvious. God is not directly involved sustaining the creation. Information progresses towards decay like everything else and information is the basis of all life. It does not progress to a higher state. Just like we see in the fossil record, top down biology not bottom up like evolution proposes. And to that end I would say the God of the bible is the only one that makes sense. It states the purpose of this universe was the ultimate destruction of sin, that explains the hands off approach from God, both in nature and humans. The question should be why don't see see more suffering.
1
@frogmorely Clearly I do and the extent to which you were just able to engage me demonstrates only further. Secondly of course the Intelligent Design model has explanatory value, in fact it's the framework used to design virtually everything in science for most of it's history vs naturalism in largely the last hundred years which we've tried and has proven fruitless and only hindered scientific progress. Time to go back to the gold standard, Intelligent Design and we'll see an explosion of scientific breakthroughs.
1
Dunno why you wrote that when hardcore academic research has solidly refuted the premise in this video along with the rest of naturalism all along. Naturalism has never had the scientific high ground and now that science has advanced sure doesn't now it's the weakest it's ever been. This is a problem with the education system so I don't blame you. I know you don't know actual paleontology flat out shows top down not bottom up biological progression with phyla first. That fact alone is enough to completely and totally refute the whole thing.
1
@ Historicity of Jesus and his resurrection. 100% accuracy of over 2000 biblical prophecies. Only source in human history to get all 12 factors of the start of the universe correct it's where we get the uniquely biblical concept of the big bang theory from, no one else came close, the closest was and ancient Babylonian religion that got 3 correct. And the list goes on. What evidence exists for your god you believe in the universe that created you? It had a finite start so who created it?
1
That's not evolution, that's natural selection. Variation allowed within the genome. That's why we don't call natural selection evolution.
1
It's mythology it will never make sense because there is no logic to probability producing consistently rational outcomes. It will never make sense. If such a thing were true the universe did everything, it invalidates all human personhood and achievement. It's self refuting premise.
1
@ Naturalism and by extension evolution will never make scientific nor logical sense. There is no core mechanism. There is nothing that can produce the new communicative information needed, and furthermore information decays over time like information theory states, it does not progress to a higher state.
1
Well the big bang literally is uniquely a biblical concept. That's where it was directly taken from and had massive Atheist opposition trying to disprove it for almost 50 years so that's a interesting objection. Secondly the bible directly is in opposition to evolution as it has no plan, but God did from the start. Furthermore there is no reason to except evolution from a scientific basis it has none unlike the big bang.
1
@ The biblical text states God purposed this universe for the ultimate destruction of sin. So the question of any suffering is directly addressed by that fact. There is also the fact of humans mental capacity very well may be fundamentally different from all other life which would include the concept of suffering. The mind scientifically and philosophically cannot purely be of materialistic. So we cannot directly relate our capacity to those of any animal, nor can we even state we understand at this time what the mind even is.
1
Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. Naturalism will never make scientific or logical sense it has no core mechanism. It claims probability. But it's really just a claiming magic(probability producing consistently rational outcomes). God a mind will always make more sense than magic. And as virtually every origin of life researcher has stated now, an outside agent had to place that starting information.
1
Meh they are both just as nonsense and require the creation of communicative information from thin air.
1
Humans are vastly different than apes and any other life on the planet. Humanity will be in a much better place once we all finally accept the fact of human exceptionalism and uniqueness and it's implications.
1
@enzoarayamorales7220 You are wrong we have EXTENSIVE fundamental anatomy that makes us special and unique. And it's small things that is not common knowledge nor talked about. Such as the structures in our hands that allow us to have extremely long periods of high dexterity use in our fingers and hands. And so on. Things the normal person would normally not even think about or consider special but makes us very special.
1
@ They say as they type intricate messages on a keyboard all day with said hands... or painted or did surgery, or played a video game or wrote with a pencil and so on. That is one example and I thought would have easy clear implications. I don't know why I bother lol.
1
@ "real Christians are atheists" wow... fascinating James...
1
@enzoarayamorales7220 yikes...
1