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

  1. @ 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
  2. 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
  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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. @ 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
  7. 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
  8.  @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
  9. 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
  10. ​@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
  11. @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
  12. ​@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
  13. @ 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
  14. @ 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18.  @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
  19.  @shanewilson7994  Natural processes predict that over time> species> genera—and so on until one or more phyla finally appear.
    2
  20.  @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
  21.  @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
  22.  @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
  23.  @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
  24. 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
  25. That's just as nuts as thinking probability can produce anything you want, a fantasy of magic we call naturalism.
    2
  26.  @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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. @ 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
  30.  @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
  31.  @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
  32.  @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
  33.  @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
  34. @ 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
  35. @ 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
  36. @ 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
  37. @ so it's quite hilarious you think evolution is proven when it's never been contested and refuted more in academia than today.
    2
  38. ​@ 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
  39. @ 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
  40.  @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
  41. ​ @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
  42. 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
  43.  @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
  44.  @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
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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