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

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